chamber for his pardon, in case the bishop of Winchester had no objection. The next time Gardiner came to the privy-chamber, the queen said to him—“ Winchester, what think you about Dr. Sandys? Is he not sufficiently punished?"—" As it pleases your majesty," answered Gardiner, who had previously promised, "that if the queen was disposed to mercy, he would not oppose it." The queen rejoined, Then, truly, we would have him set at liberty." She signed immediately the warrant for his liberation, and called on Gardiner to do the same.1 66 A curious instance of the power of the clerical lord chancellor occurred about the same time. He thought proper to suppress the Paraphrases of Erasmus, translated by Udall, Cox, and queen Mary. It had been published by the fathers of the Protestant church of England, and placed in all churches, in company with the Bible, as the best exposition of the gospels. Thus, one of the queen's first acts as head of the church was the destruction of her own learned labours. Surely Mary's situation, in this instance, as author, queen, and supreme dictator of a church by no means consonant with her principles as a Roman Catholic, was the most extraordinary in which a woman was ever placed. She did not, however, manifest any of the irritable egotism of an author, but, at the requisition of her lord chancellor, condemned her own work to the flames, in company with the translations of her Protestant fellowlabourers-an ominous proof of Gardiner's influence, who swayed her in all things excepting her marriage with Philip of Spain, to which he was, in common with the majority of her subjects, of whatever religion they might be, sedulously opposed. Among the other difficulties which Mary had to encounter in her reign, it was not the least that the rights of queen-regnant of England were matter of speculation and uncertainty. Her people believed that their country would be transferred as a marriage-dowry to Philip, and sink into a mere province, like Sicily, Naples, Arragon, and other adjuncts of the crown of Spain. The example of their queen's grandmother, the illustrious Isabel of Castile, had proved that a female regnant, though wedded to a sovereign, could sway an independent sceptre with great glory and national advantage. Yet this instance was not only distant, but solitary; for female reigns in the middle ages had been very calamitous, and the English people could not imagine a married woman, even though she were queen-regnant, otherwise than subject to her husband, politically as well as personally. These ideas seem to have prompted Mary's hitherto compliant parliament to send up their speaker, with twenty of their number, to petition "that the queen would not marry a stranger or a foreigner." Mary attributed 1 Dr. Sandys soon after retired to Zurich, where he waited for better times. He died archbishop of York. nica (art. Mary). Gardiner's quarrel with Cranmer and the other fathers of the Protestant church of England, originated in his 2 Burnet, vol. ii., and Encyclopædia Britan- opposition of these Paraphrases. 1553.] Vows to wed no one but Philip of Spain. 591 the movement to Gardiner, and vowed she would prove a "match for his cunning." Accordingly, she sent that night for the Spanish ambassador, and bade him follow her into her private oratory; there, in the presence of the consecrated Host, she knelt before the altar, and, after repeating the hymn Veni Creator, she called God to witness, that while she lived she would never wed any other man than Philip of Spain; thus virtually making a vow to marry but one husband in case of her survivorship. This event occurred the last day of October, and for some days during the succeeding month she was extremely ill. November 17 she sent for the deputation of the commons, when their speaker read the above-mentioned petition, and instead of her answer being given, as expected, by her chancellor, she herself replied, saying, that "For their loyal wishes, and their desire that her issue might succeed her, she thanked them; but, inasmuch as they essayed to limit her in the choice of a husband, she thanked them not, for the marriages of her predecessors had been free, nor would she surrender a privilege that concerned her more than it did her commons." Arundel whispered to Gardiner that he had lost his office, the queen had taken it. Mary turned to her lord chancellor with the words, "I may thank you, my lord of Winchester, for this!" Gardiner protested his innocence, saying, "the commons had drawn their petition themselves, though he allowed he was partial to Courtenay-he knew him in the Tower.""No reason that I should marry him," replied the queen, "and that I never will, I promise you. I am a woman of my word-what I say I do."