The Chronicle of Queen Jane and of two years of Queen Mary

doi:10.1017/S2042169900012542

The Chronicle of Queen Jane and of two years of Queen Mary

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 February 2010

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

King Edward died at Greenwich, on the 6th July 1553, “towards night.” a The event was kept perfectly secret during the next day; but measures were taken to occupy and fortify the Tower of London On “the 8. of July the lord maior of London was sent for to the court then at Greenwich, to bring with him sixe aldermen, as many merchants of the staple, and as many merchant adventurers, unto whom by the Councell was secretly declared the death of king Edward, and also how hee did ordaine for the succession of the Crowne by his letters pattents, to the which they were sworne, and charged to keep it secret.”

Type: The Chronicle of Queen Jane and of two years of Queen Mary
Information: Camden Old Series , Volume 48: The Chronicle of Queen Jane, and of two years of Queen Mary, and especially of the Rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyat. Written by a resident in the Tower of London. , April 1850 , pp. 1 - 84

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2042169900012542 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1850

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 1 note a} Letter of the council to sir Philip Hoby, ambassador with the emperor, printed in Strype's Memorials, 1721, ii. 430. It was not written until the 8th of the month, and is silent regarding the successor to the throne. Mary, in her letter to the lords of the council, dated from Kenynghall on the 9th of July (printed in Foxe's Actes and Monuments), also states that she had learned from some advertisement that the king her brother had died on Thursday (the 6th) at night last past.

^{page 1 note b} Northumberland's intention was to keep the death of the king a secret, until lie should have obtained possession of the person of the lady Mary, who had been summoned to visit her brother, and was at no further distance from London than the royal manor of Hunsdon in Hertfordshire. But there were not wanting about the court those who from attachment to Mary, or from self-interest, ventured to incur the hazard of conveying to her this momentous intelligence; whereupon she immediately took alarm, and rode off towards the eastern coast, from which she might have escaped to the continent, had such a step become necessary. Many writers assert that it was the earl of Arundel who made a private communication to her. I have not found any contemporary authority for this statement; but sir Nicholas Throckmorton, in his poetical autobiography (MS. Cole, vol. xl. p. 272, verses 111, 112, 113, 114), claims the credit of having been the officious person. He had been a favourite servant of king Edward; and on hia royal master's death,

“Mourning, from Greenwich I didd strayt departe

To London, to an house which bore our name.

My bretheren guessed by my heavie hearte

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

The hushing of his death I didd unfolde,

Their meaninge to proclaime queene Jane I tolde.

And, though I lik'd not the religion

Which all her life queene Marye hadd profest,

Yett in my mind that wicked motion

Right heires for to displace I did detest.

Causeless to proffer any injurie,

I meant it not, but sought for remedie.

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 whome the message was dispatcht anon.

Shee asked, ‘If wee knewe it certainlie?’

Whoe said, ‘Sir Nicholas knew it verilie.”

The author bred the errand's greate mistrust:

Shee fear'd a traine to leade her to a trapp.

Shee saide, ‘If Robert had beene there shee Durst

Have gag'd her life, and hazarded the happ.

Her letters made, shee knewe not what to doe:

Shee sent them oute, butt nott subscrib'd thereto.”

By “Robert” the lady Mary meant sir Robert Throckmorton, one of the four brothers.

^{page 2 note a} See the Diary of Henry Machyn, p. 35.

^{page 2 note b} It appears most probable that this was the first intimation which the citizens had received of the existence of the letters patent: and that it was on this occasion that, being “sworn to them,” they affixed their signatures, although the document had been previously executed on the 21st of June. No fewer than thirty-two signatures follow that of the lord mayor, but the parties were perhaps not all citizens, and from the arrangement of their names in the existing transcript (mentioned in the following note^b) it would be difficult to distinguish which were the aldermen, which the merchants of the staple, and which the merchant adventurers.

^{page 3 note a} Dr. Peter Heylyn, in his History of the Reformation, fol. 1674, p. 159, has described the interview supposed to have taken place between the dukes of Northumberland and Suffolk and their daughter the lady Jane, when they waited upon her on the morning of the 10th of July, and then first made known to her the fatal diadem to which she was destined. The scruples of the gentle heiress were overcome with much difficulty, and the whole course of argument, pro et contra, is stated at considerable length. I believe, however, that this is only one of those dramatic scenes in which historical writers formerly considered themselves justified in indulging, as I have not been able to trace it to any earlier authority. Its verisimilitude may indeed be justified by the passage of the duke of Northumberland's speech recorded by our present chronicler (p. 6), “Who, by your and our enticement, is rather of force placed therein, than by her own seeking and request.” However, having been adopted by the writer of the Life of Lady Jane Grey in the Biographia Britannica, it is followed as authentic history by many subsequent writers. The more recent authors (including sir Harris Nicolas, Mr. P. F. Tytler, and Mr. Aungier the historian of Syon-house and Isleworth) have placed the scene of this interview at Syon; but Heylyn himself fixed it at Durham-house in the Strand: which was the duke of Northumberland's town mansion, and where the lady Jane's marriage had been celebrated only a few weeks before. Here Heylyn might well suppose she would be lodged at this critical period of her father-in-law's conspiracy. The fact, however, seems to have been otherwise. In the chronicle of the Grey Friars (which will be found in the Appendix) she is stated to have come down the river from Richmond to Westminster, and so to the Tower of London. If, then, she was supposed to have come from Richmond, she may very well have come from Syon, which was also at this time in the hands of the duke of Northumberland.

^{page 3 note b} Scarcely any of our historical writers show an acquaintance with these letters patent, though they have been conversant with the substance of them from the recital which is made in queen Jane's proclamation. A copy of the letters patent exists among Ralph Starkey's collections in the Harl. MS. 35, bearing this attestation: “This is a true coppie of Edward the Sixte his Will [this terme is misapplied], takene out of the originall undere the greate seale, which sir Robart Cottone delyvered to the King's Ma^tie the xij^h of Apprill 1611 at Roystorne to be canseled.” From this source the document is printed, in connection with the lady Jane's trial, in Cobbett's State Trials; and Mr. Howard, in bis Lady Jane Grey and her Times, pp. 213–216, has described its contents.

It is set forth in these letters patent that the king intended to complete this settlement of the crown by making a will, and by act of Parliament: thus following the precedent of his father Henry the Eighth's settlement, which this was to supersede (see an essay by the present writer in the Archseologia, vol. xxx. p. 464). But the rapid termination of king Edward's illness prevented these final acts of ratification; and Northumberland, in consequence, could only rely upon the validity of the letters patent, which had passed the great seal upon the 21st of June.

There are, besides the letters patent, two other documents extant, marking the earlier stages of this bold attempt to divert the succession.

^{page 4 note 1} The king's “own devise touching the said succession.” This was “first wholly written with his most gracious hand, and after copied owt in his Majesties presence, by his most high commandment, and confirmed with the subscription of his Majesties owne hand, and by his highnes delivered to certain judges and other learned men to be written in full order.” It was written in six paragraphs, to each of which Edward attached his signature. Burnet has printed the whole in his History of the Reformation, Documents, book iv. no. 10, from the MSS. of Mr. William Petyt, now in the Inner Temple Library. Strype, in the Appendix to his Life of Cranmer, has printed the first four clauses only, from the same manuscript, the fifth and sixth having, as Burnet remarks, been erased with a pen, but not so as to render them illegible—nor was it intended to cancel them, for they are followed in the letters patent.

2. An instrument of the Council, undated, but signed at the head by the King, and at its close by twenty-four councillors, &c. in which they “promise by their oaths and honors to observe, fully perform, and keep all and every article, branch, and matter contained in the said writing delivered to the judges and others.” This also is printed both by Burnet and Strype.

