Part 6 (1/2)

CHAPTER 10.

More Accused than Convicted.

As yet, in accordance with the normal procedure in sixteenth-century treason cases, none of the accused were given full details of what was alleged against them in the indictments that had been drawn up, nor given any notice or means to prepare a defense. The first time they would hear the formal charges and any depositions, or ”interrogatories,”1 made by the witnesses was when they were brought into court, and then they would have to defend themselves as best they could, without benefit of any legal representation, which was forbidden to those charged with treason. They could not call witnesses on their own behalf-it is doubtful if many people would have dared come forward, anyway, to dispute a case brought in the name of ”our sovereign lord the King”-and there was no cross-examination. All they could do was engage in altercation with their accusers. The law was heavily weighted against those suspected of treachery, and the outlook for Anne and the men accused with her was dismal. As Cardinal Wolsey once acidly observed, ”If the Crown were prosecutor and a.s.serted it, justice would be found to bring in a verdict that Abel was the murderer of Cain.” made by the witnesses was when they were brought into court, and then they would have to defend themselves as best they could, without benefit of any legal representation, which was forbidden to those charged with treason. They could not call witnesses on their own behalf-it is doubtful if many people would have dared come forward, anyway, to dispute a case brought in the name of ”our sovereign lord the King”-and there was no cross-examination. All they could do was engage in altercation with their accusers. The law was heavily weighted against those suspected of treachery, and the outlook for Anne and the men accused with her was dismal. As Cardinal Wolsey once acidly observed, ”If the Crown were prosecutor and a.s.serted it, justice would be found to bring in a verdict that Abel was the murderer of Cain.”2 It was to the further disadvantage of the accused that the law provided for a two-tier system of justice. Commoners had to be tried by the commissioners of oyer and terminer who brought the case against them, yet those of royal or n.o.ble birth had to be tried in the court of the High Steward by a jury of their peers. Therefore there had to be two trials, and because of the practical difficulties involved-not least of which was the fact that the commissioners had to be present at both-they could not be held concurrently. Thus the outcome of the first trial would inevitably prejudice that of the second.3 On Friday, May 12, Anne's uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, was appointed Lord High Steward of England, a temporary office only conferred on great lords for the purpose of organizing coronations or presiding over the trials of peers, who were customarily tried in the court of the High Steward, which he himself convened. In this capacity, Norfolk would act as Lord President at the trials of the Queen and Lord Rochford.

Norfolk was at Westminster Hall that day as one of the commissioners who a.s.sembled there at the special sessions of oyer and terminer at which Norris, Weston, Brereton, and Smeaton were to be judged. As commoners, they would be tried separately from the Queen and Lord Rochford, who, by virtue of their high rank, had the right to be tried by their peers. All but one of the judges of the King's Bench had been summoned to court, as well as a special jury of twelve knights, and they were joined by the members of the grand juries who had been appointed on April 24. Among them were the Lord Chancellor, who was ”the highest commissioner,” and several lords of the King's Council,4 including Sir William FitzWilliam, who had been instrumental in obtaining confessions from Smeaton and Norris, and the Queen's father, Thomas Boleyn, Earl of Wilts.h.i.+re. including Sir William FitzWilliam, who had been instrumental in obtaining confessions from Smeaton and Norris, and the Queen's father, Thomas Boleyn, Earl of Wilts.h.i.+re.5 Chapuys heard that he was ”ready to a.s.sist with the judgment,” Chapuys heard that he was ”ready to a.s.sist with the judgment,”6 probably with an eye to his political survival. It may be significant that Edward Willoughby, the foreman of the jury, was in debt to William Brereton; Brereton's death, of course, would release him from his obligations. probably with an eye to his political survival. It may be significant that Edward Willoughby, the foreman of the jury, was in debt to William Brereton; Brereton's death, of course, would release him from his obligations.

