[110] After the execution of Thomas Seymour, this fine mansion was

purchased for £41, 6s. 8d. by Henry Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel,

whose only son, Lord Maltravers, was a paragon of learning and

accomplishments. He predeceased his father by nearly twenty years. On

the death of the Earl of Arundel the property passed to his daughter,

Mary, Duchess of Norfolk, and through her the ground-rents are still

payable to the premier Duchy of England. The unfortunate Philip Howard,

Earl of Arundel, who was attainted for his religious opinions in the

reign of Elizabeth, and who died in exile, lived here for some time. In

the eighteenth century the famous Arundel marbles, now at Cambridge,

were to be seen at Arundel House, which was finally pulled down and a

number of rather mean streets built on its site. Quite recently the

property has been immensely improved, and in fairly artistic taste. One

or two very fine hotels--the Howard and the Arundel, for instance--have

been erected on the site of the old palace. The Colonial and American

guests at these excellent establishments will perhaps be interested

to know that that favourite heroine of history, Lady Jane Grey, dwelt

hereabouts.

[111] State Papers, 1537, under Seymour.

[112] It is possible that Henry VIII intended, when he married Jane

Seymour, not to allow his mother-in-law to interfere in his concerns.

Some such thing happened with regard to Lady Wiltshire, Anne Boleyn’s

mother, who is very little heard of after her daughter’s marriage.

[113] Lord Hertford clandestinely married Lady Jane Grey’s second

sister, Lady Katherine, and was imprisoned for many years in the Tower

by Elizabeth’s order “for venturing to marry an heiress to the throne.”

[114] When this proposal was eventually made to the boy-King, he

was highly indignant, and remarks in his _Journal_ that it “was his

intention to choose for his Queen a foreign princess well stuffed and

jewelled”--meaning that his bride should be endowed with a suitable

dower and a regal wardrobe.

Lady Jane Seymour died early in the reign of Elizabeth, one of whose

maids-of-honour she was, and is buried in Westminster Abbey.

[115] Hayward (_Life of Edward VI_) describes Sudeley as “fierce

in courage, courtly in fashion, in personage stately, in voice

magnificent, but somewhat empty in matter”(!).

[116] The Queen alludes here not, as generally supposed, to the Lady

Frances Brandon, but to her stepmother, the witty Duchess Katherine,

who uses this curious expression in one of her letters.

[117] This belief received confirmation in a letter of “Kateryn the

Quene” to the Lord Admiral in which she says, “When it shall be your

pleasure to repair hither, ye must take some pains to come early in the

morning, that ye may be gone again by seven o’clock; and so I suppose

ye may come hither without suspect. I pray you let me have knowledge

over-night at what hour ye will come, that your portress [_i.e._

herself] may wait at the gate of the fields for you.” This letter is

signed, “By her that is and shall be, your humble, true, and loving

_wife_ during her life.” This was written from Chelsea Manor House

after Henry VIII’s death.

[118] From one of Fowler’s letters to Sudeley we learn that “His

Highness the King is not half a quarter of an hour by himself,” and

that “in his secret leisure His Grace hath written his commendations to

the Queen’s Grace and to your lordship [Sudeley].” Moreover, he says

that the King intends to write letters “whenever he can do so, that is,

when there is no supervision kept over his actions.” Enclosed in this

letter from Fowler were two notes written in Edward’s childish hand on

torn scraps of paper. The first is a request for money: “My Lord, send

me _per_ Latimer [another go-between] as much as ye think good, and

deliver it to Fowler.--EDWARD.” On the second is written: “My Lord, I

thank you and pray you have me commended to the Queen.”

[119] Strype’s _Memoirs_, vol. ii. part i. p. 59.

[120] See the State Papers.

[121] This lady was a daughter of Humphrey Bouchier, Lord Berners, and

wife of Sir Thomas Bryan or Brian. She was the “my lady maistress” of

Princess Mary, whose Privy Purse Expenses contain several items to her

credit--as in January 1537: “Item paid for a broach and a frontlet and

the same given to my lady maistress, xxxviij.” Lady Bryan or Brian was

for a time governess to Princess Elizabeth as well as to Prince Edward.

She was created a Baroness in her own right, but does not appear from

her correspondence and petitions to have had sufficient income to

support the dignity of a peeress. This able lady died on 20th August

1551 at Leyton, in Essex. (See Strype’s Appendix to Stowe’s _Survey of

London_ for 1720, vol. ii. p. 114.)

[122] Mrs. Sybel or Sybilla Penn, dry nurse to Edward VI, was not, as

erroneously stated by Gough Nichols in his _Literary Remains of Edward

VI_, the daughter of Sir Hugh Pagenham or the wife of John Penne,

barber-surgeon to Henry VIII, but the daughter of William Hampton of

Dodyngton, Buckinghamshire, and owed her appointment as dry nurse and

foster-mother to the future King to the good offices of Sir William

Sydney. She married Mr. David Penn, and continued at Court after the

death of Edward, being very kindly treated by both Mary and Elizabeth.

She had an apartment in Hampton Court Palace, and died there in 1562

of the smallpox, at the same time that Elizabeth herself was attacked

by that dreadful malady. She is buried in Hampton Church, and is said

to haunt the palace because her bones were disturbed when the position

of her monument was altered many years ago (1820). Mrs. Penn’s spirit

was greatly displeased at this removal, and forthwith took to haunting

the palace she had inhabited for so many years. Her ghost has been

seen ascending the stairs as recently as 1896, when she nearly scared

the attendant out of his wits. The well-known sketch by Holbein signed

“Mother Jack” is supposed to be a portrait of this lady, but Sir

Richard Holmes, the late learned Librarian at Windsor Castle, disputes

this opinion, and attributes another portrait to her. (See Ernest Law’s

_History of Hampton Court Palace_. George Bell & Sons. Tudor Period, p.

197 _et seq._)

[123] Edward’s friend and companion, Barnaby Fitzpatrick, was the

eldest son of the Irish chieftain, Barnaby Gill Patrick, Lord of Upper

Ossory, who made his submission to the King in 1537, and was created

a Baron by his old title in 1541. Barnaby’s mother was the widow of

Thomas Fitzgerald, a grandson of the Earl of Desmond. Barnaby, who was

brought up with Edward, was sent for a year’s education to the French

Court: whilst there he received many letters from his royal friend.

On his return to England Barnaby Fitzpatrick continued to enjoy the

King’s favour. After Edward’s death he entered the service of Mary and

went to fight in Scotland. Under Elizabeth, Barnaby, who had by this

time become Baron of Upper Ossory, fought for the Queen in Ireland, and

actually slew Oge O Moarda, or Rory O’More, one of the great rebels

of the day. Barnaby Fitzpatrick died in 1581 without issue, and was

succeeded by his brother, Florence, whose descendants enjoyed the title

of Upper Ossory until the extinction of the peerage in 1818. (See for

further particulars of his career John Gough Nichols’ _Literary Remains

of Edward VI_, p. 64. Printed for the Roxburgh Club.)

[124] Sir John Cheke was an early forerunner of President Roosevelt,

for not only did he reform the pronunciation of Greek, but he actually

instituted a reform of English orthography. His suggestions for the

simplification of our writing were very curious and worth detailing.

Firstly, there was to be no _e_ at the end of words, so he wrote excus,

giv, hay, and so on. Secondly, when _a_ is sounded long, he would have

had it doubled, as maad, straat (made, straight), etc. Thirdly, he

replaced _y_ by _i_, as mi, sai, awai, for my, say, away! The rest of

the language was phoneticised, as britil (brittle), frute (fruit), and

so on. He translated part of the Bible into his new English, a copy of

which is now at Cambridge.

[125] Wriothesley having now become Earl of Southampton, evidently

hoped to represent for some time in the Privy Council the old

faith--_i.e._ schismatic--as it had been under Henry VIII, probably

with the view of eventually modifying it into the ancient Roman

Catholicism which had been the religion of his youth. But as he showed

the extent of his ambition by putting the Great Seal into commission

without the authority of his colleagues, he offended Somerset and gave

him the opportunity of getting a dangerous competitor out of the way by

arresting Wriothesley on a vague charge of treason and ordering him to

confine himself to his own house in the Strand. With the same intention

of “clearing the board,” the Protector had Winchester also arrested and

thrown into the Tower.

[126] There is a very minute account of Edward VI’s coronation (from

an MS. at the College of Arms) in Nichols’ _Literary Remains of Edward

VI_. The _Spanish Chronicle_ also gives a curious description of it,

where the writer says (p. 153 _et seq._) that at the cross in Cheapside

there was a triumphal arch “made to look like the sky,” whence

descended a boy “like an angel,” who gave the King a purse containing

£1000, which His Majesty handed over to the captain of the guard,

much to the astonishment of the people; the chronicler significantly

adds that the boy-King “had not the strength” to carry this weighty

gift. The way from the Abbey to Westminster Hall was spread with “fine

cloth”--“at least twenty lengths”--and “the moment the King passed

these cloths disappeared, for whoever could cut a piece off took it for

himself.” The Spaniard makes the curious mistake of saying that Henry

VIII’s death was not made known to the public until _after_ Edward’s

coronation. (The coronation to which the Chronicler referred was that

called the first coronation, which took place in the Tower on the 31st

January. The King’s death was not generally known until then.--M. H.)

A large contemporary picture of Edward VI’s coronation procession was

destroyed in a fire at Cowdray House (the home of the Montagu family)

in 1793; but in the engraving of it made previously by the Society of

Antiquaries we perceive a man bearing a cross leading the troop of

knights, etc., preceding the King--another proof of the persistence of

the old religious customs.

[127] Of this man Strype says: “He was entertained here [England]

divers years with the Earl of Bedford; and _expecting preferment here,

failing of it, he departed_ and lived abroad.” This certainly does not

put Master Peter’s reason for coming to this country in quite such a

good light as his description of himself as “an exile from Italy ... by

reason of his confession of the doctrine of the Gospel.” See Strype’s

_Annals_, iii. i. 660.

[128] _Original Letters relative to the English Reformation, written

during the Reigns of King Henry VIII, etc._ Edited for the Parker

Society by the Rev. Hastings Robinson, D.D., F.S.A. Cambridge, 1847.

They are generally called “The Zurich Letters.”

[129] Anne Boleyn was very dark. Froude mentions her “blonde

tresses”--but they were really raven black; her eyes were black and

velvety. Elizabeth’s hair may have been black, but the habit of dyeing

the hair golden and Venice red was universal, even for children, at

this period. The magnificent portrait by Lucas de Heere at Hampton

Court represents the young Queen with dark hair and eyes.

[130] “Considerable confusion exists as to the identity of some of

these historical houses. Messrs. Wheatley and Cunningham, in their most

useful _London Past and Present_, seem to think that Sir Thomas More

resided in Chelsea Manor before Katherine Parr came to live there.

After the execution of More his estate at Chelsea was confiscated by

Henry VIII and given to the Marquess of Winchester. Chelsea New Manor,

which was inhabited by Katherine Parr and others,--and, under the

Commonwealth, by Bulstrode Whitelock,--came into the hands of the Duke

of Buckingham, who sold it to the Duke of Beaufort (hence Beaufort

Street). It was purchased in 1738 by Sir Hans Sloane, who pulled it

down in 1740. There is, moreover, local tradition, and even historical

evidence, that there were two distinct manors at Chelsea in the first

half of the sixteenth century--Chelsea New Manor, and Chelsea Old

Manor. Dr. King, in his MS. account of Chelsea, says that the ‘old

manor-house stood near the church.’ This is the house associated with

the deaths of Anne of Cleves and of the old Duchess of Northumberland.

He mentions another house, Chelsea New Manor, standing on that part

of Cheyne Walk which adjoins Winchester House, and extends as far as

‘Don Saltero’s coffee house.’ ‘This house was built by Henry VIII as

a nursery for his children, and here Katherine Parr lived.’ A picture

of it in Faulkner’s _Chelsea_ shows it not unlike St. James’s Palace.

Small turrets communicate with the chimneys; the windows are long

and high, and one of them has a Tudor arch on top. On the site of

the present Durham House, Durham Terrace, the town residence of Sir

Bruce and Lady Seton, there stood, not so many years ago, an ancient

wainscoted house with a fine staircase, rather mysteriously connected

by report with Jane Grey, who, according to a local tradition, lived

here before she was made queen. In the beginning of the century this

house was made a fashionable school for young ladies, but was pulled

down in 1860 to make room for the present mansion.”--Mr. Richard

Davey’s _Pageant of London_, vol. i. p. 379.

[131] Deposition of Mrs. Ashley in the Hatfield State Papers.

[132] There are several versions of this story. For instance, Henry

Clifford, a retainer of Jane Dormer, Duchess of Feria, says, in his MS.

Life of that lady (London, Burns & Oates, 1887) that “In King Edward’s

time what passed between the Lord Admiral, Sir Thomas Seymour, and her

[Elizabeth] Dr. Latimer preached in a sermon, and was a chief cause

that the Parliament condemned the Admiral. There was a bruit of a child

born and miserably destroyed, but could not be discovered whose it

was; only the report of the midwife, who was brought from her house

blindfold thither, and so returned, saw nothing in the house while she

was there, but candle light; only she said, it was the child of a very

fair young lady. There was a muttering of the Admiral and this lady,

who was then between fifteen and sixteen years of age.”

[133] Among the guests at Sudeley at this period, with whom Lady Jane

must have come into contact, was the Marchioness of Northampton, wife

of William Parr, the Queen’s only brother. This unfortunate lady, who

was closely allied with the Crown, had been so indiscreet that when her

marriage came to be dissolved her children were declared illegitimate.

