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 Wiltshire. including Sir William FitzWilliam, who had been instrumental in obtaining confessions from Smeaton and Norris, and the Queen"s father, Thomas Boleyn, Earl of Wiltshire.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 lordship 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 Lordship 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 wardships 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 wardships 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 lordships and stewardships "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 mastership 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 mastership 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 Lordship 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 Lordship 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 Lordship 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.
The condemnation of her alleged lovers presaged ill for Anne, and irrevocably prejudiced her own trial, for if they had been found guilty then so, almost for a surety, would she be, and her brother Rochford. That was evidently the King"s opinion too, for on May 13, the day after the men"s trial, he ordered her household to be broken up and dissolved, and her servants to be discharged from their allegiance. It was FitzWilliam, the King"s treasurer, and Paulet, his comptroller, who went to Greenwich to carry out Henry"s orders.44 On May 19, John Husee would report that "the most part of the Queen"s servants be set at liberty to seek service at pleasure." On May 19, John Husee would report that "the most part of the Queen"s servants be set at liberty to seek service at pleasure."45 Many were found places in the King"s household; others would return later to serve Jane Seymour. It must by now have been obvious to most people that Anne"s trial would be a mere formality. Many were found places in the King"s household; others would return later to serve Jane Seymour. It must by now have been obvious to most people that Anne"s trial would be a mere formality.
Norfolk"s commission of May 12 had appointed him to receive the indictments found against the Queen and Lord Rochford, and to call the accused before him for the purpose of hearing and examining them, and compelling them to answer the charges.46 Accordingly, on May 13, the grand juries were commanded to furnish Norfolk with those indictments at the coming trial, and that same day, Sir William Kingston was served with a royal writ commanding him to bring Queen Anne and Lord Rochford before the Lord High Steward "as he shall be required," which was followed hours later by a precept from Norfolk himself, ordering the constable to bring his prisoners to trial on Monday, May 15. That same day, May 13, the Duke of Norfolk, in the King"s name, sent another precept to Ralph Felmingham, sergeant-at-arms, commanding him to summon at least twenty-seven "peers of the Queen and Lord Rochford, by whom the truth can be better made to appear." Accordingly, on May 13, the grand juries were commanded to furnish Norfolk with those indictments at the coming trial, and that same day, Sir William Kingston was served with a royal writ commanding him to bring Queen Anne and Lord Rochford before the Lord High Steward "as he shall be required," which was followed hours later by a precept from Norfolk himself, ordering the constable to bring his prisoners to trial on Monday, May 15. That same day, May 13, the Duke of Norfolk, in the King"s name, sent another precept to Ralph Felmingham, sergeant-at-arms, commanding him to summon at least twenty-seven "peers of the Queen and Lord Rochford, by whom the truth can be better made to appear."47 Obviously, with these trials taking place on the Monday, the executions of the other accused would have to be postponed, for the Tower officials would be too busy to cope. Obviously, with these trials taking place on the Monday, the executions of the other accused would have to be postponed, for the Tower officials would be too busy to cope.
On May 14, Cromwell wrote to Gardiner and Wallop, the English amba.s.sadors in France, formally apprising them of the action taken against the Queen and the judgment on those accused with her. He said he had "to inform them of a most detestable scheme, happily discovered and notoriously known to all men," of which they may have heard rumors. He "expressed to them some part of the coming out and the King"s proceeding": how Anne"s crimes had come to light, the arrests of all concerned, and the condemnation of the men two days earlier. "She and her brother shall be arraigned tomorrow," he concluded, "and will undoubtedly go the same way. I write no particularities, the things be so abominable, and therefore I doubt not but this shall be sufficient instruction to declare the truth if you have occasion to do so."48 In this official version of events, Henry VIII was to be portrayed as the grievously injured party. In this official version of events, Henry VIII was to be portrayed as the grievously injured party.
