his knowledge, he did amongst many others (of raigned of high-treason, and condemned, and
himself, not interrogated) appeach sir William presently after beheaded.-Yet is it to this day
Stanley, the lord chamberlain of the king's but in dark memory, both what the case of
houshold. The king seemed to be much amazed this noble person was, for which he suffered,
at the naming of this lord, as if he had heard and what likewise was the ground and cause of
the news of some strange and fearful prodigy. his defection, and the alienation of his heart
To hear a man, that had done him service of from the king. His case was said to be this:
so high a nature, as to save his life, and set the that in discourse between sir Robert Clifford
crown upon his head; a man, that enjoyed by and him, he had said; that if he were sure,
his favour and advancement so great a fortune, that that young man were king Edward's son,
both in honour and riches; a man, that was
he would never bear arms against him. This
tied unto him in so near a band of alliance, his case seems somewhat an hard case, both in re-
brother having married the king's mother; and spect of the conditional, and in respect of the
lastly, a man, to whom he had committed the other words. But for the conditional, it seems
trust of his person, in making him his chamber- the judges of that time (who were learned
lain; that this man, no ways disgraced, no men, and the three chief of them of the privy
ways discontent, no ways put in fear, should be council) thought it was a dangerous thing to
false unto him. Clifford was required to say admit ifs and ands, to qualifie words of trea-
over again, and again, the particulars of his son; whereby every man might express his
accusation, being warned, that in a matter so malice, and blanch his danger. And it was
unlikely, and that concerned so great a servant like to the case (in the following times) of
of the king's, he should not in any wise go too Elizabeth Barton, the Holy Maid of Kent;
far. But the king finding that he did sadly who had said, that if king Henry the Eighth
and constantly (without hesitation or varying, did not take Katherine his wife again, he should
and with those civil protestations that were fit) be deprived of his crown, and die the death of
stand to that that he had said, offering to jus- a dog.' And infinite cases may be put of like
tifie it upon his soul and life; he caused him nature. Which (it seemeth) the grave judges
to be removed. And after he had not a little taking into consideration, would not admit of
bemoaned himself unto his council there pre-treasons upon condition. And as for the posi-
sent, gave order that sir William Stanley should
be restrained in his own chamber, where he
lay before, in the Square Tower. And the
next day he was examined by the lords. Upon
his examination he denied little of that where-
with he was charged, nor endeavoured much
to excuse or extenuate his fault. So that (not
very wisely) thinking to make his offence less
by confession, he made it enough for condem-
nation. It was conceived, that he trusted much
to his former merits, and the interest that his
brother had in the king. But those helps were
over-weighed by divers things that made against
him, and were predominant in the king's na-
ture and mind. First, an over-merit; for con-
venient merit, unto which reward may easily
reach, doth best with kings. Next the sense
of his power; for the king thought, that he
that could set him up, was the more dangerous
to pull him down. Thirdly, the glimmering of
a confiscation; for he was the richest subject
for value in the kingdom; there being found
in his castle of Holt forty thousand marks in
ready money, and plate, besides jewels, hous-
hold-stuff, stocks upon his grounds, and other
personal estate, exceeding great. And for his
revenue in land and fee, it was three thousand
pounds a year of old rent, a great matter in
those times. Lastly, the nature of the time;
for if the king had been out of fear of his own
estate, it was not unlike he would have spared
his life. But the cloud of so great a rebellion,
hanging over his head, made him work sure.
Wherefore after some six weeks distance of
time, which the king did honourably interpose,
both to give space to his brother's intercession,
and to shew to the world, that he had a conflict
with himself what he should do; he was ar-

