Chapter X: Against the Tide (2)

Afterwards, the Lord Chancellor, addressing both Houses, extolled the virtue, piety and clemency of their sovereign. The speech was received with enthusiasm, and hopes were entertained that the Queen’s measures would be passed without opposition. Five days later, Mary sent down a bill for the abrogation of all laws concerning religion that had been passed during the two preceding reigns, one clause of the bill dealing especially with her mother’s divorce, and the question of her own legitimacy. The peers passed it without debate, but in the Lower House some stormy scenes attended the reading. The Commons had imagined that Mary would be content to restore religion to the condition in which her father had left it, and now they perceived, in the proposed abrogation of the decree of divorce, not merely a recognition of the Pope’s dispensing power, but an attempt to re-establish his jurisdiction in England. For this, the majority of the nation were unprepared. For twenty years and more, the Pope’s authority had been treated with contempt, his jurisdiction denied, his claims ridiculed, his name converted into a mark of infamy, and only mentioned with the foulest abuse. The language of the Reformers admirably promoted the effect which Henry VIII. wished to produce on the national mind, and by constant repetition of every scurrilous term of opprobrium, they had gained the popular ear. Few, at the beginning of Mary’s reign, were of so judicial a mind as to distinguish the real Pope from the bugbear that had been set up. Moreover, at the back of the prejudice lurked the fear, as yet vague and undefined, of a possible contingency, involving the restoration of Church property, on which so many had become rich. But besides the old and the middle-aged, with whom these things weighed, a fresh generation had sprung up, to whom the Papacy, if not the execrable institution that it was popularly believed to be, yet savoured too much of the past, and of those dreary mediæval times, from which the world was escaping as from a tomb. Too recent to appear picturesque, the Middle Ages were, to the pioneers of the new era, out of date and old-fashioned, terms far more injurious than the most violent word-war of the preachers. Filled with the new wine of the Renaissance, these youthful enthusiasts formed the nucleus of that phalanx of life-loving, exuberant personalities who, throwing all their energies into the glorification of liberty, fame, pleasure, and earthly beauty, gave us subsequently the Elizabethan age. To all of these the very shadow of a spiritual authority was repellant, and the whole session would doubtless have worn itself out in wrangling, had not the Queen, coming unexpectedly to the House, seen how matters stood. She promptly affixed the royal assent to three bills that had been passed, and prorogued Parliament for three days. During this interval, two separate bills were framed in the place of the one obnoxious one, the first dealing exclusively with the confirmation of Henry’s first marriage. To make this bill acceptable to the Commons, all allusion to the Pope was avoided. The royal couple, it stated, had lived together in lawful matrimony for twenty years, after which time, unfounded scruples and projects of divorce had been suggested to the King, by interested persons, who, to further their schemes, obtained by threats and bribery the seals of national and foreign universities in favour of the divorce, the sentence being ungodlily pronounced by Thomas, the newly made Archbishop of Canterbury, against all principles of equity and conscience, and in the absence of Queen Katharine. The sentence had afterwards been ratified by Parliament, but as the marriage was not prohibited by divine law, it could not be dissolved by any such authority. The bill required therefore that the marriage should be adjudged good and valid.[360]

Although what was demanded was tantamount to a decree bastardising Elizabeth, not a dissentient voice was raised against the bill in either House.[361]

The second bill was framed in such a manner as to allay the fears of the holders of Church property, and to reassure those who dreaded a return to Papal jurisdiction. It made therefore no mention of ecclesiastical property, neither did it touch the vital question of the royal supremacy, but simply aimed at the re-establishment of religion as it was left at Henry’s death, with the repeal of nine Acts passed by the influence of Edward’s Council. The debate lasted two days in the Lower House, two-thirds of which consisted of friends of the new doctrines. Nevertheless, the bill passed without a division, and Cranmer’s ingenious compromise between Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism was abolished.[362]

The other bills passed in this session related to the Acts, bonds, deeds and writings passed during the nine days’ usurpation, and were made as binding in law, as if Mary’s name had stood for Jane’s. It was also decreed, that nothing should be accounted treason but what fell under the famous statute of Edward III., nor felony but what was so understood in the first year of Henry VIII. The Acts against riotous gatherings passed in the reign of Edward VI. were revived; several persons attainted were restored in blood, and their estates given back to them. Those who had been foremost in actively conspiring to exclude Mary from the throne were attainted. These were, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Guildford and Lord Ambrose Dudley, and the Lady Jane.