She was living apart from her husband at the time of this visit to

Sudeley. The Tudor great ladies were distinctly “mixed” in their love

affairs, and Lady Northampton has been saddled with perhaps the worst

reputation of any woman of her time; yet the _Spanish Chronicle_,

which, as already remarked, contains much personal “back-stair” gossip,

reveals some curious facts about this lady’s behaviour, and shows

that a great part of the blame rests on the Marquis her husband, who,

on altogether insufficient evidence, accepted a story of her having

misconducted herself with a man-servant. See the _Chronicle of King

Henry VIII of England, etc._ (the _Spanish Chronicle_), chap. lxii. p.

137 _et seq._, translated by Major Martin Hume.

[134] Inventory of furniture and other goods at Sudeley Castle. Dated

1547-8.

[135] See Latimer’s Sermons in Strype’s _Memorials_.

[136] Haynes’ State Papers, p. 104.

[137] Robert Huycke, or Huicke, was an M.A. of Oxford. He was divorced

from his wife in 1546, and later married again. In 1550 Edward VI made

him his physician extraordinary at the munificent salary of £50 per

annum. Huycke was greatly in favour with Elizabeth, and she gave him a

house near Enfield. He died near Charing Cross in (it is believed) 1581.

[138] This interesting account shows how many Catholic customs

still survived--the offering here mentioned is evidently a relic

of the Offertory at the Requiem Mass, otherwise explained; and the

candles also are distinctly a part of Roman Catholic ritual, though

Coverdale’s account of their signification is not altogether that

given by Catholics. The _Te Deum_ is no longer sung or said at either

Catholic or Anglican funerals. The fact that the writer of this account

mentions that the whole service was done in one morning, shows that the

brevity of the new form of worship was somewhat of a novelty to people

accustomed to the long series of Dirges and Masses accompanying burials

in Catholic times. Sir Walter Besant says, on p. 154 of his _London

in the Time of the Tudors_, “Before the coming of the Puritans the

funerals continued with much of the old (Catholic) ritual.”

[139] Froude says, “The Lady Frances, now that the Queen was dead,

no longer thought the Admiral’s house a becoming residence for her

daughter and sent for her.” The Lady Frances did nothing of the sort;

Sudeley himself first suggested the Lady Jane’s removal to her parents’

custody.

[140] Hatfield MSS.

[141] Hatfield MSS.

[142] Hatfield MSS.

[143] Sir William Sharington or Sherington was one of the most

benighted frauds of this age, albeit a very successful one. He was

born about 1495, and was of good Norfolk family. In 1546 he became

vice-treasurer of the Bristol Mint, being created a Knight of the Bath

at Edward VI’s coronation. Once installed in this office, he made a

sort of “corner” in West-Country Church plate, which he bought cheap

from the Somerset villagers, and coined into “testons” or shillings

of two-thirds alloy. By this means, and by shearing and clipping

coins, falsifying the account books of the Mint, the originals of

which he destroyed, and by other cheating, he managed to amass £4000

(an enormous sum in those days) in three years. Probably fearing that

Sudeley, whose friend he was, might reveal these affairs to his brother

the Protector, Sir William lent the Lord Admiral money, placed the

Bristol Mint at his disposal, and, as we shall see, helped him in his

nefarious schemes. He bought manors in Wiltshire from the King for

£2808; but he was arrested on 19th January 1548-9. He was questioned in

the Tower, but denied the charge of conniving at Sudeley’s intrigues.

In February, however, he turned traitor to the Lord Admiral and

admitted all, throwing himself on the King’s mercy. He was pardoned in

acts of 30th December 1549 and of 13th January 1550. He now somewhat

settled down, buying back with a part of the purchase-money given

by the French for Boulogne, which money had got into his hands, his

confiscated manors and lands, some of which he presented to the

King--likely enough the reason why Latimer, in a sermon preached

before His Majesty in 1551, described this admitted cheat as “an

honest gentilman and one that God loveth”(!!). Sharington got himself

appointed Sheriff of Wiltshire, and died in 1551. There is a portrait

of him by Holbein in the Royal Library at Windsor. He was married three

times, but left no children.

[144] _Vide_ Dorset’s deposition in the Hatfield MSS.

[145] Nothing could be more forcible as a proof of the manner in

which Sudeley, in the style of the Duke of Northumberland at a later

period, threatened and bullied any who dared to oppose him, than the

following story. About the time that he was endeavouring to supplant

his brother in Edward’s affections, he tried to induce the boy-King

to write a letter for him to the Parliament, which was to meet in the

November of that year. It was suggested that Parliament might not

grant his demands; whereupon, said “my Lord of Sudeley,” “I will make

[it, if that be so] the blackest Parliament that has ever been seen in

England”--“blackest” perhaps meaning “the most humbled and depressed”

Parliament ever seen, which shows that Sudeley was sufficiently

self-confident to believe that he could coerce whole bodies of

administrators at his will.

[146] Sudeley’s nefarious assistant, Sharington, Sir Thomas Parry, John

Fowler, and Mrs. Ashley were all imprisoned in the Tower at the same

time as Sudeley.

[147] Sudeley’s connection and connivance at the frauds perpetrated by

Sir William Sharington was also made a count of his indictment.

[148] Queen Elizabeth stated at a later date that “the Admiral’s life

would have been saved had not the Council dissuaded the Protector from

granting him an interview.” In face of these statements, there would

seem to be little doubt that the Protector, if left to himself, might

have visited a less severe sentence on his brother.

The Protector’s wife evidently bore in her time a very bad reputation

for intriguing and interference, for Hayward (_Life of Edward VI_,

p. 82) says the troubles between Sudeley and his brother were mainly

due to the quarrel (already mentioned) between Katherine Parr and her

Ladyship--“to the unquiet vanity of a mannish, or rather a devilish

woman [Lady Somerset] ... for many imperfections intolerable, but for

pride monstrous.”

[149] As to the unfortunate Seymour’s infant child, we learn that after

his death it was carried to Somerset’s house at Sion, whence, after

a short time, it was conveyed to the Dowager Duchess of Suffolk, at

Grimsthorpe, in Lincolnshire. She had been at one time the dearest

friend of Katherine Parr. Here the child had a governess, Mrs.

Aglyonby, and was also attended by a nurse, two maids, and many other

servants, in accordance with her high rank. The Duke of Somerset had

promised that a certain pension should be settled on his niece, and

that her nursery plate and furniture, which had been brought up from

Sudeley to Sion House, should be sent after her to Grimsthorpe. He

pledged his word on this point to the Duchess of Somerset’s gentleman,

Mr. Bertie, who subsequently married his mistress, the Dowager Duchess

of Suffolk; but the promise was never redeemed. The Duchess herself did

not show much maternal tenderness to the child of her quondam friend.

In the second year of Edward VI she wrote a curious letter to Cecil,

begging him to relieve her of the guardianship of the child of the late

Queen. She says: “The late Queen’s child hath lain, and yet doth lay

in my house with her company about her, wholly in my charge.” Then she

accuses Somerset of not sending money for the child’s maintenance, and

adds: “And that ye may better understand that I cry not before I am

pricked, I send you Mistress Glensborough’s [the governess’s] letter

unto me, who, with her maids, nourice, and others daily call upon me

for their wages, whose voices mine ears may hardly bear, but my coffers

much worse.” She declares she is ill, and hopes that the child will be

removed at an early date. There is a very long list in the Lansdowne

MSS of plate, hangings, and even musical instruments, belonging to

this child, which the Lord Protector took and never restored. Cecil

paid little attention to the Duchess’s application. In all probability

he never answered her letter at all. At a later date she wrote to the

Marquis of Northampton, the infant’s uncle, and begged him to receive

her. He behaved even more heartlessly than the Duchess, declaring he

would neither receive the child nor her attendants at his house. Thus

Katherine Parr’s own brother and the Duchess of Somerset, her old

friend, whose life she had actually saved on one occasion from the fury

of Henry VIII, besides spending considerable sums out of her private

means to publish the ungrateful woman’s devotional writings, actually

refused food and shelter to her orphaned child. It is impossible now

to fully trace the child’s eventful history. Strype asserts that she

died young, but there is much reason to believe that she lived and

married Sir Edward Bushel, a gentleman of family, who was in attendance

upon Queen Anne of Denmark, the Consort of James I. His only daughter

married Silas Johnson, and their daughter married into the Lawson

family, an old Suffolk house, which until quite recently possessed a

number of Tudor relics, which, their proprietors alleged and amply

proved, originally belonged to their ancestress, the daughter of

Katherine Parr and the Admiral Seymour, a baby doubtless often caressed

by the gentle Jane Grey. At the close of the seventeenth century some

hundreds of papers belonging to the Lawson family were unfortunately

destroyed by a thoughtless widow. However, an existing copy of the

family pedigree proves almost beyond doubt that the Lawson version of

the fate of Seymour’s daughter was accurate in every detail. One thing

is evident, that the infant suffered a good deal of neglect in her

childhood, and that she was passed on from one unwilling relative to

another, until at last some kindly soul took compassion on her desolate

state, and brought about a match between her and Sir Edward Bushel.

[150] The letter in which Ab Ulmis does this will be found in the

Parker Society’s edition of the Reformers’ letters, vol. ii. p. 406,

and is dated 30th April 1550. It simply overflows with flattery of

the Marquis, who is described as “the thunderbolt and terror of the

Papists, that is, a fierce and terrible adversary.... He is much

looked-up to by the King. He is learned and speaks Latin with elegance.

He is the protector of all students, and the refuge of foreigners. He

maintains at his own house the most learned men; he has a daughter,

about fourteen years of age, who is pious and accomplished beyond what

can be expressed; to whom I hope shortly to present your book on the

holy marriage of Christians, which I have almost entirely translated

into Latin. You may adopt this form of dedication to the book: ‘To

Henry Grey, Marquis of Dorset, Baron Ferrers of Groby, Harrington,

Bonville and Astley, one of His Majesty’s Privy Council, and my most

honoured lord, &c. &c.’” So far as can be discovered, neither Jane Grey

nor the Marquis her father wrote to thank Bullinger for this work, no

letter to this effect being extant.

In the December of the following year (1551) the Marquis of Dorset

wrote to Bullinger from London (_Zurich Letters_, Parker Society, vol.

i. p. 3) to thank him for “the book which you have published under the

auspices of my name,” but this volume was one of Bullinger’s _Decades_,

dedicated to his Lordship in the preceding March.

[151] _Zurich Letters_ (Parker Society), vol. i. p. 6.

[152] The above-quoted Latin letter to Henry Bullinger was written when

she was only fourteen.

[153] See note at end of this Chapter.

[154] A very fine portrait of this lady was formerly in the possession

of the late Martin Colnaghi, Esq. It represents a handsome matron of

fifty, dressed in the costume of the period. She has regular features,

light eyes, and auburn hair. The picture is dated 1552, the year of the

Suffolk family’s last visit to Walden. Lady Audley’s only child married

that Duke of Norfolk who was executed under Elizabeth for his attempt

to assist Mary Stuart to escape from Tutbury Castle.

[155] The gay festivities at Tylsey were a matter of some annoyance

to Aylmer, and to the chaplain at Bradgate, Haddon, who feared their

distracting effect on the minds of their pupils, Jane and Katherine

Grey.

[156] _Zurich Letters_, vol. ii. pp. 447-8.

[157] Ulmer wrote to Conrad Pellican in the summer of 1552 (_Zurich

Letters_, p. 451) that “Our Duke (Suffolk) has been staying for the

last few days at an estate here in the neighbourhood of Oxford, which

has come to him by inheritance from the late Duke of Suffolk.” The

“late Duke of Suffolk” refers to the Lady Frances’s half-brother, who

has been already frequently mentioned. Ulmer continues: “I waited upon

him and paid my respects, according to the custom of the University.”

Edward VI being at that time in the neighbourhood, Jane was presented

to him, and “received with great favour.”

[158] Mr. H. Sydney Grazebrook, in his interesting outline on the

subject of Northumberland’s origin, in the _Herald and Genealogical

Review_, vol. v., 1870, thinks John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, was

really descended from the Dudleys of Sedgley and Tipton, a member of

which ancient house married the widow of John Sutton, Lord of Dudley,

in Henry VI’s time. On the other hand, Dugdale says his grandfather was

a carpenter and “very base-born.”

Sir Philip Sydney in his curious tract in defence of Robert, Earl

of Leicester, written in answer to “Leycester’s Commonwealth,”--a

scurrilous attack on Queen Elizabeth’s famous favourite,--entirely

denies the aspersions cast upon the honour of a family with which

he was closely allied, his father having married the Duke of

Northumberland’s daughter, Mary. He contends that to his certain

knowledge the Duke was a man of legitimate descent from the ancient

house of Sutton of Dudley, and moreover connected with the greatest

nobility in England. “How can a man descended from such great Houses

as Nevill, Talbot, Beauchamp and Lisley, be deemed otherwise than

honourable and noble?” He continues: “A railing writer has said of

Octavius Augustus, his father was a silversmith; another Italian

declares (oh! the falsehood) that Hugh Capet was descended of a

butcher who was his father. Of divers English names of the best,

foolish dreamers have said one was the descendant of a miller, another

of a shoemaker, another of a furrier, and forsooth yet another of a

fiddler!--foolish lies! and by any who have ever tasted of antiquities,

known so to be, yet those however had luck to treat with honest

railers--for they were not left fatherless clean; but we as if we were

of Ducalion’s brood, were made out of stones--they have left us no

ancestors from whence we came. Edmund Dudley was the father of this

younger brother of the same Lord Dudley, and would have been Lord

Dudley, if the Lord Dudley had died without heirs. His father was

married to the daughter and heir of Bramshot in Sussex. This Dudley’s

father is buried with his wife at Arundel Castle and left land to

Edmund Dudley and so to the Duke my grandfather, in Sussex.” Philip

Sydney ought certainly to have known the true descent of his family,

especially since they were to acquire the title of Leicester from the

Dudleys.

