The marriage was concealed till the end of June, when it was supposed to have taken place at Edward’s request. Elizabeth’s indignation, real or feigned, was thus expressed in a letter to Mary:—

Although we have no authority but Leti, for the authenticity of this letter, a remarkable production for a girl of thirteen, it cannot be denied that there is a striking resemblance between the shrewdness displayed therein, and the clever fencing in which Elizabeth afterwards so greatly excelled. Before long, the writer was an inmate of the Queen’s household, and an adept in that “dissimulation” which she recommended to Mary. The Admiral, already repenting his hasty marriage, was carrying on an intrigue with Elizabeth, whom Katharine one day surprised in his arms; and there were rumours of still greater familiarities. The unhappy Queen died soon after in childbed, and an inquiry into the nature of Elizabeth’s relations with the Admiral revealed a sink of depravity and corruption. But self-defence was an art in which Elizabeth excelled, and in the characteristic words of Mrs. Ashley, her governess, “She would not cough out more matter than it suited her purpose to confess”.[259]

Meanwhile, so great was the enmity between the Protector and his brother, each seeking to supplant the other with the King, that Edward could scarcely be expected to retain a spark of natural affection for either. Somerset, bent on the Admiral’s ruin, accused him of a design for upsetting the Government, and caused him to be attainted for high treason, without bringing the least particle of real evidence against him. There is something repulsive in the succinct manner in which the whole affair of his uncle’s attainder and execution is disposed of in the young King’s Journal: “Also the Lord Sudley, Admiral of England was condemned to death, and died in the March ensuing”.[260]

But these were days when human life was held cheap, and not only did Somerset sign the warrant for his brother’s execution, but Cranmer, who, as a Churchman, was prohibited by Canon law from all participation in judgments of blood, did not refrain from setting his sign manual to the deed.[261] Latimer preached the funeral sermon, which, in his anxiety to curry favour with the Council, became a further indictment. “Whether he be saved or no, I leave it to God,” said the Bishop of Worcester, “but surely he was a wicked man, and the realm is well rid of him.”[262]

The Protector did not long enjoy his triumph over his brother. His assumption of the supreme power in the State was an eyesore to others besides the Admiral. The Earl of Warwick soon proved a redoubtable adversary and rival in the Council, and accused him of arbitrary and tyrannical abuse of his authority.

Edward, who sometimes smarted under the despotic control of his uncle, was not unwilling to be released therefrom, and was easily persuaded to sign a writ for his committal to the Tower. The arrest of the most powerful advocate of the new doctrines appeared to the reformers to threaten the existence of all that they had worked for with so much success, and it was felt that the decisive moment had arrived, for striking a final blow for the total abolition of the old faith.

Henry’s last years had been marked by a strong reaction in its favour. This reaction had set in with Cromwell’s waning influence, had not a little to do with the Chief Secretary’s disgrace, and had continued till his own death, at which time he was more Catholic than he had ever been since his youth. In his anxiety to guard against the introduction of Genevan heresies into England, he revived the statute against Lollardy, and the Protestants were burned for propagating the new opinions. Stringent measures were adopted to prevent the importation of books concerning religion from the continent, and in his last will, Henry put his belief in the Mass on record, by ordering that it should be offered daily, “perpetually while the world shall endure,” for the repose of his soul. Edward VI. had been crowned according to ancient Catholic rites, so far as the religious part of the ceremonies was concerned, although several departures from precedent were made as regarded the administration of the oath. High Mass concluded the ceremony. But in two years, vast changes had come about, mainly through Somerset’s influence, and a circular letter had been sent to the clergy, informing them of the King’s intention to proceed with the reformation of the Church of England. They were commanded to deliver up all books containing any portion of the service of the Mass, that such might be burnt, or destroyed publicly. An act was passed ordering that “all books, manuals, legends, pics, grailes, primers in Latin and English, journals, ordinals or other books or writings whatsoever, heretofore used for service of the Church, written or printed in the English or Latin tongue, other than such as shall be set forth of the King’s Majesty, shall be by authority of this present act, clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished and forbidden for ever to be used or kept in this realm, or elsewhere within any of the King’s dominions”.[263]

It was further enacted, that all images already taken out of the churches and chapels should be utterly defaced and destroyed by the mayor, bailiff, constable or churchwardens within three months, under the penalty of ten shillings for the first default, four pounds for the second, and imprisonment during the King’s pleasure for the third.[264]