Besides these documents, three very important papers in reference to this transaction are, 1. the narrative of chief justice Montagu, printed in Fuller's Church History; 2. sir William Ceoill's submission to queen Mary, printed in Howard's Lady Jane Grey and Tytler's Reigns of Edward VI. and Mary; and 3. his servant Alford's statement as to Cecill's conduct at this crisis, written in 1573, and printed in Strype's Annals, vol. iv. p. 347.

^{page 5 note a} Sir William Drury, for his services “at Framlingham,” received, by patent dated the 1st Nov. following, an annuity of 100 marks: see it printed in Rymer's Fcedera, xv. 352. A like annuity of 200 marks was granted on the 14th Nov. to Thomas West lord la Warre for his services against the duke (ibid. p. 352); one of 1001. on the 4th Dee. to air Richard Southwell (ibid. p. 355); and one of 501. on the 10th Feb. to Francis Purefay for his services at Framlingham (ibid. p. 365). Probably many others, unnoticed by Rymer, are recorded on the Patent Rolls.

^{page 5 note b} In the suppression of Kelt's rebellion.

^{page 6 note a} Here commences our Manuscript, at f. 31 of the Harleian volume No. 194, as now incorrectly bound.

^{page 7 note a} i. e. alleged; printed said in Stowe.

^{page 8 note a} The marquess of Northampton.

^{page 8 note b} Stowe has altered this to the lord Grey.

^{page 8 note c} pressein Stowe.

^{page 8 note d} See the commissions addressed to several commanders to suppress the rebellion in Buckinghamshire, in the Catalogue of State Papers of the reign of queen Jane in the Appendix.

^{page 9 note a} This passage, together with those that follow, shows that the Chronicler was still writing in the Tower of London.

^{page 9 note b} Thomas lord Cheney.

^{page 9 note c} The marquess of Winchester.

^{page 10 note a} See the next page.

^{page 10 note b} “And among other he threw up his cap.” The marquess of Northampton was also present. Stowe.

^{page 10 note c} These letters are printed in StOwe's Chronicle.

^{page 10 note d} Stowe says, “The duke was arrested in the'Kinges college by one muster Slegge, sergeant at armes,”—in correction, evidently, of the present writer. Mr. Cooper, in his Annals of Cambridge, adds a note, “Roger Slegge, after an alderman of this town.”

^{page 11 note a} Thomas Lovell, the boy before mentioned in p. 7.

^{page 11 note b} The duke was brought to the Tower of London by the earl of Arundel on the 25th of July; see Machyn's Diary, p. 37.

^{page 11 note c} Edward lord Clinton.

^{page 11 note d} Framlingham.

^{page 11 note a} The party of the Council which made the Proclamation had left the Tower on the plea of giving audience to the French ambassador at Baynard's Castle. The earl of Arundel is represented as having been the chief instigator of this revolution, and a long address which he made to the assembled lords on the occasion is given in his Life by one of his chaplains, printed in the Gentleman's Magazine for 1833, vol. CIII. ii. 119.

^{page 13 note a} This report was untrue.

^{page 13 note b} William lord Grey of Wilton was the commander upon whose military talents the duke of Northumberland seems to have mainly relied: but lord Grey, who had been an adherent of the duke of Somerset, probably did not serve on this occasion very cordially. He seems to have left Northumberland when at Cambridge, and made his submission to Mary; who on her arrival at her manor of Newhall in Essex, on the 31st of July, dismissed him to his former charge of the castle of Guisnes, with a reinforcement of 350 footmen and 50 horsemen demi-lances: see her letters patent, printed in the Appendix to the Life of Lord Grey of Wilton, No. VI.

^{page 13 note c} The earl of Ormond.

^{page 13 note d} The name of the person to whom the letter is addressed is not preserved.

^{page 14 note a} Of this letter Stowe must have had a copy, as its words are followed in his account of the queen's entry in London.

^{page 14 note b} Gertrude marchioness of Exeter, daughter of William Blount lord Mountjoy, and mother of Edward earl of Devonshire.

^{page 14 note c} Stephen Gardiner.

^{page 14 note d} Anne, widow of the Protector.

^{page 14 note e} This report was premature; he was created earl of Devonshire (only), on the 1st of September.

^{page 15 note a} Sir John Baker.

^{page 15 note b} Probably Leighton Bosard.

^{page 15 note c} At Bleteoe.

^{page 15 note d} Edmund Bonner.

^{page 15 note e} Winchester house, Southwark.

^{page 15 note f} Thomas lord Darcy.

^{page 15 note g} William Paulet, marquess of Winchester.

^{page 16 note a} The two succeeding paragraphs, relating to the duke of Northumberland's trial, are supplied from Stowe's Chronicle.

^{page 17 note a} “In this pertinent question remarks Mr. Tytler, vol. ii. p. 2245, Northumberland evidently, I think, alluded to the commands of Edward the Sixth, and the warrant under the Great Seal of England affixed to his will. Yet it is strange that all our historians,— Carte, Hume, Lingard, Macintosh—misunderstood the question, and suppose with the judges (who seem purposely to have evaded Northumberland's meaning,) that his allusion was to the great seal of queen Jane. .... The judges, as I have said, purposely mistook and evaded Northumberland's meaning.” Mr. Tytler has not seen further than his predecessors, and it is he that is mistaken. The great seal to which Northumberland appealed, was not that affixed to the will or act of settlement; but it was that attached, by authority of queen Jane, to his commission of lieutenancy of the army, which has been mentioned (in p. 7) as sealed by the time the lords of the council had finished their dinner on the 14th of July. On this commission, under the great seal, he rested the justification of his having proceeded in arms against the lady Mary.

^{page 17 note b} See the pleas of the marquess of Northampton and earl of Warwick in the Appendix.

^{page 17 note c} MS. f. 49.

^{page 18 note a} See a full account of this sermon in the notes to Machyn's Diary, p. 332.

^{page 18 note b} Sir John Gage, the constable of the Tower.

^{page 19 note c} The lieutenant.

^{page 19 note a} “On Mondaye laste the duke of Northumberland, the marques of Northampton, sir John Gates, and others, hard masse verie devoutely in the Towere, and thear receaved the sacrament, even as they weare wonte 40 yeares agoe. Divers marchants, to the nomber of 14 or 15, were by the counsell comaunded to come to the queenes chappell, and theare tarry tyll masse was don; Mr. Thomas Locke was one; Mr. Clemente Newse, and divers other in Cheapsyde.” Letter of William Dalby, 22 Aug. 1553, in Ralph Sterkey's collections, MS. Harl. 353.

^{page 19 note b} John Stowe has here added these words to the MS.:no y^eyere 1501. y ^e18.of Awgust. He has himself, in his Chronicle, described Dudley's execution as having taken place on the 17th August 1510.

^{page 20 note a} “This present daye the duke of Northumberlande, sir John Grates, and master Pal-mere, came to exeoutione, and suffered deathe. The duke's oonfessyon was in effeote but lytle, as I hard saye; hee confessed himselfe worthie to dye, and that he was a greate helper in of this religion which is false, thearfore God had punished us with the lose of kinge Henry 8, and also with the lose of king Edward 6, then with rebellione, and aftere with the swetinge sicknes, and yet we would not turne. Requiringe them all that weare presente to remember the ould learninge, thankinge God that he would vutsafe to call him nowe to be a Christyane, for this 16 yeares he had byne non. The are we are a greate nomber turned with his words. He wished every man not to be covetous, for that was a greate parte of his distraction. He was asked further yf he had any thinge moare to saye, and he said nothinge but that he was worthie to dye, and so was moe than he, but he cam to dye, and not to accuse any mane. And thus bouldly he spak, tyll he layd his head on the block.” (Letter of William Dalby, as before cited.) Another account of the duke of Northumberland's confession, from the MS. Harl. 284, is printed in Bayley's History of the Tower of London, Appx. p. xlviii.; and by Tytler, vol. ii. p. 230, who refers to others in MS. Cotton, Titus, B II. in MS. Reg. 12 A 26 (in Latin), and an abstract in MS. Harl. 2194.

