The History of Mary I, Queen of England: as found in the public records, despatches of ambassadors, in original private letters, and other contemporary documentsStone, J. M. (Jean Mary)
History
The History of Mary I, Queen of England: as found in the public records, despatches of ambassadors, in original private letters, and other contemporary documents
Stone, J. M. (Jean Mary)
Great Britain -- History -- Tudors, 1485-1603; Mary I, Queen of England, 1516-1558
“Thomas Canterbury, the Marquis of Winchester, John Bedford, Will.
Northampton, Thomas Ely, chancellor; Northumberland, Henry Suffolk,
Henry Arundel, Shrewsbury, Pembroke, Cobham, R. Rich, Huntingdon,
Darcy, Cheney, R. Cotton, John Gates, W. Peter, W. Cecill, John Cheeke,
John Mason, Edward North, R. Bowes”.[295]
The confident tone of the above letter concealed the real sentiments
of the conspirators. The Duke of Suffolk had been commissioned by
Northumberland to march into Norfolk, seize Mary’s person, and bring
her a prisoner to London. But Jane besought her father with tears not
to leave her, and Northumberland reluctantly took the command of the
rebel troops himself. As they marched through Shoreditch, he observed
to Sir John Gates, “The people crowd to look upon us, but not one
exclaims God speed ye!”[296]
He had no illusions about the attitude of the citizens, and trusted
more to an eloquent and fiery appeal to their Protestantism, than to
the hope of overawing them with the shadow of a sovereignty, for which
they evinced undisguised contempt. Before leaving London, therefore,
he charged the ministers of religion to expatiate in their sermons on
the benefits to be derived from the reign of a Protestant queen, and
thus work on their religious feelings. Ridley, Bishop of London, was
the preacher at Paul’s Cross on the 16th July. He declaimed violently
against Mary, and sought to persuade his hearers that she would
bring in foreign power, and subvert all Christian religion already
established. He stigmatised her religion as a “popish creed,” and
herself as “the idolatrous rival” of Queen Jane. He related the story
of his visit to her at Hunsdon, and remarked on the significance of her
refusal to listen to his preaching, adding that “notwithstanding in
all other points of civility, she showed herself gentle and tractable,
yet in matters that concerned truth, faith and doctrine—so stiff and
obstinate that there was no other hope of her to be conceived, but to
disturb and overturn all that which with so great labours had been
confirmed and planted by her brother afore”.[297]
The people listened in unwonted and unsympathetic silence. They had
not yet learned to associate the claims of inheritance with those of
religious convictions. It would have seemed to them preposterous, that
Mary should forfeit her right to reign, because she professed the
religion practised by every one of her predecessors, with the single
exception of Edward, who had died before escaping from tutelage.
Ridley’s language was reported seditious, and when, after Mary’s
proclamation, the Bishop of London hastened to Framlingham to stultify
all that he had said, by laying his homage at the Queen’s feet, he
was arrested at Ipswich, deprived of his dignities, and sent to the
Tower.[298]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account