[159] It will be remembered that the Duke of Suffolk filched the title

of Lisle from the Lady Elizabeth Grey, but on his relinquishing it, it

was given to her eldest son, John Dudley.

[160] On this expedition Somerset carried out to the letter the

instructions given him by Henry VIII, which will be found in a document

in the State Papers. Nero might have written them. They run as follows:

“Put all to fire and sword, burn Edinburgh Town, and raze and deface

it, when you have sacked it, and gotten what you can out of it.... Beat

down and overthrow the castles, sack Holyrood House, and as many towns

and villages about Edinburgh as you conveniently can. Sack Leith, and

burn and subvert it and all the rest, putting man, woman and child to

fire and sword, without exception, when any resistance shall be made

against you; and this done, pass over to Fife-land and extend all

extremities and destruction in all towns and villages whereunto you

may reach ...; not forgetting ... so to spoil and turn upside down the

Cardinal’s [Beaton] town of St. Andrew’s, as the upper stone may be the

nether, and not one stick stand upon another, sparing no creature alive

within the same, specially such as, either in friendship or blood, be

allied to the Cardinal.”

[161] For a further account of this campaign, see the dispatches of the

Seymours in the State Papers for the reign of Henry VIII; and for the

second expedition, those for the reign of Edward VI.

The most heinous crime of all perpetrated on the second expedition--a

crime which damaged Somerset’s reputation to the greatest extent--was

the slaughter of twelve young lads under fifteen years of age, the

children of Scottish horsemen recruited by Lennox, who were held as

hostages for the good behaviour of their parents. Lennox and Lord

Wharton had the poor boys hanged for their fathers’ disaffection; only

one escaped, to become eventually known in the story of Mary Stuart as

Lord Maxwell of Herries. A common soldier to whom he was handed over

by Lennox, and who was sick of the carnage, saved the lad at the risk

of his own life. Somerset rewarded Lennox for his services in this

campaign, and wrote to him “right merrily.”

[162] See documents dealing with the state of the prisons under Edward

VI in the Record Office.

[163] See Haylin; Hayward; and Hume, vol. iii. (folio edition) p. 328.

[164] John Strype says: “About this time [reign of Edward VI] the

nation grew infamous for the crime of adultery. It began among the

nobility and better classes, and so spread at length among the inferior

sort of people. Noblemen would frequently put away their wives and

marry others, if they liked another woman better, or were like[ly]

to obtain wealth by her. And they would sometimes pretend their

former wives to be false to them, and so be divorced, and marry again

those whom they might fancy. These adulteries and divorces increased

very much; yea, and marrying again without any divorce at all, it

became a great scandal to the Realm and to the religion professed in

it.”--Strype’s _Memorials of Archbishop Cranmer_, vol. i. pp. 293, 294.

[165] Robert Ket was a comparatively rich man, and to some extent

a landowner, by reason of which he came into connection with the

nobleman who afterwards had him killed--Northumberland. Ket bought

Wymondham Abbey at the Dissolution, and also possessed a large part

of Wymondham Town, and certain rich lands between that place and the

royal manorhouse of Stanfield Hall. These lands had been bestowed on

the brotherhood of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem--an offshoot of the Order

of Hospitallers of St. John, who devoted their time to the relief

of the sick poor--by Queen Adelicia, second wife of Henry I. Later

on, Ket sold these ex-monastic lands to John Dudley, afterwards Duke

of Northumberland--the suppressor of the Ket rebellion! Blomefield

(_Norfolk_, article on “Wyndham or Wymondham”) indeed attributes the

cause of that outbreak to a disagreement between the Ket brothers and

Northumberland over these lands. “John Dudley,” says he, “bought some

of these charity lands of Ket the tanner. As for payment, it was done

in his own particular mode.... The two brothers (Ket), finding Dudley

meant to pull down the magnificent tower, the preservation of which was

most dear to their affections, raised the Norfolk poor, whom extreme

misery had driven to discontent, and Wymondham became the nucleus of

the great Norfolk rebellion.” It is much more likely that indignation

at the general state of things, social and religious, under Somerset’s

Protectorship, was at the bottom of this popular rising, and not mere

platonic affection for an ancient tower.

[166] William Ket’s remains were given “a dip in boiling pitch,” and

then hanged, in their monastic dress, in chains. They continued, like a

ghastly scarecrow, to ornament Wymondham Church until 1603, when they

began to fall, bone by bone, the last piece coming away on the very day

of Queen Elizabeth’s death, 25th March 1603.

[167] Printed in Tytler’s _England under Edward VI and Mary_, vol. i.

p. 205.

[168] Mr. Pollard says that Herbert’s private park had been ploughed

up, whilst Russell “had been reprimanded for exceeding his instructions

in his severity towards the rebels.” It is interesting to learn, by the

way, that Somerset did make some effort to check the butcheries in the

West.

[169] In making all these warlike preparations Somerset was acting on

the mere premise--since Petre had never returned to Hampton Court,

and he had no news from the metropolis--that Warwick contemplated

some sort of _coup d’état_; for no _open_ act of violence had been

perpetrated. The revolution of 1549, which practically placed Warwick

in the Protectorship and Somerset (temporarily) in the Tower, proved

successful, as we shall presently see, but it was an entirely bloodless

victory.

[170] In addition to his incipient consumption, the poor little King

would seem to have caught a cold on his original journey to Hampton

Court. The _Literary Remains_ say, “The Kinge’s Majesty is much

troubled with a great rewme; taken partly while riding hither in the

night” (vol. i. p. cxxxi).

[171] This nobleman was created Earl of Warwick on his father’s

assumption of the title of Duke of Northumberland, and under that title

was imprisoned in the Tower, which has been the cause of some confusion

to students.

[172] 9th May 1550.

[173] This letter is still extant, and seems to point to a possibility

that Lady Seymour’s mysterious retirement may have been due to her

perseverance in the old faith.

[174] At the same time the Marquis of Dorset was made Duke of Suffolk;

Paulet, Earl of Wiltshire, was raised to the Marquisate of Winchester;

Sir William Herbert, Master of the Horse, was made Earl of Pembroke;

and Mr. William Cecil, Mr. John Cheke, the King’s tutor, Henry Sidney,

and Henry Nevil, were knighted.

[175] The day following the Duke’s arrest, that hot virago, Anne

Stanhope, his Duchess, together with Mr. and Mrs. Crane, Sir Miles

Partridge, Sir Thomas Arundel, Sir Thomas Holcroft, Sir Michael

Stanhope, and others, were also arrested and conveyed to the Tower,

where the Duchess remained a prisoner until the accession of Queen Mary.

[176] Wriothesley’s _Chronicle_, ii. 63.

[177] Nevertheless, the death of Somerset seems to have rankled in the

boy-King’s mind. On one occasion long afterwards, it is said, when

Edward was enjoyed a match of archery with Northumberland and the

King made a remarkably fine shot, the Duke exclaimed, “Well aimed, my

liege.” “But,” replied the young King sarcastically, “you aimed better

when you shot off the head of my uncle Somerset!” Which proves that His

Majesty fully realised Northumberland’s share in that matter.

[178] There was, of course, the usual crop of infant prodigies and

monsters which followed as portents after every notable decapitation. A

dolphin was caught in the Thames; “a child with two heads was born at

Middleton in Oxfordshire; but although it had four arms it had only a

leg, it caughte cold and died,” which was certainly fortunate for the

nerves of the Middletonians.

[179] We find instances of this in the enthusiastic joy of the

people at his suspected acquittal, in their excitement on thinking

he was reprieved, and the fact that after the execution many dipped

handkerchiefs and cloths in his blood, “so that they might have

some token to preserve of the memory of a man who had always been

their friend.” It is said that when, some nineteen months later,

Northumberland was going to execution in his turn, a woman shook one

of these handkerchiefs stained with the blood of Somerset in his

face, crying, “Behold the blood of that worthy man, that good uncle

of that excellent King, which, shed by thy malicious practices, does

now apparently revenge itself on thee.” This is also a proof that the

commonalty clearly understood how great had been Northumberland’s share

in bringing about Somerset’s destruction.

[180] _Zurich Letters_, No. cccxlvii.

[181] One gets a very fair idea of the improvement in Northumberland’s

position after the death of the Duke of Somerset from the letters of

the Swiss and other Reformers. Ab Ulmis, for instance, tells Bullinger

that “He [Northumberland] almost alone, with the Duke of Suffolk,

governs the State, and supports and upholds it on his own shoulders.

He is manifestly the thunderbolt and terror of the Papists.” He

goes on to say that when Somerset licensed Mary to have Mass in her

apartments, Northumberland said angrily, “The Mass is either of God or

of the Devil; if of God, it is but right that all our people should

be allowed to go to it; but if it is not of God, as we are all taught

out of the Scriptures, why then should not the voice of this fury be

equally proscribed to all?”... “Therefore,” says Ab Ulmis, “as soon

as he had succeeded into his office, Northumberland immediately took

care that the mass-priests of Mary should be thrown into prison,

whilst to herself he entirely interdicted the use of the Mass and of

Popish books.”--_Zurich Letters_, ii. 439. No wonder Mary did not love

Northumberland!

[182] The movements of Lady Jane from January 1552 onwards appear

to have been as follows. In January 1552 she was alternately at

Tylsey and at Audley; later in the spring of the same year she was at

Bradgate; in July she went to Oxford, and afterwards to Princess Mary

at Newhall. After this she went with her family, on some unknown date

in 1552, probably in the autumn, to this ex-monastery at Sheen, where

she continued to reside until she came up to London, to (most likely)

Suffolk House, Westminster, for her marriage with Guildford Dudley, in

the spring of 1553. She perhaps spent five days after this at Durham

House, Strand, and then went to Chelsea Manor, now a residence of

the Duke of Northumberland. Thence she went to Sion with Lady Sidney

(as we shall presently relate in detail) on 9th July (1553); on the

following day, from Sion to Westminster Palace, then (the same day)

to Durham House to dine, and lastly to the Tower, which she reached

in the afternoon, and did not leave again, being executed in February

1554 within its precincts. Some writers have fallen into the error of

thinking Lady Jane left the Tower at the close of her nine days’ reign,

at the same time as her father, the Duke of Suffolk. It is not so. From

the day Jane entered the fortress (10th July 1553) to the day of her

death (12th February 1554) she never left it, except for the few hours

of her trial at Guildhall.

[183] The Priory of Sheen was finally suppressed by Henry VIII in 1539,

or rather, it surrendered its estates to the Crown about the time of

the passing of the Act for the Dissolution of the Monasteries. Most of

the ex-monks of this house died in prison in great misery. In 1540 the

abandoned monastery was granted to Edward, Earl of Hertford, brother of

Jane Seymour, who afterwards became the famous Duke of Somerset. After

his attainder in 1551 it was granted to Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk,

Jane’s father. The ruins of this building were visible as late as the

middle of the eighteenth century. For further details about this house

see Chancellor’s _History of Richmond_, p. 71.

[184] Syon has interest for yet another reason, for the nuns to whom

it had formerly belonged, emigrated to Flanders in Henry VIII’s time,

to return to England early in the last century, and thus form the only

unbroken community of pre-Reformation _religieuses_ in England.

[185] The _History of Queen Jane_ says of Suffolk that “For as he had

few commendable Qualities, he was guilty of no vices.”

[186] The negotiations for this marriage got so far that Sir Andrew,

who was at this time Master of the Wardrobe, actually ordered certain

splendid garments to be taken out of it for himself and the Lady

Margaret to wear at the wedding; and this, needless to say, with

the consent of Edward VI. Cumberland, however, who approved of this

proposal no more than he did the other, removed himself and the rest

of his family as far from London as he could, and thereby frustrated

Northumberland’s matrimonial scheme, leaving poor Sir Andrew to cut a

by no means dignified figure. Lady Margaret eventually married the Earl

of Derby.

[187] This story will be found in a MS. among the Harleian Collection

(No. 353).

[188] As for “having at the Crown,” as a matter of fact if the

Cumberland marriage had taken place it would have put six persons

between Guildford and any chance of his sharing regal honours; or else

the Duke would have had to find some plea for setting aside not only

the Princesses Mary and Elizabeth, but also the Duchess of Suffolk and

her three daughters; this could only have been achieved by urging the

irregularity of the Brandon and Dorset marriages, both of which, as

we have seen, were strictly speaking illegal, for in both cases the

husbands married again before their first marriages had been formally

dissolved, either by the ecclesiastical or the secular courts.

[189] On the death of Somerset, Lady Cromwell, widow of Thomas

Cromwell, offered to take charge of his four daughters (which would

have included the Lady Anne Seymour), the Duchess being, as we have

said, imprisoned. Whether these ladies were in fact placed in Lady

Cromwell’s charge has never been ascertained.

[190] Baoardo, a Venetian who was in England in 1553-6, wrote a

historical pamphlet on the events he beheld. Edited by the celebrated

Luca Cortile, it was printed and published by the Accademia di Venezia,

in 1558, and has been frequently reprinted.

[191] Ascham has told us how bitterly Lady Jane complained of her

parents’ brutal treatment of her even when there was little cause that

they should ill-use their daughter so, and we may easily imagine their

behaviour when they had a more serious complaint against her.