^{page 22 note a} Nicholas Heath, bishop of Worcester.

^{page 22 note b} Sir John Gates's confession, as stated in the MS. Harl. 284, is printed in the Appendix to Bayley's History of the Tower of London, p. xlix.

^{page 22 note c} “Then came sir Thomas Palmere, who when hee was upon the scaffold pnte of his cape to the auditory and sayd: ‘God geve you all good morowe,’ and divers did byd him god morowe againe, and he replyed and sayd, ‘I dos not doubt but that I have a good morowe, and shall have I truste a better good even. Good frends (quothe he) I am come hether to dye, for I have, lyved heare under a lawe, and have offended the same, and for my so doinge the same lawe fyndethe me guilty, hathe condemned me to ende heare my lyfe this daye; for the which I give God thankes, in that he whichshewed me the thinge which I have seene, and which also I knowe to be juste and trewe, and that is this, I have since my cominge out of yonder place (pointing to the Towere) seene with myne eyes my Bedeemere sittinge at the right hand of God the Father, in glory and majesty equall, whose powere is infinite, and in whome whoso puttethe his truste shall nevere be deceaved, and as he ia almighty so can he doe what he lystethe, and to whom he wille, and when he will, and non in the heven above nor in the earthe beneathe can or maye let[i. e. with-stand] his determinate will; by whom I lyve, by whom I am, and in whom I truste to lyve eternally. I have, as some of you doe knowe, good people, bine a man not altogether noreshid in England, but some parte of my brede I have eaten in other realmes; but to saye that befoare nowe I did ‘know] God arighte, the worlde arighte, or myselfe arighte, I did nevere. And nowe what I have sayde ye knowe. I saye God is such a one that without thowe wilt sit downe and behould the heavenes above, the sonne and moone, the starres above the firmament, the course of the sonne and moone, starres and clowds, the earthe with all that in them is, and howe they be all preserved, thow shalt nevere knowe God aright. The world is altogether vanity, for in it is nothinge but ambition, flatery, foolishe or vaine glory, pride, disorder, slander, bostinge, disdayne, hatred and mallis; all which thingee the same God that made the world, or as they saye man, which heare I compare to the world, dothe utterly deteste and abhor; in the which offences I have bine so noseled, that nowe, havinge a juste occasione to looke into myne owne selfe, I have seen nothing but a bodye voyde of all goodnes, fllthie, a stinking karkas, worse then donge of beastes, a very miserable creature, and yet the verie worke of the mighti hand of God. But yet, notwithstandinge, in nowe knowinge my Creator arighte, I doe not thinke any sinne to be that I have not byne plunged even into the middeste of it; for the which prayinge God to pardon me, willinge you and prayinge you to praye for me and withe me unto the Lord my God and your God, which God I faithfully beleeve is in heaven, and at the laste daye shall with all triumphe come againe into this worlde, judginge the same by fyere. And nowe I will bide you all farwelle, prayenge you all to forgeve me, and to saye, the Lord receave me to his mercy, when you shall see the axe passe between my head and shoulders.’ And so did prepare him to the deathe.” Letter written in London by John Rowe, 24 Aug. 1563, in Starkey's transcripts, MS. Hari. 353.

^{page 24 note a} There is a copy of this proclamation in Foxe, vol. iii. p. 18; and its substance in Strype, Memorials, vol. iii. p. 25, Heylyn's Ecclesiastical History, 1674, p. 193.

^{page 24 note b} MS. f. 46, b.—This highly interesting passage has been unknown to the modern biographers of Lady Jane Grey, though it has been once extracted, and printed, when the MS. was in the possession of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, in his pamphlet intitled “The Primitive Practice of preserving Truth. 1645.” 4to. Sir Simonds has there appended to it the following remarks: “How justly may themasculine constanoie of this excellent lady, whose many vertues the pens of her very enemies have acknowledged, rise up in judgement against all such poore spirits, who for feare of death, or other outward motives, shall deny God and his truth, and so crown the trophees of the antichristian or mongrill adversaries by their lamentable apostasie. For what shee here spake christianly, shee within a few moneths afterwards performed constantly, her life being taken from her on the 12^th day of February, 1553, having lived first to see Mr. Harding, her father's chaplain, revolted to Antichrist, to whom she wrote an effectual letter of admonition and reproof, published by Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments, p. 1291, not unworthy the perusall of the ablest Christians and greatest doctors.” In Foxe also, and in most of her biographies, will be found the lady Jane's conference with Dr. Feckenham, who was sent by queen Mary to persuade her to be reconciled to the church of Rome.

^{page 25 note a} These words are inserted in the MS. by sir Simonds D'Ewes.

^{page 25 note b} i. e. apparently, gazed at without sympathy. ' So the MS. probably for “few years.” Sir Simonds D'Ewes so understood it, but altered the phrase to “the flower of my yeeres.”

^{page 26 note a} MS. fol. 57, b.

^{page 26 note b} i. e. establishing? Both these proclamations are noticed under the same date in Stowe's Chronicle.

^{page 26 note c} Walter Devereux, who had been created viscount Hereford in 1550, though both in this Diary and in that of Machyn he is still called lord Ferrars, and by Stowe lord Ferrers of Chartley. In the register of the Privy Council he is properly styled viscount Hereford. He had married lady Mary Grey, aunt to the duke of Suffolk.

^{page 26 note d} Sir Roger Cholmley: see notes to Machyn's Diary, p. 368.

^{page 26 note e} Sir Edward Montagu: see notes to Machyn's Diary, p. 356.

^{page 26 note f} These figures are filled in by a second hand.

^{page 26 note g} On the 24th August (the same day that bishop Gardiner was made lord chancellor), “Hugh Latymer clerke apeared before the lords, and for his sedicious demeanor was committed to the Tower, there to remaine a close prisoner, having attending upon him one Anstey his servant.” Register of the Privy Council.

^{page 27 note a} Sir John Cheke.

^{page 27 note b} Thomas Cranmer.

^{page 28 note a} The rest of their names are omitted. A list of them has been given in the notes to Machyn's Diary, p. 334.

^{page 30 note a} Stowe says “a thousand markes of golde.”

^{page 30 note b} Here “maister Haywood sate in a pageant under a vine, and made to her an oration in Latin and English.” Stowe.

^{page 30 note c} i. e. very great? Stowe describes this performance more fully. It was done by “one Peter a Dutchman,” to whom the city gave 161. 13s. id. for his costs and pains, and all his stuff.

^{page 30 note d} MS. f. 68.

^{page 30 note e} The ceremonial of queen Mary's coronation has been published at considerable length in Mr. Planché's Regal Records, 1837. 12mo. A document respecting the claims made to perform services on this occasion, was printed in the Camden Society's volume of Rutland Papers, p. 118.

^{page 31 note a} MS. f. 66.

^{page 31 note b} Cuthbert Tunstall, bishop of Durham.

^{page 32 note a} MS. f. 41.

^{page 32 note b} The Parliament did not meet until the 12th November.

^{page 32 note c} A line is here so scribbled as to be illegible.

^{page 33 note a} This oration was first written and published in 1534. The English translation here mentioned was made by Michael Wood, a zealous protestant, and printed, with a bitter preface, at Rouen, 1653.

^{page 33 note b} There are two lines more of this paragraph, but so scribbled as not to be readable.

^{page 34 note a} The count of Egmont, Charles count de Laing, and the sieur de Corners: see a note to Machyn's Diary, p. 337.

^{page 34 note b} The word Westminster is erased, and several words written, above, hut they are illegible. qu. Dyrram place?

^{page 34 note c} MS. f. 1, b.