Those bishops who resisted the new laws were sent to the Tower, among them were Heath, Day and Gardiner, who denounced as illegal all ecclesiastical changes made during the King’s minority. Cranmer had long since joined the Protestant party, and it was observed in 1549 that “this year the Archbishop of Canterbury did eat meat openly in Lent in the hall of Lambeth, the like of which was never seen since England was a christian country”. But the proceedings of the Council were marked by singular inconsistency, for although most of the changes tended towards a shaking off of old beliefs, freedom of conscience was by no means allowed. The statute De Heresia was again called into play, and a woman was tried, condemned and burned for denying the Incarnation of our Lord. On the 2nd May 1549, Edward wrote in his Diary, “Joan Bocher, otherwise called Joan of Kent, was burnt for holding that Christ was not incarnate of the Virgin Mary, being condemned the year before, but kept in hope of conversion, and the 30 of April, the bishop of London, and the bishop of Ely were to persuade her. But she withstood them, and reviled the preacher that preached at her death.” The three bishops, Hooper, Latimer and Ridley followed Cranmer’s lead, and distinguished themselves in the cause of the Reformation.[265] But the people rose in protest, a revolt that was everywhere stamped out in blood. Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer superseded the Missal and Breviary, and an order of the Privy Council provided that from thenceforth, “no printer should print or put into vent any English book but such as should first be examined by Mr. Secretary Petre, Mr. Secretary Smith, and Mr. Cecil, or the one of them, and allowed by the same, under pain of imprisonment”.[266]

The triumph of the Reformation all along the line was celebrated by the pardon and release of Somerset, on his subscribing a document consisting of twenty-nine charges brought against him, in which he was made to confess his presumption, negligence and incapacity.

During this time, Mary was living, for the most part, in great retirement, at her favourite residence, Beaulieu (New Hall) in Essex, rarely appearing at court, and hoping that by attracting little attention she might be able to practise her religion unmolested. The Mass, although abolished by Act of Parliament, and celebrated only at the risk of pains and penalties, was still said openly in her house. The Statute of Uniformity by which heavy penalties were inflicted on all priests saying Mass, and on every individual who should be found present at Mass, was a formidable weapon in Somerset’s hands. The Protector summoned Mary, in his capacity as head of the Council, to embrace the new form of worship. Her answer was a spirited protest:—

“It is no small grief to me to perceive that they whom the King’s Majesty my father (whose soul God pardon) made in this world of nothing, in respect of that they be come to now, and at this last end, put in trust to see his will performed, whereunto they were all sworn upon a book (it grieveth me I say) for that love I bear to them, to see both how they break his will, what usurped power they take upon them, in making (as they call it) laws, clean contrary to his proceedings and will, and also against the custom of all Christendom, and in my conscience, against the law of God and his Church, which passeth all the rest. But though you among you have forgotten the King my father, yet both God’s commandment and nature will not suffer me to do so, wherefore with God’s help, I will remain an obedient child to his laws as he left them, till such time as the King’s Majesty, my brother shall have perfect years of discretion, to order the power that God hath sent him, to be a judge in these matters himself, and I doubt not, he shall then accept my so doing better than theirs, who have taken a piece of his power upon them in his minority.”[267]

On the 22nd June 1549, she was admonished to send her chaplain and comptroller of her household before the Council, but she replied haughtily that she could not spare her comptroller, and that her chaplain had been sick, that the law made by Parliament was not worth the name of a law, that King Henry’s executors were sworn to his statutes, that her house was her flock, and that she deferred in obedience to King Edward’s laws, till his Majesty were of sufficient years, all of which of course gave great offence. Nevertheless, Edward, in a letter dated August 1549, merely marvelled at his sister’s refusal to conform to the order of Common Prayer lately set forth, and gave a dispensation to the Princess and her household to have private service in her own chamber.[268]

The secret of this forbearance lay in the fact that Mary had appealed to the Emperor, who had threatened war if she were molested, and as the country was already entangled in hostilities with France, Edward’s Council thought it prudent to allow her temporarily to practise the old religion. But as soon as peace was signed, and friendship with the Emperor was less important, messengers were again sent to her, and letters from the King, offering to supply her with teachers, who would instruct her ignorance and refute her errors. The permission to have Mass, granted at the point of the sword, was declared to have been limited to a few months only, and to have included none of her servants. She was again warned “to be conformable and obedient to the observation of his Majesty’s laws, to give order that the Mass should be no more used in her house, and that she would embrace and cause to be celebrated in her said house, the communion and other divine services set forth by his Majesty”.[269]

