Henry VIII's Last Victim (66 page)

19
PRO LR 2/115, fos. 6v–7v.

20
PRO SP 1/227, fos. 82–3 (
St. P
. II, pp. 888–90).

21
Herbert, p. 563.

22
Ibid., pp. 563–4.

23
These are undated, so it is impossible to determine exactly when they were taken. Written at the end of Knyvet’s deposition, now in the Public Record Office, is ‘Sir Edmund Knyvet the iide.’. This could be read as 2 December, although it could just be a reference to Knyvet’s second deposition, as it seems from Herbert that Knyvet testified more than once. See too Moore, ‘Heraldic Charge’, p. 559.

24
PRO SP 1/227, fo. 97; Herbert, p. 564.

25
Poems
, 40; E. Hood, ‘A translation of the Earl of Surrey’s out of Martial, directed by him to one Master Warner’,
The Gentleman’s Magazine
, 97/2 (1827), p. 392.

26
PRO SP 1/227, fo. 101.

27
Ibid., fos. 103–105v.

28
Ibid., fo. 106.

29
Moore, ‘Heraldic Charge’, pp. 568–9.

30
Herbert, pp, 562, 564.

31
Kaulek,
Correspondance Politique
, p. 261.

32
PRO PROB 11/48, fo. 25v; PRO SP 1/227, fos. 109v–110.

33
PRO SP 1/227, fos. 107–110v.

34
PRO LR 2/115, fo. 39v. Letters E and F are missing from Richard Fulmerston’s deposition after fo. 91v in PRO SP 1/227.

35
PRO PC 2/2, fo. 36v (
APC
II, p. 106).

36
Poems
, 50, line 13.

37
Ibid., lines 42–6.

38
See Brigden, ‘“Conjured League”’, pp. 534–6. Brigden’s case for the candidacy of Dr John Fryer is impressive, but raises too many red flags to be accepted out of hand. There is no evidence to indicate that Surrey would have secretly revealed his religious beliefs to the doctor. Fryer had been part of Cardinal Pole’s circle in Italy and, if Sir Edmund Knyvet’s deposition is to be credited, Surrey had a servant who ‘had been in Italy with Cardinal Pole and was received again at his return’. But nothing in any surviving record links the two men. Moreoever, the suggestion that Fryer was the servant of Edward Foxe that had burnt a letter written by the
Duke of Norfolk to his master, concerning ‘lewd speaking of the northern men after the time of the commotion’, rests on the assumption that Fryer was in the service of Anthony Denny in December 1546. There is no evidence to confirm this. Indeed it is more likely that Fryer was still working for Wriothesley whose service he had joined in 1545 and was known to belong to in 1549.

39
Heale, p. 182, and note 71 on p. 190.

40
Poems
, 50, lines 22–5; Brigden, ‘“Conjured League”’, pp. 534–5.

41
Brigden, ‘“Conjured League”’, p. 533;
LP
XXI ii, 523.

42
Poems
, 34.

43
Wyatt,
Poems
, no. LXII. See also no. XXXIV.

44
Ecclus. xxvii. I owe this reading to the scholarship of Susan Brigden. See her articles, ‘The Shadow that you Know’, pp. 1–2, 26, 30, and ‘“Conjured League”’, pp. 533–4.

45
CSP Domestic, Elizabeth 1581–90
, ed. R. Lemon (1865), p. 70. Also, pp. 1, 32, 38–40; Howard,
defensative
, sig. K.k.ir.

46
Howard,
defensative
, sig. K.k.ir.

47
Scarisbrick,
Henry VIII
, p. 121; Henry Howard’s speech against Father Garnet in
A True and Perfect Relation
; Thomas,
Religion and the Decline of Magic
, p. 480.

48
Howard,
defensative
, sig. E.3r.

49
Ibid., sig. H.h.iiiv.

50
LP
XXI i, 1027;
APC
I, p. 449; IV, p. 13; Howard,
defensative
, sig. L.l.ir; Smyth,
Lives of the Berkeleys
II, p. 379; Lloyd,
Statesmen and Favourites
, p. 556.

51
Spanish Chronicle
, pp. 143–7.

52
Thomas,
The Pilgrim
, p. 73;
LP
XXI ii, 533.

53
BL Harleian MS 1579, fo. 6.

54
PRO SP 1/227, fos. 107, 109v, 125v; Camden,
Remains
, p. 183; Thomas,
The Pilgrim
, pp. 73–4;
CSP Sp
. IX, p. 3; Robinson,
Original Letters
I, p. 42.