tive words, that he would not bear arms
against king Edward's son; though the words
seem calm, yet it was a plain and direct over-
ruling of the king's title, either by the line of
Lancaster, or by act of parliament. Which
(no doubt) pierced the king more, than if Stan-
ley had charged his launce upon him in the
field. For if Stanley would hold that opinion,
that a son of king Edward had still the better
right, he being so principal a person of autho-
rity, and favour about the king; it was to
teach all England to say as much. And there-
fore (as those times were) that speech touched
the quick. But some writers do put this out
of doubt; for they say, that Stanley did ex-
presly promise to aid Perkin, and sent him
some help of treasure.-Now for the motive of
his falling off from the king; it is true, that at
Bosworth Field the king was beset, and in a
manner inclosed round about by the troops of
king Richard, and in manifest danger of his
life; when this Stanley was sent by his brother
with three thousand men to his rescue, which
be performed so, that king Richard was slain
upon the place. So as the condition of mortal
men is not capable of a greater benefit, than
the king received by the hands of Stanley;
being like the benefit of Christ, at once to save
and crown. For which service the king gave
him great gifts, made him his councellour and
chamberlain; and, somewhat contrary to his
nature, had winked at the great spoils of Bos-
worth Field, which came almost wholly to this
man's hands, to his infinite enriching. Yet
nevertheless blown up with the conceit of his
merit, he did not think he had received good
measure from the king, at least not prest down
and running over, as he expected. And his

ambition was so exorbitant, and unbounded, as he became suitor to the king for the earldom of Chester. Which ever being a kind of appendage to the principality of Wales, and using to go to the king's son; his suit did not only-There was a common opinion, that sir Robert end in a denial, but in a distaste; the king perceiving thereby, that his desires were intemperate, and his cogitations vast, and irregular, and that his former benefits were but cheap, and lightly regarded by him. Wherefore the king began not to brook him well. And as a little leaven of new distaste doth commonly sour the whole lump of former merit, the king's wit began to suggest unto his passion that Stanley, at Bosworth Field, though he came time enough to save his life, yet he stayed long enough to endanger it. But yet having no matter against him, he continued

26. The Trial of Sir THOMAS EMPSON, knt. and EDMUND DUDLEY, esq. for High Treason; at Guildhall, London: 1 Hen. VIII. A. D. 1509. [Lord Herbert's Hen. VIII. in 2 Kenn. Compl. Hist. p. 2.]

In the other kind, doctor Ruthall became the object, being (together with one of his council) made the same day bishop of Duresme. Thus, though it seems he hasted to take upon him the real marks of soveraignty, yet he so tempered them, as to leave his subjects in hope of an even hand. Besides, that he might shew himself gracious to his subjects, he not only confirmed the pardon his father gave a little before his death for all offences, except murder, felony, and treason, (to which general abolitions do not properly reach) but for farther performance of his father's last will caused a proclamation to be made; that if any man could prove himself to be then wrongfully deprived of his goods, by occasion of a certain commission for forfeitures, he should (upon due complaint) have satisfaction; whereupon so many Petitions were presently exhibited against sir Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley, esq. (employed lately for taking the benefit of penal statutes) that it was thought fit to call them before the council, where Empson spake to this effect:

66

you imagine a more certain sign of ruine in that common-wealth. And will you alone hope to decline this heavy judgment? When, contrary to all equity and example, you not only make precedents for injustice and impunity, but together with defaming would inflict a cruel death on those who would maintain them; as if this might be a fit guerdon for those who (I must tell you) every where else would have been thought the best patriots; what can we expect then, but a fatal period to us all? But let God turn this away, though I be the sacrifice. Only, if I must die, let me desire that my inditement may be entered on no record, nor divulged to foreign nations, lest, if they hear, in my condemnation, all that may argue a final dissolution in government, they invade and overcome you."

To this was answered briefly, "That he received a great deal of liberty to speak ill, as well as to do: that he should find at last, he was punished for passing the bounds of his commission from the late king, and for stretching a law which in it's self was severe enough to the common and poorer sort of people, from whom he exacted most unjustly.”