On the 3rd February 1551, Mary thus wrote to the King:—

On the 18th March, Edward made the following entry in his Journal:—

“The Lady Mary my sister came to me at Westminster, where after salutations, she was called with my Council into a chamber, where was declared how long I had suffered her Mass, in hope of her reconciliation and how now being no hope, which I perceived by her letters, except I saw some short amendment, I could not bear it. She answered that her soul was God’s, and her faith she would not change, nor dissemble her opinion with contrary doings. It was said I constrained not her faith, but willed her not as a king to rule, but as a subject to obey, and that her example might breed too much inconvenience.”

On the 19th and 20th he added:—

“The Emperor’s ambassador came with a short message from his master, of war if I would not suffer his cousin, the princess to use her mass. To this was no answer given at this time. The bishops of Canterbury, London and Rochester did consider [that] to give licence to sin was sin; to suffer and wink at it for a time might be borne, so all haste possible might be used.”[271]

Already the Council had written to Sir Richard Morysine, their envoy extraordinary at the court of Charles V., to inform him that “of late the Emperor’s ambassador has moved them that the Lady Mary might freely retain the ancient religion in such sort as her father left it in this realm, according to a promise made to the Emperor, till the King should be of more years. They denied that such promise had been made, except to this extent, that the King was content to bear with her infirmity, that she should for a season hear the mass in her closet or privy chamber only, whereat there should be present no more than they of her chamber, and no time appointed, but left to the King’s pleasure. But in spite of their repeated assurances, that no promise had been made, he would not receive their flat denial.”[272]

But Morysine was not a persona grata with the Emperor, and the Council sent over Dr. Wotton in the hope of propitiating him. From Augsburg, where the imperial court was then residing, Morysine wrote to the Council saying that he was in no better favour than any in his case would be, though the Emperor had changed his testiness for a more gentle behaviour towards him. But he does not desire to buy the Emperor’s love at the price at which he holds it, and he is certain that he shall not hereafter be able to live on it. The fault, he begs their Lordships to believe, lies in the matter and not in him, and he continues: “Mr. Wotton hath a more mannerly nay than I had, but even as flat a nay as mine was. The Emperor’s choler spent upon me hath taught him to use others with more gentleness.”[273]

Wotton’s account of his interview with Charles is extremely interesting. The Emperor said: “Ought it not suffice you that ye spill your own souls, but that ye have a mind to force others to lose theirs too? My cousin, the Princess is evil-handled among you, her servants plucked from her, and she, still cried upon to leave Mass, to forsake her religion, in which her mother, her grandmother, and all our family have lived and died.” Wotton told him that when he left England, she was honourably entertained, in her own house, with such about her as she best liked, and he thought she must be so still, since not hearing to the contrary, he was driven to think there was no change. “Yes, by St. Mary,” saith he, “of late they handle her evil, and therefore, say you hardly to them, I will not suffer her to be evil-handled by them. I will not suffer it. Is it not enough that mine aunt, her mother was evil entreated by the King that dead is, but my cousin must be worse ordered by councillors now? I had rather she died a thousand deaths, than that she should forsake her faith and mine. The King’s Majesty is too young to skill of such matters.” Hereupon, Wotton, professing that it became him not to dispute with his Majesty, yet being forced somewhat to answer him, said that he knew the King was young in years, but yet “the Lord be praised for his gifts poured upon him, as able to give an account of his faith as any prince in Christendom being of thrice his years. And as for the Lady Mary, tho’ she had a king to her father, hath a king to her brother and is akin to the Emperor, yet in England there is but one king, and the king hath but one law to rule all his subjects by. The Lady Mary being no king must content herself to be a subject.”

“A gentle law I tell you,” said he, “that is made, the King’s majesty being no ——” (illegible).

Wotton then asked, that Chamberlain, the English ambassador in ordinary, might have the service of the Book of Common Prayer in his house, without access of strangers. But the Emperor exclaimed, “English service in Flanders! speak not of it. I will suffer none to use any doctrine or service in Flanders that is not allowed of the Church.” If his cousin the Lady Mary might not have her Masses, he would provide for her a remedy, and in case his ambassador were restrained from serving of God, he had already given him order that if the restraint come to-day, that he should to-morrow depart.[274]

The Council replied to Wotton’s letter, that the Lady Mary might no longer do as she had done, and that the laws would be henceforth executed in her house. They concluded their ultimatum by saying that “his Majesty also considers the Emperor’s demands for his ambassador in England to use the Mass, and his denial to suffer his Majesty’s ambassador within his dominions to use the Communion, too much unequal and unreasonable, and therefore he doubts not the Emperor will otherwise consider this matter”.

