the Duchess, herself, was not only innocent of any complicity in this treasonable attempt, to erect a throne for her daughter-in-law, but that (a fact which is still more notable) she escaped the terrible vengeance of that age of bloodshed, which (as now in Oriental kingdoms) made a holocaust of an entire family to atone for the guilt of one of its members. Her daughter-in-law was less fortunate; though, as we learn from every trustworthy historian, she was, in fact, equally guiltless.
   But the tragic end of the Lady Jane, the helpless victim of the ambition and treason of her father-in-law, is too fresh in the memory of every Englishman to need it to be dwelt upon here. Her husband, the unfortunate Guldeford Dudley, appears to have fatally seconded the ambitious desires of his father. Perhaps, but for the proclamation which Northumberland rashly put forth in the name of his daughter-in-law, in which the

illegitimacy of both Mary and Elizabeth was declared, the new Queen might have been tempted to spare almost the only innocent party, in this perilous attempt to grasp a crown over the heads of three at least who were prior in the succession. The Duke of Northumberland died, as he had lived, a traitor and a hypocrite to the very last. According to Bishop Burnett, he professed that he had been always a Papist, but the tardy profession could not save him. He exhorted the people to adhere to the Roman faith, and to reject that of a later date, which he declared to have caused all the misery of the previous thirty years. He exhorted them to cast out all the new preachers, by which he meant (as we gather from the tract quoted before) the foreign reformers whom Edward VI had so piously protected. It may be here