unravel, if possible, the cause of the acquittal. The names were forwarded. The panel was composed of fifty gentlemen, relatives, most of them, of one or other of the accused persons, and many among whom had formed part of the insurgent council at Pomfret.[1] Levening's escape was explained; and yet it could not be remedied. The Crown was forced to continue its prosecutions, apparently with the same difficulty, and under the same uncertainty of the issue. When the trials of the higher offenders were opened in London, true bills had first to be found against them in their own counties; and the foremen of the two grand juries (for the fifty were divided into two bodies of twenty-five each) were Sir James Strangways and Sir Christopher Danby, noted, both of them, on the list which was forwarded to the Crown, as relatives of Lord Darcy, Sir Francis Bigod, and Sir John Bulmer.[2]
May 9.On the 9th of May, however, either through intimidation or the force of evidence, the sixteen prisoners who were in the Tower, Lord Darcy, Robert Aske, Sir Robert Constable, and thirteen more were delivered over for their trials. In the six preceding weeks they had been cross-examined again and
- ↑ The list is in the Rolls MS. first series, 284. Opposite the name of each juror there is a note in the margin, signifying his connections among the prisoners.
- ↑ Compare Baga de Secretis, pouch x. bundle 2, and Rolls House MS. first series, 284.
his Highness's knowledge; and doth therefore desire you not only to signify their names, but also to travel all that you can to beat out the mystery.'—Privy Council to the Duke of Norfolk: Hardwicke State Papers, vol. i. p. 46.