[192] The only portrait of Guildford Dudley which the writer has ever

seen is that at Madresfield attributed to Lucas van Heere, who could

not, however, have painted it, as at the time of Guildford’s execution

he was only seven years of age. There is another objection to this

picture; it is dated 1566, and Guildford was decapitated in 1553.

Still the inscription may have been painted in at a later date, and

the tradition that it is a portrait of Lady Jane’s unfortunate consort

may be correct. But the costume is more like that of the time of James

I, so large a ruff not being worn in Guildford’s day. There is also at

Madresfield a portrait of Lady Jane Grey attributed to Lucas van Heere.

This is far more beautifully painted than its companion, and is in all

probability by Luca Penni, who painted the alleged portrait of Lady

Jane now in the possession of Lord Spencer at Althorpe, to which it

bears a certain resemblance, both in costume and features.

[193] Nevertheless, Heylyn says (in his _Reformation_) that “of all

Dudley’s brood he (Guildford) had nothing of his father in him.”

Fuller (_Worthies_) calls him “a goodly and (for aught I know to the

contrary) a godly gentleman, whose worst fault was that he was son to

an ambitious father.”

[194] The Northumberlands seem to have been in close touch with several

Spaniards. It was due to the intercession of a Spanish noble that the

Duchess obtained her liberty; and it was to the Duchess of Alva that

she bequeathed her pet green parrot.

[195] The exact date of Jane’s marriage is doubtful. Historians assign

various dates ranging from the beginning of May to the beginning of

June. Stowe contents himself with saying “three notable marriages took

place at Durham Place in May 1553.” Giulio Raviglio Rosso of Ferrara,

who obtained his information from Giovanni Michele, Venetian Ambassador

to England, 1554-7, and from Federigo Badoardo, Venetian Ambassador to

Charles V, speaks of “_Nelle feste dello spirito santo, le nozze molto

splendide e reali, e con molto concorso di populo et de’ principali

del regno_.” That is, “On the feasts of the Holy Ghost (_i.e._ Whit

Sunday), the very grand and regal espousals (took place), and with a

great attendance of the people and of the leaders of the kingdom.”

Hutchinson (_History of Durham_, vol. i. 430) says positively 21st

May; and this agrees with the “_feste_” (_i.e._ “feasts” or within the

octave) of Whit Sunday. Pollino also says it occurred on that day.

Strype (_Ecclesiastical Memorials_, book ii. p. 111) gives more details

than most writers. He says: “And a little before this time were great

preparations making for the match (_which was celebrated in May_) of

the Lady Jane with Guildford, Northumberland’s son, and some other

marriages that were to accompany that; as the Earl of Pembroke’s eldest

son with the Lady Katherine ... etc.”

The 21st of May was only six weeks and four days before the declining

Edward VI breathed his last (on 6th July).

Noailles, who is often very vague about his dates, fixes this triple

wedding as taking place in July!

[196] Lord Herbert’s marriage was not consummated on account of the

youth of the parties. He relinquished the hand of the Lady Katherine

Grey, and in 1561 she bestowed it on the Earl of Hertford.

[197] “And for the more solemnity and splendour of this day, the

master of the wardrobe had divers warrants, to deliver out of the

King’s wardrobe much rich apparel and jewels: as, to deliver to the

Lady Frances, Duchess of Suffolk, to the Duchess of Northumberland,

to the Lady Marchioness of Northampton, to the Lady Jane, daughter to

the Duke of Suffolk, and to the Lord Guildford Dudley, for wedding

apparel; (which were certain parcels of tissues, and cloth of gold

and silver, which had been the late Duke’s and Duchess’s of Somerset,

forfeited to the King;) and to the Lady Katherine, daughter to the

said Duke of Suffolk, and the Lord Herbert, for wedding apparel, and

to the Lord Hastings, and Lady Katherine, daughter to the Duke of

Northumberland, for wedding apparel, certain parcels of stuff and

jewels. Dated from Greenwich, the 24th of April. A warrant also there

came to the wardrobe, to deliver to the King’s use, for the finishing

certain chairs for his Majesty, six yards of green velvet, and six

yards of green satin; another, to deliver to the Lady Mary’s Grace, his

Majesty’s sister, a table diamond, with pearl pendant at the same; and

to the Duchess of Northumberland, one square tablet of gold, enamelled

black, with a clock, late parcels of the Duchess of Somerset’s jewels.

And lastly, another warrant to Sir Andrew Dudley, to take for the Lady

Margaret Clifford, daughter of the Earl of Cumberland, and to himself,

for their wedding apparel, sundry silks and jewels: this last warrant

bearing date June 8.”--Strype’s _Memorials_, pp. 111-2, book ii.

[198] The only description of the three weddings is that from the pen

of Giulio Raviglio Rosso, who lived at a later date. See the English

translation of the Venetian State Papers.

[199] Contemporary account of an English wedding in the sixteenth

century quoted by Howard in his _Life of Jane Grey_.

[200] The description of this head-dress corresponds with the very

beautiful and picturesque one she wears in the picture, reputed to be

her portrait, now in the possession of Earl Beauchamp at Madresfield.

[201] There would seem to be some reason to think that Stanfield Hall,

which was often visited by the Plantagenet kings, was part of the

monastic lands purchased by Robert Ket, leader of the famous rebellion.

His brother’s remains, hanging on Wymondham Church, were visible from

its windows. After Lady Jane’s death, Stanfield Hall went to the

Crown. There is no express mention, however, in any existing documents

connected with the Hall, of Jane Grey’s possession of this manor, and

Blomefield was unable to trace it. The tradition that it was part of

Jane’s dower rests on a statement by Strype. Perhaps it was amongst

the lands bought from Ket by the Duke of Northumberland, as already

related; or else it was taken from him by force after the rebellion.

[202] Pollino relates some personal circumstances omitted by Baoardo.

The former, however, mentions the violence used to Jane by the Duke

of Suffolk, when she refused to marry Guildford, on the grounds of a

previous “contraction.” This is an additional proof of the genuineness

of the letter as rendered by Pollino; for Jane, from filial respect,

does not refer to her father’s cruelty.

[203] Several of these letters are included in the second volume of

Tytler’s _England under Edward VI and Mary_.

[204] Table showing the heirs female in remainder to the Crown, named

in the will of Henry VIII and the “Devise” of Edward VI:--

King Henry the Seventh and Queen Elizabeth of York,

had issue

|

+-------------------------+-----------------------+

| | |

King Henry VIII, Margaret, Queen of Scots, Mary, Queen of

father of, grandmother of France, mother of,

by Katherine by Anne Mary Stuart, and by Charles Brandon,

of Aragon, Boleyn, great-grandmother of Duke of Suffolk,

| | King James the First. |

| | |

| +------+ +------------+-+

| | | |

| | The Lady Frances, The Lady

The Lady Mary, The Lady Elizabeth, Duchess of Eleanor,

æt. 38 in 1553. æt. 20 in 1553. Suffolk, Countess of

æt. 36 in 1553. Cumberland,

| d. 1547.

+-----------------+-----------------+--+ |

| | | |

The Lady Jane, The Lady Katherine, The Lady Mary, The Lady

æt. 17 in to the Earl of to Thomas Margaret,

1553, m. to Hertford, issue. Skye, or Countess of

Guildford Keyes, Clifford,

Dudley, no issue. issue.

no issue.

[205] Antoine de Noailles informs us in his Notes that the Lady Frances

was very sore over the way in which her succession to the Crown was set

aside by King Edward in favour of her daughter Jane; and the Duke of

Suffolk had some difficulty in inducing her to accept the situation.

[206] John Terentianus, writing to John ab Ulmis under date of 29th

November 1553, says (_Zurich Letters_, p. 365): “A few days before his

death the King made a will _at the instigation of Northumberland_, by

which he disinherited both his sisters.”

[207] _Cranmer’s Works_ (Parker Society), vol. ii. p. 442.

[208] That is to say, Princess Mary, at that time only a Schismatic,

or “Henryite,” might suddenly become a Roman Catholic, and abolish the

Reformed religion. It should be remembered that Mary was not openly in

communion with Rome until about three months after her accession to the

throne.

[209] The reader will find the text of the “Devise” at the end of the

next chapter.

[210] Northumberland, in fact, tyrannised over everybody: Noailles

(_Ambassades Françaises_, ii. 80), says that “_toutes ces choses_

[Jane’s failure to keep the throne] _sont advenues plus pour la grande

hayne que l’on porte à icelluy duc_ [Northumberland], _qui a voulu

tenir un chacun en craincte, que pour l’amitié que l’on a à ladicte

royne_ [Mary].”

[211] The original of this letter is among the State Papers.

[212] The author’s researches lead him to think that this must be

the correct date of Edward’s death; though different dates are given

by some writers. Machyn, Aubrey, and Wriothesley incline to the 6th

of July; but, on the other hand, Burke (_Tudor Portraits_, vol. ii.

p. 398) says it was the 7th of that month, and the writer of the

article on Edward VI in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ (vol. vii. p.

686) declares that the King died on 4th July! Aubrey says the 6th

was a Thursday; and Burke, that the King died at nine p.m. These

discrepancies are most likely due to the fact that the King’s death was

kept a secret for some days.

[213] Dr. George Owen was probably the most distinguished physician of

his day. He received honours at Merton College. He attended at Edward

VI’s birth, when he is said untruly to have performed the Cæsarian

operation; he afterwards attended that Prince throughout his life, and

was well treated by him. Amongst the grants made to Owen were Bewley

Abbey, Cumnor Place, Gadstow Abbey, and the chapel of St. Giles,

Oxford. He died on 18th October 1558, and was buried at St. Stephen’s

Walbrook, his funeral being thus recorded by Machyn (_Diary_, p. 177):

“The xxiiij day of October was bered at sant Stevyn in walbroke master

doctur Owyn, phesyssyon, with a ij haroldes of armes and a cote armur

and penon of armes, and iij dosen of armes, and ij whyt branchys, and

xx torchys; and xx pore men had gownes, and ther dener; and iiij gret

tapurs; and the morow masse, and master Harpfheld dyd pryche; and after

a gret dener.” It is strange that Edward’s favourite physician should

have been a “Papist.” Dr. Owen must also have been on good terms with

“Bluff King Hal,” for he received £100 by that monarch’s will. The

second son and the daughter-in-law of Dr. Owen were living at Cumnor

Place in 1560, when the mysterious death of Amy Robsart took place

there.

[214] But of course their arrest was for having placed Jane on the

throne, not for murdering the King. This is a manifest error on the

part of Burcher.

[215] _Zurich Letters_, p. 684.

[216] The belief that the King had been poisoned was, however, very

widespread. Another Reformer, Terentianus, says that it was not only

rumoured, but there were not wanting “many and strong suspicions”; he

attributes it to “the Papists.” Machyn, the diarist, fell into the same

error as Burcher of thinking Northumberland’s arrest due to his share

in Edward VI’s “murder.” He says: “The vj day of July, as they say,

dessessyd [deceased] the nobull kyng Edward the vj. and the vij yere of

ys rayne, and sune and here to the nobull kyng Henry the viij; and he

was poyssoned, as evere body says, wher now, thanks be unto God, ther

be mony of the false trayturs browt to ther end, and j trust in God

that mor shall folow as thay may be spyd owt” (p. 35). Osorius, Bishop

of Sylva (Portugal), wrote to Elizabeth when she was on the throne,

that her brother had died of poison.

[217] Sir Robert Throckmorton, Sir Nicholas’s elder brother, whom she

much preferred to the latter.

[218] Some historians have represented the warning as coming to Mary

by way of the Earl of Arundel; but the statement that it came from the

Throckmortons is confirmed by Jardine’s _State Trials_ and Cole’s MS.

vol. xl., British Museum. There is a very curious account of the whole

proceeding in rough verse by Sir Nicholas Throckmorton himself, of

which we give two verses:--

“Mourning, from Greenwich did I straight depart,

To London, to a house which bore our name.

My brethren guessèd by my heavie hearte,

The King was dead, and I confess’d the same:

The hushing of his death I didd unfolde,

Their meaning to proclaim Queene Jane I tolde.

* * * * *

Wherefore from four of us the newes was sent.

How that her brother hee was dead and gone;

In post her goldsmith then from London went,

By whom the message was dispatcht anon.

Shee asked, ‘If wee knewe it certainlie?’

Who said, ‘Sir Nicholas knew it verilie.’”

See _The Chronicle of Queen Jane and Queen Mary_, p. 2; also Bishop

Goodman’s _Memoirs_, p. 161.

[219] Wriothesley says: “Jane came to the Tower from Greenwich,” which

is evidently a mistake. She certainly did not proceed from Westminster

to Greenwich to return thence to the Tower.

[220] This letter is from Sir Baptist Spinola, a very rich Genoese

merchant, who flourished in London under Edward VI,--by whom he was

knighted,--Mary, and Elizabeth. Frequent mention of him will be found

in the State Papers of this period. On one occasion Elizabeth paid him

an enormous sum--probably for supplies of Genoa velvet and brocade.

The “grand procession to the Tower” refers to the procession from the

landing-place there to the Great Hall.

[221] A fair number of copies of the Proclamation of Lady Jane Grey

have come down to us, but the original printed Proclamation is in the

Collection of the Royal Society of Antiquaries. Herein the Lady Mary

and the Lady Elizabeth are, as said above, stigmatised as bastards,

whilst it calls upon persons of all degrees to be loyal to “their

lawful Sovereign”--_i.e._ Jane Dudley. The Proclamation was printed by

Richard Grafton, and is a very fine specimen of his workmanship. In

the imprint he styles himself “The Queen’s Printer.” One would like to

discover what became of Mr. Grafton after Mary’s accession?

[222] Machyn’s _Diary_, p. 35.