As news of the arrests spread like wildfire across Europe, the story gained much in the telling. From Paris, on May 10, the Papal Nuncio, the Bishop of Faenza, reported to the Vatican: "News came yesterday from England that the King had caused to be arrested the Queen, her father, mother, brother, and an organist with whom she had been too intimate. If it be as it is reported, it is a great judgment of G.o.d." The bishop was still under the impression, on May 19, that the King had "imprisoned his wife, her father, mother, brother, and friends," and believed "that woman will doubtless be put to death." By May 24 he had heard a further mish-mash of truth and rumor, and reported: "It is not true that her father and mother were imprisoned. It is said that the King has been in danger of being poisoned by that lady for a whole year, and that her daughter is suppositious, being the child of a countryman; but these particulars are not known for certain, according to what the King [Francis I] said today. The discovery was owing to words spoken by the organist from jealousy of others."49 In Spain it was initially believed that "the mistress of the King of England had been put in the Tower for adultery with an organist of her chamber. Her brother is imprisoned for not giving information of the crime."50 On May 26, John Hannaert of Lyons was to inform the Emperor: "There is news from England that the so-called Queen was found in bed with the King"s organist and taken to prison. It is proved that she had criminal intercourse with her brother and others." On May 26, John Hannaert of Lyons was to inform the Emperor: "There is news from England that the so-called Queen was found in bed with the King"s organist and taken to prison. It is proved that she had criminal intercourse with her brother and others."51 Charles V thought it "very probable that G.o.d has permitted it after her d.a.m.nable life." Charles V thought it "very probable that G.o.d has permitted it after her d.a.m.nable life."52 Dr. Ortiz, Charles V"s amba.s.sador in Rome, was informed that "the King of England has imprisoned his mistress in the Tower. Other letters state that, in order to have a son who might be attributed to the King, she committed adultery with a singer who taught her to play on instruments. Others say it was with her brother. The King has sent them to the Tower with her father, mother, and other relations." Ortiz later reported, on June 2: "The prayers of the late Queen of England and the Holy Martyrs have prevailed. The King"s mistress had six lovers, one being her own brother. Another, a musician, seeing that he was less favored, discovered the fact to the King, first asking for pardon and his life. Now they are all taken, it is found to be true." Ortiz recalled the Cardinal of Burgos telling him that it had been prophesied by a martyred saint "that this Anna would be burned to death."53 In the Vatican, Pope Paul III summoned Gregory Casale, an English government agent, and informed him of what had taken place, declaring that G.o.d had enlightened the King of England"s conscience, and making it very clear that he would respond gladly to any overture of friendship and reconciliation that the King might make.54 On May 29, in Germany, the Protestant reformer Philip Melanchthon heard the rumors about Anne Boleyn with great sorrow: "The reports from England are more than tragic. The Queen is thrown into prison with her father, her brother, two bishops, and others for adultery." In June, having obtained more information, he concluded that "she was more accused than convicted of adultery."55 Abroad, some people expressed the opinion that, "as none but the organist had confessed, the King invented the device to get rid of her;" but many others, convinced that she fully deserved the poor reputation that was hers in Catholic Europe, had no trouble believing the charges. Abroad, some people expressed the opinion that, "as none but the organist had confessed, the King invented the device to get rid of her;" but many others, convinced that she fully deserved the poor reputation that was hers in Catholic Europe, had no trouble believing the charges.
Henry VIII had now returned to York Place, and with freedom in sight, decided that he wanted Jane, his bride-to-be, to be near at hand to receive the news of Anne"s condemnation. On Sunday, May 14, Chapuys reported that the King had that day "sent for Mrs. Seymour by the Grand Esquire [Sir Nicholas Carew] and some others, and made her come within a mile of his lodging";56 she was installed in the fine house at Chelsea that had once belonged to Sir Thomas More but reverted to the Crown on his execution the previous summer, and was now in the keeping of Sir William Paulet, comptroller of the royal household, and later Marquess of Winchester. she was installed in the fine house at Chelsea that had once belonged to Sir Thomas More but reverted to the Crown on his execution the previous summer, and was now in the keeping of Sir William Paulet, comptroller of the royal household, and later Marquess of Winchester.57 Its exact location is uncertain, but it certainly fronted the river, probably where Beaufort Street now lies to the north of Battersea Bridge. This great house boasted a seventy-foot hall, a chapel, a library, Its exact location is uncertain, but it certainly fronted the river, probably where Beaufort Street now lies to the north of Battersea Bridge. This great house boasted a seventy-foot hall, a chapel, a library,58 and twenty-seven acres of beautiful gardens, orchards, and parkland, the whole lying in an area that was still largely rural, yet within a half hour walk of Westminster. and twenty-seven acres of beautiful gardens, orchards, and parkland, the whole lying in an area that was still largely rural, yet within a half hour walk of Westminster.