The law of Uniformity once passed, Edward’s ministers could only justify it by carrying it out logically; but in thus doing they cut through marrow and bone, and the acts of the Privy Council show the drastic nature of their dealings with the disobedient. On the 19th March, Sergeant Morgan had been summoned before the Council for hearing Mass at St. John’s, in the Lady Mary’s house, two or three days previously, “and not being able to excuse himself, because that, being a learned man, he should give so ill an example to others, he was committed to the Fleet prison”.[275]

On the 24th, Sir Anthony Browne was examined as to whether he had of late heard any Mass or not, when he answered, “that indeed twice or thrice at the New Hall; and once at Romford, as my Lady Mary was coming hither about ten days past, he had heard Mass. Which being considered as a notable ill example, was thought requisite to be corrected, and therefore he was committed to the Fleet.”[276]

On the same day, Rochester, Comptroller of Mary’s household, was interrogated as to “how many ordinary chaplains her Grace had”. He answered that she had four, namely Drs. Mallet, Hopton, Barker and Ricardes. But it was not until August that definite steps were taken to coerce the Princess into subjection. The story of the proceedings as it is told in the Acts of the Privy Council is dramatic.[277]

The English envoys having signified to the Emperor the ultimatum of Edward’s government on the 9th August, on the 15th, three of Mary’s servants, Rochester, Waldegrave and Sir Francis Englefield appeared before the Council, and were commanded on their return home, to call Mary’s chaplains together, and to inhibit them from further saying Mass in her house, or in any other place, contrary to the King’s laws, under pain of the King’s high indignation and displeasure. As Rochester made many excuses “to avoid the report of this matter unto her Grace and the execution thereof in her house, he was finally commanded on his allegiance to see it performed, and in case her Grace should dismiss him, and the rest out of her service, upon the receipt of this message (as he pretended she would) then was he and the rest commanded on the King’s Majesty’s behalf, neither to avoid her service nor to depart from her house, but to see this order prescribed unto them fulfilled until they should have further commandment from hence”.[278]

They were then dismissed, and returned to Mary, but were summoned to appear again on the 24th, to give an account of their doings. In the meanwhile, the Princess wrote the following letter to Edward, which was perhaps more forcible than anything she had hitherto said in her defence:—

On the 24th, the officers of Mary’s household appeared duly before the Lords, and in the words of the minutes of the Privy Council, “declared unto their Lordships that upon Saturday the 15th of this present, they arrived at Copped-hall somewhat before night, by reason whereof they did not the same night execute their charge committed to them at Hampton Court, the 14th of this present. The Sunday following, being the 16th of this present, because they understood that her Grace received the Sacrament, for so they termed it, they did abstain to deliver their letters before noon, considering that the same would trouble and disquiet her so as after dinner, taking commodity to deliver their letters, after that her Grace had read them, they made offer to her to declare what charge they had received of the Lords to execute, praying her Grace to be contented to hear the same. Whereunto her Grace made answer, that she knew right well that their commission was agreeing with such matter as was contained in her letters, and that therefore they need not to rehearse the same, howbeit they pressing her Grace, she was finally content to hear them. And when they had said, she seemed to be marvellously offended with them, and charged them that they should not declare that same they had in charge to say, neither to her chaplains nor family, which if they did, besides that they should not take her hereafter for their mistress, she would immediately depart out of the house. Upon this, the said Rochester, Inglesfeld (sic) and Walgrave said to the Lords that forasmuch as she oftentimes altered her colour, and seemed to be passioned and unquiet, they forbare to trouble her any further, fearing that the troubling of her might perchance bring her to her old disease, and besought her to consider the matter with herself, and pause thereupon against Wednesday next, when they would wait on her Grace, and know her further pleasure; which they said they did, hoping to have found her then, upon more ripe deliberation, and debating of the matter with herself, more conformable. And in the meantime, they forbare also to declare to her chaplains and household the charge they had received. But replying to her Grace, the Wednesday, being the xxth of this present, they did not only not find her conformable, but in further choler than she was before, utterly forbidding them to make declaration of their said charge and commission to her chaplains and household; adding that where she and her household were in quiet, if they would by any means disturb her and them, if any inconvenience did ensue thereof to her or them she would erect it to the said Rochester, Inglefeld and Walgrave, which thing considered, they thought it better to return without doing their commission, and declare thus much to their Lordships, without meddling any further, than to proceed in the execution of their charge before they had advertised their Lordships of the premisses.”[280]