Other members of the jury were unlikely to be impartial. Sir Giles Alington was another of Sir Thomas More's sons-in-law, and therefore no friend to the Boleyns, for many held Anne responsible for Sir Thomas's execution. William Askew was a supporter of Lady Mary; Anthony Hungerford was kin to Jane Seymour; Walter Hungerford, who would be executed for b.u.g.g.e.ry and other capital crimes in 1540, might well have needed to court Cromwell's discretion; Robert Dormer was a conservative who had opposed the break with Rome; Richard Tempest was a creature of Cromwell's; Sir John Hampden was father-in-law to William Paulet, comptroller of the royal household; William Musgrave was one of those who had failed to secure the conviction for treason of Lord Dacre in 1534, and was therefore zealous to redeem himself; William Sidney was a friend of the hostile Duke of Suffolk; and Thomas Palmer was FitzWilliam's client and one of the King's gambling partners.7 Given the affiliations of these men, and the unlikelihood that any of them would risk angering the King by returning the wrong verdict, the outcome of the trial was prejudiced from the very outset. Given the affiliations of these men, and the unlikelihood that any of them would risk angering the King by returning the wrong verdict, the outcome of the trial was prejudiced from the very outset.8 Legal practice apart, securing the conviction of the Queen's alleged lovers was evidently regarded as a necessary preliminary to her own trial, while such a conviction would preclude the four men, as convicted felons, from giving evidence at any subsequent trial,9 and the Queen from protesting that she was innocent of committing any crimes with them. Above all it would go a long way toward ensuring that her condemnation was a certainty. This, more than most other factors, strongly suggests that Anne and her so-called accomplices were framed. and the Queen from protesting that she was innocent of committing any crimes with them. Above all it would go a long way toward ensuring that her condemnation was a certainty. This, more than most other factors, strongly suggests that Anne and her so-called accomplices were framed.

The four accused were conveyed by barge from the Tower to Westminster Hall, where they were brought to the bar by Sir William Kingston and arraigned for high treason.10 This vast hall had been built by William II in the eleventh century and greatly embellished by Richard II in the fourteenth. Lancelot de Carles, an eyewitness at all the trials, was at pains to describe the process of indictment, and ”how the archers of the guard turn the back [of their halberds] to the prisoner in going, but after the sentence of guilty, the edge [of the axelike blade] is turned toward their faces.” This vast hall had been built by William II in the eleventh century and greatly embellished by Richard II in the fourteenth. Lancelot de Carles, an eyewitness at all the trials, was at pains to describe the process of indictment, and ”how the archers of the guard turn the back [of their halberds] to the prisoner in going, but after the sentence of guilty, the edge [of the axelike blade] is turned toward their faces.”

There is no surviving official record of the trials that took place on that day, only eyewitness accounts, which are frustratingly sketchy.11 The accused were charged ”that they had violated and had carnal knowledge of the Queen, each by himself at separate times,” The accused were charged ”that they had violated and had carnal knowledge of the Queen, each by himself at separate times,”12 and that they had conspired the King's death with her. and that they had conspired the King's death with her.13 This was the first time the charges had been made public, or revealed in detail to the defendants, and the effect must have been at once sensational and chilling. This was the first time the charges had been made public, or revealed in detail to the defendants, and the effect must have been at once sensational and chilling.

When the indictments had been read, the prisoners were asked if they would plead guilty or not, but only Mark Smeaton pleaded guilty to adultery,14 confessing ”that he had carnal knowledge of the Queen three times,” confessing ”that he had carnal knowledge of the Queen three times,”15 and throwing himself on the mercy of the King, while insisting he was not guilty of conspiring the death of his sovereign. In the justices' instructions to the Sheriff of London, to bring his prisoners to trial, which were dated May 12, 1536, and throwing himself on the mercy of the King, while insisting he was not guilty of conspiring the death of his sovereign. In the justices' instructions to the Sheriff of London, to bring his prisoners to trial, which were dated May 12, 1536,16 Smeaton's name was erased, as if, having confessed, he was no longer thought worthy of examination, Smeaton's name was erased, as if, having confessed, he was no longer thought worthy of examination,17 so he was probably not subjected to questioning in court. The other three men, Norris included, pleaded not guilty, so he was probably not subjected to questioning in court. The other three men, Norris included, pleaded not guilty,18 and the jury was sworn in. and the jury was sworn in.

