The Execution of Edmund Dudley - 17 August 1510
- thedudleywomen
- 1 day ago
- 14 min read
On the morning of 17 August 1510, a large crowd gathered on Tower Hill, a large area of open land, overlooking the Tower of London, in anticipation of a double execution. One of the victims that had been led from his cell within the nearby Tower of London was Edmund Dudley, Henry VII's controversial chief financial agent, who had been sentenced to death, convicted on charges of constructive treason.
Despite his unassuming early years, Dudley's power and influence had grown during the latter part of Henry VII's reign, with the lawyer emerging as one of the most prominent figures within the first Tudor monarch's government. Loades (1996, p.8) recognises that his positions brought notoriety rather than great wealth or power, describing him as "a member of the upper gentry, hovering on the fringes of peerage". Henry, given the manner in which he became king, with his victory at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, was eager to reduce the risk of further civil unrest as well as strengthening his claim to the throne. Within his court and council, he subsequently surrounded himself with those knowledgable and trained in both canon and civil law; Dudley, having studied at Oxford, and later trained at Grays Inn, was one of those educated men that the king brought into his inner circle. Appointed as a Privy Councillor at only 23 years old, Dudley continued to receive further rewards and political appointments, including as Speaker of the House of Commons in 1504. However, it was his work in taxation management and collection on behalf of the king, alongside the older Sir Richard Empson, that caused increasing unpopularity (Stephen, 1885; Penn, 2011; Wilson, 2005).
From New Year 1508, as the king's health began to decline, with public appearances becoming increasingly limited, the unpopular Dudley and Empson found themselves ostracised from others who had remained within Henry's inner circle. When the king died on 21 April 1509 at Richmond Palace, Dudley was neither present nor informed of his demise, being intentionally excluded by his political allies at the end, despite being identified as one of the executors of the late monarch's will. With the succession of the young, vivacious Henry VIII, it became immediately clear that there was no place in his new administration for the men whom he believed represented his father's parsimonious regime. Once the late king's death had been revealed to newly-appointed ministers and councillors on the evening of 23 April, discussions subsequently took place regarding the futures of Dudley and Empson (Penn, 2011; Paul, 2022). It was decided that imminent action should be taken, with Elizabethan chronicler Richard Grafton (1569, p.952) alleging that the decision to proceed with their arrests was made by the Council "to cease and quiet the rage of the people...so grevious against the Commissioners...Richard Empson Knight and Edmund Dudley Esquier'.
In the early hours of 24 April 1509, members of the Royal Guard, acting on behalf of the new monarch, rode into the City of London, and demanded the immediate surrender of Dudley and Empson. Dudley was subsequently arrested at his home, and previous place of business, located on Candlewick Street, near the junction of Walbrook Street; Dudley was said to have been caught off-guard by this arrest, news of Henry VII's death having not reached him. He was swiftly removed from the "Candelwykestrete" home he shared with his second wife, Elizabeth Grey, their three young sons John, Andrew and Jerome, his daughter from his first marriage Elizabeth, and his former mother-in-law Elizabeth Andrewes, Lady Lytton. Dudley, along with Empson who had similarly been taken from his nearby home, located on Walbrook Street, were then unceremoniously and humiliatingly marched through the bustling streets of Eastcheap and Tower Street, and into the Tower of London: the imposing medieval fortress, located to the east of the city, on the banks of the River Thames (Wilson, 2005; Paul, 2022).
Imprisoned within the Tower of London, Dudley was taken to one of its thirteen towers, which formed the inner curtain wall. Whilst not afforded the luxury and comfort of a nobleman, Dudley was permitted access to writing materials, as well as men to wait on him, including his clerk Thomas Mitchell and servant William Frank. He subsequently set about sending out correspondence to former colleagues and allies, including Richard Fox, Bishop of Winchester and Lord Privy Seal, petitioning for their support, although was met with silence (Wilson, 2005; Paul, 2022).