All these measures were passed without serious obstacle; the real crux lay in the question of the Queen’s marriage. On the 6th September, de Noailles had been informed by one of the Howards, especially trusted by Mary, of her secret interview with Renard, and of his formal proposal to her from the Emperor, to marry Philip of Spain. The French ambassador lost no time in informing his master of the threatened danger to France, requesting that his brother, the protonotary, François de Noailles, might be accredited as his coadjutor in the difficult diplomatic situation likely to ensue. The following night, he sent for one of Courtenay’s friends, and advised him and his party to acquire as many allies as possible among those who came personally into contact with the Queen and the members of Parliament, soon to be assembled. These latter were to be incensed against Spain, and brought to petition her Majesty not to take a foreigner for her consort. On the 8th, he had an interview with Sorranzo, the Venetian envoy, whom he found ready to enter into his schemes, although Sorranzo had received no instructions from his government, on the subject of the Queen’s marriage. But so great was his dread of any further aggrandisement of the House of Austria, that he was willing to listen to anything de Noailles had to propose. On the 9th, the French ambassador sought out Gardiner, and harangued him for two hours, on the dangers and disadvantages of the proposed union—to the Queen who would soon find herself forsaken by her husband—to the ministers who knew well that Spaniards were not people to suffer opposition in the government—to the realm at large which would see its fortresses occupied by foreigners, and be itself drawn into a war with France, “for,” said he, “if the Emperor married his son to the Queen of England,” it was “with the intention that she, in accepting him, should take upon herself all his quarrels”.[363]

To these arguments Gardiner more than agreed, but he was careful not to show his hand completely. He had been the first to remonstrate with Mary, urging the dislike of the English to foreigners, the arrogance of Spain in particular, and the danger of a perpetual war with the French, who would never agree to the Low Countries being annexed to England. But opposed to the Chancellor were the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Arundel, Paget and Rochester, so that Gardiner could no longer be said to control the Council. De Noailles declared that they were in the pay of the Emperor. His manipulation of the popular feeling was the cleverest stroke of all. He caused it to be widely circulated, that immediately on his arrival and marriage, Philip would seize the Tower and the royal treasure, and make so many innovations that the laws would be entirely subverted, the rights of Parliament suppressed, the Inquisition established and the people trodden under the heel of Spain.[364] In his anxiety to prevent the union, he overstepped his master’s commands, unless the letter which Henry II. wrote to him, prescribing moderation, was a mere blind, intended to be shown to the Queen. Henry’s private instructions to his ambassador regarding his personal dealings with Mary were, that he should go to work very delicately, not seeming to wish to prevent the marriage, which would only cause her to be still more determined in its favour, but that gently he should continue to express doubt of the possibility of such an alliance, so odious to the King of France, since her Majesty had expressed a wish to live in peace with him.