Here, Jane had her first taste of what it would be like to be a queen, finding herself lodged in surroundings of some splendor, "very richly adorned" in the most sumptuous fabrics and "served very splendidly by the servants, cooks, and certain of the King"s officers in very rich liveries." Her parents, Sir John and Lady Seymour, had come to stay with and support her at this time, and to act as chaperones when the King visited.59 For all this display of virtue, they, and Jane, were eagerly awaiting the outcome of Anne"s trial. For all this display of virtue, they, and Jane, were eagerly awaiting the outcome of Anne"s trial.
It is clear from Chapuys"s dispatches that the Seymours had very quickly taken him into their confidence, and more than likely that the Imperialist party and the Seymour affinity had been lobbying for the death penalty for Anne. Lady Mary"s supporters were convinced that Anne had poisoned Katherine and attempted to do the same to Mary and Richmond, removing all possible rivals to her daughter Elizabeth.60 They feared that, left alive, she would remain a threat to her successor and any new heirs the King might have. Above all, her death, following Katherine of Aragon"s, would leave the way clear for a new royal marriage and an undisputed succession. That Anne"s execution was widely antic.i.p.ated is clear from a letter written by Charles V on May 15, the day of her trial, in which he suggested several possible marriage alliances for Henry VIII, clearly having a.s.sumed that she would die. They feared that, left alive, she would remain a threat to her successor and any new heirs the King might have. Above all, her death, following Katherine of Aragon"s, would leave the way clear for a new royal marriage and an undisputed succession. That Anne"s execution was widely antic.i.p.ated is clear from a letter written by Charles V on May 15, the day of her trial, in which he suggested several possible marriage alliances for Henry VIII, clearly having a.s.sumed that she would die.61 Throughout the weekend of May 1314, the Tower officials were kept busy with hasty preparations for the trials of Anne and Rochford. There was no precedent in England for the trial of a queen, but it was nevertheless felt that it should take place with an appropriate degree of state and ceremony: it was to be the ultimate show trial, and would be held in the thirteenth-century great hall of the Tower, which was known as the King"s Hall.62 This battlemented building was part of the palace complex, and it stood at right angles to the south end of the Queen"s lodging, with one side facing the Jewel Tower and the White Tower, and the other the river. Measuring eighty feet by fifty, the hall had side aisles separated from the central s.p.a.ce by two timber arcades with four arches apiece. This battlemented building was part of the palace complex, and it stood at right angles to the south end of the Queen"s lodging, with one side facing the Jewel Tower and the White Tower, and the other the river. Measuring eighty feet by fifty, the hall had side aisles separated from the central s.p.a.ce by two timber arcades with four arches apiece.
The King"s Hall was long neglected, having been used as a storeroom as far back as 1387, and had to be repaired and redecorated for Anne"s coronation in 1533. But these repairs seem to have been purely superficial, for the hall would be falling into ruin by 1559. It was labeled "decay"d" in a plan of the Tower dated 1597,63 and a temporary canvas roof had to be put in place for the coronation of James I in 1604. In 1641 the hall was converted into an ordnance store. It was finally demolished in or shortly before 1788, when a new store was erected in its place. The Medieval Palace Shop now occupies part of the site. and a temporary canvas roof had to be put in place for the coronation of James I in 1604. In 1641 the hall was converted into an ordnance store. It was finally demolished in or shortly before 1788, when a new store was erected in its place. The Medieval Palace Shop now occupies part of the site.