With Dudley having now having been detained in the Tower, the young king and his advisors had to decide on what charges they would bring towards the former minister. In the first weeks of his reign, Henry issued a general pardon "for all transgressions comitted or incurred" prior to his accession. However, he specifically stipulated that Dudley and Empson, along with a number of their supporters who had been subsequently detained, would not benefit from his merciful act. For three months, Dudley languished in the Tower, unclear of his future, Henry and his council being preoccupied with a series of significant events; these included the funeral of Henry VII on 11 May, the king's own marriage to Catherine of Aragon on 11 June, the couple's joint coronation on 24 June, and the death of the king's domineering grandmother Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby on 29 June and her subsequent funeral on 09 July (Wilson, 2005; Paul, 2022).
Despite the ongoing dissatisfaction related to his financial exploits, including perceived corruption, on 12 July 1509 Dudley was finally indicted on charges of constructive treason - a legal interpretation of the use of treasonous words and/or actions. In the final months of Henry VIII's life, Dudley was known to have been collecting "piles of weapons" in his bow-house and armoury chamber within his luxurious Candlewick Street home; Paul (2022, p.42) notes these included "hundreds of bows, over two dozen sheaves of arrows, a handful of crossbows", in addition to "thirty set of armour", which included two plate metal jackets that he had made for himself. Dudley was subsequently accused of intentionally amassing this arsenal, not with the objective of ensuring his own protection, but with malicious intent against the king and the new regime (Wilson, 2005).
On 16 July 1509, Dudley was summoned to the City of London Guildhall, the centre of the city's administration, where a judicial trial was held in front of Sir Stephen Jenyns, Lord Mayor of London, and the 'Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer'. Held in the 15th century building's Great Hall, Dudley was demeaningly subjected to accusations and interrogation from the special commission, in the presence of a large crowd; it has been estimated that the up to one thousand spectators cramped into the hall to observe treason trials during the Tudor period (Palgrave, 1842; Barron, 1977).
The hearing heard Dudley described as a "false traitor", and that on 22 April 1509, the first day of Henry VIII's reign, at his home "falsely, feloniously and traitorously conspired, imagined and compassed...with a great force of men and armed power, might hold, guide and govern the King and his Council, against the wishes of the King...and totally deprive the King of his Royal liberty; and to make and move discords, divisions and dissensions amongst the Magnates and Councillors of the King and his kingdom; and that if...the King and Council should refuse to be held, ruled and governed...then completely to destroy the King and to depose, remove and deprive him from and of his Royal authority". It was alleged that Dudley wrote to nine men with requests that they "and all their power arrayed in the manner of war, should come together and speedily repair to him at London, and adhere to and follow his will" (Palgrave, 1842, p.226). Dudley pleaded not guilty to the charges put against him, and attempted to argue against the circumstantial evidence presented to the jury, which was made up of peers and his former colleagues, including the recently-pardoned Sir John Hussey (Loades, 1996; Penn, 2011).
Two days later, on 18 July, Dudley was summoned back to the Guildhall; it is likely that he was escorted through the busy city streets by John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford, the Constable of the Tower - the Tower's most senior official, and coincidently the same position once held by Dudley's paternal grandfather, John Sutton, 1st Baron Dudley. Once back at the crowded Guildhall, Dudley learnt his fate; the jury had returned a verdict of guilty, and the "judgment according to the normal form in cases of high treason" was passed upon him - death (Palgrave, 1842, p.227). The same sentence was delivered in the same room more than forty years later for Dudley's grandsons John, Ambrose and Harry, following their own convictions for treason: for the condemned to be "dragged through the middle of the city of London to the gallows of Tyburn, and there hung, and laid out rotting on the ground, and their interior organs should be brought outside of their stomachs, and as these rot they should be burned. And their heads should be cut off, and their bodies should be divided into four quarters..." (Paul, 2022, p.242). Instigated by Dudley's guilty verdict, Empson was also arraigned and charged, also likewise accused of malicious intent against the new king: "to deprive the king of his rule and government", with the support of allies and family, to whom he had reportedly written. Empson's own trial took place at Northampton Castle, in his home county of Northamptonshire, on 01 August, where he also pled not guilty to the charges put against him. However, that same day, at one o'clock in the afternoon, the jury returned the verdict of guilty, and with it the same sentence of death (Palgrave, 1842, p.227).