At the beginning of the second session, the Commons, largely under the influence of de Noailles, waited a fortnight for the opportunity to present the Queen with an address which they had voted on the all-engrossing subject. Pleading illness, Mary sought time for further reflection. Then she sent suddenly for the Lower House, to attend on her at once. The Speaker presented himself, accompanied by twenty members, all that could be collected in haste. In his hurry, he had forgotten to provide himself with the address, but his eloquence made up for all deficiencies of form. He spoke so long and tediously, that Mary became impatient, and sat down, contrary to her wont. With a great deal of circumlocution, he prayed the Queen to marry, but not to choose a husband among foreigners, and he expatiated on the advantages she would derive from a union with a member of the English nobility. Such language, respectful though it might be, was not such as to be acceptable to Tudor ears, and in an aside, Mary exclaimed that she would be a match for all her Chancellor’s cunning.[365] When the Speaker had finished, she rose to reply, although the answer should rightly have devolved on Gardiner, as Chancellor, an innovation that caused Paget to rally him afterwards on his disgrace, the Queen having deprived him of his office. Her words were short and characteristic: “For that you desire to see us married,” she said, “we thank you. Your desire to dictate to us the consort whom we shall choose, we consider somewhat superfluous. The English Parliament has not been wont to use such language to its sovereigns, and when private persons on such matters suit their own tastes, sovereigns may reasonably be allowed to choose whom they prefer.” Herewith she dismissed them, and a few days later, Parliament was dissolved.[366]

From the portrait by Sir Antonio More, at Madrid.]

The truth was, that in the interval of her seclusion, Mary had been making up her mind. In an interview with Renard on the 14th October, she had questioned him minutely as to Philip’s character and disposition, entreating him several times to tell her truly, whether the Prince was in fact moderate, well-regulated, and such in very deed as he had been described to her. She seized both of Renard’s hands, and implored him to be open with her, speaking to her as if he were her confessor. Renard protested warmly that he was ready to pledge his honour and his life, that the Prince of Spain was all that she could desire in a husband. Still, only half-satisfied, Mary continued to express regret that a meeting should be considered impracticable, before her final decision.[367]

In default of the original, whom the Emperor would by no means subject to the insulting possibility of not pleasing, a portrait of the Prince by Titian, was sent for Mary’s acceptance by the Queen of Hungary, Philip’s aunt.[368]

Charles was not greatly disturbed by the manner in which his overtures had been received in England. The English opinion of Spaniards was not less flattering than his and Renard’s of the English. “Your Majesty knows,” wrote the imperial ambassador, “that the temper and self-will of the English are extremely turbulent. They love change and novelty, either because of their insular position, or by reason of their habitual contact with the sea, or because their morals are corrupt. Your Majesty is aware how in times past their kings have been obliged to treat them with rigour, even shedding royal blood, in order to maintain their control over them, for which reason they have acquired the reputation of being cruel tyrants.” He went on to draw a picture of all that a foreign prince must be, if he would hope to gain the good-will of the English people. The affection of the nobility might, he explained, be won by rich banquets and entertainments, by dazzling them with great wealth, by giving them the means of enriching themselves, and by showing them an example of valour, in arms and knighthood.

Renard was not far wrong in accusing the people of turbulence. Excited to fever heat by de Noailles’ treachery, they confounded the Queen’s marriage with purely religious questions, and in defiance of all reason, attacked the Catholic religion merely because it was that of Spain. Preachers were insulted in their pulpits; it became unsafe to say Mass in public. The rebellious tone of the Londoners communicated itself to the provinces, especially to the home counties, and to Devonshire, the cradle of the Courtenay family. A circular letter from the Queen to her Council declared, that “certain ill-disposed persons meaning, under the pretence of misliking this marriage to rebel against the Catholic religion, and divine service restored within this our realm, and to take from us their sovereign Lady and Queen that liberty which is not denied to the meanest women in the choice of their husbands, cease not to spread many false, vile and untrue reports of our said cousin and others of that nation”.[369]

The opposition of the Commons, gently as it had been expressed, seems to have brought Mary’s uncertainties to an end. That same night, she took the fatal step which was eventually to deprive her of her people’s affection, an affection that had grown with her from her childhood, had been her consolation in days of darkness, and had enabled her to triumph so splendidly over her enemies. A despatch of Renard’s, addressed to the Emperor, and dated the 31st October, describes the dramatic scene in which she pledged herself to marry Philip.

