Chapter XXVI: Appendix (3)

[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.