There is no record of the witnesses who were brought into court to testify, and we have Chapuys's statement that in the case of Brereton, no witnesses were called at all, which suggests that others were were summoned to give evidence against his fellow accused. This made no difference to Brereton, for according to Chapuys, he was ”condemned upon a presumption and circ.u.mstances, not by proof or valid confession, and without any witnesses.” Yet there could have been a valid presumption of culpability, for if the Queen's household servants had known what was going on, then the privileged members of her inner circle could reasonably be expected to have been aware of it, or to suspect something, and thus to have alerted the King or his ministers. Their not having done so rendered them a party to treason. And their reported flirtatious banter with the Queen laid them open to further suspicion of complicity and culpability. summoned to give evidence against his fellow accused. This made no difference to Brereton, for according to Chapuys, he was ”condemned upon a presumption and circ.u.mstances, not by proof or valid confession, and without any witnesses.” Yet there could have been a valid presumption of culpability, for if the Queen's household servants had known what was going on, then the privileged members of her inner circle could reasonably be expected to have been aware of it, or to suspect something, and thus to have alerted the King or his ministers. Their not having done so rendered them a party to treason. And their reported flirtatious banter with the Queen laid them open to further suspicion of complicity and culpability.19 Norris protested, ”when his own confession was laid afore him, that he was deceived” into making it by FitzWilliam's trickery, and retracted it, saying that if anyone used it to advantage, ”he is worthy to have my place here; and if he stand to it, I defy him,”20 but that made no difference either. The jury unanimously p.r.o.nounced all four men guilty ”for using fornication with Queen Anne, and also for conspiracy of the King's death,” whereupon Sir Christopher Hales, the Attorney General, asked for judgment to be p.r.o.nounced on Smeaton according to his own confession, and on the other three in accordance with the verdict. but that made no difference either. The jury unanimously p.r.o.nounced all four men guilty ”for using fornication with Queen Anne, and also for conspiracy of the King's death,” whereupon Sir Christopher Hales, the Attorney General, asked for judgment to be p.r.o.nounced on Smeaton according to his own confession, and on the other three in accordance with the verdict.21 Lord Chancellor Audley, being the chief commissioner present, read out the grim sentence pa.s.sed on convicted traitors, that they were publicly to be ”hanged, drawn, and quartered, their members [genitals] cut off and burnt before them, their heads cut off and [their bodies] quartered.” Lord Chancellor Audley, being the chief commissioner present, read out the grim sentence pa.s.sed on convicted traitors, that they were publicly to be ”hanged, drawn, and quartered, their members [genitals] cut off and burnt before them, their heads cut off and [their bodies] quartered.”22 Norris had seen at firsthand what that dread sentence entailed when, a year earlier, alongside Rochford, he witnessed the b.l.o.o.d.y executions of the monks of the Charterhouse for refusing to acknowledge the royal supremacy. Rochford, a n.o.bleman, might be spared that agony, but Norris and the rest, as commoners, might well be forced to suffer the full rigor of the law. Norris had seen at firsthand what that dread sentence entailed when, a year earlier, alongside Rochford, he witnessed the b.l.o.o.d.y executions of the monks of the Charterhouse for refusing to acknowledge the royal supremacy. Rochford, a n.o.bleman, might be spared that agony, but Norris and the rest, as commoners, might well be forced to suffer the full rigor of the law.

”Suddenly, the axe was turned toward them,”23 but their executions were deferred on account of the impending trials of the Queen and Lord Rochford. but their executions were deferred on account of the impending trials of the Queen and Lord Rochford.

