I shall conclude this year with the disaster of the renown'd lord the Duke of Norfolk, and the execution of his son Henry the Earl of Surrey > which pass'd in this manner, as our records tell us.

The Dutchess Elizabeth (age 49), daughter to Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, having for many years entertain'd so violent jealousies of the duke her husband's matrimonial affection and loyalty, as it broke out at last to open rancour, divers occasions of scandal were given: insomuch, that not being content with having surmized a long while since two articles against him, she again, in sundry letters to the lord privy-seal, both averred the articles, and manifestly accus'd some of his minions, repeated divers hard usages, she pretended to receive from them, and briefly discover'd all the ordinary passions of hei offended sex. This again being urg'd in a time when the king was in his declining age, and for the rest, disquieted with scruples, that the duke's greatness or interest in sequent times might interrupt the order he intended to give, was not unwillingly heard. So that notwithstanding his many important and faithful services, both in war and peace, at home and abroad, he and his son Henry Earl of Surrey (age 30), were expos'd to the malignity and detraction of their accusers. This again fell out in an unfortunate time; for besides that the lady his dutchess had now for above four years been separated from him [Thomas Howard 3rd Duke of Norfolk (age 73)]; his son the Earl of Surrey (age 30) was but newly, and perchance, scarce reconciled with him; his daughter Mary Dutchess of Richmond (age 27) not only inclined to the Protestant party, (which lov'd not the duke) but grown an extream enemy of her brother: so that there was not only a kind of intestine division in his family, but this again many secret ways fomented.

Among which, the industry of one Mrs. Holland, thought to be the duke's favourite, appeared not a little, as desirous (at what price soever) to conserve herself. Besides, divers at the king's council disaffected him, and particularly the Earl of Holland, as knowing that after the king's death (now thought to be imminent) none was so capable to oppose him in the place he aspir'd to of protector. All which circumstances concurring, and being voiced abroad, incouraged divers of his adversaries to declare themselves: and the rather, because it was notorious, how the king had not only withdrawn much of his wonted favour, but promised impunity to such as could discover any thing concerning him.

Moreover, that the earl her brother should say, these new men loved no nobility; and if God call'd away the king, they should smart for it. And that her brother hated them all since his being in custody in Windsor-castle; but that her father seemed not to care for their ill will, saying, his truth should bear him out. Concerning arms, she said, that she thought that her brother had more than seven rolls; and that some, that he had added more of Anjou, and of Lancelott Du-lac. And that her father since the attainder of the Duke of Buckingham (who bare the king's arms) where the arms of her mother (daughter to the said duke) were rayned in his coat, had put a blank-quarter in the place, but that her brother had reassum'd them. Also that instead of the duke's coronet, was put to his arms a cap of maintenance purple, with powdred furr, and with a crown, to her judgment, much like to a close crown; and underneath the arms was a cipher, which she took to be the king's cipher, HR. As also that her father never said that the king hated him, but his counsellors; but that her brother said, the king was displeased with him (as he thought) for the loss of the great journey. Which displeasure, he conceiv'd, was set forward by them who hated him, for setting up an altar in the church at Boulogne. And that her brother should say, God long save my father's life; for if he were dead, they would shortly have my head. And that he reviled some of the present council, not forgetting the old cardinal Also that he dissuaded her from going too far in reading the Scripture. Some passionate words of her brother she likewise repeated, as also some circumstantial speeches, little for his advantage; yet so, as they seemed much to clear her father.

Sir Edmund Knevet being examined, said, he knew no untruth directly by the Earl of Surrey, but suspected him of dissimulation and vanity: and that a servant of his had been in Italy with Cardinal Poole, and was receiv'd again at his return. Moreover, that he kept one Pasquil an Italian as a jester, but more likely a spy, and so reputed. He mentioned also one Peregrine an Italian entertain'd by the said earl; adding that he lov'd to converse with strangers, and to conform his behaviour to them. And that he thought he had therein some great ill device.

One Thomas Pope also informed the council, that John Freeman told him, that the duke (at Nottingham, in the time of the commotion of the north) should say, in the presence of an hundred persons, that the act of uses was the worst act that ever was made, and that Freeman affirm'd those words before the Lord Audeley, late chancellor.

These depositions, together with others (as it seems) being brought to the king's judges at Norwich, they signified by their letter unto the lords of the council, dated Jan. 7. that the king's solicitor and Mr. Stamford had brought the indictments, and that they were found true, and the duke and his son indicted thereupon of high treason; and that they made haste to bring the said indictment to London; desiring further to know whether Sir Thomas Paston, Sir Edmund Knevet, Sir John Peer, and others, should be of the same jury.

13 Jan 1547. Upon the thirteenth (the king being now dangerously sick) the Earl of Surrey was arraign'd in Guild-hall in London, before the lord chancellor, the lord mayor, and other commissioners. Where the earl, as he was of a deep understanding, sharp wit, and deep courage, defended himself many ways: sometimes denying their accusations as false, and together weakening the credit of his adversaries; sometimes interpreting the words he said, in a far other sense than that in which they were represented. For the point of bearing his arms (among which those of Edmund the Confessor are related) alledging that he had the opinion of heralds therein. And finally, when a witness was brought against him viva voce, who pretended to repeat some high words of the earl's by way of discourse, which concern'd him nearly, and that thereupon the said witness should return a braving answer; the earl reply'd no otherwise to the jury, than that he left it to them to judge, whether it were probable that this man should speak thus to the Earl of Surrey, and he not strike him again. In conclusion, he pleaded not guilty; but the jury (which was a common inquest, not of the peers, because the earl was not a parliament lord) condemn'd him.