—" Marry whosoever you will," said Gardiner, "and your majesty's spouse shall find me his most obedient subject.”1 This interference of the house of commons is generally supposed to have been the reason of their dissolution, on the 6th of December, when the queen came in state to the house; and at the same time gave her royal assent to thirty-one acts, not in the manner of modern times, when the clerk of the house names and holds up the act in presence of the sovereign on the throne, who sits passively till the officer, supposing silence gives consent, exclaims, "La reine le veut," "the queen wills it." The action of assent in the days of the first queen-regnant was more graceful and significant, and throws a light on the ancient use of the sceptre; for the royal approval was implied by the queen extending her sceptre and touching the act immediately before the proclamation of "La reine le veut." Traits exist of this elegant ceremonial, from the time of queen Mary down to the reign of queen Anne. It is only mentioned in connection with female sovereigns, but it was, there is no doubt, the etiquette of all English monarchs pre 1 Renand, 2 Parl. Hist. p. 300. 3 Parliamentary History, vol. iii. p. 332, and Sir Henry Ellis's second series of English Historical Letters, vol. iv. ; letter of lord 66 vious to the era of George I., whose want of English might have led to some inconvenient results, for the ceremony called " sceptering the acts" seems to have expired with the last queen of the line of Stuart. The queen had been informed, that since her legitimacy had been confirmed by parliament, the French ambassador, Noailles, had sought to awaken discontents in the mind of her sister Elizabeth, as if it were tantamount to her own degradation; and that Elizabeth was likewise jealous, because Margaret countess of Lennox and Frances duchess of Suffolk were sometimes given precedence before her at court. It is improbable that the queen should wish to give undue exaltation to the mother of lady Jane Gray; it is therefore likely that the precedence was in some particular instance given them as matrons, before a young unmarried woman. No pains were spared by the malignity of partisans to create enmity between the royal sisters; but for a time these endeavours were fruitless, since Elizabeth, when questioned by the queen, cleared herself satisfactorily of receiving nocturnal visits from the intriguing Noailles. Mary took leave of Elizabeth with kindness, on her departure from court to her seat at Ashridge, and gave her, as tokens of her affection, two sets of large pearls,1 and several jewelled rosaries magnificently mounted. Early in January, count Egmont landed in Kent, as ambassador from Spain, to conclude the marriage-treaty between Mary and Philip. The first symptoms of a political storm, about to burst, were then perceptible; for the men of Kent rose partially in revolt, and Egmont was in some danger of being torn to pieces, as he was mistaken by the common people for the queen's bridegroom. However, he arrived safely at Westminster, and, in a set speech, opened his mission to the queen. Her reply had some spice of prudery in its composition. She said, "It became not a female to speak in public on so delicate a subject as her own marriage; the ambassador might confer with her ministers, who would utter her intentions. But," she continued, casting down her eyes on her coronation-ring, which she always wore on her finger, "they must remember her realm was her first husband, and no consideration should make her violate the faith she pledged to her people at her inauguration." 2 The articles of the queen's marriage were communicated to the lord mayor and the city of London, January 14, 1553-4. Mary and Philip were to bestow on each other the titular dignities of their several kingdoms; the dominions of each were to be governed separately, according to their ancient laws and privileges. None but natives of England were to hold offices in the queen's court and government, or even in the service of her husband. If the queen had a child, it was to succeed to her dominions, with the addition of the whole inheritance Philip derived 1 Lingard, vol. vii. p. 147; and List of Queen Mary's jewels, edited by Sir F. Madden. 2 Griffet's edition of Renaud, p, 30. 1553-4.] The marriage articles. 593 from the dukes of Burgundy, namely, Holland and the rich Flemish provinces, which, in that case, were for ever to be united to England— a clause which, it is said, excited the greatest indignation in the mind of don Carlos, the young heir of Philip. The queen was not to be carried out of her dominions without her especial request, nor her children without the consent of the nobility. Philip was not to engage England in his father's French wars; he was not to appropriate any of the revenue, ships, ammunition, or crown jewels of England. If the queen died without children, all connection between England and her husband was instantly to cease. If Philip died first, queen Mary was to enjoy a dower of 60,000 ducats per annum, secured on lands in Spain and the