Right Honourable and others here present: I have remarked two causes in general, that move attention. One is the greatness, the other is the strangeness and novelty of argument. Both these concur so manifestly in the affairs now questioned, that I will not much implore your patience. Though on the other side, considering my violent persecution, I cannot but think it a favour, that I may speak for myself; but, alas, to whom? The king, my master, to whom I should appeal, as to my supreme judge and protector, abandons me to my enemies, without other cause, than that I obeyed his father's commands, and upheld the regal authority. The people, on whose equal trial I should put my life, seek my destruction, only because I endeavour to execute those laws whereof themselves were authors. What would have happened to me, if I had disobeyed my king, or broke my country's laws? Surely, if I have any ways transgressed, it is in procuring, that these penal statutes might be observed, which yourselves in open parliament decreed, and to which you then submitted, both your persons, estates, and posterity; and if this be a crime, why do you not first repeal your proper acts? Or if, (which is truth) they stand still in full force and vertue, why do you not vindicate from all imputation both yourselves and me? For who ever yet saw any man condemned for doing justice? Especially when by the chief dispencer thereof (which is the king) the whole frame of the proceeding hath been confirmed and warranted? Nay, whoever saw man on these terms not rewarded? And must that, which is the life and strength of all other actions, be the subversion and overthrow of mine? Have you read or heard in any well-committed to the Tower. governed country, that the infractors of laws made by publick vote, and consent, escaped without punishment, and they only punished who laboured to sustain them? Or when you had not read or heard any such thing, could

The chief parts of his Accusation (that I can find) were: "1. That he had committed divers persons to prison, without suffering them to answer till they had compounded for their fines. 2. For searching unduly mens estates, and bringing them wrongfully to hold under that tenure they call in capite; without that the parties could be permitted to a traverse, till they had payed great fines and ransoms. 3. That wards, being come to full years, were not allowed to sue out their livery, till they had paid an excessive composition. 4. That out-lawed persons could not be allowed to sue out their charter of pardon, till they had paid half the profit of their lands for two years, upon pretence that it was according to law. 5. That he usurped upon the jurisdiction of other courts, in hearing, and determining divers matters properly belonging to them. 6. That whereas a prisoner being indicted for theft, in the city of Coventry, to the value of one pound, was by the jury acquitted; the said Empson conceiving the evidence to be sufficient, committed the jury to prison, till they entered into bond to appear before the king's council, where the matter being again considered, it was ordered, they should pay eight pounds for a fine (which was thought so heinous, as, at a sessions being held afterwards at Coventry, a particular indictment was framed against him, and he was found guilty)." How many of these Allegations were verified, or how far they might be warranted by the last king's commission, appears not to me. Howsoever, for the present, they were (April 23)

This Empson, reported to be a sieve-maker's son in Torcester, from this mean beginning, by his wit and industry, came to be of council to king Henry 7, and master or surveyor of his forfeits in divers kinds, in which place he served

as an instrument for raising great sums to the king; Dudley (a gentleman of birth and such parts as he was chosen Speaker of the parliament-house, 19 Henry 7), assisting him. These men (called by Polydore Virgil Judices Fiscales) having it seems exceeded their bounds, were detested of all, but especially the poorer sort, who found it easier to hate than to pay. To satisfy their complaints therefore, it was thought fit to permit them to the ordinary ways of justice: the promoters they used being so severely punished in the mean time, betwixt the pillory and shame, that they died all (a few days after) in prison, save one Giovanni Baptista Grimaldi, who, foreseeing the storm, took sanctuary in Westminster.

Empson and Dudley being (as is abovesaid) committed to the Tower, new and strange crimes were found and objected against them, as appears in their Indictments upon record, wherein they are accused of conspiracy against the king and state; and first, that during the sickness of the late king in March last, they summoned certain of their friends to be in

arms at an hour's warning; and upon the death of the said king, to hasten to London. Out of which, and other circumstances, it was collected by the jury, that their intent was to seize on the person of the new king, and so to assume the sole government: or when they could not attain this, to destroy him.-Of which crimes, how improbable soever, Dudley in his Tryal at Guildhall in London, July 16, 1509, and Empson at Northampton, October 1, were found guilty by their Juries, and both condemned of Treason, and so remanded to the | Tower.