They brought with them Mary’s letters of the 19th, addressed to the King, and the next day were again summoned to receive a sharp rebuke for having “troubled her Grace” with delivering their message to her, contrary to the directions given to them, and for doing nothing in regard to the prohibition to her chaplains and household. They were then each commanded separately, to return and do the business required of them. But this they one and all refused to do, Rochester and Waldegrave saying that they would rather endure any punishment, and Sir Francis Inglefield declaring that he could find it neither in his heart nor his conscience to do so. They were therefore dismissed, with orders to be in readiness to appear, whenever their Lordships should summon them, until such time as they should know their further pleasure. Meanwhile, the Lord Chancellor Rich, Sir William Petre, one of the secretaries, and Sir Anthony Wingfield, Comptroller of his Majesty’s Household, repaired to Copt Hall, taking with them “a trusty skylfull man” who, it was intended, should for the time being replace Rochester in the management of Mary’s household. The following is their own account of their proceedings:—

“Windsor, 29th August 1551. First having received commandment and instructions from the King’s Majesty, we repaired to the said Lady Mary’s house at Copthall in Essex, on Friday last, being the 28th of this instant, in the morning, where, shortly after our coming, I, the Lord Chancellor delivered his Majesty’s letters unto her, which she received upon her knees, saying that for the honour of the King’s Majesty’s hand, wherewith the said letters were signed, she would kiss the letters, and not for the matter contained in them, for the matter (said she) I take to proceed not from his Majesty, but from you of the Council. In the reading of the letter, which she did read secretly to herself, she said these words in our hearing—’Ah! good Mr. Cecil took much pain here’. When she had read the letters, we began to open the matter of our instructions unto her. And as I, the Lord Chancellor began, she prayed me to be short, for (said she) I am not well at ease; and I will make you a short answer, notwithstanding that I have already declared and written my mind to his Majesty plainly, with my own hand.

“After this, we told her at good length, how the King’s Majesty, having used all the gentle means and exhortations that he might, to have reduced her to the rights of religion and order of Divine Service set forth by the laws of the realm, and finding her nothing conformable, but still remaining in her former error, had resolved, by the whole estate of his Majesty’s Privy Council, and with the consent of divers others of the nobility, that she should no longer use the private Mass, nor any other Divine Service than is set forth by the laws of the realm; and here we offered to show her the names of all those that were present at this consultation and resolution; but she said she cared not for any rehearsal of their names, for (said she) I know you be all of one sort therein. We told her further, that the King’s Majesty’s pleasure was, that we should also give strait charge to her chaplains and servants, that none of them should presume to say any Mass or other Divine Service than is set forth by the laws of the realm, and like charge to all her servants that none of them should presume to hear any Mass or other Divine Service than is aforesaid. Hereunto her answer was this: First, she protested that to the King’s Majesty she was, is, and ever will be, his most humble and most obedient subject and poor sister, and would most willingly obey all his commandments in anything (her conscience saved)—yea and would willingly and gladly suffer death, to do his Majesty good; but rather than she will agree to use any other service than was used at the death of the late King, her father, she would lay her head on a block and suffer death; but (said she) I am unworthy to suffer death in so good a quarrel. When the King’s Majesty (said she) shall come to such years that he may be able to judge these things himself, his Majesty shall find me ready to obey his orders in religion; but now in these years, although he, good, sweet King, have more knowledge than any other of his years, yet is it not possible that he can be a judge in these things. For if ships were to be sent to the seas, or any other thing to be done, touching the policy of the government of the realm, I am sure you would not think his Highness yet able to consider what were to be done, and much less (said she) can he in these days discern what is fittest in matters of divinity. And if my chaplains do say no Mass, I can hear none, no more can my poor servants, but as for my servants, I know it shall be against their wills, as it shall be against mine, for if they could come where it were said, they would hear it with good-will. And as for my priests, they know what they have to do. The pain of your laws is but imprisonment for a short time, and if they will refuse to say Mass for fear of that imprisonment, they may do therein as they will, but none of your new service (said she) shall be used in my house, and if any be said in it, I will not tarry in the house.”