^{page 36 note a} The ensuing passages of the Chronicle supply some very interesting details respecting Wyatt's rebellion, particularly those occurrences in connexion with it which happened in and near London and the royal court. “The Historic of Wyates Rebellion “was compiled by John Proctor, the first master of sir Andrew Judde's school at Tunbridge, and published soon after its termination in 12mo. It is the principal source of the narrative given in Holinshed's Chronicle, and it has been reprinted entire in the second edition of The Antiquarian Repertory, 4to. 1808, vol. iii. pp. 65—114. Proctor, however, is the partial chronicler of the victorious party, and omits the many curious pictures of their distress and embarrassment which are related by the present authority (and which are remarkably confirmed by Underbill's account, which will be found in the Appendix). The fate Mr. Robert Peirce Cruden, in his History of Gravesend and the Port of London, 1843, 8vo. has collected the particulars of all that occurred within the county of Kent, combining the information contained in Proctor's narrative, with several original documents found in the State Paper Office.

^{page 36 note b} Sir Thomas Wyatt hoped for the support of lord Cobham, who seems to have temporised in the matter, but gave information to the queen's lieutenant, the duke of Norfolk; see three of his letters, all written from Cowling castle, in Cruden, pp. 178, 180.

^{page 36 note c} Sir Thomas Cheney was also backward in maintaining the royal authority, and consequently fell under suspicion; see his statements in explanation in Cruden, p. 183.

^{page 36 note d} A mistake probably for Rudston.

^{page 36 note e} The marquess of Northampton.

^{page 36 note f} The marquess of Winchester.

^{page 37 note a} Prom his house at Sheen in Surrey: see the Appendix.

^{page 37 note b} The word u apparently taken. At first the chronicler had written, was driven upp or broken downe.

^{page 37 note c} The encounter of lord Burgavenny with sir Henry Isley took place in the parish of Wrotham, at a field called Blacksoll field, on Saturday the 27th of January, and is fully described by Proctor. Isley secreted himself during the following night in Hartley wood, and then fled into Hampshire.

^{page 37 note d} Sir Henry Jerningham.

^{page 39 note a} Misprinted followers in Stowe.

^{page 39 note b} Doctor Sandys (who was afterwards bishop of London) was vice-chancellor of Cam-bridge, and was compromised by the reception he had there given to the duke of Northumberland, and a sermon he had preached favourable to the accession of queen Jane. Veron and Basil had been committed, together with the more celebrated Bradford, as “seditious preachers,” (see notes to Machyn's Diary, p. 332).

^{page 39 note c} The earl of Bedford.

^{page 40 note a} Herefordshire—raised by sir James Croft.

^{page 40 note b} “The oration of queene Mary in the guildhall” is printed at length by Foxe, iii. 30.

^{page 40 note c} These lines are so scribbled as to be almost illegible.

^{page 40 note d} Stowe adds to this passage, “Yea, this day and other dayes the justices, serjeantes at the law, and other lawyers in Westminster hall, pleaded in harnesse.” The following anecdote is related of Ralph Rokeby, serjeant-at-law, daring the same period of alarm: “And yet I may not soe injuriously defraude my father of his due praise as to omitt his service against Wyatt, which was thus: Sir Thomas Wyatt the rebell of Kent against king Philip and queene Mary, the Spaniards, being noised to be comeing towards London, your grandfather went to Westminster in his serjant's robes to plead, under them a good coate-armour; and heareing at Charing-crosse the nere approach of the enemie, the rebell, he hastened him to the queens court at Whitehall, strunge and fetled an archer of the guard's liverye bow that stood there unstrunge, threw downe the serjant's robes for that tyme, and went to the Gate-house to serve there with a bowe and a sheaf of arrowes, and there taried till the enemie was yielded. Old Nicholson, of Paule's ehaine, told me my father then committed a bagg of money to him to keepe, and that Alexander Metham his clerk was with him, but that William Bell hidd him under my father's bedd in Serjantes inn, and there laye untill his master retorned.” (CEconomia Rokebeiorum, in Whitaker's History of Richmondshire, vol. i. p. 173.) The martial spirit spread even to the priest-hood, if we may believe another contemporary chronicle: “On Ashe Weddinsday that Wyat was at Charynge crosse did doctor Weston singe masse before the quene in harnesse under his vestments. This Weston reported himself unto one Mr. Robards.” (MS. Harl. 419, f. 131.)

^{page 41 note a} Lord William Howard was at this time deputy of Calais.

^{page 42 note a} Sir Peter Carew, and his uncle sir Gawen, had been the commanders employed by the government of king Edward VI. to quell the insurrection of Humphrey Arundell and others in Devonshire, in the year 1549, and had been rewarded with the rebels' lands. (Lysons, Magna Britannia, Devonshire, p. x.) Mr. Lysons found no account of the pre-sent insurrection in any of the annala of Exeter; and from “The Life of Sir Peter Carew, of Mohun's Ottery,” written by John Vowell, alias Hoker (the historian of Exeter), which is printed in the 28th volume of Archaeologia, it is evident that the reports which reached London were much exaggerated. It appears that, before the conspirators had made any head, sir Gawen Carew, sir Arthur Champernowne, and William Gybbes esquire were arrested by sir Thomas Denys the sheriff and sir John Sentleger. Sir Peter Carew, escaping to Weymouth, fled first to France, afterwards to Venice, and lastly to Strasburg; from whence he was tempted to go to Antwerp, in order to seek an interview with lord Paget, but, being arrested, was at last brought back to the Tower of London, in company with sir John Cheke, and finally made his peace with the queen by payment of a heavy fine. See the narrative of these adventures in Archseologia, vol. xxviii. pp. 120 et seq.; and see also in Tytler's “Edward VI. and Mary,” a letter addressed to the queen by sir Nicholas Wotton, her ambassador at Paris, describing sir Peter Carew's reception on his first arrival in France. The date of his release is shown by the following passage in a letter of sir John Mason to Peter Vannes, dated London, Oct. 12, 1555: “Mr. Carew, having throughlie clered himself of all matters layed unto his charge, is also abrode with the quenes favour.” (MS. Cotton. Vesp. C. vn. f. 200.)

^{page 43 note a} Lord William Howard.

^{page 44 note a} i. e. on my sentry, or beat; a military expression, very appropriately addressed to the watch.

^{page 45 note a} Named Thomas Menchen, adds Stowe.

^{page 47 note a} This passage was inserted after the first writing. Stowe states that Harper deserted Wyat (a second time, for he did so before at Eochester,) and came to the court to report bis approach.

^{page 48 note a} “And so came that daye toar (toward) Saint James felde, where as was the erle of Pembroke the quenes leftenant, and my lorde prevy seale [the earl of Bedford], and my lord Paget, and my lord Clynton, which was lord marshall of the campe, with dyvars oder lordes on horseback; which lord Clynton ghawe the charge with the horsemen by the parke corner, which was aboute xij. of the clocke that daye, and Wyat so passed hym selve with a smalle company, toar Charryng crosse, and so toar Flet streate,” &c. MS. Addit. Brit. Mus. 15,215, p. 40.

^{page 49 note a} It is possible these were the very three men whose burial is thus recorded in the register of Saint Margaret's, Westminster:—

^{page 50 note a} Stowe adds, whereof the lord Chidioke Powlet, his sonne, was captaine.

^{page 50 note b} Stowe inserts the name Clarentius, i. e. Thomas Hawley. Machyn (p. 54) says that Wyat “yielded unto master Norroy, the harold of armes, in his cote of armes.” In that case he was William Harvey, who subsequently became Clarenceux in 1557.

^{page 51 note a} Of Northampton.

^{page 51 note b} Sir John Brydges.

^{page 52 note a} Stowe copied this name incorrectly Thomas.