Antic.i.p.ating a high demand by the public for seats, the constable arranged for a "great scaffold" or platform to be built in the center of the hall, "and there were made benches or seats for the lords," while along the walls were positioned many more benches,64 so there would be s.p.a.ce for the two thousand spectators described by Chapuys; these benches were still to be seen in the great hall as late as 1778. so there would be s.p.a.ce for the two thousand spectators described by Chapuys; these benches were still to be seen in the great hall as late as 1778.65 On the dais at one end of the chamber, the chair of estate-or throne-a.s.signed to the Duke of Norfolk was placed under a canopy of estate bearing the royal arms, for Norfolk, as Lord High Steward, would be representing the King. On the dais at one end of the chamber, the chair of estate-or throne-a.s.signed to the Duke of Norfolk was placed under a canopy of estate bearing the royal arms, for Norfolk, as Lord High Steward, would be representing the King.66 On the morning of Monday, May 15, the duke seated himself majestically here, holding the long white staff of his office. On a chair at his feet sat his nineteen-year-old son, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, grasping the golden staff that symbolized his father"s office of Earl Marshal of England. At the duke"s right hand sat Lord Chancellor Sir Thomas Audley; as a commoner, he was not ent.i.tled to judge a queen, but was there to offer legal advice to the duke.67 At Norfolk"s left hand was the Duke of Suffolk, the King"s brother-in-law, who had long been Anne"s enemy. Now appointed chief of those who had gathered to judge her, he was "wholly applying himself to the King"s humor." At Norfolk"s left hand was the Duke of Suffolk, the King"s brother-in-law, who had long been Anne"s enemy. Now appointed chief of those who had gathered to judge her, he was "wholly applying himself to the King"s humor."68 Then were seated, in order of precedence, "twenty-six of the greatest peers,"69 although the number is also given as twenty-seven, although the number is also given as twenty-seven,70 which is in fact the number that had been summoned by Norfolk. which is in fact the number that had been summoned by Norfolk.71 Although Constantine claimed that this jury consisted of "almost all the lords that were in the realm," it in fact comprised fewer than half the entire peerage of sixty-two lords. Although Constantine claimed that this jury consisted of "almost all the lords that were in the realm," it in fact comprised fewer than half the entire peerage of sixty-two lords.72 Nevertheless, "the highest peers, marquesses, earls, and lords, every one after their degrees," had been "chosen" to try the Queen and her brother. Nevertheless, "the highest peers, marquesses, earls, and lords, every one after their degrees," had been "chosen" to try the Queen and her brother.73 Friedmann, Anne"s Victorian biographer, had no doubt that this panel was "fairly chosen," but Charles Wriothesley"s editor felt that the word "chosen" lent some credence to conjecture that "care was taken to select those who could be relied upon to gratify the King"s will," as had certainly been the case when Cardinal Wolsey chose the lords who sent the Duke of Buckingham to the block in 1521. George Wyatt heard that the peers who had a.s.sembled to judge the Queen were "men of great honor" but felt "it had been good also if some of them had not been suspected of too much power and no less malice." Some were there "more perhaps for countenance of others" evil than for means by their own authority to do good-which also peradventure would not have been without their own certain perils." Friedmann, Anne"s Victorian biographer, had no doubt that this panel was "fairly chosen," but Charles Wriothesley"s editor felt that the word "chosen" lent some credence to conjecture that "care was taken to select those who could be relied upon to gratify the King"s will," as had certainly been the case when Cardinal Wolsey chose the lords who sent the Duke of Buckingham to the block in 1521. George Wyatt heard that the peers who had a.s.sembled to judge the Queen were "men of great honor" but felt "it had been good also if some of them had not been suspected of too much power and no less malice." Some were there "more perhaps for countenance of others" evil than for means by their own authority to do good-which also peradventure would not have been without their own certain perils."
Given its composition, there was little hope that the panel of peers would be impartial. As one historian has recently written, "they had much to gain or lose by their behavior in such a conspicuous theater."74 Ives contends that they were summoned at such short notice that there was little opportunity for the Crown to influence their judgment, but who is to say that is was not made clear to them, directly or indirectly, what verdict was expected? Ives contends that they were summoned at such short notice that there was little opportunity for the Crown to influence their judgment, but who is to say that is was not made clear to them, directly or indirectly, what verdict was expected?
