aa 
By the Rev. Canon J. E. Jackson, F8.A. 153 
private custody, and Lady Katharine died at Sir Owen Hopton’s 
house, January 26th, 1568." 
This affair was at the time an important State question, and as it 
occupies a place in all our histories, I am glad to be able to supply 
one or two items of information about it, which ought to correct the 
history for the future. 
The first is one which quite alters the matter of the fine. It 
certainly, at first, was £15,000, and this has often been pointed at 
as an instance of Elizabeth’s hard-heartedness; but the real truth 
is this:—That heavy sum was named, in terrorem, to warn others. 
The Queen herself, immediately excused £10,000. Of the remaining 
£5009, she insisted upon rather more than £1000 down, and certainly 
did mean to make the young gentleman pay the rest; but through 
the intercession of the Ministers about her, and on the Earl’s own 
full and respectful submission, the whole of the rest was ultimately 
excused, and he escaped for the precise sum of £1187. This I can 
safely state to have been the ease, because the Earl’s own account of 
the matter, together with a copy of the warrant for his discharge, 
are now on the table. (Appendix, No. xi.) 
The period during which he was under surveillance, or actually in 
prison, has «lso never been exactly known and is variously stated by 
writers. In his own account, just referred to, the Earl says that 
“he patiently endured her Majesty’s displeasure, in prison,” ten 
years lacking one month.* 
.1It may be mentioned here that in the Inscription on the Earl of Hertford’s 
monument in Salisbury Cathedral, the date of Lady Katharine’s death was cut 
wrong by the stone-mason, who by twice omitting the Roman capital V, made 
it to be January xxii., MDCLXIII, instead of January xxvii., MDCLX VIII 
(January 22nd, 1563, instead of January 27th, 1568). It is strange that the 
errors should not have been corrected. Dr. Rawlinson (Antiq. of Cath. Ch. of 
Sal. p. 88) has perpetuated these wrong dates ; and he has also printed Richar- 
dum instead of ‘‘ Edoardum” for the Earl’s eldest son (which is right in the 
original inscription) ; besides one or two other literal errors. 
*The Earl certainly remained in bondage until about August, 1571, and 
among the Longleat Papers there is a lamentable petition from him (probably 
one of many) written when actually im prison (see Appendix, xii.,1.). But 
for the greater part of the time, judging from the easy tone of his letters and 
the variety of houses of the gentry from which he writes, such restraint, though 
no doubt a great hinderance to him, was a widely different thing from being 
shut up ‘‘in prison.” There is. also a letter from Lady Katharine to her 
husband (Appendix, xii., 2.) written in a vein of unusual gaiety for a captive. 