^{page 53 note a} This was the father of sir John Harington, whose literary remains have been published under the title of Nugse Antiquæ. In that work (Park's edit. 1804), in vol. i. p. 63, will be found a letter of Harington expostulating with bishop Gardyner, “Why, my good Iorde, (he says,) must I be thus annoyde for one deed of speciale good wyll to the ladie Elizabethe, in bearynge a letter as was sente from one that had such ryghte to gyve mee his commande [qu. the duke of Suffolk?] and to one that had such ryghte to all myne hartie sarvyce.” His wife was servant to the lady Elizabeth. In vol. ii. pp. 332, 333, of the same collection, are two poems which Mr. Harington wrote during his imprisonment, and at p. 70, a third addressed to the bishop. See also sir John Harington's biographical memoir of Gardyner for a passage, the substance of which is repeated in a letter written by sir John Harington to Henry prince of Wales in 1606: “I may truly say this prelate (Gardyner) did persecute me before I was born; for my father was, by his command, imprisoned in the Tower for eleven months, for only carrying a letter to the princess Elizabeth, and my mother was taken from his presence, and obliged to dwell with Mr. Topcliff as a heretic. My poor father did send many petitions to the bishop, but in vain, as he expended one thousand pounds to get his liberty. Nor had they any comfort but their consciences to beguile this affliction, and the sweet wordes and sweeter deeds of their mistress and fellow prisoner.”

^{page 54 note a} This sermon is noticed by Foxe, Actes and Monuments, vol. iii. p. 113.

^{page 55 note a} Sir Thomas Offley; see note in Machyn's Diary, p. 353

^{page 55 note b} He had probably refused the attendance of a Roman Catholic priest, and was not allowed one of his own choice.

^{page 55 note c} Misread by Stowe with teares.

^{page 55 note d} The marquess of Northampton.

^{page 55 note e} no lesse in MS., not worse as given by Stowe and Holinshed.

^{page 55 note f} “Great pitie was it for the casting awaye of that fayre Ladye, whome nature had not onely so bewtified, but God also had endewed with singuler gyftes and graces, so that she ignorantly receaved that which other wittingly devised and offred unto her.

“And in like manner that comely, vertuous, and goodly gentleman the lorde Gylford Duddeleymost innocently was executed, whom God had endowed with suehe vertues, that even those that never before the tyme of his execution saw hym, dyd with lamentable teares bewayle his death.” Grafton's Abridgment, 1563.

^{page 56 note a} This is here copied from a reprint edited by the Rev. John Brand in the 13th volume of the Archasologia. I have not been able to find a copy of the original. It was incorporated into the narratives of Grafton and Foxe, with some variations, which will be noticed in the ensuing notes.

^{page 56 note b} Holinshed has amplified this into the following more explicit statement: “My offence agaynst the ojieenes highnesse was onely in consent to the device of other, which nowe is deemed treason; but it was never my seeking, but by counsell of those who shoulde seeme to have further understanding of things than I, which knewe little of the lawe, and much lesse of the tytles to the crowne.”

^{page 57 note a} Another report of “lady Jane Dudley's speech on the scaffold,” somewhat more verbose but not so impressive, is printed in Nicolas's Remains, &c. p. 52.

^{page 57 note b} This circumstance, that Feckenham (the new dean of St. Paul's) was attendant upon her, is suppressed by Grafton, but preserved by Foxe.

^{page 57 note c} Altered by Grafton, &c. to “her mayden (called mystresse Eleyn) "—that is, her other female attendant.

^{page 57 note d} Grafton altered this “to mayster Bruges, then lieutenant of the Tower;” and Foxe says, “maister Bruges” only. The book is supposed to have been the same manual of English prayers which is now preserved in the British Museum as the MS. Harl. 2342; and which contains the three following notes, the two former it will be perceived addressed to the duke of Suffolk, and the last to sir John Brydges:—

“Your lovyng and obedyent son wischethe unto your grace long lyfe in this world, with as muche joye and comforte as ever I wyshte to my selfe, and in the world to come joy everlasting. Your most humble son tel his death. G. Duddeley.

“The Lorde comforte your grace, and that in his worde, whearin all creatures onlye are to be comforted. And thoughe it hathe pleased God to take away ij. of your children, yet thincke not, I most humblye beseach your grace, that you have loste them, but truste that we, by leasinge this mortall life, have wunne an immortal life. And I for my parte, as I have honoured your grace in this life, wyll praye for you in another life. Youre gracys humble doughter, Jane Duddeley.

“Forasmutche as you have desired so simple a woman to wrighte in so worthye a booke, good mayster lieuftenaunte, therefore I shall as a frende desyre you, and as a Christian require you, to oall uppon God to encline your harte to his lawes, to quicken you in his waye, and not to take the worde of trewethe utterlye oute of youre mouthe. Lyve styll to dye, that by deathe you may purchase eternall life, and remembre howe the ende of Mathusael, whoe, as we reade in the scriptures, was the longeste liver that was of a manne, died at the laste: for, as the precher sayethe, there is a tyme to be borne, and a tyme to dye; and the daye of deathe is better than the daye of oure birthe. Youres, as the Lorde knowethe, as a frende, Jane Duddeley.”

These passages (fac-similes of the first and last of which are engraved in “Autographs of Remarkable Persons,” 4to. 1829, pl. 19) were evidently written very shortly before the execution of the noble pair, as is shown by an expression in the lady Jane's address to her father; and there is every probability in sir Harris Nicolas's conjecture that this book was employed as the messenger to convey these assurances of duty and affection, when personal intercourse was denied. The duke of Suffolk was brought back to the Tower only two days before his daughter's decapitation, and it is possible that she was spared the additional pain of knowing how imminent his fate also was. From the passage addressed to the lieutenant, it would further appear that the book, “so worthye a booke,” already belonged to him; if, therefore, it is the same which the lady Jane carried with her to the scaffold, she would place it in the hands of “maister Brydges” (whether the lieutenant or his brother) as returning it to its owner. In some accounts of the lady Jane's last moments it will be found stated that she gave a book to sir John Gage; this error, into which Mr. Howard in his Memoir has fallen, arises merely from a confusion of the constable with the lieutenant of the Tower, sir John Gage having been erroneously named as the lieutenant in the description of the manual in the Catalogue of the Harleian MSS, This interesting relic is a small square vellum book, now in modern binding.

^{page 58 note a} Sir Harris Nicolas (p. xci.) states that, after having taken considerable pains to ascertain the meaning of the article here named, he was inclined to coincide with a literary friend who suggested “Fronts-piece.” Foxe, however, has it spelt “frowes past,” which is probably “frow's paste,” or matronly head-dress: the paste being a head attire worn by brides, as explained in the glossarial iridex to Machyn's Diary, p. 463. The term was thought probably too familiar, if not inapplicable, by Grafton, who altered it in his chronicle to “her other attyres.”

^{page 59 note a} MS. f. 29.

^{page 59 note b} See a full catalogue of these horrors in Machyti's Diary, p. 55.

^{page 60 note a} The word “sayeth” is apparently sith, or since; and Vaughan's intention seems to have been to pass a reflection on the old age of his judge, and his consequent impending death. If so, he was much mistaken in his anticipations, as the lord treasurer lived for one and twenty years after, to the age of ninety-seven.

^{page 60 note b} MS. f. 69.

^{page 61 note a} A copy of this proclamation is given by Foxe, its principal object having been to compel the congregations of Dutch, French, and other foreign Protestants, who had taken refuge in England during the reign of Edward VI., to quit the country. It describes the parties intended as “all and every such person or persons borne out of her highnesse' dominions, now eommorant or resident within this realme, of whatsoever nation or country, being either preacher, printer, bookseller, or other artificer, or of whatsoever other calling else, not being denizen,” &c. (as in the text.) Among those who took refuge in Germany were many French Protestants; see letter of Simon Renard in Tytler, ii. 312.

^{page 61 note b} Free-denizens.

^{page 62 note a} Some words not legible are here written above the line.

^{page 63 note a} The name of sir John Williams is here a mistake for the lord William Howard. Three councillors were sent to bring the lady Elizabeth up from Ashridge, lord William Howard, sir Edward Hastings, and sir Thomas Cornwaleys: see Tytler, vol. ii. pp. 424 et seq. and Miss Strickland's memoir of Elizabeth. In the circumstantial but not very accurate narrative of the lady Elizabeth's troubles, printed at the end of the third volume of Foxe's Actes and Monuments, the name of sir Richard Southwell is erroneously placed in the room of lord William Howard.