Netherlands. No mention is made of any portion, or dote, brought by Mary to her spouse. One noxious article atoned to the ambitious Spaniard for the rigour of these parchment fetters, and this stipulated that Philip should aid Mary in governing1 her kingdoms-a fact that deserves particular notice. Just at the publication of the articles, the Spanish embassy found it needful to make a speedy retreat. The mode of their departure was graphically described by queen Mary's sister, when long years afterwards she, as queen Elizabeth, was on the point of concluding as unpopular a marriage. "It happened," says the royal writer, " in queen Mary's days, that when a solemn ambassade of five or six, at least, were sent from the emperor and king of Spain [Charles V.], even after her marriagearticles were signed and sealed, and the matter divulged, the danger was so near the queen's chamber-door, that it was high time for those messengers to depart without leave-taking, and bequeath themselves to the speed of the river-stream, and by water passed with all possible haste to Gravesend." The week after, three insurrections broke out in different parts of England. One was organized in the mid-counties, by the vassals of the duke of Suffolk, for the restoration of lady Jane Gray; another by Sir Peter Carew, in the west of England, with the intention of placing the earl of Devonshire and the princess Elizabeth on the throne. The third and most formidable of these revolts occured in Kent, headed by Sir Thomas Wyatt, a youth of twenty-three. He was a Catholic, but having accompanied his father (the illustrious poet and friend of Anne Boleyn), on an embassy to Spain, where the elder Sir Thomas Wyatt was in danger from the Inquisition, he conceived, in his boybood, such a detestation of the Spanish government, civil and religious, that his ostensible motive of revolt was to prevent the danger of like tyranny in England. Yet it is scarcely possible to imagine anything worse in Spain than had already taken place in England under Henry VIII.; such 1 Rymer's Fœdera, and Dr. Lingard. Rapin wholly omits it. 2 See her letter to Stafford, her ambassador in France, in August, 1581.-Wright's Times of Queen Elizabeth, vol. ii. p. 150. See Baoardo, p. 47; Stowe, p. 622; likewise De Thou and Heylin. VOL. II. 2 Q as the tortures and burning of Anne Askew, friar Forrest, and numerous other Protestants and Roman Catholics. As Wyatt was at the same time a professed Catholic and a partisan of the princess Elizabeth, his conduct is exceedingly mysterious, unless, indeed, he was an anti-papal Catholic, and discontented at the prospect of Mary's resignation of church supremacy, was desirous of placing Elizabeth in her sister's place in church and state. The queen was so completely deceived by the affected approbation of the duke of Suffolk to her marriage, that she actually meant to employ him against Wyatt, and sending for him to Sion,1 found he had decamped with his brothers, lord Thomas and lord John Gray, and a strong party of horse they had raised. They took their way to Leicestershire, proclaiming lady Jane Gray queen in every town through which they passed, to the infinite injury of that hapless young lady, still a prisoner in the Tower. The Gray revolt was quickly suppressed by the queen's kinsman, the earl of Huntingdon, in a skirmish near Coventry, when the duke and his brothers became fugitives, absconding for their lives. Carew's insurrection was likewise abortive, and he fled to France. This good news was brought to the queen on the 1st of February, at the very moment when most alarming intelligence was communicated to her regarding Wyatt's progress in Kent. The queen had sent the aged duke of Norfolk, who had ever proved a most successful general, with her guards and some artillery, accompanied by five hundred of the London trained bands, commanded by captain Brett. This person was secretly a partisan of Wyatt, and actually revolted to him at Rochester, with his company. Brett's defection caused the loss of the queen's artillery, and the utter dispersion of her forces, and gave such encouragement to the rebels, that Wyatt advanced to Deptford at the head of 15,000 men; from whence he dictated, as his only terms of pacification, that the queen and her council were to be surrendered to his custody. The queen preferred abiding the results of open war, and prepared to repel the besiegers of her metropolis. CHAPTER V. WHEN the news arrived that the duke of Norfolk's army was dispersed, the greatest consternation pervaded the court and city; for every one knew that the royal residences at Westminster possessed no means of defence, excepting the stoutness of their gates, and the valour of the 1 Baoardo, p. 47. A letter in Lodge's Illustrations confirms the Italian. 2 Stowe, p. 622. Likewise De Thou, Heylin, Rosso, and Baoardo, p. 47, printed but three years after the event occurred. 8 Speed. |