longed to the other party, of which his father the Duke of Norfolk
was the recognized leader. ¹ It was Norfolk who introduced the Bill
of Six Articles to the House when not even Cranmer dared argue
against it. The whole political complexion of the reign is deter-
mined by the opposition of the party of the old nobility, of which
Norfolk was necessarily a member, and the "new men," due to the
influence of the various queens. Each queen may be regarded as a
counter signifying what political party had at that moment the
control, although Anne Boleyn, as a niece of the Howards, con-
fuses the issue; in general, as through her Henry was led to break
with the Papacy, she may be considered as representing the Protes-
tants. Still more Protestant was Jane Seymour, and her relatives.
As uncles of the heir to the throne, in spite of their lack of high
rank, they naturally became important. Also they were antago-
nists of the older order. This is the explanation for the Howards'
hatred of Cromwell. His downfall was a triumph for them,--a
triumph which they consolidated by the marriage of Katharine
Howard to the King, a triumph which was fleeting and fatal.
Towards the last, across the body of the King, the two parties
glared at each other. The King was dying. The question upper-
most was who should control the young Prince. Surrey naturally
thought that his own father was the proper person, but he was im-
prudent in giving expression to his thought. Passion was running
high. When Surrey told one of the other faction that Norfolk
should be the governor, he was answered "rather than it should
come to pass that the prince should be under the governance of his
father or you, I would bide the adventure to thrust this dagger in
you". ²
Norfolk was playing safe, but Surrey had the reckless
spirit of youth. Of course the end came. On the trivial charge of
quartering the arms with his own, Surrey was tried and found
guilty of high treason. There is no need to go into the evidence of
the trial. The technical indictment was merely technical. If it had
not been that charge it would have been another. Nor is it of value
to discuss it in terms of murder and bemoan Surrey's innocence.
With the morality of the age it is quite possible that the Howards
on their side had contemplated some such move. The sixteenth

-515-