[223] An unknown, who cautiously dubbed himself “Poor Pratte,”

addressed an open letter to Mr. “Onyone” during his imprisonment. The

writer, who was apparently a staunch supporter of Mary, informed his

readers that “if England prove disloyal, evils will come on it ... the

Gospel will be plucked away and the Lady Mary replaced by so cruel a

Pharaoh as the ragged bear (_i.e._ Northumberland).” “Pratte” points

out that Mary is less overjoyed at becoming Queen than sorry for her

brother’s death, whilst Northumberland was pleased thereat; “she would

be as glad of his life as the ragged bear of his death.” The writer

prays God “to raise up Queen Mary and pluck down that Jane--I cannot

nominate her Queen, for that I know no other Queen but the good Lady

Mary, her Grace, whom God prosper.” In conclusion, the writer wishes

Jane’s supporters “the pains of Satan in hell,” and to Mary’s, “long

life and prosperity.” See the Appendix, pp. 116-21 of _The Chronicle of

Queen Jane and Queen Mary_.

[224] Cecil was originally selected to draw up the draft of the

proclamation, but with his usual desire--manifested in a like manner on

other occasions when an unpleasant and dangerous task was assigned to

him--to save his own skin at the expense of no matter whom, he passed

on the duty to Sir Nicholas Throckmorton. Cecil himself relates this

plainly in his unblushing “Submission” to Mary, of which more anon.

There he says: “I refused to make a proclamation, and turned the labour

to Mr. Throckmorton, whose conscience I saw was troubled therewith,

misliking the matter.” It would be difficult to imagine a meaner trick.

It is more than probable that Northumberland very largely guided

Throckmorton in arranging the terms of this document: one can scarcely

imagine that he would have left it entirely to Sir Nicholas’ judgment.

Probably it was composed at Sion House. The editing of it was given to

Sir John Cheke.

[225] One copy of this interesting letter is in the Lansdowne MSS,

1236, f. 24, and a facsimile in Ser. iii. No. 4.

[226] There are two versions of this interview, differing in some

particulars; the second is by Jane herself, printed in Pollino’s

_Ecclesiastical History_. We have deemed it best to give both.

[227] Pollino (_Istoria Ecclesiastica_, p. 357) puts Jane’s answer

slightly differently--_Dissi loro_, he makes her say, _che se la corona

s’appetava a me, io sarei contenta di fare il mio marito Duca ma non

consentirei di farlo Rè_. That is, “I said to them that if the Crown

was my concern, I should be pleased to make my husband Duke, but I

would not consent to make him King.”

[228] There would seem to be an error here. Quite true, the Crown

was, metaphorically, thrust upon Jane; but surely the request for the

release of the regalia must have been made at least to _appear_ as if

it came from her?

[229] Harleian MSS, No. 523, p. 13. Sir Philip Hoby or Hobby was a

Herefordshire man, who had been previously sent to Paris as English

Ambassador to treat for the marriage of Elizabeth of Valois to

Edward VI. He afterwards passed to Antwerp and then to Brussels and

other parts of the Low Countries, during which period occurred the

above-mentioned incident with Don Diego Mendoza. He married Elizabeth,

daughter of Sir W. Stonor, who died without issue. Sir Philip’s brother

and heir, Sir Thomas Hoby, married Cecil’s learned sister-in-law,

Elizabeth Cooke. Many memorials of the Hoby family still exist at

Bisham Abbey.

[230] The dispatch of the Council to Hoby and Morysone announcing the

death of the King is dated 8th July, and will be found in the British

Museum, Cottonian Collection (Galba B. xii. 249). It makes no mention

of either Guildford or Jane.

[231] In her will the Duchess of Northumberland calls this gentleman,

to whom she left “the littell book clock, that hath the sun, the moon

on it, &c., and her dial, the one leaf of it the almanack, and on

the other side the golden number in the midst,” “the Lord Don Diagoe

Damondesay,” which was the good lady’s rendering of de Mendoça! She

added that she bequeathed these articles “with commendation for the

great friendship he hath shewed hir in making hir have so many friends

about the King’s Majesty as she hath found.” The King’s Majesty here

referred to is Philip II, who had used his influence with Mary, at

the instigation of Don Diego, to recover part of her property for the

Duchess.

[232] “He (Mendoza) could not but at one (and the same) time both

sorrowe with us for the losse of our good old mastere (Edward VI)

a prince of such vertue and towardnesse, and also rejoyse with us

that our master which is departed, did, ere he wente, provid us of a

kynge (Guildford Dudley), in regard wee had so much cause to rejoyse

in.” It is a significant fact that throughout this dispatch of the

Commissioners, whenever Guildford is mentioned, it is by some title

such as “kynge,” “kynges majestie,” etc., and not once by his proper

name, though obviously no one else but he is referred to. This was done

purposely to avoid getting Guildford into trouble in the event of the

letter falling into the hands of Mary’s supporters.

[233] _Two Queens and Philip_, by Major Martin Hume.

[234] It must always be remembered that the Emperor was Mary’s cousin,

and had already defended her religious freedom against Northumberland;

the Council feared, though without reason, as we know, his Ambassadors’

interference for the purpose of vindicating her rights to the throne.

[235] That was during the few days she spent at Chelsea Manor after

leaving Durham House, as already recorded; cf. cap. xiv. p. 237.

[236] This inventory will be found among the Harleian MSS, No. 611.

[237] Jane herself, as we have already seen, says the regalia was

brought to her on the 11th of July; perhaps Winchester made a slip of

the pen in writing the 12th.

[238] Machyn’s _Diary_, p. 36.

[239] We have already seen (_vide_ the letter of the Council to the

Commissioners in Brussels of the 11th July) that the Council had

intended from the very first that Northumberland should proceed into

Norfolk, the object even then being to remove his all-powerful and

domineering presence from London and into Mary’s hands, since all

the members doubtless foresaw they would have to renounce Jane very

shortly, and were not anxious to incur his wrath for so doing. Probably

Suffolk was merely suggested so as to avoid rousing Northumberland’s

suspicions that the Council was anxious to be rid of him.

[240] Holinshed, vol. iii. pp. 1068, 1069.

[241] Machyn says (p. 36): “And ij days after (the xij day of July) the

duke, and dyvers lordes and knyghts whent with him, and mony gentylmen

and gonnars, and mony men of the gard and men of armes toward my lade

Mare grace, to destroye here grace, and so to bury, and alle was agayns

ym-seylff, for ys men forsok him.”

[242] In this document, as in the indictment, Mary gives neither Jane

nor her husband their legitimate titles. She calls the former “Jane

Dudley,” and describes her as “the wife of Guildford Dudley, Esquire,”

stating that Sharington’s successor has received his appointment “by

the traitorous abuse and usurpation of Jane Dudley ... and other

accomplices.”

[243] Only two days after Northumberland started (that is, on the 16th)

Mary had left Kenninghall and ridden without pause to Framlingham,

where, according to Holinshed (vol. iii. p. 1067) she gathered round

her an army of thirty thousand men.

[244] William Cecil, afterwards Lord Burghley, was born at Stamford

St. Martin, Northamptonshire, in 1520. In his youth he was a royal

page, and was present at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. Later, he

went to Cambridge, and was a great friend of Roger Ascham and John

Cheke. Against his father’s will, he married Mary Cheke, the latter’s

sister. She died in 1544; and he married again, this time to Mildred,

daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke of Gidea Hall, Essex. This was in 1545.

Cecil fought in Scotland under Somerset two years later, being present

at the battle of Pinkie Cleugh. He was appointed a Secretary of State

on 5th September 1550. In October of the next year he was knighted,

together with Cheke. His action in the matter of Edward VI’s “Devise”

for the limitation of the succession has been already related; also

his duplicity with regard to Northumberland. Immediately all hopes

of Jane’s retaining the crown were gone, he made his well-known

“Submission” to Mary. All the same, he spent the first year of her

reign in retirement, and only appears again as holding a public office

in 1554. His successful career under Elizabeth is foreign to the

subject of this book, and is well known. Cecil died in 1598 at his

house in the Strand, and is buried in Westminster Abbey. See _The Great

Lord Burghley_, by Martin Hume.

[245] This is mainly derived from Stowe’s account; Burke (p. 417) and

others say that in the first instance Northumberland was arrested

by Sir John Gates, one of his own followers, apparently whilst in

the midst of his toilet, “with his boots half on and half off,” and

therefore utterly helpless.

[246] With Northumberland were brought prisoners into the Tower on 25th

July, John, Earl of Warwick, and the Lords Ambrose and Henry Dudley,

his three sons, his brother, Sir Andrew Dudley, the Earl of Huntingdon,

Lord Hastings, Sir Thomas Palmer, Sir Henry and Sir John Gates, and

Dr. Sandys. They are said to have been escorted by four thousand

men; others say eight hundred. On the 26th these noblemen were also

joined by other prisoners--namely, the Marquis of Northampton, another

of Northumberland’s sons Lord Robert Dudley, the Bishop of London

(Ridley), Sir Richard Corbet, and Cholmondeley and Montagu, Chief

Justices: the latter’s distress must have been softened by the feeling

that his gloomy forebodings as to the evil results of the continuance

of Edward VI’s scheme for the succession had been amply realised.

Next day, Sir John Cheke, Sir Anthony Cooke, and Sir John York were

committed to the Tower. See Strype, vol. iv., and Stowe.

[247] After the proclamation of Mary, Ridley went to Framlingham to pay

her homage; but the Queen being suspicious of his sincerity, he was

arrested at Ipswich, “despoiled of his dignities, and sent back on a

lame, halting horse to the Tower.”

[248] From the use of the expression (adopted in _The Chronicle of

Queen Jane and Queen Mary_), “the keys were carried up,” it has been

suggested that Lady Jane was lodged in the White Tower itself, which

was not the case. Queen Jane proceeded immediately after her arrival

at the Tower to the palatial apartments usually inhabited by royalty

when in residence there. These chambers--in which Elizabeth of York

breathed her last; where Anne Boleyn spent the night before her

coronation and later, by an irony of fate, that before her execution;

where, afterwards, Katherine Howard also awaited her doom; where, in

a word, most of our Kings and Queens had “ruffled it wi’ the best” or

trembled at their coming fate--were removed in the seventeenth century.

They were contiguous to the White Tower--indeed, the door communicating

between the two blocks of buildings is still visible--and it is more

than probable that Queen Jane used the chapel and the Council Chamber

in the said White Tower; but she certainly never inhabited the tower

during her brief Queenship. Later, as we shall presently see, she

was removed to the quadrangle opposite St. Peter’s Church, to the

apartments which had been vacated by the Duchess of Somerset, in

Partridge’s House.

[249] It was on the 17th or the next day that a significant placard was

found attached to the pump at Queenhithe, stating “that the Princess

Mary had been proclaimed Queen in every town and city in England,

London alone excepted.” The exception was to cease within two days!

[250] It was generally said that Northumberland’s son, Lord Henry

Dudley, had been to France to raise a force, and that six thousand

French soldiers were about to embark from Dieppe and Boulogne.

Strype says (_Ecclesiastical Memorials_, vol. iii. part I, p. 23):

“Henry Dudley, a relation and creature of the Duke [of Northumberland],

and in with him, had, with four servants and certain letters, escaped,

and got hither to Guisnes. Him these officers detained, seizing his

men and letters; which they sent by a special messenger to the Queen,

keeping him in sure custody till her pleasure were further known. All

this they declared to her in their letter, protesting their steadfast

loyalty and obedience. Dudley was soon after conveyed to Calais and so

to England.”

It was also rumoured that Northumberland had offered to hand over

Calais to the French in return for the aid which was to be afforded

him. Needless to say, it never came.

[251] Rossi, _I Successi d’Inghilterra dopo la morte de Edoardo Sesto_,

pp. 15, 16. This book was printed at Ferrara in 1560.

[252] Baynard’s Castle, which was standing in Edward II’s time, and was

later the residence of Richard III, stood somewhere about the site now

occupied by St. Paul’s Station, and was a large square building, with

high pitched turrets at each corner, and having its river front washed

by the Thames. Several royalties visited it in the course of time. In

Henry VIII’s time it belonged to that Earl of Pembroke who married

Katherine Parr’s sister, and was in the possession of that family in

1553. “Bluff King Hal” was sometimes entertained there. The greater

part of the building was burnt down in the Great Fire, but the towers

were standing as late as 1809.

[253] It is distinctly curious that Arundel should be generally

stated to have been present at the proclamation of Mary in London

on 19th July, and yet be said by several writers to have arrested

Northumberland at Cambridge on the 21st! This hardly seems probable;

doubtless the arrest took place later in that week. But the dates of

Northumberland’s movements on his expedition are altogether obscure.

[254] Roger Alford, Cecil’s servant, gives the following account of

this stage of the intrigue in a letter to Cecil of 1573: “After this,

the Lords not long after agreed to go to Baynard’s Castle to the Lord

of Pembroke [Baynard’s Castle was, as we have said, his residence]

upon pretence before in Council, to give audience to the French King

and Emperor’s Ambassadors, that had long been delayed audience; and

that the Tower was not fit to him to enter into at that season. At

which time, my Lord of Arundel, upon some overture of frank speech to

be had in Council in respect of that present state, said secretly to

his friend, as I take it yourself [_i.e._ Cecil] or Sir William Petre,

that he liked not the air. And thereupon it was deferred to Baynard’s

Castle; from which place the Lords went and proclaimed Queen Mary. And

yourself was despatched after my Lord Arundel and my Lord Paget to her

Grace, being at Ipswich; where, being sent by you a little before, my

Lady Bacon told me that the Queen thought very well of her brother

Cecil, and said you were a very honest man.”--Strype’s _Annals_, vol.

iv. p. 349.