Dudley returned to the Tower, a condemned man, now under the sentence of death. Having previously preoccupied himself preparing for his trial, Dudley now spent his time, effort and legal knowledge to draft a formal petition, requesting his pardon and release, continuing to maintain his innocence against his conviction of treason. He also wrote to his former brother-in-law, Sir Andrew Windsor, newly appointed Knight of the Bath, requesting support to help raise funds to support his cause. His pleas continuing to go unheard, Dudley then penned The Tree of Commonwealth: a political treatise advising on the successful administration of government and rule, written in support of absolute monarchy. Whilst addressed directly to Henry VIII, in an attempt to regain favour, his work has been described by modern historians as lacking originality with little substance (Loades, 1996; Wilson, 2005; Penn, 2011).
Continuing to lack support, and with no success from his penned petitions, Dudley made serious considerations to escape from the Tower; (Paul, 2022).
At the opening of Parliament on 21 January 1510, Bills of Attainder against both Dudley and Empson were subsequently passed through both the Houses of Lord and Commons, in order to legally recognise their convictions of treason. However, the bills were never ratified and subsequently expired, the required legal Acts of Attainder never formally passed through Parliament, potentially a sign that the king had not fully committed to pursuing the pair's executions. However, a separate act does appears to have passed, confiscating the property and wealth held by both men, disallowing inheritance by their legal heirs. It was around this time that Dudley made plans to escape from the Tower, seeking the support of his kinsmen, including brother Peter, and servants; whilst all men agreed to assist Dudley, in order to save his life, it was agreed that no action should be taken until the Act of Attainder had been passed, and his execution warrant effectively signed. Despite their initial pledges of assistance, over time the men acknowledged the likely serious consequences of their involvement, and withdrew their support. Authorities subsequently became aware of this plot, Dudley's correspondence from the Tower continuing to be monitored, leading to the apprehension of his kinsman James Beaumond. Subsequently, on 12 March 1510, Dudley composed his last will and testament. Despite his ongoing protestations against the "false and untrue verdict", he set out his requests for burial, and made multiple bequeathments of land and wealth. Additionally, he made requests for the care and "guiding" of his youngest son Jerome, who has been suspected as having what are now known as learning difficulties, as well as attempting to exonerate his kin and servants from any wrong-doing (Loades, 1996; Wilson, 2005; Paul, 2022; British History Online, 2026).
Dudley and Empson's fates were reportedly sealed in the summer of 1510, when the king had embarked on his first summer progress - where Henry and his court made tours of the Midlands and southern counties. Unexpectedly, as he travelled through the southern counties of Dorset and Hampshire, Henry found himself confronted with complaints and a "lingering animosity" regarding Dudley and Empson's financial transactions. It was this ongoing discontent, and Henry's tendency to seek definitive resolutions to problems facing him, that led to the execution warrants for the condemned pair to be signed. The condemned, still imprisoned within the Tower, were informed of their fates a couple of days prior to the arranged dates of their execution; this allowed time for the men to be visited by their families, and for any final affairs to put in order (Wilson, 2005; Penn, 2011).
Just after dawn, on the morning of Saturday 18 August 1510, sixteen months after their arrest and imprisonment, Dudley and Empson were taken to nearby Tower Hill, their date of execution having finally arrived. Established as a place of execution in 1464, under the jurisdiction of the Tower Liberties, remaining independent from the City of London authorities, a permanent scaffold had been erected on the large open area of land, which stood in a north-west and raised position overlooking the domineering and oppressive Tower. Being easily accessible by both foot and water, Tower Hill was able to accommodate large crowds that assembled at the scaffold, for the spectacle of a public execution; it was estimated that 50,000 people gathered to witness the execution of Dudley's son, John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland, in August 1553 (Porter, 2012; Paul, 2022; Early Modern Map of London, 2025).
