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

The troubles arising from religious questions occupy so large a portion of Mary’s short reign, that a substantial reform of the criminal law, which at another period would have excited interest and admiration, has almost escaped the notice of historians. It was indeed in the reign of Edward VI. that a jury first began to be a fair and effective tribunal, but Mary’s noble exordium in appointing Morgan, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, contained the first indication of the precept, that not only was equity to be maintained among the people, but that in cases in which the Crown was involved, the like justice was to be done. “I charge you, Sir,” said the Queen, “to minister the law and justice indifferently, without respect of persons; and notwithstanding the old error among you, which will not admit any witness to speak, or other matters to be heard, in favour of the adversary, the Crown being party, it is my pleasure that whatever cases be brought, in favour of the subject may be admitted and heard. You are to sit there not as advocates for me, but as indifferent judges between me and my people.”[715]

That this was no empty formula was proved in the following year, when a jury persisted in acquitting a prisoner of State, Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, against the direction of the court, and as was well known against the personal conviction of the Queen,[716] who believed in his guilt. Throughout Mary’s reign, the accused had absolute confidence in the uprightness, integrity and unhampered freedom of the jury, and never forgot, that a statute of the realm had expressly declared, that there should be two witnesses to prove a treason, and that they must be confronted face to face. Hitherto, and in the subsequent reigns, persons indicted on behalf of the Crown, whatever their rights, had no probability of a favourable decision, on account of the paramount advantages claimed and enjoyed by the counsel for the sovereign. Many instances of this arbitrary and tyrannical rule are to be found in the minutes of the State trials under Elizabeth and James I.

If, in some ways, Mary seemed to have inherited a large amount of Tudor obstinacy, her sincere and earnest intention to act according to the light of conscience, and to govern by strictly constitutional methods, made her singularly unlike her father before, or her sister after her. No flattery however insidious, on the part of those who sought to ingratiate themselves with her, by advocating a more unrestricted course, was able to lure her from this lofty resolve. A rebel who had been pardoned, and who thought by this means to secure her favour, drew up a plan by which she might render herself independent of Parliaments. It was presented to her by the Spanish ambassador, who ventured to recommend its adoption. As the Queen read it, she disliked it, “and judged it contrary to the oath she had made at her coronation”. She sent for Gardiner, and giving him the treatise to read, commanded him as he would answer for it at the judgment seat of God, to tell her his real opinion of the matter. “Madam,” replied the Chancellor, on returning the volume to her, “it is a pity that so noble and virtuous a lady should be endangered with the pernicious devices of such lewd and subtle sycophants. For the book is naught, and most horrible to be thought on.” The Queen thanked him, and threw the volume into the fire.[717]

There are important indications in the records of this reign showing that had Mary’s lines been cast in more peaceful places, and had her life been prolonged, much would have been done to develop international and commercial interests. Shortly before Edward’s death, a joint-stock company had been formed under the direction of Sebastian Cabot, son of the famous navigator. A small fleet commanded by Sir Hugh Willoughby was fitted out, and sailed for the north of Europe, with the object of discovering a north-east passage to China and India. Off the coast of Norway, their ships were scattered by a violent storm, and Challoner, the second officer in command, found his way into the White Sea, and reached Archangel in safety. The others were cast upon the shores of Nova Zembla, and Russian Lapland, where they all perished from cold and want. Challoner, obliged to abandon the original enterprise, travelled through Russia to Moscow, where he was kindly received by the Czar, Ivan Wassilegevich, who gave him a letter to the King of England. Edward being then dead, the letter was consequently delivered to Mary, and Challoner’s reports of the wonderful sights he had witnessed roused a keen spirit of adventure in the nation. A new company was formed, and directed by the same Sebastian Cabot, and was incorporated under the title of “Merchants adventurers of England, for the discovery of lands, territories, isles and signories unknown”. A charter was granted to the company, by which its members were empowered to make discoveries by navigating northwards, north-westwards or north-eastwards, and were entitled to raise the flag of England over “all manner of cities, towns, isles and main lands of infidelity,” after subduing them to the dominion of the King and Queen, and their heirs and successors for ever.[718] It was the beginning of the brilliant exploits by which England became subsequently so formidable, under the semi-piratical enterprises of Drake, Frobisher and Sir Walter Raleigh.