[255] See either Harleian MSS, 358, 44; or _Chronicles of Queen Jane

and Queen Mary_, p. 11.

[256] _The Grey Friars Chronicle_ says that the bells continued to ring

“all night till the next day to None.”

[257] So complete was the popular desertion of Jane’s cause--if so,

indeed, it may be called, seeing that there had never been any great

enthusiasm for her--that Foxe was able to remark that “God so turned

the hearts of the people to her [Mary], and against the Council

[who represented Jane], that she overcame them without bloodshed,

notwithstanding there was made great expedition against her both by sea

and land” (Foxe, _Acts and Monuments_, vol. vi. p. 388). Jane herself

was not disliked, but there would seem to have been little popular

goodwill towards the Councillors and especially Northumberland; we

have already recorded that the French Ambassador said that _toutes ces

choses_ [Mary’s success] _sont advenues, plus pour la grande hayne

qu’on porte à icelluy duc, que pour l’amitié qu’on a à ladicte royne_

[Mary].

[258] It is a curious fact that Cranmer was not arrested immediately

on the fall of Jane. On 8th August he officiated at a Communion

Service at the funeral of Edward VI at Westminster. He seems to have

been eventually arrested on quite another charge than the one in the

indictment. A certain Dr. Thornden, Bishop of Dover, having said

Mass in Canterbury Cathedral, Cranmer published a manifesto against

him, and incidentally stated that the rumour that he was willing to

celebrate Mass before the Queen was untrue. This document being read

in Cheapside, the Archbishop was brought before the Council on 8th

September 1553 for “disseminating seditious bills,” and committed

to the Tower. Having being tried at the same time as Jane Grey, he

remained a prisoner in the Tower until 8th March 1554, when he went to

Oxford for the celebrated theological disputation which ended in his

fiery doom.

[259] See Machyn, p. 38.

[260] Dr. Nicholas suggested that this Partridge was Queen Mary’s

goldsmith, who bore the same name, and seems to have been living in the

Tower about this time.

[261] The site of the Royal Garden in the Tower is now covered by

modern buildings, military stores, etc., of no particular interest. The

“hill within the Tower” may be another term for the Green, for Stowe,

in speaking of the prisoners who knelt on the Green to invoke Queen

Mary’s pardon at her first entry into the Tower, terms that ominous

spot “the hill.” It is strange indeed if Lady Jane took her exercise on

the place where she afterwards died!

[262] This lady was a close connection of the Howards, and probably a

grand-niece of Agnes, Duchess of Norfolk, by birth a Tylney.

[263] A recent writer on the life of Lady Jane Grey states, but gives

no authority, that she was released from the Tower immediately after

her deposition, and retired to Sion House: but there is no contemporary

evidence whatever in substantiation of this statement.

[264] This William Paulet, Lord St. John, Marquis of Winchester, was in

many ways an extraordinary creature. After the attainder and execution

of Sir Thomas More, he was granted the beautiful mansion of Chelsea,

and Edward VI, when Paulet was created Marquis of Winchester in 1551,

gave him in fee both that property and all other possessions in Chelsea

and Kensington forfeited by More. Next we hear of him as Great-Master

of the Household to Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth. In the fourth year

of Edward VI’s reign he was made Lord Treasurer of England, in which

capacity he appealed to Lady Jane for the jewels left in her charge at

her accession. His religious changes were remarkable; in Edward’s time

he was a bitter anti-Papist; in Mary’s, an enthusiastic Catholic; and

under Elizabeth we find him a staunch supporter of the Church by law

established. Asked how it was he managed to avoid a downfall amidst so

many changes, he is said to have answered: “By being a willow and not

an oak!” He died in 1572 in his ninety-seventh year, having lived to

see over a hundred persons descend from him; and is buried in Chelsea

parish church, where he had attended Mass in Henry VIII’s time; an

“evangelical” service under Edward VI; Mass again in Mary’s day; and

the English Morning Prayer in Elizabeth’s!

[265] British Museum, Harleian Collection, No. 523, 46.

[266] For a full and very instructive account of the _volta face_ of

the Emperor and his subsequent conduct towards Queen Mary, see the

State Papers, Foreign Series, from 23rd August 1553, the date of the

banquet to Hoby at Brussels, to May 1554, and also _Two English Queens

and Philip_, by Martin Hume.

[267] This count would in itself have been punishable, it may be

supposed, since the Tower was one of the royal palaces, as well as

defences: the “seizure” here referred to consisted in the fact that

Jane’s Council and attendants had been lodged there; that ammunition

had been, as we have seen, brought in there during Jane’s reign;

and that the Constable of the Tower had been changed by Suffolk’s

manipulation. Sir John Gage, who had been appointed to that post in

the year 1540, and had continued therein throughout Edward VI’s reign,

was replaced by Lord Clinton, a Janeite, about the time the “Nine

Days’ Queen” entered the fortress--only to be superseded on Mary’s

accession by the very man he had displaced, Sir John Gage! Gage was

followed by Sir Edward Braye, probably losing his appointment over a

whimsical quarrel with the servants of the Princess Elizabeth during

her imprisonment.

[268] Although no official report of it remains, a Requiem for the

repose of King Edward must have been sung at St. Paul’s, the bill of

costs for choir-boys, lights, etc., for such a ceremony being still in

existence. Edward VI was the first King of England buried according to

the rites of the Church of England; at the same time, he was the last

King of England for whom a Requiem Mass was sung in this country. James

II died a Catholic, but abroad, in France. It has been remarked by

Protestant historians that Mary had no right to have a Mass of Requiem

said for her brother; they forget that he was baptized a Catholic.

[269] It is quite obvious--Hume and Lingard to the contrary--that the

Great Seal here referred to was that of Edward VI, affixed to that

monarch’s letters patent for the limitation of the succession. The

judges, however, purposely misunderstood Northumberland, and pretended

to think he was referring to Jane’s seal, which would not, of course,

have been recognised as legal. The Great Seal of King Edward continued

to be used upon documents for many months after Mary’s accession; it

will, for instance, be found attached to the Special Commission of Oyer

and Terminer addressed to Thomas White, Mayor of London, and others

for the trials of the indictments against Guildford Dudley “and Jane

his wife,” and Ambrose and Henry Dudley, which took place in November

1553. This seal is circular, and rather indistinct; on the one side His

Majesty is represented seated, with the sceptre in his right hand and

the orb in his left. He is under a canopy with curious side pillars:

on either side of the throne are round coats of arms, surmounted by

crowns. On the other side is a figure, wielding a mace and with a

shield, on a horse in armour--this is either St. George or the Lord

Protector. At the horse’s feet is a Tudor greyhound: there is an

illegible inscription at the top margin. (See Baga de Secretis, pouch

xxiii., Record Office.)

[270] Machyn, p. 41. This horrible sentence was afterwards commuted to

decapitation, and the same in the case of next day’s condemned.

[271] Harleian MSS, No. 2194.

[272] Sir Andrew Dudley was released on 18th January 1554. He died,

without issue, in 1559.

[273] For a further account of this recantation ceremony, see Harleian

MSS, 284, fol. 128_d._ Also Stowe, _Annals_, p. 614.

[274] Harleian MSS, No. 2194.

[275] Bishop Burnet considered that Northumberland was only insincere

in professing Protestantism--“he had always been a Catholic at heart”;

John Knox said the same; and Jane Grey herself said, about a week after

his death, “but for the answering that he [Northumberland] hoped for

life by turning (Catholic), _though others be of the same opinion, I

utterly am not_.” Burnet’s remark is supported by a statement the Duke

of Northumberland made on one occasion, it is said, to Sir Anthony

Browne, that “he certainly thought best of the old religion; but seeing

a new one begun, run dog, run devil, he would go forward.” In other

words, his Protestantism was a mere matter of policy.

[276] This refers to the trained bands of the Tower Hamlets mentioned,

whose headquarters were in the Tower, and took their titles from the

districts in which they were raised.

[277] Machyn’s _Diary_, p. 42. The paragraph ends with a reference to

their attendance at Mass: “And at the same tym after was send for my

lord mer and the aldermen and the cheyffest of the craftes in London,

and dyvers of the counsell, and ther was sed mas [Mass] a-for [before]

the Duke and the rest of the prisoners.” Was it the sudden arrival of

the news that Northumberland was about to return to Catholicism that

occasioned the postponement of the execution, in the hope that the

Queen, touched by his conversion, might spare him? Most historians,

however, assign the 20th as the date of the recantation, which would

mean of course that it took place before the postponement of the

execution, described by Machyn as having occurred on the 21st.

[278] A very quaint account of the Duke of Northumberland’s execution,

published in Paris in 1558 by a French priest named Stephen Perlin,

contains, though full of inaccuracies, some details not to be found in

other contemporary reports. “The afore-mentioned prisoners,” says he,

“were taken to the Tower. The mob called the milor Notumbellant [_sic_]

vile traitor, and he eyed them furiously with looks of resentment.

Two days afterwards [an error; he entered the Tower on 25th July,

and was tried on 18th August] he was taken by water in a little bark

to Ousemestre [Westminster], a Royal palace, principally to indict

and try him; his trial was not long, for it did not last more than

fourteen days at most [there is no reason to suppose it lasted so

long]; and he, the Duke of Suphor [Suffolk], and the milor Arondelle

were condemned by an arrest of the Council to be beheaded in an open

space before the castle of the Tower; and they had all three [they were

really executed at widely different periods; see the text] the pain of

seeing one under the hands of a hangman, before whom a whole kingdom

had trembled, which, reader, was a lamentable spectacle. This hangman

was lame of a leg, for I was present at the execution, and he wore a

white apron like a butcher. This great lord made great lamentations

and complaints at his death, and said this prayer in English, throwing

himself on his knees, looking up to Heaven, and exclaiming tenderly,

‘Lorde God mi fatre prie fort ous poore siners nond vand in the hoore

of our teath,’ [so in the original: it seems to be a ludicrous mixture

of the Lord’s Prayer and the Hail Mary] which is to say, in French,

‘Lord God my Father, pray for us men and poor sinners, and principally

in the hour of our death.’ After the execution you might see little

children gathering up the blood which had fallen through the slits in

the scaffold on which he had been beheaded. In this country the head is

put upon a pole, and all their goods confiscated to the Queen.”

[279] The beauty and quantity of the roses in the Tower gardens is made

particular mention of in contemporary documents.

[280] Wriothesley says the cannonading and gun-firing on this occasion

was positively deafening.

[281] A rare French book entitled _Nouveaux Eclaircissements sur

l’Histoire de Marie Reine d’Angleterre_, says of this interview:

“Elle [Mary] lui [Renard] dit, qu’elle ne pouvait se résoudre à faire

mourir Jeanne de Suffolck [Lady Jane Grey], qu’on lui avait assuré,

qu’avant d’épouser le fils du duc de Nortumberland, elle avait été

promise en mariage à un autre par un Contrat obligatoire, qui rendait

son second mariage nul; d’où Marie concluait, que Jeanne n’était pas

véritablement belle-fille du duc de Nortumberland. Elle ajouta qu’elle

n’avait eu aucune part à l’entreprise de ce duc, & qu’elle se ferait

conscience de la faire mourir, puisqu’elle était innocente. Simon

Renard lui répliqua qu’il était à craindre, qu’on n’eût imaginé cette

promesse obligatoire pour lui sauver la vie, & qu’il fallait au moins

la retenir prisonnière, parce qu’il y aurait beaucoup d’inconvénients

à lui rendre la liberté.... La Reine répondit ... qu’à l’égard de

Jeanne de Suffolck, on ne la mettrait pas en liberté, sans avoir pris

toutes les précautions nécessaires, pour qu’il n’en pût résulter

aucun inconvénient. Le Lieutenant d’Amont [_i.e._ Renard] ayant

rendu compte à l’Empereur de cette conversation, ce Prince insista

de nouveau dans sa réponse ... de punir sans miséricordes tous ceux

qui avaient entrepris de lui enlever la Couronne, & ceux qui avaient

contribué à la mort du Roi.” [The latter phrase evidently refers to the

widespread but unauthenticated idea that Edward VI had been poisoned by

Northumberland.] The author or compiler of the book from which this is

taken was one Père Griffet, who flourished in the eighteenth century,

and having discovered a number of Simon Renard’s dispatches in the

Royal Library at Besançon, wrote this work in answer to David Hume’s

attack on Queen Mary: it was published at Amsterdam in 1766. There is

no copy of it in the British Museum.

[282] Poinet, the Protestant Bishop of Winchester, says in truth that

“those lords of the Council who had been the most instrumental at the

death of Edward VI, in thrusting royalty upon poor Lady Jane, and

proclaiming Mary illegitimate, were now the sorest forcers of men, yea,

became earnest councillors for that innocent lady’s death.” See Strype,

vol. iii. part I, p. 141.

[283] Sir Richard Morgan, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Lady

Jane’s judge, was a Catholic. The date of his birth is not known.