See THE DUDLEY WOMEN post: Traitors in the Tower Liberties: Executions at Tower Hill and the Tower of London
Despite having been sentenced to the 'usual' traitor's death, of hanging, drawing, quartering and beheading, both men's sentences were commuted to the less-degrading and simple beheading. Empson, given his higher social standing on account of his knighthood, was the first to the scaffold that morning; Paul (2002) acknowledges that this decision would have spared Empson the indignity and fear of watching his old friend and colleague being executed, and then having to place his head on the bloody block. Each man, after being given one final opportunity to pledge loyalty to their king, and request prayers for the safe deliverance of their souls in the afterlife, were swiftly beheaded. Elizabethan theologian and Catholic priest Thomas Stapleton, one of Sir Thomas More's earliest biographers, with his 1588 Latin publication The Life and Illustrious Martyrdom of Sir Thomas More, alleges that not only was More, a former colleague of the pair who had argued against the late king's financial demands, present at the executions of Empson and Dudley, but that he had a final interaction with Dudley as he was being led onto the scaffold. It has been reflected by modern historians, however, that Stapleton was the only person who has recorded this interaction, and so are unable to confirm its validity (Reynolds, 1966; Penn, 2011).
Grafton (1569, p. 953), writing less than fifty years later, alleges that both Dudley and Empson, the latter's body having been taken to WhiteFriars Monastery, located on Fleet Street, were buried "within three days" of their deaths. It may be that immediately following their deaths, their bodies were taken from the scaffold, and lay in rest within the nearby church of All Hallows Barking, until their final internments; this was the same fate of many other victims of the Tower, including More twenty-five years later. Dudley's decapitated body was eventually taken to Blackfriars Priory, the largest and wealthiest priory in the country. Located one mile west of Tower Hill, Blackfriars had housed London's Dominican friars for over two centuries over its eight-acre complex, and continued to play an important political and social role until its closure and disbandment in 1538, as part of the Dissolution of the Monasteries. A large churchyard was located opposite the priory church, this being the likely location of Dudley's final resting place, his request, set out in his will, for his body to be "to be buried in the monastery of Westminster" being declined (British History Online, 2026; Map of Early Modern London, 2026).
Many who lost their lives on the scaffold subsequently had their severed heads and limbs tarred, impaled on spikes, and displayed at various public locations as a final act of indignity and degradation, as well as warnings to others; this was reflected in the sentence passed upon Dudley's grandsons in November 1553: "And their heads should be cut off, and their bodies should be divided into four quarters, and their heads and quarters should be placed where the [monarch] wishes them to be assigned" (Paul, 2022, p.242). However, Grafton (1569, p.953) reports that Dudley and Empson were spared this final act of humiliation, alleging that the pair were both buried "with their heads". Loades (1996, p.11) believes that not displaying the dead men's heads was an intentional act, with the king likely not wanting to make a highly political statement, describing these executions instead as "a tidying up operation".
Following Dudley's arrest, the family unit appears to have initially remained together, likely hopeful that their patriarch would receive his longed-for pardon and release; it was only after his execution that they appear to have separated. Where they resided in the immediate aftermath of Dudley's arrest remains unknown; an inventory of the Candlewick Street address was taken in August 1509, royal officials having orders to strip and confiscate the contents. Whilst evidence of Dudley's domestic and work life remained, no children's possessions were located within the house, suggesting that the young family, which included three young boys, had already vacated the property (Penn, 2011; Paul. 2022). It is likely that extended members of the family provided support and shelter to the displaced family at this time; Dudley's will written in the days prior to his death makes bequests to named individuals, commenting "paying all these folks to be helping and frendly to my wiffe and children" (British History Online, 2026).
Comments