In early youth Lord

desired to have a confessor; Jane Dudley was the exception; yet, as before shown, she did not at the scaffold, repel the services of the Abbot Feckenham; but there can be no doubt of her Puritan Protestantism. Thomas Gray was regarded as a pious Catholic, and resided for some time in the Palace of the Bishop of London. Four members of the Gray family died on the scaffoldnamely, the Marquis of Dorset, his daughter, Jane Dudley, and his two brothers, Lords Leonard and Thomas Gray.

The misfortunes of the House of Dorset did not end here. In 1560, Catharine Gray formed a clandestine marriage with the Earl of Hertford, son of the Protector Somerset. When Queen Elizabeth was informed of this love-match, she expressed her indignation at Catharine "daring to marry without the royal permission." By a despotic stretch of authority, familiar to the Tudors, Catharine Gray was sent to the Tower; Lord Hertford, in the meantime, was summoned to produce evidence of the marriage by a certain day, before special Commissioners named by the Queen, from whose decision "no appeal was to lie." The "proofs" were not forthcoming at the time, but no one doubted the fact of the marriage. As the sister of Jane Dudley, Catharine Gray was mortally hated by Elizabeth, who only required some pretext to deprive her of liberty. Lord Hertford was arrested and committed to the Tower, and orders were sent by the Queen to the governor that Hertford and his wife "were to be kept separate; that on no pretext should they ever see one another, even at a distance."* Maister Warner, the Constable of the Tower,

* State Papers of Elizabeth's reign.

who was a man exceptionally humane for his office, hearing that the unfortunate Hertford and his wife were greatly attached to each other, permitted them to reside together. At last Elizabeth discovered that Lady Catharine had become the mother of two children; and then was the royal vengeance carried out against all concerned. The Constable of the Tower was dismissed, and whatever private means he possessed confiscated. By a Star Chamber decree, Lord Hertford was fined £15,000 for being the father of the two innocent children, and the mother was removed to the custody of another gaoler, whose " fame," to use the phrase, excited no fear for his humanity. The Countess remained a close prisoner for seven years, and then died, without seeing either her husband or her children. Hertford's property was seized upon to pay the fine, and he remained a prisoner for nine years.* Popular feeling ran high at the time, and the question was repeatedly asked by some influential and courageous persons, "By what right-or on what principle -does her Highness the Queen keep asunder those whom God hath joined together?" The apologists of Sir William Cecil and Elizabeth replied, "that the punishment was too mild-that it should have been far more severe." A warning was also given to the "talkers" not to wag their saucy tongues in finding fault with the Queen's actions."† In these cruel persecutions Cecil took an active part against the son of his former patron, Somerset. The newly adopted Protestantism of the Seymours and Grays did not save them from the hatred of Elizabeth. Mary Gray, a younger

sister, who was somewhat deformed, married "without the

Misfortunes of the House of Dorset (black letter), 1568.

+ Queens of England, vol. iv.; Princesses of the House of Tudor.

Queen's permission" and was committed to the custody of Sir William Cecil, and not permitted to see her husband. She became a Protestant of the Puritan type, but as she was detained a prisoner from private hate, her change of religion did nothing to promote her liberty. Lady Hertford, also, became a Protestant; but on her death-bed recanted. The Grays were, like so many leading families of the time, professing Catholics, when it was not more safe or profitable to be Protestant.

66

A head was recently discovered in the vaults of the Church of the Holy Trinity, in the Minories. Of this grisly relic of mortality," a contemporary student of history supplies "particular reasons why the severed head of Henry Gray should find a resting-place in the church of the Holy Trinity, inasmuch as attached to the church in question was the nunnery of St. Clare, a foundation suppressed by Henry VIII., who confiscated it for the use of the Crown. Edward VI. gave the convent to the Duke of Suffolk in 1552, only two years before Suffolk's execution. It is thus probable that the "Poor Clares," when they were restored to their nunnery by Queen Maryto be turned out again by Elizabeth—should have begged the head of Suffolk, and placed it in the vault of the adjacent church.

If the nuns did request the head of their decollated persecutor, it was only what might have been expected from the forgiving charity which formed the elements of their observance for Suffolk, when he obtained the grant of the income and belongings of their nunnery, paid scant heed to the destitution of the sisterhood. More probable is it that some faithful henchman of the Duke of Suffolk, as in

the case of the Duke of Northumberland, besought the authorities for the head of his master.

However this may be, it would not be much of a mistake to aver that the head, so lately discovered, is that of Henry Gray, father of Lady Jane Dudley. Traditions of the Old City of London and obscure pamphlets, go far to prove the identity of that "busy brain-box" which once stirred a kingdom, and then became dumb for ever beneath the headsman's axe.

To the expert who may not have had the opportunity of seeing this grim and parched vestige of humanity, it may be interesting to learn that the head is completely bald, the eyes sunken beyond view, covered with the parchment lids; the small and well-shaped mouth open, with three of the upper teeth prominent and still undecayed; the ears are small and yet retain their position. As the writer has

placed his finger within the mouth of this sad remnant of the once aspiring Dorset, he must fain descend to the painful particularity particularity of stating that his decapitation was practically decollation-for the neck, so far as to the shoulders, still appertains to the head. The point of severance shows as if the execution were performed by a fearfully jagged blunt instrument-an unsharpened axe, or perhaps common wood chopper. In those times headsmen often purchased substitutes, whilst they themselves emptied wineskins in the vintries of Crutched Friars, leaving the victims of the block subjected to the tortures of their masked mercenaries, who inflicted death as they pleased.

CHAPTER XXXI.

QUEEN MARY AND HER PARLIAMENT.

THE preparations for the Coronation of the Queen turned the public mind from the recent executions. This timehonoured ceremony was delayed several weeks longer than was intended, from the fact that the Royal Treasury was completely exhausted. It is related in a State Paper of the period, that there was not one penny in the purse of the Royal Treasurer to provide for the expenses of the coronation. The Queen was, therefore, compelled to borrow €20,000 from six London merchants who were devoted to the royal cause.

*

"It must be admitted," writes Lord Campbell," that the earliest measures of Queen Mary's reign, prompted by Dr. Gardyner, were highly praiseworthy. The depreciated currency was restored; a new coinage came out of sovereigns, and half-sovereigns, according to the old standard; the subsidy extorted from the late Parliament was remitted; and to discountenance Puritanical severity, the festivities which distinguished the Court in the time of Henry VIII. were restored. No complaint could, up to this period, be made of undue severity in punishing the late rebellious move

* State Papers of Mary's Reign; Strype's Memorials, vol. iii.