When news of the trial's outcome reached the court, many people expressed sorrow, especially for Norris and Weston, who were widely liked and respected. ”Everyone was moved at their misfortune, especially at the case of Weston.”24 That day, John Husee, newly arrived in London, wrote to Lord Lisle to report the latest events: That day, John Husee, newly arrived in London, wrote to Lord Lisle to report the latest events: This day Mr. Norris, Weston, Brereton, and Mark hath been arraigned, and are judged to be drawn, hanged, and quartered. I pray G.o.d have mercy on them. They shall die tomorrow, or Monday at the furthest. Anne the Queen and her brother shall be arraigned in the Tower; some think tomorrow, but on Monday at the furthest. And some doth verily think they shall there even so suffer within the Tower, undelayedly, for divers considerations which are not yet known.25 It is obvious from this that ordinary people could only speculate as to when the men would be executed, or when the Queen and Rochford would come to trial. But as has been noted, the date for the latter hearing had already been set on May 10-for May 15 at the Tower-as Sir John Russell informed Lord Lisle on May 12: ”Today, Mr. Norris and such other as you know are cast, and the Queen shall go to her judgment on Monday next.” He confirmed that he had delivered Lord Lisle's letters to the King, and added a touch peevishly, ”I wonder your lords.h.i.+p did not write to me, that I might have made suit for you.”26 ”Neither the wh.o.r.e nor her brother was brought to Westminster like the other criminals,” Chapuys was to observe.27 State trials were usually held in Westminster Hall or the Guildhall, but clearly the authorities did not want Anne leaving the Tower and perhaps becoming the focus of public demonstrations, for she was not popular. Hence the decision to have her tried within the Tower precincts. State trials were usually held in Westminster Hall or the Guildhall, but clearly the authorities did not want Anne leaving the Tower and perhaps becoming the focus of public demonstrations, for she was not popular. Hence the decision to have her tried within the Tower precincts.

Husee told Lisle on May 12 that Wyatt and Page were still in the Tower, ”but, as it is said, without danger of death; but Mr. Page is banished the King's presence and court forever.”28 It has been suggested that he escaped because his stepdaughter, Anne Stanhope, had recently married Edward Seymour, It has been suggested that he escaped because his stepdaughter, Anne Stanhope, had recently married Edward Seymour,29 but they had actually been married for more than two years, but they had actually been married for more than two years,30 a circ.u.mstance that did not preclude Page's arrest. No evidence had been laid against Page, though, nor, evidently did Wyatt have any charges to answer, although clearly n.o.body knew for certain. a circ.u.mstance that did not preclude Page's arrest. No evidence had been laid against Page, though, nor, evidently did Wyatt have any charges to answer, although clearly n.o.body knew for certain.

The next day, Sat.u.r.day, May 13, John Husee wrote again to the hopeful Lord Lisle: Pleaseth your Lords.h.i.+p to be advertised that here is no good to be done neither with the King ne with any other of his Council till such time as the matters now had in hand be fully finished and achieved. Also, touching Master Treasurer [FitzWilliam], it prevaileth nothing to sue unto him till he hath more leisure, for he never read letter since these matters begun. If it be as some doth presume, it shall be all rid by the latter end of this next week.31 This prediction turned out to be accurate. Husee's letter is evidence that the process against the Queen had brought most government business virtually to a standstill;32 and it again shows FitzWilliam right at the center of affairs. and it again shows FitzWilliam right at the center of affairs.