Among them was Anne"s former lover and would-be betrothed, Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, whose pursuit of her in 1523 had been halted by Wolsey, acting on the King"s orders;75 Percy had been hustled into an unhappy marriage, and was now an ailing embittered man, whose former love for Anne had long since withered into contempt, especially after she had offended his fellow peer, Norfolk; in 1534, Chapuys overheard Northumberland saying to a friend that Anne was a bad woman who had plotted to poison Lady Mary, which effectively demolishes the romantic myth that he loved her till the end of his days. The earl, having no children, had made the King his heir the previous January, describing himself as "unfeign[ed]ly sick" of "the debility in my blood." Percy had been hustled into an unhappy marriage, and was now an ailing embittered man, whose former love for Anne had long since withered into contempt, especially after she had offended his fellow peer, Norfolk; in 1534, Chapuys overheard Northumberland saying to a friend that Anne was a bad woman who had plotted to poison Lady Mary, which effectively demolishes the romantic myth that he loved her till the end of his days. The earl, having no children, had made the King his heir the previous January, describing himself as "unfeign[ed]ly sick" of "the debility in my blood."76 The other high-ranking "lords triers" were Robert Radcliffe, Earl of Suss.e.x, a great confidant of the King, whose name heads the extant list preserved in the Baga de Secretis; Baga de Secretis; Henry Somerset, Earl of Worcester, whose wife Elizabeth had laid evidence against the Queen; the Marquess of Exeter and his cousin Henry Pole, Lord Montagu, staunch partisans of Lady Mary, who were no doubt rejoicing in Anne"s fall, for which they had long been scheming; William FitzAlan, Earl of Arundel; John de Vere, Earl of Oxford, another friend of the King; Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland, who served Henry VIII loyally in the North; Thomas Manners, Earl of Rutland, a cousin and great favorite of the King; and George Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon, another favorite of Henry"s. Henry Somerset, Earl of Worcester, whose wife Elizabeth had laid evidence against the Queen; the Marquess of Exeter and his cousin Henry Pole, Lord Montagu, staunch partisans of Lady Mary, who were no doubt rejoicing in Anne"s fall, for which they had long been scheming; William FitzAlan, Earl of Arundel; John de Vere, Earl of Oxford, another friend of the King; Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland, who served Henry VIII loyally in the North; Thomas Manners, Earl of Rutland, a cousin and great favorite of the King; and George Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon, another favorite of Henry"s.
The rest of the peers were barons: George Brooke, Lord Cobham, a strong supporter of the King, whose sister Elizabeth was married to Thomas Wyatt, and whose wife was perhaps the "Nan Cobham" who had given evidence against Anne Boleyn; Henry Parker, Lord Morley, the friend of Lady Mary, come to sit in judgment on his son-in-law Rochford,77 and possibly motivated by righteous anger on behalf of his daughter Jane; William, Lord Sandys, the Lord Chamberlain, another long-standing favorite of the King; Thomas Fiennes, Lord Dacre of the South, who had only narrowly escaped being convicted of treason two years earlier, and was not likely to put his neck at risk a second time; John Tuchet, Lord Audley; Thomas West, Lord de la Warr; Arundel"s son, Henry FitzAlan, Lord Maltravers; Edward, Lord Grey of Powys, and Thomas Stanley, Lord Monteagle, both of whom were married to daughters of the Duke of Suffolk, the King"s brother-in-law and close friend; Edward Fiennes de Clinton, Lord Clinton, who was married to Elizabeth Blount, former mistress to the King and mother of his son, the Duke of Richmond; Andrew, Lord Windsor, who was very much a King"s man; Thomas, Lord Wentworth, whose aunt, Margaret Wentworth, was Jane Seymour"s mother; Thomas, Lord Burgh; and John, Lord Mordaunt, a career courtier who served on several treason trials. and possibly motivated by righteous anger on behalf of his daughter Jane; William, Lord Sandys, the Lord Chamberlain, another long-standing favorite of the King; Thomas Fiennes, Lord Dacre of the South, who had only narrowly escaped being convicted of treason two years earlier, and was not likely to put his neck at risk a second time; John Tuchet, Lord Audley; Thomas West, Lord