Empson and Dudley lying now in prison, condemned and attainted by parliament, the importunate clamours of the people prevailing with the king in this year's progress, he not only restored divers mulcts, but for further satisfaction to the commonalty (by a special writ) commanded to have their heads struck off, August 18, doing therein (as thought by many) more like a good king, than a good master.-The attaint against Dudley was reversed in parliament, 5th Hen. 8. 1533.

Steward of England: 13th May, [Lord Herbert's Hen. VIII. in Stowe's Chronicle, 510.]

27. Trial of EDWARD duke of BUCKINGHAM, for High Treason; in the Court of the Lord High 13 Hen. VIII. A. D. 1522. 2 Kenn. Compl. Hist. p. 40. ["Some account of this Trial is to be met with in various writers, exclusive of the notice taken of it by our more modern historians. It is slightly mentioned by Polydore Virgil, whose history first came out within eleven or twelve years after the event; and from him it appears, that the prosecution originated from the malice of one Charles Knevet, who, having been removed from the stewardship of some of the duke's estates, for oppressing the tenants, in revenge turned informer against his former master, and betrayed him to his great and powerful enemy cardinal Wolsey. Polyd. Virg. ed. Basil, 660, 665. Hall, who was also a cotemporary historian, gives many particulars, relative as well to the manner of arresting the duke and his execution, as to the Trial itself. Hall's Hen. 8. fol. 85. Grafton merely copies from Hall but Hollingshead and Stow state in addition the several facts charged as Treason in the indictment of the duke from the re

cord of it. Grafton 1044. 3. Hollingsh.
2d. edit. 863. Stow's Chron. Howes's edit.
512. Lord Herbert, in his History of Henry
the 8th, assisted by materials from the pre-
ceding authors, writes the narration of the
duke's Trial, which we now offer to the
reader. There is an account of this Trial
amongst the Harleian Manuscripts; but it
is merely a compilement from Hall and Stow."
Hargrave.]

ABOUT this time Edward Stafford duke of
Buckingham, eminent for his high blood, and

And

large revenue, drew on himself a dangerous
suspicion; which though it was again fomented
by the cardinal, who disaffected him for some
speeches he had cast forth, yet could not have
overthrown him, but that some indiscretion of
his own concurred. Besides, he suffered much
through the ill offices of Charles Knevet, for-
merly mentioned; who yet durst not appear,
till he saw the duke not only discountenanced,
but weakened in his friends and allies.
of these I find two principally; one, Henry
Percy earl of Northumberland, whose daugh-
ter the duke had married; the other, Thomas
earl of Surrey, who had married the duke's
daughter. Against Northumberland, cause
was taken for claiming certain wards; which,
after close commitment, yet, he was forced to
relinquish. Against Surrey the cardinal pro-
ceeded otherwise: for, though he hated him
for drawing his dagger at him on some occa-
sion; yet as the earl was more wary than to
give new offence, he thought fit to send him
away upon some honourable employment, for
which he found this overture.

Gerald Fitz-Gerald, earl of Kildare, made deputy in Ireland to Henry duke of York, (now king, who at four years old was by his father made lieutenant of that country) having done divers good services against the rebels, was made knight of the garter, and enjoyed that place till his death in 1513; when his son Gerald being substitute therein, so behaved himself, as he likewise got much credit: though, as he had the house of Ormond his enemy, and par

ticularly sir Pierce Butler earl of Ossory, secret ill offices were done him. Nor did it avail, that he had given his sister in marriage to the said Butler, and helped him to recover the earldom of Ormond, detained wrongfully, since the death of Jaines, by a bastard of that family: for it was impossible to oblige him; especially, where he found so advantageous an For as he watched over occasion to dissent. the earl of Desmond, his perpetual adversary, since the division of Lancaster and York, (in which his ancestors were on the side of Lancaster, and the Kildares and Desmonds on that of York), he discovered more favours done the present earl of Desmond, (whom he called a traytor) than he thought due to him; insomuch that he complained to the cardinal, who thereupon sent for Kildare. Though Polydore saith, he come voluntarily, into England to match with some English lady, and there behaved himself so unrespectfully to the cardinal, But whatsoever that he was cast into prison. the cause was, his charge was bestowed on the earl of Surrey, who going to Ireland in April 1520, reduced the earl of Desmond and others to obedience.