There was, however, cause for Lord Lisle to be hopeful. A list of Cromwell's ”Remembrances” written around this time indicates that the government wasted no time in seizing the condemned men's a.s.sets: ”a remembrance that all Mr. Norris's patents be searched out; Henry Knyvett's letters to Mr. Weston and to young Weston's wife; Henry Knyvett's bills for the offices and the annuity.”33 Lists of the convicted traitors' offices and wards.h.i.+ps were drawn up, and a.s.sessments would be made of the value of their lands: Rochford's were worth 441.10s.9d (154,200), Brereton's 1,236.12s.6d (431,850), and Norris's 1,327.15s.7d (463,700). Lists of the convicted traitors' offices and wards.h.i.+ps were drawn up, and a.s.sessments would be made of the value of their lands: Rochford's were worth 441.10s.9d (154,200), Brereton's 1,236.12s.6d (431,850), and Norris's 1,327.15s.7d (463,700).34 As Cromwell would write to the amba.s.sadors Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, and John Wallop on May 14, ”great suit is being made” for the men's confiscated offices and goods; he promised that Gardiner would get 200 (69,850) of the life pensions worth 300 (104,750) that Wolsey, in 1529, had forced Gardiner to pay Rochford and Norris out of the revenues of his see. He informed them that ”the third hundred is bestowed of the Vicar of h.e.l.l,” Sir Francis Bryan, and added, ”And you, Master Wallop, shall not at this time be forgotten, but the certainty of that ye shall have I cannot tell.” As Cromwell would write to the amba.s.sadors Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, and John Wallop on May 14, ”great suit is being made” for the men's confiscated offices and goods; he promised that Gardiner would get 200 (69,850) of the life pensions worth 300 (104,750) that Wolsey, in 1529, had forced Gardiner to pay Rochford and Norris out of the revenues of his see. He informed them that ”the third hundred is bestowed of the Vicar of h.e.l.l,” Sir Francis Bryan, and added, ”And you, Master Wallop, shall not at this time be forgotten, but the certainty of that ye shall have I cannot tell.”35 A contemporaneous list of persons newly appointed to offices, written in the hand of Thomas Wriothesley, the future Lord Chancellor, shows that some of these offices, if not all, had belonged to the accused, for it mentions various lords.h.i.+ps and stewards.h.i.+ps ”as Brereton had the same;” the King's son Richmond was one of the many beneficiaries.36 The reformer Robert Barnes begged for Rochford's masters.h.i.+p of Bedlam, the hospital for the insane, which was now vacant ”through the death of these false men” and worth 40 (13,950); he said he would rather have that than a bishopric. The reformer Robert Barnes begged for Rochford's masters.h.i.+p of Bedlam, the hospital for the insane, which was now vacant ”through the death of these false men” and worth 40 (13,950); he said he would rather have that than a bishopric.37 Husee listed in his letter some of those who had-even so soon-reaped the spoils of the condemned: Husee listed in his letter some of those who had-even so soon-reaped the spoils of the condemned: Sir Thomas Cheyney is named Lord Warden [of the Cinque Ports, an office held by George Boleyn from 1533], some saith by Mr. Secretary's preferment. My Lord of Richmond is Chamberlain of Chester and North Wales, and Mr. Harry Knyvett is Constable of Beaumaris [all offices held by Brereton]. If Mr. Secretary keep promise, your Lords.h.i.+p shall have something. Mr. [Sir Francis] Bryan is Chief Gentleman of the King's Privy Chamber [in place of Norris], but there is plain saying the King will a.s.sign the Groom of the Stool from time to time at his pleasure. I trust your Lords.h.i.+p will remember Mr. Secretary with wine and letters.

Weston's family continued to make frantic attempts to save his life. In the same letter, Husee reported the latest rumors: Here are so many tales I cannot well tell which to write; for now this day, some saith young Weston shall 'scape, and some saith there shall none die but the Queen and her brother; and some say that Wyatt and Mr. Page are as like to suffer as the others; and the saying is now that those which shall suffer shall die when the Queen and her brother goeth to execution. But I think verily they shall all suffer, and in case any do escape, it will be young Weston, for whose life there is importunate suit made.38 It is ominous that Husee wrote ”when” rather than ”if,” in referring to the Queen and Rochford going to their executions, as if that were not in doubt.