He was admitted to Lincoln’s Inn on 31st July 1523, and called to

the Bar in 1529. From 1545 to 1547 and again in 1553 he represented

Gloucester in the House of Commons. He was arrested and confined in

the Fleet Prison on 24th March 1551, for the offence of attending Mass

in Princess Mary’s chapel, but was soon released with a caution. In

1553 he joined Mary’s party at Kenninghall, and when the Queen came to

her own he was knighted [2nd October 1553]. Later in the same year he

was placed on the commission to inquire into Bishop Tunstal’s appeal;

and in November he tried and passed sentence of death on Lady Jane

Grey and others. Sir Richard Morgan retired from the Bench in October

1555. In the following year (according to Foxe, _Book of Martyrs_,

iii. p. 37) “Judge Morgan, that gave the sentence against hir [Jane],

shortly after fell mad, and in hys raving cryed continuallye to have

the ladie Jane taken away from him, and so ended his life.” His death

is mentioned in Holinshed, 1577 edition, p. 1733. Machyn (_Diary_,

p. 106) records Morgan’s funeral in the following terms: “The ij day

of June was bered at sant Magnus at London bryge ser Richerd Morgayn

knyght, a juge and on [one] of the preve consell unto the nobull Quen

Mare, with a harold [herald] of armes bayryng ys cott armur, and with

a standard and a penon of armes and elmett, sword, and targatt; and

iiij dosen of skochyons, and ij whytt branchys and xij torchys and iiij

gret tapurs, and xxiiij pore men in mantyll ffrysse gownes, and mony

in blake; and master chansseler of London [a certain Dr. Darbishire]

dyd pryche.” Morgan also appears in Machyn as being present at a sermon

on 5th November 1553, “The v day of November dyd pryche master Feknam

[Feckenham] at sant Mare overays afor non [at St. Mary Overies before

noon], and ther where at ys sermon the yerle of Devonshyre, ser Antony

Browne, and juge Morgayn and dyvers odur nobull men” [p. 48]. The same

writer makes mention of a Francis Morgan, Judge of the Queen’s Bench,

who died in 1558, and may have been a relation of the Chief Justice.

[284] This description of the trial is mainly derived from the original

documents in the Baga de Secretis, Pouch xxiii., in the Public Record

Office, Chancery Lane, London; from various contemporary descriptions

of previous and subsequent State trials; and from ancient and

contemporary engravings of similar scenes. There is, unfortunately, an

utter lack of documentary evidence of a personal character connected

with this trial, for, unlike these of the Queens Anne Boleyn and

Katherine Howard, it was not of a domestic character, and there was

neither cross-examination of witnesses or prisoners nor defence: the

facts were of public knowledge and as such handed to the jury, who,

after considering them, gave the only verdict possible under the

circumstances, guilty. Thus, this celebrated trial is divested of those

many touches of dramatic interest and human pathos which characterise

the records of the trials of Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard. Machyn’s

account of Jane’s trial is very brief, and is in part destroyed. He

says (p. 48): “[The 13th of November were arraigned at Guildhall Doctor

Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord] Gylfford Dudlay, the sune

of the Duke of Northumberland, and my lade Jane ys wyff, the doythur

of the Duke of Suffoke-Dassett, and the Lord Hambrosse Dudlay, and the

Lord Hare Dudlay, the wyche lade Jane was proclamyd Queen; they all v

wher cast for to dee [die].”

There is a contemporary account of the procession to the Guildhall,

which runs as follows: “The xiijth daie of November were ledd out of

the Tower on foot, to be arrayned, to yeldhall, with the axe before

theym, from theyr warde [prison], Thomas Cranmer, archbushoppe of

Canterbury, between ... [blank].

“Next followed the lorde Gilforde Dudley between ... [blank].

“Next followed the lady Jane, between ... [blank] and hir ij

gentyll-women following hir.

“Next followed the lorde Ambrose Dudley and the lorde Harry Dudley.

“The lady Jane was in a black gowne of cloth, tourned downe, the cape

lyned with fese velvett, and edget about with the same, in a French

hoode, all black, with a black byllyment, a black velvet boke hanging

before hir, and another boke in hir hande open, holding hir ...” [the

entry breaks off here].

See also Bishop Burnet’s _History of the Reformation_.

[285] Dr. Feckenham was not installed as Abbot of Westminster until

November 1556.

[286] See Rossi, _I Successi d’Inghilterra_, p. 44, _et seq._

[287] _The Chronicle of Queen Jane and Queen Mary_, p. 37.

[288] A dispatch of Renard’s of 8th February (given by Griffet),

confirms this account, saying: “_Le duc de Suffolck avait assemblé un

corps de troupes & quelques Gentilshommes de son parti, pour soutenir

la rébellion: il fut attaqué par le comte Addincton_ [a mistake for

Huntingdon], _qui s’était déclaré pour la Reine; & il perdit, dans ce

combat, tous ses soldats sans exception, son argent & son équipage.

Ce Duc s’enfuit avec ses deux frères, & se voyant poursuivi, il se

cacha dans le creux d’un arbre, où il fut découvert par un chien qui

ne cessait d’aboyer autour de cet arbre. Un de ses frères fut pris

pareillement sous un tas de foin, & tous deux furent mis dans la Tour

de Londres, avec un grand nombre d’Officiers & de Seigneurs._”

[289] Machyn says (p. 54): “The same day [Shrove Tuesday, 6th February]

cam rydyng to the Towre the Duke of Suffoke and ys brodur by the yerle

of Huntyngton [_i.e._ in the Earl of Huntington’s charge] with iii. C.

[three hundred] horse.”

He also tells us that on the same day “was ij hanged upon a jebett

in Powles churche yerd; the on [one] a spy of Wyatt, the thodur [the

other] was under-shreyff of Leseter, for carryng letturs of the duke of

Suffoke and odur thinges.”

[290] Mary was, however, so firmly convinced that this was his object

that in the orders to Lieutenants of Counties to proclaim as traitors

Henry, Duke of Suffolk, the Carew brothers, Wyatt and others (dated

26th January 1554), they are described as having “threatened her

destruction and to advance the Lady Jane Grey _and her husband_.” These

last words are significant, in view of Guildford’s pretensions to

regality.

[291] Griffet says: “_Le duc de Suffolck fut le premier à découvrir

lui-même tous les secrets de la conspiration. Il écrivit sa confession,

& la fit remettre à la Reine, en implorant sa clêmence; & il déclara,

que les conjurés ne se proposaient rien moins que de mettre Elisabeth

sur le trône._” There can be no mistaking the meaning of this statement.

[292] Renard, in a dispatch of the 8th February, as given by Griffet,

says indeed that “_Jeanne de Suffolck, dont elle_ [Mary] _avait épargné

les jours, contre l’avis de l’Empereur Charles-Quint, fut sacrifiée à

la nécessité d’ôter aux rebelles, & aux ennemis du Gouvernement, une

idole qu’ils étaient fâchée de n’avoir pas maintenue sur le trône. Son

mari fut exécuté le même jour._”

Besides, Gardiner says that Suffolk himself bewailed “with impatient

dolours not only his own woe, _but the calamity his folly had brought

on his daughter_.” Godwin, however (_Rerum Anglicarum Henrico VIII,

Edwardo VI et Maria, Annals_, p. 217), throws the blame of Jane’s

troubles more on her mother than on her father: “_Hunc exitum habuit

Iana, majorum titulis illustris fœmina, sed virtute et ingenii

nobilitate longe illustrior, quæ dum Virtici et imperiosæ matris

ambitioni obsequitur ... funestum sibi reginæ sumpsit._”

The consensus of historians, nevertheless, lays the blame on Suffolk’s

ill-advised attempt at rebellion. Bishop Burnet, writing in 1680

(_History of the Reformation_, vol. ii. 437) says: “Indeed the blame of

her death was generally cast on her father rather than on the Queen,

since the rivalry of a crown is a point of such niceness, that even

those who bemoaned her death most could not but excuse the Queen, who

seemed to be driven to it, rather from considerations of State, than

any resentment of her own.... He [Suffolk] would have died more pitied

for his weakness, _if his practices had not brought his daughter to her

end_.”

[293] _The Chronicle of Queen Jane and Queen Mary_, p. 50.

[294] Machyn tells us (p. 55) that “The xij day of February was made

at every gate in Lundun a new payre of galaus [gallows] and set up ...

the xiiijth day of February were hangyd at evere gatt and plasse: in

Chepe-syd vj; Algatt j, quartered; at Leydyhall iij; at Bysshope-gatt

one, and quartered; Morgatt one; Crepullgatt one; Aldersgate one,

quartered ...” and so forth, giving a total of about forty-eight, three

being hanged at Hyde Park Corner, but none at Tyburn.

[295] Fuller says he was “earnest yet modest.” Feckenham had been

imprisoned by Henry VIII for his adherence to papal supremacy, until

Sir Philip Hoby, whom we have seen advocating a Protestant monarch,

“borrowed him out of the Tower.”

[296] _The Chronicle of Queen Jane and Queen Mary_, p. 54.

[297] This allusion to a possible inheritance by Lady Katherine of

her father’s possessions, does not, as Miss Strickland thinks, “prove

that the insurrection of Suffolk was intended to replace Jane on the

throne.” “If,” says that writer, “it had been in favour of any other

heiress or heir, it is not likely that the Lady Jane would have rested

under the attainder and surrendered the means of her subsistence to

increase her younger sister’s portion. Moreover, if Jane had been the

sovereign of England, she would scarcely have claimed a third portion

of her father’s inheritance.” As a matter of fact, what Jane wrote

proves nothing; Lady Katherine, had Suffolk kept out of political

strife, would, after Jane, have inherited his fortune, which was

confiscated at his arrest. Jane simply penned this sentence to make the

contrast stronger between the mutability of the things of this world,

and the unchangeability of that better land to which she knew she was

hurrying.

[298] This is an allusion to the parable of the foolish virgins.

[299] British Museum, Harleian Collection, No. 2342.

[300] This declaration of her intention of praying for her father in

the next world suggests a survival of some Roman Catholic ideas in

Jane’s theology; and one cannot imagine that it would have been exactly

approved by the more extremely Protestant of the Reformers.

[301] This book was either mentioned to Florio, or seen by him, for

he has translated these three touching sentences into Italian in his

_Historia di Giana Graia_.

[302] It is said that Jane scratched some verses on the walls of her

apartment with a pin, but, although numerous devices inscribed by the

unfortunate persons who have at different times been the inhabitants

of the Tower were discovered in divers parts of it some years ago,

during alterations, not the slightest trace of these verses were found.

This does not, however, prove that they never existed, and as they are

constantly attributed to Lady Jane, we have thought it best to reprint

them here:--

“_Non aliena putes homini quæ obtingere possunt;

Sors hodierna mihi, cras erit ilia tibi._”

This has been thus translated:--

“To mortals’ common fate thy mind resign,

My lot to-day, to-morrow may be thine----”

These lines are also paraphrased as follows:--

“Think not, O mortal! vainly gay,

That thou from human woes art free;

The bitter cup I drink to-day,

To-morrow may be drunk by thee.”

The following is also said to have been written by Jane in like

manner:--

“_Deo juvante, nil nocet, livor malus;

Et non juvante, nil juvat labor gravis,

Post tenebras, spero lucem_”:

Which has been translated in two ways:--

“Whilst God assists us, envy bites in vain,

If God forsake us, fruitless all our pain--

I hope for light after the darkness.”

Or:--

“Harmless all malice if our God be nigh,

Fruitless all pains if He His help deny,

Patient I pass these gloomy hours away,

And wait the morning of eternal day.”

In the Beauchamp Tower, in that room which was occupied by

Northumberland, the name “Jane” appears twice, cut into the wall. It

has been said that this was the work of Lord Guildford Dudley, but it

is more probable that it was carved by Northumberland, his faithful

wife’s name being Jane.

[303] The Protestant chaplains appointed under Edward VI had at this

time been replaced by Benedictine monks.

[304] The Bulwark Gate marked the boundaries of the County of Middlesex

and the Tower precincts.

[305] “The monday, being the xij of Februarie, about ten of the clock,

ther went out of the Tower to the scaffolde on Tower Hill, the lord

Guildforde Dudley, sone to the late Duke of Northumberland, husbande to

the lady Jane Gray, daughter to the Duke of Suffoke, who at his going

out tooke by the hande sir Anthony Browne, maister John Throgmorton,

and many other gentyllmen, praying them to praie for him, and without

the bullwarke Offeley the sheryve receyved him and brought him to the

scaffolde, where, after a small declaration, having no gostlye father

with him, he kneeled downe and said his praiers, then holding upp his

eyes and handes to God many tymes, and at last, after he had desyred

the people to pray for him, he laide himselfe along, and his hedd upon

the block, which was at one stroke of the axe taken from him.”--_The

Chronicle of Queen Jane and Queen Mary._

[306] It has been stated that this additional horror was commanded by

Queen Mary herself, but the charge is absolutely without foundation.

Sharon Turner, amongst others, was of opinion that “the meeting with

the bleeding body was purely accidental.”

[307] _The Chronicle of Queen Jane and Queen Mary_ says: “Guildford’s

carcass was thrown into a carre, and his hed in a cloth, he was brought

into the chappell within the Tower, wher the Lady Jane, whose lodging

was in Partridge’s house, _dyd see his ded carcass taken out of the

cart_, as well as she dyd see; him before a lyve going to his death, a

sight to hir no lesse than death.”

[308] “The Lord Guildford Dudley’s dead carkas lyin in a carre in

strawe was againe brought into the Tower _at the same instant that

my Ladi Jane_ his wyfe _went to her death_ within the Tower, which

myserable sight was to her a duble sorrowe and griefe.”

[309] He is said to have been of almost gigantic height, and very

powerful.