“On Sunday evening, the said Lady sent for me to a room in which the Blessed Sacrament was exposed, and declared that since I had presented to her your Majesty’s letters, she had not been able to sleep, but had wept and prayed that God would counsel her, and inspire her answer to the question of marriage, which I had asked at Beaulieu [New Hall]. She went on to say that as the Blessed Sacrament was in the room, and she had always invoked it as her protector, guide and counsellor, she would on this occasion also willingly ask it to help her. And kneeling down on both knees, she recited the _Veni Creator Spiritus_, there being in the room only myself and mistress Clarence, who did the same. But as for mistress Clarence, I do not know whether she heard the said prayer, but I think so because of the sign she made me. After the said lady had risen from her knees, she said, that as your Majesty had chosen me to treat of this negotiation with her, she had chosen me as her first father confessor, and your Majesty for the second, and that having weighed everything, and considered all I had told her, besides having spoken on the subject to Arundel, Paget and Petre, and trusting to what I had said of the good qualities and condition of his Highness, she begged that your Majesty would be mindful of her, and agree to all the conditions necessary for the welfare of the kingdom, and continue to be a good father to her; all the more now that he would be a double father, and would obtain from his Highness to be a good husband to her. Feeling admonished by God, who had already operated so many miracles in her favour, she gave me her royal word, before the Blessed Sacrament, to marry his Highness, declaring that she would never change, but love him perfectly, and never give him cause for jealousy. She went on to say that she had feigned illness for two days, but that her indisposition was merely the result of the difficulty she had felt in making this resolution. Sire, the joy which I experienced on hearing this declaration was as great as your Majesty can imagine, for if she invoked the Holy Spirit, I indeed invoked the Blessed Trinity, to inspire her to give this desired answer.”[370]

This interview was kept so secret, that on the 17th November, more than a fortnight afterwards, de Noailles knew nothing of it, and still expressed doubt that Mary would persist in a matter that was certain to end for her in the loss of her people’s love; and he could not believe that the Emperor would risk sending his son into a country, the inhabitants of which threatened to kill him, rather than recognise him as their King.[371] Nevertheless, it was generally understood that the Queen had made up her mind, and as a forlorn hope the people clamoured for the arrival of Cardinal Pole, whom they credited with being opposed to the match, counting on his influence with Mary to prevent it. He had been appointed by Pope Julius III. legate _a latere_ and _pro pace_, and had started for England at the beginning of October. Wotton, Mary’s ambassador in France, wrote to Sir William Petre as follows:—

“The Pope has made Cardinal Pole legate _a latere_ to the Emperor and French King, and thereafter he is to go to her Majesty. His errand is to attempt a reconciliation between the two former sovereigns, and if any Cardinal is able to do good in the matter, Pole is that person, being esteemed of an honest mind and virtuous life, and so much respected by the Emperor, that at the last vacation of the Papacy, the Imperial Cardinals laboured to have him made Pope.”[372]

Pole, we have seen, was of the opinion that, having remained thus far unmarried, Mary should not change her state, but that the succession should be left to take care of itself. But ignorant of his young cousin’s unworthiness, he had desired that, if any marriage took place, it might be with Edward Courtenay, though he abstained from giving any advice on the subject. He had reached Dillingen, near Brussels, on his way to England, when the Emperor forbade his further progress, informing Renard, on the 21st November that by reason of jealousies, and because the Cardinal might effectually oppose the Queen’s marriage with his son, Pole was better where he was.[373] Renard replied, begging the Emperor still to detain him, for being Courtenay’s relative, he might put spokes in the wheel of Spain. There is no doubt that had he come to England at that time, he would, seeing the irritation of the people, have done all he could to prevent the marriage; but the Emperor and Renard were probably wrong in suspecting him of the least desire to push Courtenay’s fortunes. A letter from him to his nephew, having been intercepted, was found to contain nothing but the advice to remain faithful to the Queen, and to cultivate gratitude for the benefits which he had received from her.