Although many were moved by Weston's plight, ”no one dared plead for him except his mother, who, oppressed with grief, pet.i.tioned the King, and his wife, who offered rents and goods for his deliverance.”39 But they, and his father, Sir Richard Weston, had so far been unsuccessful in obtaining an audience with the King or a meeting with Cromwell, so that they could personally beg for Francis to be spared, for ”the King was determined that the sentence should be carried out. If money could have availed, the fine would have been 100,000 crowns [8,730,750].” But they, and his father, Sir Richard Weston, had so far been unsuccessful in obtaining an audience with the King or a meeting with Cromwell, so that they could personally beg for Francis to be spared, for ”the King was determined that the sentence should be carried out. If money could have availed, the fine would have been 100,000 crowns [8,730,750].”40 Husee also wrote on May 13: ”The rumor is that Harry Webb should be taken in the West Country and put in hold for the same cause. By Wednesday, all shall be known, and Your Lords.h.i.+p shall be thereof advertised with speed.”41 Harry Webb was the Queen's sewer, and-as has been mentioned-he had gone in fear since her arrest. There is no record, however, of him being apprehended on her account. Harry Webb was the Queen's sewer, and-as has been mentioned-he had gone in fear since her arrest. There is no record, however, of him being apprehended on her account.

A letter from John Husee to Lady Lisle, also sent on May 13, pithily described the wild gossip and speculation raging through the court at this time: Madam, I think verily, if all the books and chronicles were totally revolved, and to the uttermost persecuted and tried, which against women hath been penned, contrived, and written since Adam and Eve, those same were, I think verily, nothing in comparison of that which hath been done and committed by Anne the Queen; which, though I presume be not all thing as it is now rumoured, yet that which hath been by her confessed, and other offenders with her by her own alluring, procurement, and instigation, is so abominable and detestable that I am ashamed that any good woman should give ear thereunto.

But there is no evidence that Anne had had confessed. Indeed, she had throughout protested her innocence, and was to go on doing so to the bitter end. We might infer from this either that it was deliberately being put about at court that she had confessed to the crimes of which she was accused, or that this had been a.s.serted at the trial of her alleged lovers. Whichever it was, Husee was now convinced of her guilt: ”I pray G.o.d [he concluded] give her grace to repent while she now liveth. I think not the contrary but she and all they shall suffer.” His next words to Lady Lisle, however, were somewhat at odds with what he had just written: ”John Williams has promised me some cramp rings for you.” confessed. Indeed, she had throughout protested her innocence, and was to go on doing so to the bitter end. We might infer from this either that it was deliberately being put about at court that she had confessed to the crimes of which she was accused, or that this had been a.s.serted at the trial of her alleged lovers. Whichever it was, Husee was now convinced of her guilt: ”I pray G.o.d [he concluded] give her grace to repent while she now liveth. I think not the contrary but she and all they shall suffer.” His next words to Lady Lisle, however, were somewhat at odds with what he had just written: ”John Williams has promised me some cramp rings for you.”42 The office of blessing rings that were supposedly efficacious in curing cramp belonged exclusively to the Queen of England, so these rings must have been blessed by Anne herself. It seems strange that Husee should think Lady Lisle would want them, given they had been consecrated by one whose reputation was now so irrevocably tainted. Perhaps he was not as convinced of Anne's guilt as he made himself out to be. The office of blessing rings that were supposedly efficacious in curing cramp belonged exclusively to the Queen of England, so these rings must have been blessed by Anne herself. It seems strange that Husee should think Lady Lisle would want them, given they had been consecrated by one whose reputation was now so irrevocably tainted. Perhaps he was not as convinced of Anne's guilt as he made himself out to be.

By May 13, the ”heavy news ... of the imprisonment of the Queen” had reached Scotland, where it was conveyed by Sir Adam Otterbourne to Henry VIII's nephew, James V V, ”to the no small joy of the Scots, especially of the clergy, our capital enemies,” as Lord William Howard reported from Edinburgh to Cromwell.43 James was glad of anything that might discountenance his formidable uncle. James was glad of anything that might discountenance his formidable uncle.