^{page 63 note b} “21 Feb. Richard Mitton esquire, (sheriff of Shropshire,) brought this daye upp the lord Thomas Graye, Richarde Piddocke, and Robarte Drake, delivered unto him by in-denture berynge date the xv. day of Pebruarye by the lord presydent and counsell of Wales; who were comited to the Tower. Sir James Crofts knight was in lyke manner delyvered by the said master Mitton, and brought upp by him and comytted to the Tower.” Register of the Privy Council.

^{page 64 note a} “With that, divers of the standers by said with meetly good and audible voice, ‘Such forgivenesse God send thee!’ meaning doctoure Weston.” Foxe.

^{page 64 note b} So in Stowe's Chronicle.

^{page 64 note c} Foxe's account of “the godly end” of the duke of Suffolk is supported in all important points by the present writer. They coincide as to his distinct expression of reliance on the Protestant faith: but whilst the duke is here described as joining with the attendant priest (Hugh Weston, successively dean of Westminster and of Windsor), in the repetition of the psalm Miserere, Foxe represents him as having twice endeavoured to prevent Weston from ascending the stairs of the scaffold with him. Both circumstances, however, may have occurred. It is at least certain that, whatever may have been the ordinary weakness of Suffolk's character, he was as constant in religion as his heroic daughter could have desired, though subjected to the like zealous attempts which she had endured, and which were successful over the loose principles of the duke of Northumberland and many others at this period of trial. This fact is confirmed by the following passage of a letter of Simon Eenard to the emperor, dated the 24th Feb.: “Ce jourduy Ton execute le due de Suffocq, qui ne s'est jamais voulu reconnoistre quant a la religioni aiant fait admonestement au peuple pour non se revolter contre la royne, à laquelle il demandoit mercy.” Tytler, vol. ii. p. 309.

^{page 64 note d} These men were probably among those who were reconciled to the church of Rome.

Foxe has inserted in his great work a paper written by Walter Mantell the elder, another of the Kentish prisoners, relating the several attempts made on his faith by three priests, Bourne, Weston, and Mallet, and defending himself from the suspicion of having consented to hear mass. It is dated the 2d of March, which seems to have been immediately before his execution in Kent (see p. 66).

^{page 65 note a} Sir Nicholas Arnold was compromised by Wyat having named him as the person to whom William Thomas “first brake” his project of assassinating the queen. He was detained in the Tower until the 18th Jan. following. In 1556 he was again a prisoner there (see Machyn's Diary, p. 104.)

^{page 65 note b} Holinshed and Foxe erroneously say sir John Rogers. Sir Edward was named by sir Thomas Wyat as having brought him a message from the earl of Devonshire. He also was discharged on the 18th Jan. 1554-5. Queen Elizabeth, on her accession, made him vice-chamberlain and captain of her guard, and in 1560 comptroller of the household, and he died holding the latter office in 1565.

^{page 65 note c} Foxe states that sir William Sentlow had been “committed as prisoner to the master of the horse” on the previous day. See other particulars of his imprisonment in the Rev. Joseph Hunter's memoirs of him, Retrospective Review, Second Series, vol. ii. p. 319; also the letter written by the counsellors above named directing his arrest, in Tytler, ii. 314.

^{page 65 note d} This is a mistake for sir Richard Southwell. Renard abuses him very much as decidedly a secret partisan of Courtenay: Tytler, ii. 338.

^{page 66 note a} The duke of Suffolk's mother was Margaret, daughter of sir Robert Wotton, of Boughton Malherbe, and widow of William Medley.

^{page 66 note b} Proctor states that sir Henry Isley and Thomas Isley his brother (not cousin, as in the text), and Walter Mantell, suffered at Maidstone, where Wyat had first displayed his banner. The two Knevetts and another of the Mantells were executed at Sevenoaks. Brett was hung in chains at Rochester. “Maister Rudston and certain other” (as Vaughan, see p. 68), who were of the condemned party in the barge on the 27th February, obtained pardon; see Rudston's pardon in Rymer, xv. 373. Sir Henry Isley had been sheriff of Kent in 34 Hen. VIII. and 5 Edw. VI. as his son William was in 7 Eliz.; see his pedigree in the Topographer and Genealogist, 1846, vol. i. p. 517. Their heirs were restored in blood by act of parliament 2 Eliz.

^{page 66 note c} Probably William Honynges who had been one of the clerks of the signet temp. Edward VI. and of whom various particulars are collected in the Collectanea Topogr. et Geneal. vol. vii. pp. 394—400.

^{page 67 note a} “My Lords, in anywise search for the lady Fitzwilliams' second son. It is a great and marvellous importing, but not hasty or now dreadful, thanks be to God!” Letter of the commissioners, 25 Feb. Tytler, ii. 314. See the charge made against him in p. 69, and his release in p. 71.

^{page 67 note b} This battle of “French-and-English” under a new name, was thought of sufficient importance by both the imperial and French ambassadors to be noticed in their despatches. Simon Renard says, “Some three hundred children assembled in a meadow, and divided themselves into two bands to play at the game of the Queen against Wyatt, in which several have been wounded on both sides.” (Tytler, ii. 330.) Noailles states further that the boy who represented the prince of Spain being taken prisoner was hanged, and narrowly escaped strangulation. The queen ordered the ringleaders to be whipped and imprisoned for some days. (Ambassades, iii. 130.)

^{page 67 note c} A much deeper dye of treason is assigned to lord Thomas Grey in one of the despatches of M. de Noailles, namely, that, perceiving Courtenay's failure, he had determined to take his place, and be either king or hung. The passage is as follows: “Le due de Suffolck ........ il s'est retiré avecques ses deulx frères, qui sont gens de plus grand esprit et conduicte que luy; et ne faicts doubte que millord Thomas, Pun d'ieeulx, suyvant ce que je vous en ay, sire, faict entendre par cy-devant, ne soit bientost pour remuer mesnage; et comme celuy qui a desclairé à quelqu'un de ses amys et des miens en ces propres mots, que voyant la faulte que a faicte Courtenay, il est deliberé de tenir son lieu, qu'il fault qu'il soit roy ou pendu.” Ambassades, iii. 48.

^{page 70 note a} It was on Palm Sunday, the 18th of March, that the lady Elizabeth was brought to the Tower. It had been intended to take her there on the day before, but she having persuaded the lords to allow her to write a letter to the queen, (whieh letter is that printed in Sir H. Ellis'a Second Series, vol. ii. p. 255,) whilst she was so doing the tide was lost which would have enabled their barge to shoot London Bridge. (See Tytler, ii. 342.) In the Harl. MS. 419, are preserved some “notes of the lady Elizabeth's troubles,” which formed part of the materials of Foxe's more extended (and perhaps embellished) narrative. The reader may be glad to see the account there given of this memorable landing at the Tower, and to compare it with the equally curious account in the text. They will be found to agree in the main particulars of the princess's behaviour, though they do not report the expression of her sentiments in absolutely the same words:

“At landing she fyrst stayd and denyed to land ther, neyther well could she onles she goo over her show (shoe). The lords were goone out of the bote before, and asked why she came not. One of the lords went bak agayne to her, and brought word that she would not come. Then said one of the lordes that shalbe nameles, [the lord treasurer is evidently here meant,] that she shuld not chuse. Because yt dyd then rayne, the same lord offered to her his clock, which she, puttyng yt back with her hand, refused. So she comyng out, havyng one foote upon the stayre, sayd, ‘Here landeth the truest subject, being a prysonner, that ever landed at these stayres.' To whom the same lord answered agayne, that it was the better for her. At her landyng ther was a grett multitude of ther servants and warders standyng in ther order. ‘What neded al this?’ sayth she, ‘Yt is the use,’ sayth some, ‘so to bee, when any prisoner came thither.’ So she comyng toward the Tower, threise desyred them to beare record that [she] said ‘Here cometh the truest subject that ever came ther.’” It should be added that this MS. has marks of reference, which imply that its passages were intended as insertions for a narrative previously written: which was possibly the first draft of that in Foxe.