On the 13th November, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Guildford, Ambrose and Henry Dudley, with the Lady Jane, proceeded from the Tower on foot, to be arraigned at the Guildhall for high treason.[374] All pleaded guilty, Cranmer protesting that he had acted unwillingly, in deference to the authority of the officers of the Crown. Parliament confirmed their attainder, and they were condemned to death. The Archbishop appealed to the Queen, and hoped that the mercy that had been extended to so many would be shown to him.[375] Notwithstanding that the prisoners had been convicted, there was no intention on the part of the Queen to proceed to the extremity of the law. She hoped, by keeping them as hostages, to secure the loyalty of their friends, an optimistic view that was not realised. Meanwhile, every indulgence compatible with their situation was allowed to them. Both Cranmer and Ridley had the freedom of the Tower, and the Queen’s garden, in common with the Lady Jane and the others. Ridley was even sometimes invited to dine at the Lieutenant’s table. The confinement of Latimer was more rigorous. He had from the first been ordered into close prison, with his servant to attend him.

Thus were matters constituted at the end of 1553. Elizabeth had remained at court for some months, in a not very enviable position, regarded by the Imperialists as the arch-enemy, and in reality the object of every plot that was floated. Her fate seemed to keep her perpetually hovering between the scaffold and the throne, to which de Noailles bade her aspire, without intending, even if he succeeded in dethroning Mary, to help her to mount it. She besought the Queen to allow her to retire to her house at Ashridge, but Mary hesitated, in giving her leave to depart, and if she had her watched, it was with good reason. Her relations with de Noailles had been discovered, and Arundel and Paget had told the Queen that the French ambassador had visited the Princess three or four times under cover of the night, in order to treat secretly of her marriage.[376] But Elizabeth denied everything, and probably the accusation regarding the ambassador’s visits was untrue. At any rate, Mary did not believe it, and took occasion to make a new act of confidence in her sister. She embraced her, and gave her two strings of large and magnificent pearls and some rich sables. On taking leave, Elizabeth entreated Mary not to believe the reports circulated to her disadvantage without hearing her. Nevertheless, de Noailles thought that it only depended on Courtenay, for her to follow him into Devon and Cornwall, where they would have a good chance of securing the Crown for themselves. He had some reason for this belief, the mayor and aldermen of Plymouth, thanks to his interference, having sent to beg him to supplicate his master to take them under his protection. They wished, they said, to place their town in his hands, and were willing to receive whatever garrison he would place there, being resolved not to receive the Prince of Spain, nor to obey his commands in any way, assuring de Noailles that the country gentlemen of the neighbourhood would do the same.[377]

Gardiner, ignorant of the Queen’s definite step, continued to struggle against the marriage, till the Emperor, at Lord Paget’s suggestion, wrote to six members of the Privy Council, introducing the subject of the treaty. Then, seeing that all further opposition would be fruitless, the Chancellor, ever patriotic, consented to negotiate terms likely to safeguard the rights, liberties and interests of the nation.

There remained only for the Emperor to make the formal demand for Mary’s hand, on behalf of his son.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 316: _Ambassade de Renard_, Belgian Archives, Record Office Transcripts, vol. iii., 27-29, July 1553.]

[Footnote 317: St. Mark’s Library, Venice, Cod. xxiv., Cl. x.]

[Footnote 318: Rawdon Brown, _Venetian Calendar_, 1534-54, 766, 776, 805, 823.]

[Footnote 319: _Ibid._, 836.]

[Footnote 320: De Noailles, vol. ii., p. 109.]

[Footnote 321: The Imperial Ambassadors to Charles V., Record Office Transcripts, vol. i., pp. 276, 278.]

[Footnote 322: Bonner had been sent to prison for what he had failed to say in a sermon at Paul’s Cross, namely, that “the king’s authority was as great during the minority as if he were thirty or forty years old,” a doctrine which the Council had ordered him to preach. He obeyed on all other points, but passed this one over in silence. Hooper and Latimer laid information against him; he was examined on seven different days before Cranmer, and was in the end deprived and thrown into prison, to remain there perpetually at the King’s, in other words, the Council’s, pleasure (_Dictionary of National Biography_, Art. “Edmund Bonner”).]

