himself most obnoxious to her, and continued so to the last. He styled her "an ugly Popish bastard." Lord Arundel next received orders from the Queen to arrest the Duke of Suffolk and his daughter the Lady Jane Dudley. The Duchess of Suffolk threw herself at the Queen's feet, and begged for mercy on behalf of her husband. She stated that Suffolk was dangerously ill, and to be consigned to a cell in the Tower would cause his death. He was only three days imprisoned when set at liberty.* It is singular how the haughty Duchess of Suffolk almost enjoyed the friendship of the Queen, and yet seems to have made no attempt to save the life of her unhappy daughter, whom, it is said, she always disliked. "No pleadings are recorded," says Miss Strickland, "of the Duchess of Suffolk for her poor daughter, Lady Jane, who might have been liberated on her own parole with far less danger than her wrong-headed father. It was well known that the Duchess was an active agent in the evanescent regality of her daughter, she had urged the ill-starred marriage with the profligate young Dudley; she must have fabricated some tales against her own child, since she was always treated. with great distinction by her cousin, Queen Mary, in the worst of times."+ The Imperial Ambassador urged the Queen to bring Lady Jane to trial with her father-in-law, Northumberland; and a large number of the so-called Catholic party, who wished for vengeance, and disgraced the Queen by their actions, were "loud in their demands for the blood of Jane," who has been described as the "most *Holinshed's Chronicle; Goodwin, pp. 332, 333. + Miss Strickland's Queens of England, vol. v. pp. 300, 301; State Papers of Mary's reign. innocent of all the guilty." Queen Mary made a general reply to the Catholic party that "she could not find it in her heart or conscience to put her hapless kinswoman to death, who had not been an accomplice of Northumberland, but merely an unconscious, unresisting instrument in his hands. If there were any crime in being his daughter-inlaw, even of that her fair cousin Jane was not guilty, for she had been legally contracted to another, and therefore her marriage with Lord Dudley was not valid. As for danger existing from the pretensions of Lady Jane, the Queen considered them imaginary, and every requisite precaution should be taken before she was set at liberty."* Such was the reply given by the Queen to the open and concealed enemies of Lady Jane. Bishops Gardyner and Tonstal, and the Duke of Norfolk, all approved of this benign and merciful policy. But Pembroke, Winchester, Paget, and Rich," the late supporters and Council of Lady Jane," were determined to take another course in their new-born zeal for Queen Mary. Jane's mother remained silent, whilst her father showed his gratitude for the royal mercy by forming fresh conspiracies. Lady Jane Dudley sent a letter of explanation to the Queen, in which she minutely detailed the coercion which was used towards her by Northumberland and her own family. "She refused (she averred) the Crown, and asserted the injustice of the whole proceeding; she would have nothing to do with their evil deeds. They told her that by virtue of the King's will she was Queen Regnant of England. Her sense of justice and honour could not believe in such arrangements; * Abridged from Pollino, Istoria del' Ecclesia d'Inghilterra, p. 73. She was She con she knew nothing of the doings of the Council." again reminded of "her duty." "She fell to the ground and swooned as one dead. She remained a passive victim to the ambition of her father-in-law." cludes her narrative by describing the conduct of young Dudley and his mother: "I was maltreated by my husband and his mother." There is sadly ample reason to believe in the accuracy of the above statement, which has been chronicled by three Italian historians, who seem to have had special sources of information at the time. Miss Strickland and other eminent English writers accept it as a true narrative, and later. research places the statement beyond doubt. Several instances are to be found of Queen Mary's interference to save persons from the cruel fiats of her Privy Council. Those who were of rank or consequence sufficient to gain access to her were tolerably sure of her protection. This peculiarity gave a tone to her reign which renders its character singular in English history; for examples of political vengeance were made chiefly in reference to persons whose station seemed too lowly for objects of State punishment, because, being poor and obscure, they were not able to carry complaints to the foot of the throne. Thus the Council sent orders to the town of Bedford, "for the punishment of a woman (after due examination of her qualities') by the cucking-stool, she having been arrested for railing and speaking unseemly words of the Queen's Majesty." These awards of personal punishment without regular trial, emanated from a junta of the Privy Council, whose assumption was to sit in the Star Chamber in Westminster Palace, and apportion the inflictions which seemed good in their eyes, as vengeance on personal affronts offered to the reigning monarch. Much of the extortions of the reign of Henry VII., and the bloodshed of that of Henry VIII., may be attributed to the operations of this unconstitutional and inquisitorial tribunal. But when it condescended to doom an old woman of a little provincial town to the "cucking-stool," it might have been thought that derision would have disarmed its terrors for ever. Such might have been the case, had the newspaper press of the present day been in operation. In the latter part of Mary's reign, when she was utterly incapacitated by mortal sufferings from interference with their proceedings, her cruel ministers inflicted many punishments on old women who "railed against the Queen's Majesty."* The women in question were either fanatics or lunatics, for the religious frenzy had created many boisterous idiots. Lady Jane Dudley was committed to the Tower; and those who so recently shouted, "Long live Queen Jane !" were now preparing to give a splendid reception to Mary Tudor as Queen Regnant of England. The public men who acted in this spirit were the Reformers of " yesterday." Nothing could exceed the dishonesty and inconsistency of the populace in those sad times. * Queens of England, vol. v. (first edit.) p. 307. Mary, in fact, was a nullity in the hands of bold and unscrupulous ministers then-as some monarchs have been since. CHAPTER XXV. TRIUMPH OF LEGITIMACY. QUEEN JANE had the army, the fleet, and the great nobles on her side. For some days the people rested in an ominous silence: then a sudden burst of feeling echoed through the land-" for Queen Mary; for Queen Mary." Papal Catholics and Reformers rushed to the Tudor standard. Mary was, at this time, as popular as Northumberland was detested. The people became excited; it was reported that the Council had betrayed the country to France, and "Ireland was to be given over to the French King."* These reports were, of course, mere inventions, but they had an effect upon the popular mind hostile to Northumberland and Lady Jane Dudley. Lady Jane was unconscious of the desperate position in which her relatives and friends had placed her. The feeling of the London people permeated the counties, and reached the country squires. The baronial lords "reconsidered the case. They had been always true to the Tudor dynasty, and why set it aside for the daughter of Henry Gray." Many influential men argued in this fashion. It was not a question of religion, as often * Scheyfrie's Despatches to Charles V. |