^{page 70 note b} This is evidently a clerical error for Winchester, the lord treasurer. The marquess of Northampton was at this time himself a prisoner (see the next page).

^{page 70 note c} Sir John Gage, who was also constable of the Tower.

^{page 71 note a} This account of the earl of Sussex's conduct is also confirmed by the anecdotes quoted in the previous note: “The satterday when she shuld (have) goone to the Tower, the old lord of Sussex sayd, that dyvers lordes ther wer of the counsail that were sory for her trouble. And as for hym, castyng bis hands abroad, he sayd in great agony of hart (as it semed), that he was sory that ever he lyved to see that day.”

^{page 71 note b} Two days after this, when the queen gave audience to the imperial ambassador, she was forced to make him many excuses for her clemency on this occasion. She stated that she had yielded to the persuasion of the commissioners employed to examine the prisoners; that it had been an immemorial custom that on Good Friday the kings of England should grant pardon to some of their prisoners; moreover, that the marquess of Northampton had returned to the old religion. Renard, however, was dissatisfied that they should have been let off so easily and so soon. See his letter in Tytler, ii. 348.

^{page 71 note c} Prom this it might be supposed that sir John Harington was mistaken in supposing that his father remained a prisoner eleven months (see p. 53). But it appears from the register of the privy council that he was not now released, for on the 24th June sir William Sentelowe, William Smethwicke, and John Harrington were ordered to be removed from the Tower to the Fleet, and in Jan. following Harington was bound to “good abearinge” in C li. previously to his release.

^{page 71 note d} This name should be Danett, whose committal see before in p. 65, and who is mentioned by Renard as one of the eight now released, though Mr. Tytler (ubi supra) sup-posed “Danet” to be the name of Daniel mis-spelt.

^{page 72 note a} See Machyn's Diary, p. 58.

^{page 72 note b} Pro forma at Oxford, in consequence of the queen's original determination to hold it there, because of the disturbed state of the metropolis.

^{page 72 note c} See Machyn, p. 59.

^{page 72 note d} The constable and lieutenant.

^{page 72 note e} It was afterwards the subject of dispute, the friends of the lady Elizabeth declaring that he had fully cleared both her and Courteuay; but the court party stating that he had implored Courtenay “to confess the truth,” and consequently acknowledge himself guilty. The following was a statement made by lord Chandos in the star-chamber: “My lords (quoth he), this is a truth that I shall tell you; I being lieutenant of the Tower when Wyat suffered, he desired me to bring him to the lord Courtenay; which when I had done he fell down upon his knees before him in my presence, and desired him to confesse the truth of himselfe, as he had done before, and to submit himself unto the queen's majesties mercy.” Wyat, clinging to life, was evidently endeavouring to suggest further grounds for inquiry and consequent delay; and there can be no reason to discredit lord Cliandos's testimony, though Foxe (vol. iii. p. 41) chose to designate it as his “false report against the lady Elizabeth and lord Courtney,” assuming that the character of Elizabeth was necessarily by implication aspersed, when Courtenay's guilt was intimated. It has now been ascertained by historical revelations, that Courtenay was certainly privy to the intrigues of the French and Venetian ambassadors, whilst there are strong suspicions that Elizabeth was not ignorant of them (see Tytler, ii. 320 et seq.); but no evidence has occurred to shew that Elizabeth was ever in communication with Courtenay: nor do we find that Wyat was confronted with her in the Tower, as some writers have imagined.

^{page 73 note a} Another statement of sir Thomas Wyat's words (which has been published with some important misprints in Bayley's History of the Tower, Appendix, p. xlix.) is contained in the MS. Harl. 559, f. 53, as follows:

Verba Thome Wiei militis in hora mortis sue.

Good people, I have confessyd before the quenes majestyes honorable counsayle alle those that toke parte with me, and were privaye of the conspiracye; butt as for mye ladye Elzabethes grace, and the yearle of Devonnshere, here I take hyt uppon mye deathe that theye never knewe of the conspiracye, nether of mye fyrst risinge; and as towchinge anye fawlte that is layd to theyre charge I can not accuse them (God I take in witnes).

Le 11 die Aprilis an^o 1554, pⁱmo an^o Marie regine.

^{page 74 note a} Miscopied Thom. by Stowe.

^{page 74 note b} Renard says it was taken away on the same day (April 17) that sir Nicholas Throckmorton was acquitted: “Le meme jour on ota la teste de Wyatt, qu'avoit esté planté dessus ung gibet; qu'est en Angleterre grande crime et sohandale.” Tytler, ii. 374.

^{page 74 note c} See a passage corresponding to this in Machyn's Diary, p. 59, and the note on the livery of green and white, ibid. p. 397.

^{page 75 note a} The words “starke knaves” are inserted in another hand above those of the original writer, which are scratched away. They seem as if written by some loyal person in Elizabeth's reign who misunderstood the meaning of the paragraph.

^{page 75 note b} Their names are given in Holinshed's chronicle, where all the proceedings of Throckmorton's trial are very fully detailed. It was especially memorable as a rare and almost unprecedented instance of a state prisoner escaping from the judicial engines of arbitrary power. Sir Nicholas was indebted for his release to his own high spirit, good tact, and eloquence, for he was his own advocate; and to the Christian courage of the worthy citizens who composed his jury. They suffered imprisonment for nearly all the rest of the year, and were then released only on the payment of very heavy fines (see Holinshed, under the dates of Nov. 10 and Dec. 22). Throckmorton's trial will also be found in the Collection of State Trials, and in Mr. Jardine's interesting volume on that subject.

^{page 75 note c} Thomas Whetston, haberdasher, foreman, and Emanuell Lucar, merchant-taylor.

^{page 75 note d} “A proper gentleman,” remarks Holinshed, “and one that had served right valiantly both in France and Scotlande, in the dayes of the late kings Henrie and Edwarde.” He was buried (says Machyn, p. 61) at Allhallows Barking.

^{page 76 note a} The MS. is here not very clear, but the meaning is plainly that only eight of the jurors originally summoned were willing to convict the accused, and consequently four other men were sent for. No fuller account of sir James Croft's trial is known to be extant. He escaped with his life, and was among those released on the 18th Jan. following. See his memoir in the Retrospective Review, Second Series, vol. i.

^{page 76 note b} These words occur at the foot of a leaf, but nothing more of the matter.

^{page 76 note c} “On Saturday [May 19] at one o'clock in the afternoon, my lady Elizabeth was delivered out of the Tower by my lord treasurer and my lord chamberlain, and went to Richmond by water forthwith ere she landed; where she shall be attended upon by sundry of the guard, and some officers of every office in the queen's house, but how long she shall continue there I know not.” Letter of Robert Swyft to the earl of Shrewsbury, in Lodge's Illustrations.

^{page 76 note d} Blank in the MS. Fotheringay is named in Stowe, and see Machyn's Diary, p. 64.

^{page 76 note e} The gallows on which the rebels were hung: they were now cleared away to prepare for king Philip's public entry; see Machyn, p. 45.

^{page 76 note f} When doctor Pendleton was preaching; see Stowe, and Machyn, p. 65. The occur-rence is also thus noticed in a letter of Simon Renard, the emperor's ambassador, to his master: “L'on tira, dimanche passé, un coup d'arquebouse contre un prédicant catholique, estant au milieu de sa prédication, à laquelle assistoient plus de quatre mille personnes; et n'a Ton sceu qui avoit tiré le dit coup.” Letter dated 14 June, 1554, in Tytler, ii. 418.