that, if aught but good come to the king, the duke of Buckingham should be next in blood to the crown, the king having as yet no issue. That, to comply herewith, he did many things which argued ambition, and desire to make bimself popular. That he said to one Gilbert, his chancellor, that whatsoever was done by the king's father, was done by wrong; murmuring withal against the present government. 4. And to the said Charles Knevet, that if he had been committed to the Tower, (whereof he was in danger, upon occasion of one sir W. Bulmer) he would have so wrought, that the principal doers thereof should not have cause of great rejoycing; for he would have plaid the part which his father intended to have put in practice against king Rd. 3 at Salisbury, who made earnest suit to come into the presence of the said king, which suit, if he might have obtained, he having a knife secretly about him, would have thrust it into the body of king Richard, as he had made semblance to kneel down before him. And that, in speaking these words, he maliciously laid hands on his dagger, swearing, that, if he were so evil used, he would do his best to accomplish his intended purpose. The duke of Buckingham being thus exposed 5. That being in speech with sir George Nevill, and unfriended, the cardinal treats secretly with knight, lord Abergavenny, he said, that if the Knevet, concerning him; who thereupon disking died, he would have the rule of the realm, covers his late master's life; confessing, that the duke, by way of discourse, was accustomed to say, how he meant so to use the matter, that, if king Henry died without issue, he would attain the crown, and that he would punish the cardinal. Besides, that he had spoken hereof unto George Nevill lord Abergavenny, who married the said duke's daughter. By what means yet the duke intended particularly to effect these designs, I do not find exactly set down by Charles Knevet. Neither do the authors, who write hereof, relate his pedigree; only our heralds say, he was descended from Anne Plantagenet, daughter of Thomas of Woodstock, son to king Edward 3. How far this yet might entitle him to the crown, in case king Henry should have no issue, I have neither I shall leisure nor disposition to examine. only therefore, for satisfaction of the reader, select some principal points out of his Indictment; leaving the reader, for the rest, unto the search of the record: In which, the points that in my opinion made most against the duke,

were;

1. That at several times (1512, April 24, and July 22; and 1513, April 26; and 1517, July 20,) he had sent to one Hopkins, a monk in the priory of Henton, to be informed by him, concerning the matters he imagined; and that the monk should return answer, the duke should have all; and therefore should labour to procure the love of the people. 2. That the duke afterwards should go in person to the said Hopkins, who confirmed the said prediction, adding, that he knew it by revelation. Whereupon the said duke should give him several rewards. 3. That he should speak to Ralph Nevill earl of Westmorland (his son-in-law),

VOL. 1.

in spight of whosoever said the contrary; swearing, that if the lord Abergavenny revealed this, he would fight with him."

This I conceive to be the substance of the most special Articles in the evidence: which the courteous reader yet may do well to consider more at large, as they are extant on Record. How far yet these particulars were prov ed, and in what sort, my authors deliver not. Only I find (out of our Records) that the duke of Buckingham being committed to the Tower, April 16th, did, under his own hand, declare to sir Thomas Lovell, constable of the Tower, the passages betwixt him and Hopkins, in this manher; that is to say, That the summer before our king made war in France (1512), Hopkins sent for him; but, not being able to go, he commanded one Delacour, his chaplain, to repair thither; howbeit, that Hopkins said nought to him; yet that himself came the next Lent; where, in shrift, the said monk told him, that our king should win great honour in his journey to France; and that if the king of Scots came to England then, he should never go home again. And that, when he asked Hopkins how he knew this, he said, er Deo habco; It is revealed to me of God. And that Hopkins demanding afterward what children the king had had, he told the number; and that Hopkins should say thereupon, I pray God his issue continue; for that he feared God was not contented, because he made no restitution according to his father's will, charging the duke further to advise the king's council to make restitution. Further, That he told his chancellor those words, and at his return out of France, came to Hopkins again, and said, he had told him true also, that (another time) he