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
De Noailles, of course, denied all that he dared, promised to give
entire satisfaction as to the rest, and proceeded forthwith to concoct
schemes, by which his promises would be entirely stultified. All that
he relates henceforth touching the Queen’s marriage, the punishment of
the rebels, and the restoration of the Catholic worship, is coloured
by personal animosity, and must be received with caution, his new
resentment and annoyance rendering his testimony less trustworthy than
before.
On the day after Elizabeth’s arrival at Westminster, the Duke of
Suffolk was beheaded on Tower Hill. He confessed his guilt, and
expressed a hope that the Queen would forgive him.
“My Lord, her grace hath already forgiven and prayeth for you,” said
Dr. Weston, his confessor. “Then,” continued the Duke, “I beseech you
all good people, to let me be an example to you all for obedience to
the Queen and the magistrates, for the contrary thereof hath brought me
to this end.”[428] He called them to witness that he died “a faithful
and true Christian, believing to be saved by none other but only by
Almighty God through the Passion of his Son Jesus Christ”. His brother
Thomas, who was believed to have incited him to rebellion, was also
executed, but the Lord John Grey, who was taken with him, was pardoned
by the Queen.
At his trial, Wyatt pleaded guilty, and made no defence. He referred
his interrogators to his written declaration, and refused to enter
into further details. He was condemned to death, but his execution was
deferred for a month, in the hope of his giving further information as
to the other implicated persons. His accusation of Elizabeth made it
necessary that she should be examined, but the result obtained might
have been a foregone conclusion. When the Chancellor, with nine members
of the Council, went to Westminster, and charged her with complicity
in the plot, she replied boldly that she knew nothing of it whatever.
Gardiner entreated her for her own sake to throw herself on the Queen’s
mercy, and to crave her pardon. But she answered proudly that this
would be to confess a crime, and that forgiveness was only extended to
the guilty. First, her guilt must be proved, in which case she would
follow the Chancellor’s advice.[429] They were obliged to leave without
having gained anything by their visit. The councillors were more
than ever divided. Those among them who secretly favoured Elizabeth
maintained that the legal proof against her was insufficient to
justify her being sent to the Tower; the Spanish party were for giving
her short shrift. Others again thought that she ought to be closely
guarded, but not imprisoned. Mary availed herself of this loophole, and
caused each lord of the Council in succession to be asked to undertake
the custody of the Princess in his own house. Not one was willing to
accept the dangerous office, and when all had refused it, a warrant was
made out for her committal to the Tower.[430]
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