Great Britain -- History -- Mary I, 1553-1558; Mary I, Queen of England, 1516-1558
The French ambassador describes her as distracted with wretchedness,
speaking to no one except the legate. The legate was her only comfort;
the legate and the thing which she called religion.
Deep in the hearts of both queen and cardinal lay the conviction that
if she would please God, she must avoid the sin of Saul. Saul had
spared the Amalekites, and God had turned his face from him. God had
greater enemies in England than the Amalekites. Historians have
affected to exonerate Pole from the crime of the Marian persecution;
although, without the legate's sanction, not a bishop in England could
have raised a finger, not a bishop's court could have been opened
{p.223} to try a single heretic. If not with Pole, with whom did the
guilt rest? Gardiner was jointly responsible for the commencement, but
after the first executions, Gardiner interfered no further; he died,
and the bloody scenes continued. Philip's confessor protested; Philip
himself left the country; Renard and Charles were never weary of
advising moderation, except towards those who were politically
dangerous. Bonner was an instrument whose zeal more than once required
the goad; and Mary herself, when she came to the throne, was so little
cruel, that she would have spared even Northumberland himself. When
the persecution assumed its ferocious aspect, she was exclusively
under the direction of the dreamer who believed that he was born for
England's regeneration. All evidence concurs to show that, after
Philip's departure, Cardinal Pole was the single adviser on whom Mary
relied. Is it to be supposed that, in the horrible crusade which
thenceforward was the business of her life, the papal legate, the
sovereign director of the ecclesiastical administration of the realm,
was not consulted, or, if consulted, that he refused his sanction? But
it is not a question of conjecture or probability. From the legate
came the first edict for the episcopal inquisition; under the legate
every bishop held his judicial commission; while, if Smithfield is
excepted, the most frightful scenes in the entire frightful period
were witnessed under the shadow of his own metropolitan cathedral. His
apologists have thrown the blame on his archdeacon and his suffragan:
the guilt is not with the instrument, but with the hand which holds
it. An admiring biographer[496] has asserted that the cruelties at
Canterbury preceded the cardinal's consecration as archbishop, and the
biographer has been copied by Dr. Lingard. The historian and his
authority have exceeded the limits of permitted theological
misrepresentation. The administration of the see belonged to Pole as
much before his consecration as after it; but it will be seen that
eighteen men and women perished at the stake in the town of Canterbury
alone,--besides those who were put to death in other parts of the
diocese--and five were starved to death in the gaol there--after the
legate's installation. He was not cruel; but he believed that, in the
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