Challoner was sent back to Moscow, with a letter from Philip and Mary to the Czar, containing the initiative towards a commercial treaty between England and Russia.[719] The expedition was eminently successful, and he returned, accompanied by the Russian ambassador, as far as the Bay of Pitsligo, where the ship was wrecked, and Challoner was drowned. The ambassador escaped, but as he had suffered considerable loss at the hands of the Scotch, who plundered the wreck, Mary sent two messengers to Edinburgh, to redress his wrongs, and bring him with honour and distinction to London. After some difficulties, the commercial treaty with Russia was concluded, under very advantageous conditions for England, and the ambassador went back to his own country, loaded with costly presents for himself and his sovereign. By this treaty English trade received a great impetus, and henceforth the manufactures of the country were exchanged at a vast profit for the skins and other valuable products of Russia.

Mary also defended English commercial interests against the cupidity of a powerful company of foreign merchants, who had been settled in London for centuries, and were known as Easterlings, merchants of the Hanse towns, and merchants of the Steelyard. The privileges granted to them by generations of English kings, in return for the loans which their immense resources enabled them to advance in sudden emergencies, had accumulated until they had almost absolute control of the markets. One great subject of complaint was their exemption from paying more than 1 per cent. duty on their merchandise, which included almost every imaginable article of commerce, so that all competition was excluded, and they could raise or depress the prices as they pleased. It had been declared on investigation, that they had violated, and therefore forfeited their charter, but they were powerful enough to dispute its possession, until the bill of tonnage and poundage passed in Mary’s first Parliament aimed a decisive blow at their excessive privileges, by enacting that the Easterlings should pay the same duties as other merchants. The Queen was induced to suspend for a time the operation of the statute, but having ascertained what were, in this respect, the real interests of her people, she finally revoked the charter, and refused to listen to any further arguments in favour of the company.[720]

Among many interesting facts, hitherto ignored by Mary’s biographers, are the benefits which the Queen bestowed on her army. Two of these call for special remark, the first being an increase of pay from 6d. to 8d. a day, the sum for which the men had mutinied under Henry VIII.; the second being a touching instance of her care for them, expressed in her last will. In this document it will be seen, she left instructions for the foundation of a hospital in London, with an endowment of 400 marks, “for the relief and help of poor, impotent and aged soldiers,” who had suffered loss or wounds in the service of England. “For all her man’s voice and masculine will,” says a recent writer, “she had a woman’s heart, which warmed to the deserving old soldier, and whatever her demerits in the eyes of those who wear the gown, her memory may at least be cherished by those who wear the red coat.” She was the first English sovereign to lend a pitying ear to the necessities of those who had spent themselves in their country’s defence; while as for her immediate successor, Elizabeth has been declared by the same writer to have been “intolerably impatient of such miserable creatures”.[721]

But if the whole truth were known, it is certain that evidence would be forthcoming to prove that “those who wear the gown” have as little cause as soldiers to speak of Mary’s “demerits”. The history of our universities has yet to be adequately written, but when it is written, important instances will doubtless come to light, concerning her connection with both. Dr. John Christopherson, her chaplain and confessor, was installed master of Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1553, and through him, the Queen became a considerable benefactress to this college. She was especially anxious that it should possess a larger and more suitable chapel, and on her initiative, the present building was begun in the Tudor style in 1556.[722] Carrying her solicitude still further, she added to the endowments of Trinity, the Rectories of Heversham, Kendal and Kirkby Lonsdale in Westmorland, and those of Sedbergh and Aysgarth in Yorkshire, then producing a revenue of £338 per annum, for the maintenance of twenty scholars, ten choristers and their master, thirteen poor scholars, fourteen chaplains and two sizars.[723] In the Master’s Lodge, where Mary slept when she passed through Cambridge, on her way to London at the time of her accession, is a portrait of the Queen inscribed Maria Regina Huius Collegii Benefactrix. The picture is one of the replicas of the portrait painted by Sir Antonio More, before her marriage, with some variations as to minor details. Seeing how entirely Mary has passed from the minds and hearts of the English people, it is pleasant to learn that she is still commemorated at Trinity College, in a prayer said after grace on feast days.

The portrait which she presented to Christ Church, Oxford, and another in the University galleries, show her interest in that seat of learning also. During her short reign, two colleges were founded at Oxford; Trinity, by the munificence of Sir Thomas Pope, and St. John’s, on the site of Archbishop Chicheley’s foundation, the latter being the gift of Sir Thomas White, of the company of Merchant Tailors.