^{page 77 note a} Lord John Grey afterwards obtained his pardon, as Holinshed says, “through the painefull travayle and diligent suite of the ladie Grey his wife;” and he was released from the Tower on the 30th of October. His wife was daughter of sir Anthony Browne, K.G. grand-daughter of the lord chamberlain sir John Gage, and sister to the new viscount Montagu (see p. 81). By the execution of his brothers lord John Grey became the head of the family, and from him descends the present earl of Stamford and Warrington. See further notices of him in Nichols's History of Leicestershire, vol. iii. p. 674.

^{page 77 note b} The following stages of the queen's progress, on her marriage journey, are from “Mr. Robert How's notes in his Almanack of the yere of our Lord 1554,” transcribed in the MS. Harl. 4102, f. 29 b.:

Tuesday the 29 (May) the quene went to Riehemonte.

Saterday the 16 of June the quene went to Oteland.

Tuisday the 19 the quene came to Guilford.

Fryday the 22 the quene came to Farnham.

Wednesday the 11 of July the quene went to Norton.

Thursday the 12 she went to Waltham.

Fryday the 20 the prince of Spayne landed at Hampton.

Saterday the 22 the quene went to Winchester.

Wednesday the 25, being saynte James day, the quene maryed the prince of Spayne at Winchester.

Tuisday the 31 the quene and king went to Basing.

Thursday the 2 of August the king and quene went to Reding.

Fryday the 3 of August the king and quene went to Windsor.

Saterday the 22 the king and quene went to Richemont.

Fryday the 17 of August the king and quene cam to Southwark.

Saterday the 18 they went thorough London to Westminster.

^{page 78 note a} See this story at full in Stowe; also in Machyn, p. 66, and Renard's account in Tytler, ii. 340.

^{page 78 note b} See an account of the marriage in the Appendix.

^{page 78 note c} A full account of these pageants, accompanied by the inscriptions, is contained in Elder's letter in the Appendix.

^{page 78 note d} This passage is crossed out in the MS. as if the writer had been fearful of retaining it. Poxe relates the same story, with some slight variations, as follows: “King Henry was painted in harnesse, having in one hand a sword, and in the other hand a booke, where-upon was written Verbum Dei, delivering the same booke (as it were) to his son king Edward, who was painted in a corner by him. [The painter, it may be remarked, probably derived his idea from the title-page of the great bible of 1539.] But hereupon was no small matter made; for the bishop of Winchester, lord chancellor, sent for the painter, and not onely called him knave for painting a book in king Henries hand, and specially for writing thereupon Verbum Dei, but also ranke traitor and villaine, saying to him that he should rather have put the booke into the quenea hand (who was also painted there), for that she had reformed the church and religion, with other things, according to the pure and sincere word of God indeed. The painter answered and said, that if he had knowne that had been the matter wherefore his lordship sent for him, he could have remedied it, and not have troubled his lordship. The bishop answered and said, that it was the quenes majesties will and commandement that he should send for him: and so commanding him to wipe out the booke, and Verbum Dei too, he sent him home. So the painter departed; but fearing lest he should leave some part either of the book or of Verbum Dei in king Henries hand, he wiped away a peece of his fingers withall.” Foxe's embellishments in his stories (not to call them perversions,) are now well known: he chooses to tell them his own way. In the present instance, the presentation of the book to king Edward, and the wiping out of the fingers, are among his improvements: but the ominous fact of the bible being painted out, and replaced by a pair of gloves, (as related in the text,) is confirmed by a third version of the story, as follows: “This yeare the ix. worthies at Graces church was painted, and king Henry the eight emongest them, with a bible in his hand, written upon it Verbum Dei: but commandement was geven immediately that it should be put out, and so it was, and a paire of gloves put in the place.” (MS. Harl. 419, f. 131.) It will be within the recollection of most readers that on queen Elizabeth's similar triumphal entry into London, from one of the pageants a real bible was presented to her; and that she received it with the warmest manifestations of pleasure and approbation. See the various chroniclers, and Hayward's Elizabeth, (printed for the Camden Society,) p. 17.

^{page 80 note a} These words are struck through with a pen.

^{page 80 note b} So the MS. for Cornhill. In Elder's pamphlet in the Appendix the same corruption occurs.

^{page 80 note c} i. e. root.

^{page 80 note d} i. e. the king and queen. This was a favourite way of representing pedigrees in genealogical rolls, and adopted in the Jesse windows of churches.

^{page 81 note a} i. e. verses.

^{page 81 note b} Obscurely written in MS.

^{page 81 note c} These words are very obscure in the MS.

^{page 81 note d} i. e. they were lodged in the halls of the city companies. All this passage is crossed out in the MS.

^{page 81 note e} These are hints of matters not trusted to paper.

^{page 81 note f} Stowe says the 2d September, Machyn the 6th.

^{page 81 note g} fetch?

^{page 82 note a} This passage is also crossed out in the MS. probably because the rumour proved to be false.

^{page 82 note b} i. e. with the two profiles of the king and queen.

^{page 82 note c} See an account of these “Articles” in the Typographical Antiquities, Dibdin's edit, vol. iv. p. 392. The first thirty-seven (those which relate to the clergy) are printed by Burnet, Hist, of the Reformation, vol. ii. Records to Book II. number 15.

^{page 82 note d} These words are doubtful: if correctly read, they mean the fellows of secretaries Petre and Bourne. Foxe enumerates as present “all the counsel that were at the court, namely, the marques of Winchester, the earle of Arundell, lord North, BVT Anthony Browne, maister Rochester, maister Walgrave, maister Englefleld, lord Fitzwaters, and secretary Peter; and the byshopes of London, Duresme, and Ely, whioh three sat under the byshop's armes.” Some account of the sermon will be found in Foxe: “saying that all the preachers almost in kyng Edwardes tyme preached nothing but voluptuousnesse, and filthye and blasphemous lyes,” &o. &c. This report is scarcely credible: the following notes of the same sermon, which remain in manuscript among Foxe's papers (MS. Harl. 425, p. 118), are of a tamer complexion:—

“The notes of a sermon made by the bishope of Winchester at Powles crosse the laste daye of September, 1554.

“First, he prayed for the kynge and quen and for fruite of them; second, for the spirialty, in especialle for the byshope of London, with the rest of the clergie; then for the nobylete and comens of the same; thirdly, for the sowles departyd and yeate remayne, havinge nead of our prayers, to receave that which God hathe preparyd for them; and so sayd a shorte prayer.

“The Grospell of Mathew, 22 chap.: ‘Then the scribes and feresis came to him, tempting him,’ &c. And so the hole gospell in Latin, and afterwards in Englishe. It hathe bin the exersis of the scribes and farases allwayes to tempt Christe, and to seke some vauntage, as now among mani; one dyd a question, not to learne but to tempt him.

“The question is a great question, that is, to knowe the cheviste and greatiste commandment. In thes scribes and pharesis is the natuer of mani men discribyd, that is, to serche and knowe hie things, and to reson and dispute of that wherof they have no understandinge.

“Christe answerithe them with two commandmentes, and saithe: Thou shalt love thy Lord God with all thy herte, with all thy sowle, with all thy mynde: this is the first and chefyste. Ther is another like unto this, Thou shalte love thy neybowr as thy sealfe, &c.

“Here do we learne that God owght to be worshepyd and obeyd with all owr hert, sowle, and mynde, and all owr doings must be so directyd as maye declare the goodnes and glorye of God.”

^{page 83 note a} Instead of fourscore and seventeen chests, Stowe has made this 27 chests in each cart. Foxe, who has also chronicled this arrival, says, “It was matted about with mats, and mayled in little bundles about two feet long and almost half a foot thick, and in every cart sixe of those bundles.” All the authorities, including Machyn, p. 69, agree in the number of twenty carts.

Article contents

The Chronicle of Queen Jane and of two years of Queen Mary

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests