two thousand pounds a-year in land, with the forfeiture of all his goods, and the loss of all his places, on the sixth of February he was set at liberty; giving a bond of ten thousand pounds for his good behaviour, with a restriction that he should remain at the King's house at Sheen, or his own of Lion, not approaching either his Majesty or council unless sent for. On the sixteenth of the same month he received his pardon, and subsequently behaved with so much humility, that he was soon afterward restored to the royal favour, and sworn again of the privy-council. He had forfeited, however, in a great measure the esteem of the people, who, not discerning the reasons of his conduct, could not help thinking him guilty of all, since he had confessed all: but the King, who had a quick judgement, saw through the designs of his enemies. Yet could he not, even with his sovereign authority, screen him from their determined vengeance.

The Popish party, who had formed high expectations from the disgrace of the Duke, quickly found that his successor in power, the Earl of Warwick, indifferent in himself to all religions, began to incline to the Reformation, because he saw the King was zealous ín promoting it's interests. This gave Somerset and his friends a fair prospect of undermining him. The contest, however, was most unequal: Warwick possessing all the qualities of a deep politician, and Somerset being of an unguarded and communicative disposition, it is no wonder that he was speedily betrayed by his perfidious confidents into the hands of his antagonist.

By one of these, his ruin was accomplished. For Warwick (now Duke of Northumberland) having

gradually alienated the young King's affection from his uncle, and gained an ascendency over him by his skilful management of public affairs, began to treat his adversary with contempt, that he might thus excite him to some act of desperation, which might justify putting him to death. Somerset, upon this, broke out into threatening expressions, and, it is even said, conceived a project of assassinating the new minister. The chief informer against him upon this occasion was Sir Thomas Palmer, who accused him first privately to the King, and afterward to the council, of having formed a design to raise an insurrection in the North, attack the King's guard on

a muster-day, secure the Tower, and excite a rebellion in London. To this was added, a plot to murther the Duke of Northumberland, the Marquis of Northampton, and the Earl of Pembroke. The last charge was supported by the evidence of one Crane and his wife, confidential dependents on the Duchess of Somerset; Crane in particular deposing, that the plot was to be carried into execution at a banquet to be given by Lord Paget to the devoted lords. Upon these suspicions of treason and felony the King too readily consented, that his uncle should be brought to a trial; and soon afterward a circumstance, which ought to have been construed in his favour, was made use of to confirm the charges against him.

The Duke, yielding too much to the fear of sudden attempts upon his life, had been persuaded to wear a coat of mail next his shirt. Thus dressed, he attended the council-board; when his dress accidentally opening discovered the armour, upon which he was immediately ordered to the Tower, as intending the

death of some councillor; and attachments were issued against all his pretended associates. The next day the Duchess of Somerset, Lord Grey of Wilton, Crane and his wife, and the chief waiting-woman belonging to the Duchess, were committed to the Tower; at which the people greatly rejoiced, believing if any real mischief had been intended, that the Duchess must have been it's chief contriver. Sir Thomas Holdcroft, Sir Miles Partridge, Sir Michael Stanhope, John and David Seymour, Wingfield, Bannister, and Vaughan, were likewise confined in different prisons but Sir Thomas Palmer, Sir Ralph Arundel, Hammond, Newdigate, and Sir Ralph Vane (who turned evidence) were treated with the utmost tenderness, and detained in apartments at court, in order to be produced as the principal accusers.

Upon the farther examination of Crane, the Earl of Arundel, Lord Paget, and two of Arundel's servants, were also taken into custody and with the view of prejudicing the public against Somerset, the Chancellor made an elaborate speech in the StarChamber, giving his opinion in public previously to the trial, against every rule of equity, that the articles of accusation against him were true. The foreign ministers, likewise, were instructed to write to their respective courts, that he was guilty, as confidently as if he had already been convicted.

Upon these extravagant charges historians have, generally, founded their accounts of this event. Dr. Burnet is perhaps the only one, upon whom we can depend with regard to the evidence against him. According to him, it appeared that he had made a party to get himself declared Protector in the next parliament: this the Earl of Rutland positively de

posed, and the Duke's answer appeared to confirm. As to the means however, by which he intended to accomplish the purpose in question, it is highly probable he had yet fixed upon none, except that of securing the Duke of Northumberland's person.

On the first of December, he was brought to his trial. The crimes, with which he was charged, as it appears from the King's journal, were cast into five several indictments (whether indictments, or articles, it is not perfectly clear). That he had designed to have seized on the King's person, and in his name to have governed the realm; to have attacked the guards on a muster-day; in conjunction with a hundred others, to have killed the Duke of Northumberland; and to have raised an insurrection both in the North, and in the city of London.

In his favour it was contended, that the three peers, Northumberland, Northampton, and Pembroke, against the first of whom it was pretended that he had conspired, ought not to sit as his judges: for, though by the law no peer can be challenged in a trial, it was ever held, that no man can be judge in his own cause. This objection, however, was over-ruled; and what is very extraordinary, the Chancellor, though at that time a peer, was left out of the number.*

Somerset, though little acquainted with the laws of the land, did not desire counsel to plead or assist him in point of law, but only answered himself to matters of fact. He began his defence, by requesting that 'no advantage might be taken against him for any idle

* It seems probable, that the reconciliation between him and Somerset was suspected, and that therefore he was excluded.

6

word, or passionate expression, that might at any time have escaped his lips.' He protested, that he never intended to have raised the northern parts; but had only upon some reports sent to Sir William Herbert, to entreat him to be his friend: that he had never formed a resolution to kill the Duke of Northumber land, or any other person, but had only talked of it without any intention of doing it: that, with respect to attacking the guards, it was ridiculous to suppose that he, with a small troop, could destroy so strong a body of men; in which too, though he should have succeeded, it could have signified nothing: that far from intending to raise any disturbances in London, he had always regarded it as a place, in which he was in perfect security: and that his having men about him in Greenwich was with no ill design, since he did no mischief with them, even when it was in his power; but upon his attachment had surrendered, without making any resistance.' He likewise objected many things against the witnesses, and desired they might be brought face to face. But this, his earnest request was denied. In answer to his statements, the King's counsel pleaded against him, that to levy war was certainly treason: that to assemble men with an intention to kill Privy-Councillors, was also treason : that to have men about him to resist the attachment, was felony; and to assault the lords, or contrive their deaths, was also felony.'

When the Peers withdrew to deliberate, after a considerable difference of opinion, they unanimously acquitted him of treason; but the majority found him guilty of felony, proceeding upon a statute made in the reign of Henry VII., which declared it felony for inferior persons to intend to take away the life of a privy