55
Poems
, 45–6.

56
CSP Sp
. VIII, 370.

57
PRO SP 1/227, fo. 123 (
St. P
. II, pp. 891–2). Wriothesley’s original draft is on fo. 125.

58
CSP Sp
. VIII, 373.

59
PRO SP 1/227, fo. 128. See also, Moore, ‘Heraldic Charge’, p. 560.

60
PRO SP 1/227, fo. 109.

61
PRO KB 8/14, m. 9 (printed in Nott, app. XXXIII).

62
Moore, ‘Heraldic Charge’, pp. 565, 575.

63
BL Harleian MS 1453, fo. 69. The illustration contains a few errors. Moore (‘Heraldic Charge’, p. 575) urges the plausible thesis that it was drawn up
for Surrey’s trial according to ‘a hurried or careless description’. The other arms in the shield are: Howard, Brotherton, Warenne, Mowbray, Hamlin Plantagenet, Marshal, Braose, Arundel, Ranulf Gernon, Earl of Chester, Ranulf Meschines, Earl of Chester, Segrave.

64
PRO SP 1/227, fo. 109.

65
Keen,
Chivalry
,
chapter 7
; Moore, ‘Heraldic Charge’, note 1 on p. 561.

66
Moore, ‘Heraldic Charge’, p. 573; Weever,
Ancient Funerall Monuments
, p. 843.

67
BL Cottonian MS Julius C VII, fo. 238; Howard of Corby,
Indications
, apps. IV, VII; PRO SP 1/227, fo. 128.

68
PRO SP 1/227, fo. 111v.

69
Moore, ‘Heraldic Charge’, p. 564.

70
Holinshed III, p. 861; Herbert, p. 565.

71
College of Arms MS L14, pt. II, fo. 227. See too, BL Harleian MS 297, fo. 256v; PRO SP 1/223, fo. 34.

72
Moore, ‘Heraldic Charge’, p. 565. I am indebted to Peter R. Moore for his shrewd and incisive article and have relied upon his findings for the following account.

73
Ibid.

74
Although signed by Barker, the King’s copy was reported indirectly: ‘Garter saith that the Earl of Surrey . . . etc’. The original has not survived, but a modern copy exists in the Public Record Office (SP 1/223, fo. 34).

75
Lisle Letters
IV, p. 286; Strype,
Ecclesiastical Memorials
II ii, p. 328.

76
PRO SP 1/227, fo. 99.

77
28 Hen. VIII, c. 7, section XII (
Statutes of the Realm
, pp. 660–1).

78
PRO KB 8/14, m. 9 (printed in Nott, app. XXXIII).

79
PRO KB 8/14;
LP
XXI ii, 697;
Third Report of the Deputy Keeper
, app. II, pp. 267–8. See too Baker,
An Introduction to English Legal History
, pp. 276–7. For an analysis of the grand jury and their connections with the Howards, see Tucker, ‘The Commons in the Parliament of 1545’, pp. 391–9.

17 Condemned for Such Trifles

1
PRO E 101/60/22, fo. 1. See too BL Additional MS 5751 A, fo. 281.

2
He also paraphrased psalm 8 (though its equanimity points to a date prior to his Tower imprisonment), and he may also have paraphrased psalms 31 and 51. See C. A. Huttar, ‘Poems by Surrey and Others in a Printed Miscellany circa 1550’,
English Miscellany
, 16 (1965); M. Rudick, ‘Two Notes on Surrey’s Psalms’,
Notes and Queries
, new series, 22/7 (1975); Heale, note 50 on pp. 188–9. For psalms 8, 55, 73 and 88, see
Poems
, 47–50. Psalms 31 and 51 can be found in
Certayne Chapters of the prouerbes of Salomon drawen into metre by Thomas sterneholde, late grome of the kynges Magesties robes
, printed by John Case for William Seres (
c
. 1550). The most incisive readings of Surrey’s psalms are
AH
II, pp. 99–110; Zim,
English Metrical Psalms
,
passim
, but esp. pp. 88–98; Brigden, ‘“Conjured League”’,
passim
; Sessions, ‘Surrey’s Psalms in the Tower’, pp. 17–31; Heale, pp. 154–9, 173–84.

3
Quoted by J. N. King, in
English Reformation Literature: The Tudor Origins of the Protestant Tradition
(Princeton, 1982), p. 233.

4
Brigden, ‘“Conjured League”’, pp. 514–15; Sessions, ‘Surrey’s Psalms in the Tower’, p. 25.

5
Poems
, 37.

6
Ibid., 36.

7
Thomas Wilcox quoted by Zim,
English Metrical Psalms
, p. 27.

8
Mason,
Humanism and Poetry
, p. 240.

9
See
AH
II, p. 106; Sessions, ‘Surrey’s Psalms in the Tower’, p. 24.

10
Poems
, 49.

11
Ibid., 48.

12
Ibid., 50.

13
Spanish Chronicle
, p. 145.

14
A. Keay,
The Elizabethan Tower of London
(2001), pp. 31–2; S. Thurley, ‘Royal Lodgings at the Tower of London 1216–1327’,
Architectural History
, 38 (1995), pp. 47–51. For the Tudor alterations, see PRO SP 1/70, fos. 113–19; PRO E 101/474/12, fos. 3–5; /13, fos. 1, 3v, 8–9; Bodleian MS Rawlinson D 775, fos. 202–3, 206, 211v.