[Footnote 323: Stow, p. 613. _Grey Friars’ Chronicle_, p. 83.]

[Footnote 324: Foxe, vol. vi., p. 392.]

[Footnote 325: Burnet, vol. iii., p. 384.]

[Footnote 326: Foxe, vol. vi., p. 390 _Acts of the Privy Council_, vol. iv., p. 317, new series.]

[Footnote 327: Machyn, p. 42.]

[Footnote 328: Dixon, _History of the Church of England_, vol. iv., p. 37 note.]

[Footnote 329: A Florentine, formerly one of the Canons Regular of St. Augustine, who, joining the Swiss Reformers, became the intimate friend of Zwingli and Bucer, subsequently also that of Cranmer, who often consulted him in compiling the Book of Common Prayer.]

[Footnote 330: Harl. MS. 422, Brit. Mus., in Grindal’s hand. Foxe, _Acts and Monuments_, vol. vi., p. 539. Strype, _Memorials of Cranmer_, vol. i., p. 437 et seq.]

[Footnote 331: _Acts of the Privy Council_, vol. iv., p. 347, new series.]

[Footnote 332: Strype, _Memorials of Cranmer_, vol. i., p. 449.]

[Footnote 333: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 334: Dixon, _History of the Church of England_, vol. iv., p. 44.]

[Footnote 335: See also Haynes, i., 183-84.]

[Footnote 336: _Ambassades_, vol. ii., p. 138.]

[Footnote 337: Louis Wiesener, _La Jeunesse d’Elisabeth d’Angleterre_, p. 101.]

[Footnote 338: Renard _apud_ Griffet, xii., pp. 106, 107. De Noailles, vol. ii., pp. 138, 141, 160. Record Office, Belgian Transcripts, i., pp. 360-62. Père Griffet, who now becomes one of the chief authorities for this part of the reign, discovered, in the middle of the last century, a number of Renard’s despatches in the royal library at Besançon, and wrote, in answer to David Hume’s gross libel and caricature of Queen Mary, a volume 12mo, of 197 pages, which was published at Amsterdam in 1765. Its title, _Nouveaux Eclaircissements sur le règne de Marie Tudor reine d’Angleterre_, shows the importance of the book, which is now scarce. There is no copy of it in the British Museum.]

[Footnote 339: Griffet, _ut supra_.]

[Footnote 340: _Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess Mary_, pp. 194-97, 21st September 1553. Inventory of jewels.]

[Footnote 341: Archives des affaires étrangères, _Registre des copies des dépêches de M. de Noailles_, tom. i. et ii. (in one), p. 125.]

[Footnote 342: _Ambassades_, vol. ii., p. 104.]

[Footnote 343: _A History of the English Poor Law_, by Sir G. Nicholls, K.C.B., Poor Law Commissioner and Secretary to the Poor Law Board, vol. i., pp. 112, 130, 141.]

[Footnote 344: _Venetian Calendar_, 1534-54, p. 543.]

[Footnote 345: _Calendar of State Papers_, Domestic, vol. i., 1553.]

[Footnote 346: Strype, _Ecclesiastical Memorials_, vol. iii., pt. i., p. 40.]

[Footnote 347: _Ambassades_, vol. ii., p. 123.]

[Footnote 348: Notably the exclusion of imperial influence.]

[Footnote 349: _Papiers d’Etat du Cardinal de Granvelle_, vol. iv., p. 74.]

[Footnote 350: Belgian Transcripts, vol. i., pp. 284-86, Record Office.]

[Footnote 351: _Ambassades_, vol. i., p. 232.]

[Footnote 352: _Papiers d’Etat du Cardinal de Granvelle_, p. 100. He goes on to describe Elizabeth as “un esprit plein d’incantation,” etc.]

