Part 25 (1/2)

And further in King Edward's journal,--

”1549. Sir Thomas Arundel and Sir John (his elder brother) committed to the Tower for conspiracies in the west partes.”

It is probable the Arundells, from religious motives only, sympathized with the views of the insurgents, and were not actual promoters or partakers in the movement, but on account of their kins.h.i.+p with the leader of the revolt they were doubtless subjects of considerable suspicion. There must, however, have apparently been other circ.u.mstances besides this, which were deemed to affect Sir Thomas unfavourably, for he does not appear to have been released from his durance in the Tower after his committal until the 4th of October, 1551, which would be a year and nine months subsequent.

Could it have been also for suspicion of aiding in the movement that led to the first humiliation of the Duke of Somerset, which occurred in the October preceding his committal to the Tower? It _may_ have been so,--or deemed so,--yet from what is left recorded, his presumed action seems to point to the contrary.

”One of the '_Metrical Visions_' of George Cavendish, the Gentleman Usher of Cardinal Wolsey, furnishes some biographical particulars of Sir Thomas Arundell, namely, that he was educated with Cardinal Wolsey, and was Chancellor to Queen Katharine Howard. He is also made to confess that 'I was the cheaf councellor in the first overthrowe of the Duke of Somerset, which few men did knowe.'

”With regard to his fate, there is a curious pa.s.sage in a very rare book, bishop Ponet's '_Short Treatise on Politic Power_.'

Writing of the Earl of Warwick, Ponet states, 'at the erles sute Arundell hathe his head with the axe divided from his shoulders.'”[43]

and commenting on the same subject,--

”Bishop Ponet in his '_Treatise on Politic Power_,' says in reference to his (Sir Thomas') arrest in 1549, 'he conspired with that ambitious and subtil Alcibiades, the Earl of Warwick, after Duke of Northumberland, to pull down the good Duke of Somerset, King Edward's uncle and protector,'--if this be correct it is singular he should have been afterwards re-arrested for conspiring with Somerset against Northumberland.”[44]

[43] Note in _Machyn's Diary_, by J. G. NICOLLS.

[44] _The Chapel in the Tower_, by DOYNE C. BELL.

On such slender and second-hand evidence and apparently so improbable, as to his helping at first to pull down the Protector, not much may be said;--men's views and movements at the time often veered amid these intrigues for the possession or direction of the supreme power,--but Sir Thomas' after-implication with the Duke seems to refute it. That the Earl of Warwick (Northumberland) may have used his influence for the destruction of Sir Thomas, in the company of his rival,--the greater victim,--may be accepted without much scruple.

Sir Thomas was released from the Tower on the 4th of October, and in the meanwhile, events as to Somerset's overthrow, were now rapidly developing themselves to a conclusion.

Northumberland--the rival and enemy of the Protector--had given intelligence of a conspiracy in which Somerset, Sir Thomas Arundell, Sir Ralph Vane, and several others were concerned. Of course there was the inevitable informer, and in this case a certain knight, called Sir Thomas Palmer, has recorded against him this unenviable notoriety.

In Sir John Hayward's _Life and Reign of K. Edward VI._, we read,--

”Herewith Sir _Thomas Palmer_, a man neither loving the Duke of _Somerset_, nor beloved of him, was brought by the Duke of _Northumberland_ to the King being in his garden. Here he declared on St. George's day last before, the Duke of _Somerset_ being upon a journey towards the north, in case Sir _William Herbert_, Master of the Horse, had not a.s.sured him he should receive no harm, would have raised the people; and that he had sent the Lord _Gray_ before, to know who would be his friends: also that the Duke of Northumberland, the Marquis of Northampton, the Earl of Pembroke, and other lords should be invited to a banquet, and if they came with a bare company, to be set upon by the way; if strongly, their heads should have been cut off at the place of their feasting. He declared further that Sir _Ralph Vane_, had two thousand men in a readiness; that Sir _Thomas Arundell_ had a.s.sured the _Tower_, that _Seymor_ and _Hamond_, would wait upon him, and that all the horse of the _Gendarmorie_ should be slain.”

This must have been the day on which the boy-king records in his journal,--

”11 Oct., 1551. Sir Thomas Arrondel had ashuerid my Lord that the Towre was sauf.”

The ”my Lord” here must have related to Somerset, which the King heard of in his conversation with Northumberland.

On the 16 October, 1551, says Grafton,--

”being Fryday, the Duke was again apprehended, and committed to the Tower, on a charge of high treason.”

And the King records,--

”This morning none was at Westminster of the conspiratours. The first was the Duke, who came later than he was wont, of himself.

After diner he was apprehendid.”

Sir John Hayward thus describes it,--

”and so after dinner, he (the Duke) was apprehended; Sir _Thomas Palmer_, Sir _Thomas Arundel_, _Hamonde_, _Nudigates_, _John Seymour_, and _David Seymour_, were also made prisoners, the Lord _Gray_ being newly come out of the country was attached. Sir _Ralph Vane_, being sent for, fled. Upon the first message it was reported that he said that his Lord was not stout, and that if he could get home he cared not for any; but upon pursuit he was found in his servant's stable at Lambeth covered with straw. He was a man of fierce spirit, both sudden and bold, of no evil disposition, saving he thought scantiness of estate too great an evil. All these were the same night sent to the Tower, except Palmer, Arundel, and Vane, who were kept apart in the Court, well guarded in chambers apart. After these followed Sir _Thomas Holdcroft_, Sir _Miles Partridge_, Sir _Michael Stanhope_ and others. The day following the Dutchess of _Somerset_ was sent to the Tower, also with her were committed one _Crane_, and his wife, and her own chamber woman. _Crane_ confessed for the most part as _Palmer_ had done, and further added that the Lord _Paget's_ house was the place, where the n.o.bility being invited to a banquet, should have lost their heads, and that the Earl of _Arundel_ was made acquainted with the practice by Sir _Michael Stanhope_. This _Crane_ was a man, who having consumed his own estate, had armed himself to any mischief. All these were sworn before the Council, and forthwith upon the information of _Crane_, the Earl of _Arundel_, and Lord _Paget_ were sent to the Tower.”

On the _same_ day, Machyn notes,--