de la Warr; Arundel"s son, Henry FitzAlan, Lord Maltravers; Edward, Lord Grey of Powys, and Thomas Stanley, Lord Monteagle, both of whom were married to daughters of the Duke of Suffolk, the King"s brother-in-law and close friend; Edward Fiennes de Clinton, Lord Clinton, who was married to Elizabeth Blount, former mistress to the King and mother of his son, the Duke of Richmond; Andrew, Lord Windsor, who was very much a King"s man; Thomas, Lord Wentworth, whose aunt, Margaret Wentworth, was Jane Seymour"s mother; Thomas, Lord Burgh; and John, Lord Mordaunt, a career courtier who served on several treason trials.78 The top part of the parchment in the Baga de Secretis Baga de Secretis has perished, and only seventeen names remain on the list of peers. There is a p.r.i.c.k mark beside each, probably made as, one by one, the lords took their seats. has perished, and only seventeen names remain on the list of peers. There is a p.r.i.c.k mark beside each, probably made as, one by one, the lords took their seats.79 Notable absentees were the Duke of Richmond, the King"s b.a.s.t.a.r.d son, who was perhaps excused on account of his youth-he was not quite seventeen; Notable absentees were the Duke of Richmond, the King"s b.a.s.t.a.r.d son, who was perhaps excused on account of his youth-he was not quite seventeen;80 the two female peers; four lords-the Earl of Kent and Lords Dudley, Say, Sele, and Tailboys-who were too poor to attend; three-the Earl of c.u.mberland, Lord Dacre of the North, and Lord Lisle-who were serving as deputies on the northern Marches and in Calais; and several others, the two female peers; four lords-the Earl of Kent and Lords Dudley, Say, Sele, and Tailboys-who were too poor to attend; three-the Earl of c.u.mberland, Lord Dacre of the North, and Lord Lisle-who were serving as deputies on the northern Marches and in Calais; and several others,81 among them John Neville, Lord Latimer, the second husband of Katherine Parr (who would become Henry VIII"s sixth wife in 1543). Latimer had written to Cromwell on May 12, begging him "to have me excused by reason of business in Worcestershire," and protesting, "I have been at every prorogation and session of the last Parliament since it began, which has been very painful and chargeable to me." among them John Neville, Lord Latimer, the second husband of Katherine Parr (who would become Henry VIII"s sixth wife in 1543). Latimer had written to Cromwell on May 12, begging him "to have me excused by reason of business in Worcestershire," and protesting, "I have been at every prorogation and session of the last Parliament since it began, which has been very painful and chargeable to me."82 Alexander Aless was told-by his landlord, who heard it firsthand from people in the crowd who would witness Anne"s end-"that the Earl of Wiltshire, the Queen"s father, had been commanded to be an a.s.sessor along with the judges, in order that his daughter might be the more confounded, and that her grief might be the deeper." The account of Anne"s trial that is preserved in the Harleian ma.n.u.scripts states that Wiltshire "was among [the peers] by whom she was to be tried," and Chapuys was told that "the Earl of Wiltshire was quite as ready to a.s.sist the judgment as he had done at the condemnation of the other four."83 The Bishop of Faenza was to report, on May 24, that Wiltshire, "being on the council, was present at his daughter"s sentence," The Bishop of Faenza was to report, on May 24, that Wiltshire, "being on the council, was present at his daughter"s sentence,"84 but he is not the most reliable source, and neither is Dr. Ortiz, who a.s.serted on June 2 that "her father approved her condemnation." but he is not the most reliable source, and neither is Dr. Ortiz, who a.s.serted on June 2 that "her father approved her condemnation."85 In the official record in the In the official record in the Baga de Secretis Baga de Secretis, Wiltshire"s name is not included among those who sat in judgment at the trials of his daughter and son, but the list is incomplete. It may be that Wiltshire was the twenty-seventh peer-Norfolk had summoned that number-and that it is time to revise the long-held a.s.sumption that he was not among the lords who gathered to try his daughter and his son. Even had he not been, in serving on the jury that condemned the others, he effectively colluded in the destruction of his children, for, as Sander"s Victorian editor shrewdly pointed out, he "could not have been ignorant of the effect of the first verdict."