[Footnote 353: “Elle jura que jamais elle n’avait senti aiguillon de ce que l’on appelle amour ... et qu’elle n’avait jamais pensé à mariage sinon depuis que a plu à Dieu la promouvoir à la couronne, et que celui qu’elle fera sera contre sa propre affection pour le respect de la chose publique” (_Papiers d’Etat du Cardinal de Granvelle_, p. 98).]

[Footnote 354: _Ambassades_, vol. ii., p. 144.]

[Footnote 355: _Papiers d’Etat_, p. 105.]

[Footnote 356: Wriothesley, _Chronicle_, vol. ii., p. 103. For Stow’s graphic account of the royal procession see Appendix D.]

[Footnote 357: Belgian Archives, Record Office Transcripts, vol. i., p. 436. Also Griffet. But Griffet is mistaken in thinking that Elizabeth referred to a crown she was carrying in her hands, as if it had been the Queen’s.]

[Footnote 358: _History of England_, vol. vi., p. 109.]

[Footnote 359: Wriothesley, _Chronicle_, vol. ii., p. 103.]

[Footnote 360: Lingard, vol. v., p. 405, 5th edition.]

[Footnote 361: Henry II. rejoiced greatly at the passing of the act confirming Mary’s legitimacy, as it _ipso facto_, as he thought, removed the one barrier between Mary and the succession of his daughter-in-law the Queen of Scots, the next legitimate heir to the English throne. Both sisters could not be legitimate (Henry to de Noailles, _Ambassades_, ii., p. 250).]

[Footnote 362: The Book of Common Prayer is called in the Act of Parliament “a new thing, imagined by a few of singular opinions”.]

[Footnote 363: De Noailles, _Ambassades_, ii., pp. 143-48.]

[Footnote 364: _Ibid._, p. 186.]

[Footnote 365: Griffet, xxviii.]

[Footnote 366: When Mary told Gardiner that she would never marry Courtenay, the Chancellor replied with tears, owning that he had entertained an affection for the young man from the time of their mutual imprisonment. Mary then asked him whether it was proper for her to marry him just because her Chancellor was fond of him in prison (Renard to the Emperor, Record Office Transcripts).]

[Footnote 367: Belgian Transcripts, Record Office, vol i., pp. 497-505.]

[Footnote 368: She charged Renard to inform Mary that it had been painted three years previously, and that, like all Titian’s works, it required to be studied at a little distance, in order to perceive the likeness. She added, that since it had been executed, Philip had matured and had grown more beard. About this time, Cardinal Granvelle sent the painter, Antonio More, to England to paint Mary’s portrait for Philip. She sat to him at different times, and he painted several fine portraits of her. The principal one is at Madrid, in the Museo del Prado.]

[Footnote 369: Letter of the Queen to the Council of the Marches, Historical MSS. Commission, Report 13, app. iv., p. 318.]

[Footnote 370: Belgian Transcripts, Record Office, vol. i., pp. 600-2.]

[Footnote 371: _Ambassades_, vol. ii., p. 283.]

[Footnote 372: MS., St. Mark’s Library, Cod. xxiv., Letter-Book, Ven. Archives. He only just missed being elected. Two Cardinals, coming to his cell in the Conclave one evening, begged him, as he had the necessary two-thirds of the votes, to come to the chapel, where he would be made Pope by “adoration”. Pole induced them to put off the ceremony till the next day, when a further scrutiny showed that Cardinal del Monte had a majority of votes.]

[Footnote 373: _Papiers d’Etat du Cardinal de Granvelle_, vol. iv., p. 156.]

[Footnote 374: Wriothesley, vol. ii., p. 104.]

[Footnote 375: _Cranmer’s Remains_, p. 443.]

[Footnote 376: _Ambassades_, vol. ii., p. 309.]

[Footnote 377: _Ambassades_, vol. ii., p. 342.]