เ A.D. 1536. dwell upon so strangely, when strained beyond CH. 11. their strength. There would be no rain,' she said, 'till she was out of the Tower; and if she died, Saturday, they would see the greatest punishment for her that ever came to England.' 'And then,' she added, 'I shall be a saint in heaven, for I have done many good deeds in my days; but I think it much unkindness in the king to put such about me as I never loved.'* Kingston was a hard chronicler, too convinced of the queen's guilt to feel compassion for her; and yet these rambling fancies are as touching as Ophelia's; and, unlike hers, are no creation of a poet's imagination, but words once truly uttered by a poor human being in her hour of agony. Yet they prove nothing. And if her wanderings seem to breathe of innocence, they are yet compatible with the absence of it. We must remind ourselves, that two of the prisoners had already confessed both their own guilt and hers. tions for The queen demanded a trial; it was not neces- Preparasary to ask for it. Both she and her supposed the trial. accomplices were tried with a scrupulousness without a parallel, so far as I am aware, in the criminal records of the time. The substance of the pro- Necessity ceedings is preserved in an official summary ; ing into and distressing as it is to read of such sad matters, the importance of arriving at a fair judgment must excuse the details on which I shall enter. The crime was alike hideous, whether it was the *Kingston to Cromwell: SINGER, p. 457. + Baga de Secretis, pouches 8 and 9: Appendix II. to the Third Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records. of enter offensive CH. II. crime of the queen or of Henry; we may not A.D. 1536. attempt to hide from ourselves the full deformity missioners to try the complices. of it. On the 24th of April, then, a special commission was appointed, to try certain persons for offences committed at London, at Hampton Court, and at the palace at Greenwich. The offences in question having been committed in Middlesex and in Kent, bills were first to be returned by the grand juries of both counties. Men are apt to pass vaguely over the words 'a commission' or 'a jury,' regarding them rather as mechanical abstractions than as bodies of responsible men. I shall therefore give the list of the persons who, in these or any other capacities, The names were engaged upon the trials. The special comof the com- mission consisted of Sir Thomas Audeley, the appointed lord chancellor; the Duke of Norfolk, uncle of queen's ac- the queen and of Lord Rochfort; the Duke of Suffolk, the king's brother-in-law; the Earl of Wiltshire, the queen's father; the Earls of Oxford, Westmoreland, and Sussex; Lord Sandys; Thomas Cromwell; Sir William Fitzwilliam the Lord High Admiral, an old man whose career had been of the most distinguished brilliancy; Sir William Paulet, lord treasurer, afterwards Marquis of Winchester; and, finally, the nine judges of the courts of Westminster, Sir John Fitzjames, Sir John Baldewyn, Sir Richard Lister, Sir John Porte, Sir John Spelman, Sir Walter Luke, Sir Anthony Fitzherbert, Sir Thomas Englefield, and Sir William Shelley. The duty of this tribunal was to try the four commoners A.D. 1536. and her be tried by accused of adultery with the queen. She herself, CH. 11. with her brother, would be tried by the House of Lords. Of the seven peers, three were her own The queen nearest connexions; the remaining commissioners brother to were those who, individually and professionally, the House might have been considered competent for the of Lords. conduct of the cause above all other persons in the realm. Antecedently to experience, we should not have expected that a commission so constituted would have lent itself to a conspiracy; and if foul play had been intended, we should have looked to see some baser instruments selected for so iniquitous a purpose. day, True bill In the middle of the second week in May, Wednesthe grand juries had completed their work. On May 10. the 10th, a true bill was found at Westminster, found by by the oaths of Giles Heron, Esq.; Roger More, the grand Esq.; Richard Awnsham, Esq.; Thomas Byl- Middlesex. lyngton, Esq.; Gregory Lovel, Esq.; John Worsop, Esq.; William Goddard, gentleman; William Blakwall, gentleman; John Wylford, gentleman; William Berd, gentleman; Henry Hubbylthorne, gentleman; William Huning, gentleman; Robert Walys, gentleman; John Englond, gentleman; Henry Lodysman, gentleman; and John Averey, gentleman. May II. On the 11th a true bill was found at Dept- Thursday, ford by the oaths of Sir Richard Clement, Sir True bill William Fynche, Sir Edward Boughton, Anthony the grand St. Leger, Esq.;* John Cromer, Esq.; John jury of * We shall meet him again in Ireland: he was the queen's cousin, and a man of the very highest character and ability. found by Kent. A.D. 1536. CH. 11. Fogg, Esq.; Thomas Wylleford, Esq.; John Norton, Esq.; Humphrey Style, Esq.; Robert Thursday, Fisher, gentleman; Thomas Sybbell, gentleman; John Lovelace, gentleman; Walter Harrington, gentleman; Edmund Page, gentleman; Thomas Fereby, gentleman; and Lionel Ansty, gentleman. May 11. The indictment. I am thus particular in recording the names of these jurors, before I relate the indictment which was found by them, because, if that indictment was unjust, it stamps their memory with eternal infamy; and with the judges, the commissioners, the privy council, the king, with every living person who was a party, active or passive, to so enormous a calumny, they must be remembered with shame for ever. The indictment, then, found by the grand jury of Middlesex was to the following effect:* เ 1. That the Lady Anne, Queen of England, having been the wife of the king for the space of three years and more, she, the said Lady Anne, contemning the marriage so solemnized between her and the king, and bearing malice in her heart against the king, and following her frail and carnal lust, did falsely and traitorously procure, by means of indecent language, gifts, and other acts therein stated, divers of the king's daily and familiar servants to be her adulterers and concubines; so that several of the king's who was sheriff for that year. The indictment found at Deptford was exactly similar; referring to other acts of the same kind committed by the same persons at Greenwich. servants, by the said queen's most vile provoca- CH. II. tion and invitation, became given and inclined to the said queen. 2. That the queen [on the] 6th of October, 25 Hen. VIII. [1533], at Westminster, by words, &c., procured and incited one Henry Norris, Esq., one of the gentlemen of the king's privy chamber, to have illicit intercourse with her; and that the act was committed at Westminster, 12th October, 25 Hen. VIII. 3. That the queen, 2nd of November, 27 Hen. VIII. [1535], by the means therein stated, procured and incited George Boleyn, knight, Lord Rochfort, her own natural brother, to have illicit intercourse with her; and that the act was committed 5th of November in the same year, at Westminster, against the commands of Almighty God, and all laws human and divine. เ 4. That the queen, 3rd December, 25 Hen. VIII., procured and incited William Brereton, Esq., one of the gentlemen of the king's privy chamber, to have illicit intercourse with her; and that the act was committed at Hampton Court, 25th December, 25 Hen. VIII. 5. That the queen, 8th of May, 26 Hen. VIII., procured and incited Francis Weston, one of the gentlemen of the king's privy chamber, to have illicit intercourse with her; and that the act was committed at Westminster, 20th May, 26 Hen. VIII. 6. That the queen, 12th of April, 26 Hen. VIII., procured and incited Mark Smeton, Esq., one of the grometers of the king's chamber, to A.D. 1536. |