They then went on to blame Rochester and the others for not executing the orders of the Council, upon which Mary replied that “it was not the wisest counsel to appoint her servants to control her in her own house, and if they refused to do the message unto her and her chaplains and servants as aforesaid, they be (said she) the honester men, for they should have spoken against their own consciences”.

The promise to the Emperor was then discussed.

“I have (quoth she) the Emperor’s hand, testifying that this promise was made, which I believe better than you all of the Council; and though you esteem little the Emperor, yet should you show more favour to me for my father’s sake, who made the more part of you, almost of nothing. But as for the Emperor (said she), if he were dead I would say as I do, and if he would give me now other advice, I would not follow it, notwithstanding (quoth she) to be plain with you, his ambassador shall know how I am used at your hands. After this we opened the King’s Majesty’s pleasure, for one to attend on her Grace for the supply of Rochester’s place during his absence. To this her answer was that she would appoint her own officers, and that she had years sufficient for that purpose, and if we left any such man she would go out of her gates, for they two would not dwell in one house. And (quoth she) I am sickly, and yet I would not die willingly, but will do the best I can to preserve my life; but if I shall chance to die, I will protest openly that you of the Council be the causes of my death; you give me fair words, but your deeds be always ill towards me. And having said this, she departed from us into her bedchamber, and delivered to me, the Lord Chancellor a ring, upon her knees, most humbly, with very humble recommendations, saying that she would die his true subject and sister, and obey his commandments in all things, except in this matter of religion, touching the Mass and the new Service, but yet said she this shall never be told to the King’s Majesty. After her departing, we called the chaplains, and the rest of the household before us, giving them strait commandment upon pain of their allegiance, that neither the priests should from henceforth say any Mass or other Divine Service than that which is set forth by the laws of the realm, nor that they the residue of the servants should presume to hear any. The chaplains after some talk, promised all to obey the King’s Majesty’s commandment signified by us.”

Each one was ordered on his allegiance, to inform the Council if this command were disobeyed, and when after some time, the commissioners were waiting outside the house for one of the chaplains who had not been present when the charge was given, they go on to say that, “the Lady Mary’s Grace sent to us to speak with her one word at a window. When we were come into the court, notwithstanding that we offered to come up to her chamber, she would needs speak out of the window, and prayed us to speak to the Lords of the Council, that her comptroller might shortly return, for said she sythens his departing I take the account myself of my expenses, and learn how many loaves of bread be made of a bushel of wheat, and ye wis my father and my mother never brought me up with baking and brewing, and to be plain with you, I am weary of mine office, and therefore, if my Lords will send my officer home, they shall do me pleasure, otherwise if they will send him to prison, I beshrew him if he go not to it merrily, and with a good-will. And I pray God to send you to do well in your souls and bodies too, for some of you have but weak bodies.”[281]

Instead of granting this last request, the Council committed the three officers, Rochester, Waldegrave and Inglefield to the Tower, where they remained till the 18th March 1552, and a month later, the same Lords addressed letters to the Lady Mary’s Grace, that her servants be sent unto her according to her desire. By that time, another wave had swept over Mary’s destiny. For some reason that has never been apparent, the King’s counsellors changed their tactics, and the Princess was henceforth allowed to practise her religion in peace. Edward’s health was rapidly declining, and the bold design of the Duke of Northumberland to set aside her rights, and annul her father’s will, had not yet been framed. It might, therefore, have been judged prudent, somewhat to conciliate one who stood so near the throne, and who might soon be called upon to mount it. Moreover, in 1550, Sir John Masone informed the Council that the Emperor had serious thoughts of carrying her off, and in 1551 we find that certain pinnaces were prepared for her secret transport over sea.[282]

Perhaps both these considerations weighed with the Council, and the fall of Somerset further turned the scale in her favour by ridding Mary of her bitterest enemy. He was again arrested in December 1551, lodged in the Tower, and tried for high treason. Acquitted of this charge, he was condemned for felony, and executed within six weeks. The fact is notified in Edward’s Journal in the words: “The Duke of Somerset had his head cut off upon Tower hill, between eight and nine o’clock in the morning” (22nd January 1552).

None of Edward’s ministers had been so violently opposed to the old religion, so active in the advancement of the Reformation as Somerset. Calvin wrote to him from Geneva, a letter in which he praised the spiritual work done by the Protector in England, and gave him sundry advice as to the disposal of matters in the Church, thanking him for having presented his works to the young King, and for having taken into his service a boy whom he had recommended.[283] It was not likely that a man whose doings were singled out for approval by Calvin would ever tolerate Mary’s attitude towards Popery, and therefore his fall may be considered a factor in the liberty granted to her. Henceforth, to the end of the reign, she was on good terms with her brother’s ministers, and her name only occurs in the minutes of the Privy Council Registers in reference to warrants for payments to her comptroller, Mr. Rochester, for the maintenance of her household, or for the repairing of her lands “damaged by the rage of the water this last year”. One entry mentions the committal of a man “for stealing the Lady Mary’s hawks”.

An account of a visit paid to her at Hunsdon, in September 1552 by Bishop Ridley shows the complete religious freedom which she then enjoyed. She received him courteously, and talked with him very pleasantly for a quarter of an hour, reminding him that she knew him at court, when he was chaplain to her father; and she mentioned a sermon which he had preached at a certain wedding. Then she dismissed him to dine with her household. After dinner, he offered to preach to her in the church, on which she replied, that he might preach, but that neither she nor any of hers would listen.

“Madam,” he expostulated, “I trust you will not refuse God’s Word.”

“I cannot tell what ye call God’s Word,” answered Mary. “That is not God’s Word now which was God’s Word in my father’s days.”

“God’s Word is all one in all times, but is better understood and practised in some ages than in others,” replied Ridley.

“You durst not for your ears have avouched that for God’s Word in my father’s days that now do you,” she retorted, “and as for your new books, I thank God I never read any of them; I never did nor ever will do.”

In dismissing him she said, “My lord, for your gentleness to come and see me, I thank you; but for your offering to preach before me I thank you never a whit”.

Before leaving, he drank according to custom a stoup of wine with Mary’s steward, but suddenly felt a qualm of conscience, and exclaimed, “I have done amiss. I have drunk in that place where God’s Word offered hath been refused. I ought, if I had done my duty, to have departed immediately, and to have shaken the dust off my shoes for a testimony against this house.”[284]

Although the Puritans had set the fashion of sober colours and rigid simplicity of dress, which was followed by most people during Edward’s reign, the Princess and her friends continued to assume a considerable amount of state in their retinue and attire. Strype[285] records that on her going to court in 1550, Mary rode through London with fifty knights and gentlemen in velvet coats and chains of gold before her, while following her were fourscore gentlemen and ladies. On her arrival, the Comptroller of the King’s Household received her, and many lords and knights escorted her through the hall to the presence chamber, where she remained two hours “being treated at a goodly banquet”. But when she visited the King at Greenwich in 1552, it was observed that her company was only half the number which a nobleman chose to come with a week afterwards.[286]

Edward had always been a delicate boy, and his weak constitution was still further debilitated in 1552, by a combination of diseases, so that even the most hopeful began to fear the worst. Nothing was however done to alter the succession till the spring of the following year. In May, took place the marriage of Lord Guildford Dudley, fourth son of the Duke of Northumberland, to the Lady Jane Grey, granddaughter of Henry VIII.’s sister Mary, who, first married to the King of France, became afterwards the wife of Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. This marriage of his son to one so nearly related to the royal family was Northumberland’s first step in what Turner calls “that nefarious combination,” by which the Crown was to be alienated from its rightful possessor, and placed on the head of a usurper. The injustice of the proceeding was threefold: 1. Henry VIII. had determined the succession by virtue of a statute of the realm, and it could not legally be set aside. 2. In the event of the failure of both his daughters, the next in succession would have been Mary Stuart, but Northumberland passed her over with the inconsistent pretext, that Henry had excluded the issue of his elder sister, Margaret, from his will. 3. The Lady Frances, daughter of the Duchess of Suffolk, married to Henry, Lord Grey, created Duke of Suffolk, was also set aside, in favour of her eldest daughter, the better to satisfy Northumberland’s ambition by marrying this young lady to his son. On the 25th June Edward was so ill that it was reported he was dead, and one of his physicians told the French ambassador that he could not get beyond the month of August. He died on the 6th July, having been persuaded to exclude both his sisters from the succession, in defiance of his father’s will, and to leave the Crown to the Lady Jane Grey.