15
Spanish Chronicle
, pp. 145–6.

16
LP
XXI ii, 141.

17
See Ives,
Anne Boleyn
, p. 65, and Hume’s introduction in
Spanish Chronicle
.

18
PRO SP 1/227, fos. 107, 109v.

19
PRO E 101/60/22, fo. 1 (fo. 2 for Norfolk).

20
Ibid., fos. 2v–3.

21
PRO E 351/2960.

22
Surrey’s grandfather once had a servant called Richard Martyn (PRO C 1/101, fo. 11), so there may have been a tradition of members of the Martin family serving the Howards. One ‘Marten’, a carpenter, served alongside Surrey at Montreuil, but there is no evidence to suggest that he was then or thereafter Surrey’s servant (
LP
XIX i, 763, 876; XIX ii, 306).

23
Problems with Tower security persisted well into the reign of Elizabeth. See Bodleian MS Engl. Hist. E. 195, app. B, fos. 60–1.

24
Herbert, pp. 567–9. An early draft of Norfolk’s confession can be found in the British Library (Harleian MS 297, fo. 257). Also see Moore, ‘Heraldic Charge’, pp. 568–70, 575–7.

25
PRO E
101/60/22, fo. 1.

26
Spanish Chronicle
, p. 146.

27
The following account of Surrey’s trial has been collated from these sources: PRO KB 8/14 (
LP
XXI ii, 697);
Third Report of the Deputy Keeper
, app. II, pp. 267–8;
CSP Sp
. IX, pp. 3–4; Herbert, p. 565, and the marginal notes transcribed by Thomas Tourneur from the Chronicle of Anthony Anthony into the Bodleian Library’s copy of Herbert: Fol. Ä 624, interleaf between pp. 564–5;
Spanish Chronicle
, pp. 146–8; Thomas,
The Pilgrim
, pp. 72–3;
Chronicle of the Grey Friars of London
, p. 53;
The Accession of Queen Mary: Being the Contemporary Narrative of Antonio de Guaras, a Spanish Merchant Resident in London
, ed. and tr. R. Garnett (1892), pp. 34, 80 (for this, also see Moore, ‘Heraldic Charge’, p. 573); Wriothesley I, pp. 176–7; Holinshed III, p. 861; R. Grafton,
Chronicle or History of England
(1569, repr. in 2 vols., 1809), II, p. 498; Camden,
Remains
, p. 183.

Baker (
An Introduction to English Legal History
, pp. 276–9) and Bellamy (
The Tudor Law of Treason
) give very good accounts of Tudor trial procedure in general.

28
Starkey,
Rivals in Power
, p. 255.

29
LP
XIII i, 646 (48); XIV i, 398; XVI i, 305 (68); XVII i, 362 (66); XX i, 622 (VII), 623 (VIII).

30
Household accounts provide the best record of a family’s day-to-day activities, but they were irregularly maintained and rarely preserved. One series that has survived, that of the Lestranges of Hunstanton, reveals regular contact with the Howards and frequent visits to Kenninghall (‘Extracts from the Household and Privy Purse Accounts of the Lestranges of Hunstanton, 1519–1578’, ed. D. Gurney,
Archaeologia
, 25 (1834), pp. 419, 420, 451, 473, 496, 497, 501, 522, 523, 542, 549).

31
Bindoff: Christopher Heydon; Pembroke MS, 8–10 Sept.; NRO Norwich Consistory Court, 163 Ingold.

32
Bindoff: Nicholas Lestrange; ‘Extracts from the Household and Privy Purse Accounts of the Lestranges’, op. cit.; Howlett, ‘Household Accounts’, p. 57; PRO PROB 11/47, fo. 149v. Southwell also left bequests to ‘Henry Paston, my son-in-law’, and ‘my very good neighbour and assured friend, Sir Thomas Lovell’ (fos. 145, 150).

33
33 Hen. VIII, c. 23 (
Statutes of the Realm
, p. 864).

34
See Bellamy,
The Tudor Law of Treason
, pp. 157–8; J. H. Wigmore, ‘The History of the Hearsay Rule’,
Harvard Law Review
, 17/7 (1904).

35
Quoted by Jentoft, ‘Orations’, p. 259.

36
Surrey was not the only one to deride Paget’s background. In 1556 a London bricklayer called William Crowe dismissed Paget as ‘but a catchpole’s son’.
CSP Domestic, Mary 1553–1558
, ed. C. S. Knighton (1998), no. 445.

37
BL Sloane MS 2172, fo. 42.

38
The Reports of Sir John Spelman
, ed. J. H. Baker, Selden Society, 93–4 (1976–7), II, pp. 112–13.