Conducting the trial was Sir Christopher Hales, the Attorney General and thus the chief prosecutor for the Crown, as well as Sir John Aleyn, "the Mayor of London with certain aldermen, with the wardens and four persons more of twelve of the princ.i.p.al crafts [guilds] of London."86 The French amba.s.sador and other foreign diplomats were permitted to watch the proceedings, but Chapuys was unwell and unable to attend, so had to rely on people who were present for information. Much of what we know of the two trials that were to follow comes from his dispatches. The French amba.s.sador and other foreign diplomats were permitted to watch the proceedings, but Chapuys was unwell and unable to attend, so had to rely on people who were present for information. Much of what we know of the two trials that were to follow comes from his dispatches.87 Other eyewitnesses who left records of the proceedings were Sir John Spelman, one of the judges, and the Tower official, Anthony Anthony, Surveyor of the Ordnance, who also owned an inn called The Ship, and served as churchwarden at St. Botolph"s Church, Aldgate. Unfortunately, his chronicle has not survived, and is known only through the notes on it made by the seventeenth-century writer Thomas Turner, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, in his copy of Lord Herbert of Cherbury"s life of Henry VIII. Other eyewitnesses who left records of the proceedings were Sir John Spelman, one of the judges, and the Tower official, Anthony Anthony, Surveyor of the Ordnance, who also owned an inn called The Ship, and served as churchwarden at St. Botolph"s Church, Aldgate. Unfortunately, his chronicle has not survived, and is known only through the notes on it made by the seventeenth-century writer Thomas Turner, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, in his copy of Lord Herbert of Cherbury"s life of Henry VIII.
By the King"s express command, members of the public were admitted to the trial, and were allowed to stand in the well of the hall behind wooden barriers that had been erected to contain the press of people.88 George Wyatt gained the impression that Anne"s trial was heard "close enough, as enclosed in strong walls," but Chapuys had the truth of it when he stated that "the thing was not done secretly, for there were more than two thousand persons present." George Wyatt gained the impression that Anne"s trial was heard "close enough, as enclosed in strong walls," but Chapuys had the truth of it when he stated that "the thing was not done secretly, for there were more than two thousand persons present."89 The King was determined that justice would be seen to be done, which suggests that he and his advisers felt they had built a strong enough case against the Queen. Cromwell-as he would tell Chapuys-had "taken considerable trouble" over the judicial process. The King was determined that justice would be seen to be done, which suggests that he and his advisers felt they had built a strong enough case against the Queen. Cromwell-as he would tell Chapuys-had "taken considerable trouble" over the judicial process.90 This was not to be quite the farcical trial some historians have claimed. This was not to be quite the farcical trial some historians have claimed.