[310] This little volume, which purports to give an account of the last

days of Lady Jane Grey, is quoted by Burke in his _Tudor Portraits_,

the Lady Philippa de Clifford being there described as the author and

as a cousin of Lady Jane Grey, who certainly had no first cousin of

this name; but among the English Benedictine nuns who took refuge at

Mechlin in the early part of the seventeenth century there is a mention

of a Philippa de Clifford, but of which branch of the Clifford family

it is difficult at this period to ascertain. That the little volume

exists there can be no doubt, as a copy of it was seen by the author

at Brussels a few years ago. It was written in French and apparently

from notes in the possession of its author, who, although a Catholic,

says nothing disparaging of Lady Jane’s faith. Its authenticity, like

that of another little volume on the same subject quoted elsewhere,

also published in Belgium, must be taken with considerable caution. In

the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries a sort of fashion was started

in England, France, Belgium, Germany, and Italy for the writing of

apocryphal memoirs of popular heroes and heroines: and as Lady Jane

Grey was a great favourite with the Protestants, both at home and

abroad, she has been the heroine of several of these volumes, most

of which are founded upon the famous letter to Queen Mary, quoted by

Pollino. They must not, however, be disparaged as entirely worthless,

for some of them undoubtedly contain details that have been handed down

during many generations. In the British Museum will be found a curious

little volume called _The Diary of Lady Mary Grey_, which also contains

a number of very amusing details concerning that unlucky lady which

have all the appearance of being absolutely true. Similar monographs

exist on the lives of Anne Boleyn, and especially of Mary Stuart;

all of these purport to be written by attendants or persons who have

derived their information from original sources now lost. I am assured

that in the Dutch libraries there are several contemporary pamphlets

on Lady Jane Grey written in the Dutch language; and there are also

one or two in the Swiss Libraries--in the main they all bear a strong

resemblance one to the other, but differ in matters of detail. Lady

Philippa tells us, for instance, that the headsman of Lady Jane was

a man of exceptional stature; and this is confirmed by other writers

whose work could not have been known to the author of the pamphlet in

question. For lists of the Benedictine nuns at Mechlin, etc., amongst

whom was Lady Philippa, see in the Brussels Archives: No. 11205,

Prevost; _Les Refugiés Anglais et Irlandais en Belgique à la suite

de la Reforme Anglaise établie sous Elizabeth et Jacques I_. Gand:

_Messager des Scénes Historiques_, 1865. Also: Gachet, _Catholiques

Anglais et Ecossais Pensionnaires du Duc d’Alve_. Bruxelles, 1850.

[311] As Lady Jane’s “neckerchief” had been taken off before, one can

but suppose that she meant to ask the headsman if he would cut her

head off as she knelt with her body upright, as was sometimes done,

and not with her head on the block. “_Before_ I lay me down” may be a

mistake for, “_Without that_ I lay me down.” We may add that there is

no mention in any contemporary record of Jane’s hands having been tied:

probably she held them clasped in the attitude of prayer.

[312] An old book, entitled, _The Ende of the Ladie Jane Dudlie on

the Scaffulde_, which was printed at Antwerp in 1560, says her last

words were, “I die in peace with all people; God save the Queen.” It

is more probable, however, that the pious Lady Jane used the religious

ejaculation printed above.

[313] _The Chronicle of Queen Jane and Queen Mary_ thus describes Lady

Jane’s last moments: “By this tyme was ther a scaffolde made upon the

grene over agaynst the White Tower for the saide Lady Jane to die

upon.... The saide Lady being nothing at all abashed, neither with

feare of her own deathe, which then approached, neither with the ded

carcase of her husbande, when he was brought into the chapell, came

forthe the Lieutenant leading hir, in the same gown wherein she was

arrayned, hir countenance nothing abashed, neither her eyes mysted

with teares, although her two gentlewomen, Mistress Elizabeth Tylney

and Mistress Eleyn wonderfully wept, with a boke in hir hand, whereon

she praied all the way till she came to the saide scaffolde, whereon

when she was mounted, this noble young ladie, as she was indued with

singular gifts both of learning and knowledge, so was she as patient

and mild as any lamb at her execution.” Here the chronicler describes

her gift of the book to Brydges, etc., and continues, “Forthwith she

untied her gowne. The hangman went to her to have helped her therwith,

then she desyred him to let her alone, turning towards her two

gentlewomen, who helped her off therwith, and also her frose paste and

neckercher, geving to her a fayre handkercher to knytte about her eyes.

Then the hangman kneled downe, and asked her forgiveness, whom she

forgave most willingly. Then he willed her to stand upon the strawe,

which doing she sawe the block. Then she sayd ‘I pray you despatche me

quickly.’ Then she kneled downe saying, ‘Will you take it off before I

lay me downe?’ And the hangman answered her, ‘No, madame.’ She tied the

kercher about her eyes. Then feeling for the block, saide, ‘What shal

I do, where is it?’ One of the standers by guyding her thereunto, she

layde her head downe upon the block, and stretched forth her body, and

said, ‘Lord, into Thy handes I commende my spirite,’ and so she ended.”

[314] Historians are very apt to speak of the famous French Ambassador

de Noailles, as one person, whereas in reality there were two

Ambassadors of this name, the first of whom was Antoine de Noailles,

the son of Louis and Catherine de Pierre-Bussiere, who entered

diplomacy when he was quite a young man and continued in the service

until his death, which took place in his fifty-ninth year. His tomb can

still be seen at Noailles, where his ancestors are buried. His wife,

Jeanne de Gontault de Biron, is not, however, buried with him, although

her heart was placed in his coffin.

The second Ambassador to our Court of this illustrious family was

François de Noailles, brother of the last named, who was born on 2nd

July 1519. He was a very zealous Catholic and extremely pious. He

entered the Church when he was only twelve years of age, to eventually

become Bishop of Acqs in 1556. His extraordinary ability for diplomatic

intrigue led the King, Henry II, to send him to various countries on

sundry diplomatic missions, even at the same time as his brother, and

he first appeared in England on the occasion of Mary’s victory over the

rebels in 1553. He remained in England altogether about two years, and

his dispatches are frequently confounded with those of his brother.

François de Noailles died in 1560.

Both brothers were greatly opposed to the policy of Queen Mary, and

thought her unnecessarily harsh and cruel. On more than one occasion

they were very outspoken to her, especially in the matter of the

extraordinary number of executions which took place immediately after

the quelling of the Wyatt insurrection; and they both appear to have

thought that she made her own unpopularity by her bigotry, and her

abject subservience to the wishes of her husband.

[315] Noailles was certainly not present at the execution in the Tower.

He gives, however, a very concise account of it, including her speech.

His version of the tragedy follows that of Foxe very closely.

[316] Peter Derenzie states that “the corpse was interred in the Chapel

of St. Peter-ad-Vincula within the Tower, close by that of her husband,

Lord Guildford Dudley, and between the decapitated bodies of Anne

Boleyn and Katherine Howard, without any religious ceremony.”

[317] See _Zurich Letters_ (Parker Society), pp. 154, 515, 686.

[318] Francis, Earl of Huntingdon, having ridden out of London against

Mary in company of Northumberland, was arrested at Cambridge on 19th

July and conveyed to the Tower of London a day or two later. He was

indicted with Lady Jane and the others, but was released before the

following January, by which time he had so completely re-established

himself in the Queen’s favour that he was given the command of Her

Majesty’s troops sent into Leicestershire against Suffolk, whom he

brought back to the Tower a prisoner.

[319] Foxe’s _Acts and Monuments_, vol. ii. p. 1467.

[320] It is strange and significant that both in his prayer and in his

request for haste, Suffolk should have acted exactly as his daughter

had done!

[321] Did the Duchess of Suffolk cause her husband’s head to be

removed to his own house, which stood on the site now occupied by the

buildings adjacent to this Church? The mansion in question had been

the convent of the Order of Religious known as the Poor Clares, or in

Latin, _Sorores Minores_ (from which “Minories” has been formed) and

was given to Suffolk by Edward VI. The Church known as Holy Trinity was

the convent chapel. It is not altogether improbable that the Duchess

had the head brought there; on the other hand, Suffolk’s will may have

contained a request that it should be placed in the chapel.

[322] See Machyn, pp. 56, 64.

[323] What was to have been the ending of this sentence? Was the

chronicler going to add that the head was removed from the Tower after

decapitation? Perhaps, after all, the head in the Church of the Holy

Trinity, Minories, is that of Thomas Grey, and _not_ of the Duke of

Suffolk; its resemblance to the latter’s portrait arising from a mere

family likeness, common to all the brothers.

[324] The writer is of opinion that Adrian Stokes was a son or near

relation of John Stokes, the Queen’s brewer, who supplied the Suffolks

with beer and wine, as appears in the household accounts of the Duke of

Suffolk. This John Stokes was a notability in his way, and his funeral,

which must have been a costly function for those days, is recorded by

Machyn (p. 177) in the following terms: “The vj day of November [1558]

was bered at sent Benettes at Powlles Warff master John Stokes the

queen’s servand and bruar [brewer], with ij whytt branchys and x gret

stayffes-torchys and iij gret tapurs; and x pore men had rosett gownes

of iiijs. the yerd [four shillings the yard], and xvj gownes, and

cottes of xijs. [coats of eleven shillings] the yerd.”

[325] Vide _Notes and Queries_ for 1855, vol. xii. p. 451.

[326] The entire family of the Duke of Northumberland and his Duchess

was as follows:--

Henry, killed at the Siege of Boulogne in the thirty-fifth year of

Henry VIII, aged nineteen.

Thomas, who died when two years old.

John, who bore the title of Lord Lisle and Earl of Warwick during his

father’s life. He adopted a martial life, acting as Lieutenant-General

during Somerset’s expedition into Scotland. He married, in June 1550,

Anne Seymour. He was sentenced to death at the same time as his father,

was pardoned, and died at Penshurst, in Kent, ten days after his

release from the Tower, in 1554.

Ambrose was born about 1528. He was tried, together with Lady Jane Grey

and her husband, in 1553, was pardoned and released in October 1554,

and died in 1590, being created Earl of Warwick in the fourth year of

Elizabeth.

Robert, who was born about 1532, having proclaimed Jane Queen at King’s

Lynn, was sent to the Tower. He was condemned to death on 22nd June

1554, but was released and pardoned in October 1554. He was created

Earl of Leicester by Elizabeth, and became famous in her reign.

Guildford Dudley, husband of Lady Jane Grey.

Henry, who was tried at Guildhall with his brothers Ambrose and

Guildford in 1553, but liberated. He was killed at the battle of St.

Quentin, in 1555.

Charles, who died aged four years.

The daughters of Northumberland were--

Mary, who married Sir Henry Sidney, Lord Deputy of Ireland, etc., and

was the mother of Sir Philip Sidney. Catherine, the second daughter,

who married the Earl of Huntingdon, died in 1620, aged seventy-two.

Margaret, the fourth daughter, died at the age of ten.

Frances, fourth daughter, died as an infant.

Temperance, the fifth daughter, died at seven years old.

Of all these daughters, the only one who came into intimate contact

with Lady Jane was Lady Mary, who, it will be remembered, fetched the

Lady Jane to Sion from Chelsea, on the memorable occasion when she

received the homage of the Council.

[327] Cheke continued to travel on the Continent until 1556, when,

being invited by Lord Paget and Sir John Mason to go and see them in

Brussels in a friendly way, he was suddenly taken prisoner _en route_

by the Provost Marshal, on the road between Antwerp and Brussels,

blindfolded, tied, flung into a waggon, taken to the nearest port,

and conveyed by sea to the Tower of London, “being taken as it were

by a whirlwind,” as he says himself. The excuse given for his arrest

was that he had overstayed the leave of absence granted by the royal

licence, having endeavoured to establish himself abroad. In the Tower

he submitted to the Roman Catholic Church. He was later released and

granted extensive lands; but he died in September 1557, after, so it is

said, a partial return to Protestantism. He is buried in St. Alban’s

Church, Wood Street, under a monument bearing some verses by Dr. Haddon.

[328] The remainder of the actors in the drama are soon disposed of.

The end of Judge Morgan we have already mentioned. Feckenham was

imprisoned for twenty-three years under Elizabeth, and died in Wisbeach

Jail. Aylmer, once Jane’s tutor, was, on the other hand, extremely

fortunate. He fled at the coming of Mary, taking refuge in Switzerland,

whence he wrote a reply--entitled _An Harborowe for Faythfull and True

Subjects_--to Knox’s _Blast_. He returned to England at Elizabeth’s

accession; became Archdeacon of Lincoln in 1562, Bishop of London in

1576, and died in 1594. Ascham remained in England during Mary’s reign,

protected, despite his ardent Protestantism, by Gardiner. He died in

December 1568. The treacherous Lord Paget was restored to office under

Mary, and appointed Lord Privy Seal.

Transcriber’s Notes

Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a

predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not

changed. Spelling of non-English and old-English words not changed.

Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced

quotation marks retained.

Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained.

Text sometimes spells “Althorp” as “Althorpe”; both have been retained

here.

Index not checked for proper alphabetization or correct page references,

except for reference to page 385, which has been corrected to 358.

Page 254: Letters with overbars (such as ū) indicate contractions.

Page 254: “(to the issu” has no matching closing parenthesis.

Page 270: “Six purse hangers of siver and gilt” was printed that way.

Page 327: “Prince Arthur, younger brother of Henry VIII” is incorrect:

Arthur was the older brother.

Page 341: “Fox” may be a misprint for “Foxe”.

Page 364 refers to “Ross” and then “Rowe”; may be the same person.

Footnote 310, originally on page 342: The correct title of “Messager

des Scénes Historiques” is “Messager des Sciences Historiques”.

Page 364: The elegy, written in Latin, apparently contains several

typographical errors. They have not been changed here, but readers

may wish to consult other versions of that elegy, such as the one at

https://books.google.de/books?id=upwNAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA190.

Page 372: Left parenthesis added in the “Warwick, John, Earl of,” entry,

just before “the Duke of Northumberland’s son”.

Footnote 98, originally on page 103: “gratias ego” may be a misspelling

for “gratias ago”.