were guilty of no crime but nonconformity, had now to reap the fruits of its injustice, and was superseded till its teachers had grown wiser."*

"If the Reformation under Edward the Sixth was not a

failure, it certainly was not a success. Certain profligate noblemen, most active in the cause, maintained the Reformation in words; but, to all appearance, over their hearts religion had no salutary influence. With the spoils of a plundered Church they had filled their coffers, but for the fruits of the spirit we have too often to look in vain among the Protestants as well as among the Papists."† A notable admission on the part of Dean Hook. Professor Brewer remarks that "the generality of men are too much misled by Foxe in forming anything like a fair and just estimate of the reigns of Edward and his successor. No King ever lived in this nation, except perhaps Henry VIII., whose reign was more disastrous to the cause of true religion than was the reign of Edward VI." The men who played so fearful a part during the reign of Edward are the very persons whom Foxe, Speed, Burnet, and the Puritan writers of a later time have presented to posterity as "martyrs and saints," God-fearing men, who were "inspired by the Holy Ghost to reform religion." The records of the actions of the Reformers of King Edward's reign at once dispose of the claims set up for the holiness and purity of their lives. It may be asked, were the Catholics a model of perfection at this period? My answer is, that they were very far from what they should have been; but they were always—whilst

* Froude, vol. vi. p. 116.

+ Archbishops of Canterbury, vol. x. p. 18.

Dr. Brewer's Notes on Fuller's Ecclesiastical History, book viii. p. 150.

practising their religion-a law-abiding race, who honoured the Monarch and the Constitution. The old English Catholic Conservatives detested revolution; the Reformers loved that ominous word for the gain that its disasters presented to them. The Reformers of King Edward's reign were "rocked in the cradle" of revolution and communism; and, as Mr. Froude remarks, "they had created, by their own misconduct, the difficulty of defending their opinions."* The worst crimes against a well-regulated order of society were perpetrated in the name of the God of Justice, Mercy, and Charity. The Reformers in Edward's reign "came fresh upon the scene."

There was no cause for retaliation. They had lost neither life, liberty, nor property by the people who adhered to the "old learning." And, as to property, they had little or none to lose. Let the reader examine the real facts of the case, as drawn from the State Papers and records of the period, and then form his own opinions as to the history of those disastrous times.

* Froude's History of England, vol. vi. p. 312.

CHAPTER XXIV.

THE TRAITOR BETRAYED.

To the amazement of the nation, the first proclamation issued on the death of King Edward was one announcing a change in the succession, and proclaiming Jane Dudley Queen Regnant. The usurpation and treason of the Council and the regal position of Lady Jane were, however, of brief duration. Northumberland's efforts to induce the country to support the claims of his daughter-in-law were listlessly received. His own subsidized following deserted him, his colleagues wavered, and when he left London the citizens were in no mood to wish him success. The Earls of Sussex and Bath deserted Lady Jane Dudley, and repaired to Framlingham, to salute Mary as Queen. Lords Pembroke, Rich, Winchester, and Sir William Paget quickly joined the winning side.

Northumberland, though at the head of an army at Cambridge, had employed himself rather in polemic than military warfare. He had requested Dr. Edwin Sandys, the Vice-Chancellor of the University, and a very zealous Reformer," to preach a sermon against Mary's title and her religion; and whilst the sermon was proceeding, a yeoman of the guard held up to public scorn a Catholic

*

missal, a "grayle" which had been captured the preceding night at Mr. Huddleston's house, where the Princess Mary had slept, and heard Mass, during her late rapid journey into Suffolk. The next day the news arrived of the popular revulsion in London; and Northumberland, struck with terror, made a bootless effort to imitate his colleagues, by personally proclaiming Queen Mary in Cambridge Market-place, tossing up his cap, while "the tears ran down his cheeks." Dr. Sandys, who stood by him, was a man of indomitable courage, mental and physical, and could scarcely conceal his scorn when the Duke said to him-"Queen Mary is a merciful woman, and that doubtless all would receive the benefit of her general pardon." Dr. Sandys bade him not flatter himself, for if the Queen were ever so inclined to pardon, those who now ruled would destroy him, whoever else were spared. Then occurred a scene of perfidy rarely known in England, and to be equalled only by Monteith's treachery to the patriot Wallace. Sir John Gates, one of Northumberland's agents, most deeply compromised, arrested his master when he was personally helpless, "with his boots half on and half off.” In a few hours Northumberland was set at liberty; and at last, all this anarchy was settled by the entry into Cambridge of the Earl of Arundel with a body of the Queen's troops.

When Northumberland heard that Lord Arundel came to arrest him, he "nearly fainted;" then, assuming a

* The present Poet-Laureate, in one of those hard-wrought operations of the brain which tax equally the performer and peruser, has familiarized the few who can understand him with his notions on the "holy grail, Omne ignotum pro magnifico.

fitting courage, he went to meet his "friend." Arundel looked at him with withering scorn. The Duke fell upon his knees before the Earl, and "prayed for mercy for the love of God." "Consider my soul, good Lord of Arundel; I have done nothing but by the consent of you and the whole Council."

"My Lord Duke," said Arundel, "I am sent here by the Queen's Majesty, and in her name I now arrest you.” Northumberland again cried out for mercy, reminding his captor that he himself had been guilty of similar lèsemajesté. Arundel replied that "he should have sought mercy sooner."

Without much delay the Duke of Northumberland was escorted with the other prisoners to London, and lodged in the Tower.

Several of Northumberland's party, after the arrest of their chief, hastened on to Framlingham, in order to excuse to Queen Mary, under the plea that they were but obeying the orders of the Privy Council. Among those "Loyalists" were the Marquis of Northampton and Lord Robert Dudley. Bishop Ridley likewise presented himself at Framlingham, but was coldly received, and sent back-Fox declares, " on a halting horse" (a homely expression for ill-reception). He was arrested, and with Northampton conveyed to the Tower from the Queen's camp, on the 26th of July, on account of a sermon he had recently preached against her title, at St. Paul's Cross, when Princess. Ridley had been guilty of several gross personal insults to Queen Mary. He made

Tytler's Edward and Mary, vol. ii. (first edit.); Queens of England, vol. v.; Lingard, vol. v.