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. 128d. 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.