The records relating to the legal process against Anne Boleyn and Lord Rochford were long thought to have been suppressed in their entirety, but in fact the Henrician government took unwonted care to preserve some of the official doc.u.mentation of these proceedings. Nevertheless, crucial papers are missing: actual trial records, details of the evidence produced in court, statements known to have been made by Smeaton and Norris, depositions of all the witnesses who had supposedly been questioned, and transcripts of the interrogations of Smeaton, Norris, and the Queen.91 It was the magisterial Victorian historian, Froude, who first noticed It was the magisterial Victorian historian, Froude, who first noticed92 that the records of Anne Boleyn"s trial "survive only in a faint epitome, and we know neither by whom nor why the evidence was done away with." Yet since the trial was conducted so publicly, there was really no need for anyone to do away with it. It has been speculated that these doc.u.ments were destroyed in the sixteenth century, on the orders of either Henry VIII or Cromwell, both of whom perhaps wished to suppress details of dubious evidence or of a scandal that so touched the King"s honor, although if that was so, why was the indictment itself, the very substance of the case, not destroyed too? Cromwell, as Master of the Rolls, would have had control of such doc.u.ments and the ability to dispose of them, and although it is not unusual for depositions to be missing in such cases, and it is clear from the other doc.u.ments that depositions were never included with the records in the that the records of Anne Boleyn"s trial "survive only in a faint epitome, and we know neither by whom nor why the evidence was done away with." Yet since the trial was conducted so publicly, there was really no need for anyone to do away with it. It has been speculated that these doc.u.ments were destroyed in the sixteenth century, on the orders of either Henry VIII or Cromwell, both of whom perhaps wished to suppress details of dubious evidence or of a scandal that so touched the King"s honor, although if that was so, why was the indictment itself, the very substance of the case, not destroyed too? Cromwell, as Master of the Rolls, would have had control of such doc.u.ments and the ability to dispose of them, and although it is not unusual for depositions to be missing in such cases, and it is clear from the other doc.u.ments that depositions were never included with the records in the Baga de Secretis, Baga de Secretis,93 there is a real possibility that, in response to negative comments about the evidence produced at the trial, they were purposely destroyed. there is a real possibility that, in response to negative comments about the evidence produced at the trial, they were purposely destroyed.
David Starkey has put forward the theory that no depositions ever existed in the first place, and that Cromwell and his colleagues never had all the evidence of which they boasted.94 In support of this, he cites Rochford"s concern-expressed to Kingston probably on May 5-that he had not yet been summoned before the Privy Council for further questioning, and Anne"s marveling on the same day that the Privy Council had not come to take a deposition from her. In support of this, he cites Rochford"s concern-expressed to Kingston probably on May 5-that he had not yet been summoned before the Privy Council for further questioning, and Anne"s marveling on the same day that the Privy Council had not come to take a deposition from her.95 But certainly the authorities had Smeaton"s confession; there is also good evidence that they had Lady Rochford"s testimony, and Sir John Spelman, a judge at the trials of Anne and Rochford, refers to the evidence of the person to whom Lady Wingfield confided her doubts about Anne, which Starkey does not mention. But even the hostile Chapuys would report that there was no valid proof of Anne"s guilt, so it may well be that there were very few "interrogatories" produced at her trial and that of her brother, and that the Crown relied chiefly on the force and shock value of the indictment and on the prisoners being directly confronted with only the verbal evidence of their accusers. But certainly the authorities had Smeaton"s confession; there is also good evidence that they had Lady Rochford"s testimony, and Sir John Spelman, a judge at the trials of Anne and Rochford, refers to the evidence of the person to whom Lady Wingfield confided her doubts about Anne, which Starkey does not mention. But even the hostile Chapuys would report that there was no valid proof of Anne"s guilt, so it may well be that there were very few "interrogatories" produced at her trial and that of her brother, and that the Crown relied chiefly on the force and shock value of the indictment and on the prisoners being directly confronted with only the verbal evidence of their accusers.
It has also been suggested, by several writers, that Elizabeth I, Anne"s daughter, wanting to suppress proof of her mother"s guilt, destroyed the missing trial doc.u.ments, although again that begs the question of why she did not make a more thorough job of it. Furthermore, it seems Elizabeth"s policy to have left well alone regarding any matter concerning Anne Boleyn. Quite simply, these papers may have been lost,96 although considering how crucial and sensitive they were, that is possibly too convenient a theory. although considering how crucial and sensitive they were, that is possibly too convenient a theory.
The surviving doc.u.ments relating to the trials survive in pouches eight and nine of the Baga de Secretis Baga de Secretis in the National Archives. These particular treason trials are among the earliest where some doc.u.mentation is preserved. Originally, these papers were kept under lock and key, with only three key holders: the Lord Chief Justice, the Attorney General, and the Master of the Crown Office. This archive consists in each case of an enrollment or summary of the trial and most of the original doc.u.ments employed in it, including an abstract of the evidence. All have been carefully calendared in the Deputy Keeper"s Third Report. in the National Archives. These particular treason trials are among the earliest where some doc.u.mentation is preserved. Originally