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

by J. M. Stone

Another discordant note was struck by the circumstance that the Council either by design or accident delayed inviting the French ambassador to take part in the procession, till half an hour before the King and Queen set forth from Southwark. De Noailles received the invitation by means of “a shabby-looking individual, who said he was one of the newly made heralds,” and pleaded the shortness of time in which to make a creditable appearance, and to get himself to Southwark, a distance of at least two miles from his house.[474] Nevertheless, as soon as might be, he solicited an audience, and was received by the Queen on the 21st August. On expressing his congratulations, coupled with regrets at not having been able to be present at the wedding festivities, like the other ambassadors, his desires for her prosperity and for peace between France and England being no less than she herself could wish, Mary replied that she had not forgotten what she had said to him at their first interview, relating to the friendship contracted between the two countries during her father’s and her brother’s lifetime. She had, she declared, maintained it intact; and in spite of the troubles in the past, all things being now settled to her great contentment, she hoped that the peace for which she had so deep an affection would never be violated.

On leaving the Queen’s presence, de Noailles proceeded to an audience with Philip, an occasion of still deeper concern to him. The following remarks, which he wrote for his master’s information, reveal the want of good faith and mutual confidence through the polite speeches made on either side.

“On being conducted to him, I said that I had taken advantage of the first opportunity to pay my respects to his Majesty, and to inform him as ambassador of the very Christian King, residing at the Court of the Queen of England, his good sister, that their Majesties had hitherto lived, and had caused their subjects to live, in peace and sincere friendship with each other. This peace and friendship I trusted, would not be troubled or diminished by his advent on the throne, but rather be increased thereby, and that he would as far as possible be the means of the pacification of all Christendom, as the said Lady and her Council had often predicted. And I added, that I prayed our Lord to permit the tranquillity in which his Highness had found these two realms in their relations with each other, to continue perpetually. In this case, I said, he might count on my co-operation as minister and humble servant of his Majesty, who like a true prince made a point of observing his promises faithfully. When I had finished my speech, the said King called the Chancellor, and told him in Latin, that he had perfectly understood what I had said, although he could not speak French, and he begged him to reply to me, and say that both before and since his arrival in this country, he had sworn and promised to maintain the alliances which the Kingdom of England had contracted with neighbouring princes, and in which he had found this realm, as long as it should be for the good and convenience of England. He thanked me moreover for the good service which I had offered to do in this matter, and for the trouble I had taken in coming to see him, his answer being clearly forged in the Emperor’s, as well as in the English smithy, as one may see, by the pains they take to show that they are not wanting in the will to make war on the first convenient occasion.”[475]

But Mary at least was anxious for peace, and she wrote to Henry II. expressing herself in no ambiguous terms on the subject.[476] At the same time, she knew not how to satisfy all the various conflicting demands on her justice, her fidelity to her people, to her husband and to her conscience. Philip had shown himself so willing, in every way, to respect national customs and prejudices; he was so careful in his intercourse with Englishmen to seem to identify his interests with theirs, that it was felt something must also be conceded to his tastes. Hitherto the palace gates had been open to all comers; the Queen was easy of access to the humblest petitioner, and the Venetian ambassador has recorded that from early morning till late at night she gave audiences without ceasing. A few days after their public entry into London, their Majesties removed to Hampton Court, where more of Spanish etiquette and of that aloofness which characterised the majesty of Spain began to be observed. Before long, there were murmurs because the hall door within the courtyard was now kept continually shut, so that no man might enter, unless his errand were first known, “which seemed strange to Englishmen that had not been used thereto”.[477]

Philip may have considered this withdrawal from close contact with the people a necessity, on account of the unsatisfactory state of London, which was constantly the scene of attacks against religious ceremonies, disputes at street corners, concerning points of doctrine, and the interpretation of different passages of Scripture. Not unfrequently, the brawl would end in vituperation of the Queen, of Philip and of their marriage, in language that was no less than treason. Renard had repeatedly expressed the opinion that these disturbers of the public peace should be punished as rebels, and not as heretics. Such a proceeding would certainly have been far more diplomatic, although the outrages perpetrated sprang obviously from religious discontent. The Chancellor and the Bishop of London ruled that they came within the episcopal province and jurisdiction, and proceeded against them in the religious sense, sometimes dispensing with the royal sign manual altogether. The articles mentioned in Renard’s letter as having been published by Bonner in September came under this head. The Council called him to account for having acted without sufficient warrant, and, above all, without the seal of their Majesties. Bonner replied, that these were things dependent on his office and jurisdiction, and that he knew well, in communicating them to the Council, annoyances and hindrances would have been put in his way; that he had acted in the service of God, and that in religious questions one must advance boldly, without fear. He gave instances from the Old Testament, to prove that God helped those who upheld His laws, observed His commandments, and adhered faithfully to Him.

Later on, the Council altered their tactics, and Bonner was accused of dilatoriness in examining heretics.

Gardiner, preaching at Paul’s Cross, about this time, inveighed against the prevailing heresies, but in such a manner that his audience took his words in good part, although there were more than ten thousand persons present. He touched discreetly on the Queen’s marriage, and had it not been for Bonner’s articles, the agitation in London would have gradually subsided. But the disturbances which they caused became so serious, and the people remonstrated to such purpose, that they were temporarily withdrawn. Even then, the Londoners were not satisfied, erroneously connecting the Bishop’s measures with Spanish policy, and clamouring for the arrival of Reginald Pole, who, in spite of his long exile, was known to be a thorough Englishman at heart, and to have been disinclined to the Queen’s marriage.

But although, when once the alliance was an accomplished fact, the Emperor’s zeal for the salvation of souls appeared suddenly to awake, and although he expressed keen anxiety that the Papal Legate should proceed at once to his mission in England,[478] Pole was still prevented from accomplishing it. His desire to return to his native land was as great as that of his fellow-countrymen for his presence among them, and on the 21st September, he wrote to Philip, complaining that it was now a year since he commenced knocking at his palace gate, nor as yet had any one opened it to him. Were the King to ask, “Who knocks?” he would reply, “I am he, who in order not to exclude your consort from the throne of England, endured expulsion from home and country, and twenty years of exile”. Were he merely to say this much, would he not seem worthy to return to the land of his birth, and to have access to the King? But as he was not acting in his own name, nor as a private person, he knocked and demanded in the name and person of the vicegerent of the King of kings and the Pastor of man, namely, the successor of Peter, or rather of Peter himself, whose authority, heretofore so flourishing and vigorous in England, was now most injuriously ejected thence. Through Pole, Peter had long been knocking at the royal gate, which although open to others, was still closed to him alone. The voice perhaps was not heard? Continuing in the same strain, he expostulated with Philip and Mary, and concluded by saying that if he personally were not acceptable, he begged that another might be summoned in his stead.[479]