the hands of the nobility be once polluted each with other's blood, the quarrel once begun will never have end till the realm be descended to that woeful calamity that all our posterity shall lament the chance. Your Grace's proclamations and billets, sent abroad for the raising of the Commons, we mislike very much. The wicked and evil-disposed persons shall stir as well as the faithful subjects; and we, and these other gentlemen who have served, and others of worship in these countries where the same have been published, do incur by these means much infamy, slander, and discredit.

Thus we end. Beseeching Almighty God the matter be so used as no effusion of blood may follow, and therewithal a surety of the King's Majesty and of the state of the realm.-From Andover, the 8th of October 1549. Your Grace's loving friends, JOHN RUSSELL,'' WM. HERBERT.' -Vol. i. 217, 219.

This letter determined the contest. Deserted by the city, and refused support by the leaders of the army, there was no resource for the Protector but submission. His friends procured a promise of his life; and, that point being settled, he allowed himself to be dealt with at the pleasure of those over whom he had so lately tyrannized. After a short confinement, the imposition of a fine, and upon a formal submission, he was restored to a place at the council board. Mr Tytler thinks he discovers traces of perfidy on the part of the Lords towards their late superior; but, upon reconsideration, he will find that he has overrated them. He has evidently a very friendly feeling towards the Protector, and quite the reverse towards the faction of Warwick;—that faction comprehending all the privy counsellors except Cranmer, Paget, and Smith, whose official positions sufficiently account for their not having given active support to their brethren of the council.

The removal of Somerset left the road to honour and power open for Warwick, and he advanced along it rapidly. He endeavoured, indeed, to maintain a show of friendliness towards the late Protector; he even procured an alliance of their families by marriage, but

Never can true reconcilement grow

Where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep.'

Nor was the conduct of Somerset calculated to close the breach. He still foolishly attempted to overrule the council, as if he aspired to regain his office of Protector, (ii. 22.) A new collision with Warwick, now become Duke of Northumberland, was the result; and a few months brought the tragedy to its close, in the conviction of Somerset of a felonious conspiracy to procure his rival to be imprisoned, with a view to his removal from the

government. Mr Tytler has devoted a considerable space to the consideration of Somerset's conviction, which he strongly reprobates; holding that he fell an almost innocent victim to the craft and ambition of Northumberland and his faction,' (ii. 73.) That the Duke was not guilty of deeds worthy of death' may be easily admitted. His execution was an act in its character singularly upon a par with his own condemnation of his brother. Both were men dangerous from their position in society, both anxious for advancement, unscrupulous as to the means by which it was to be attained, and actually engaged in practices of a dangerous character. Both aimed at effecting changes in the administration by violent means, and both fell into the pits they were digging for others. They were unlike in two respects: Somerset was heard in his defence; his brother was condemned unheard: Somerset was a weak, unstable man, inflated with vast notions of his own importance, and a tool in the hands of others; the Admiral was bold and peremptory, and ready either to devise or act mischief without a prompter.

That

Somerset's legal guilt depends upon two points: first, The sufficiency of the evidence; secondly, Whether an attempt to procure others to assemble, with intent to take and imprison one of the Privy-Council, constituted a felony. Now, if the evidence is to be believed-and Mr Tytler leaves it unscathed in its most important features-there can be no doubt upon the first point; and upon the second, notwithstanding some technical objections of Coke, lately revived by Sir James Macintosh with more courtesy than they deserved, we cannot think there is much question. The 10th section of the 3d and 4th Edward IV., (not the 2d and 3d, as erroneously printed by Sir James Macintosh-England, ii. 265,) exactly provides for the case. Act made it treason for twelve persons to assemble with intent to take and imprison a privy-councillor; and felony in any one to stir up others to assemble with intent to do so. The Duke was acquitted of the treason; there being no proof that he and others actually did assemble for the purpose alluded to-and found guilty of the felony; there being proof that he had moved others to join with him in assembling for that purpose. The two crimes are obviously distinct; and an acquittal of the first was not, as Sir James Macintosh seems to have supposed, a denial of the intention to take and imprison, but simply of the fact of assembling to do so. But then, again, remarks Sir James, it is a 'condition of the felony that the unlawful assemblies shall con'tinue their meetings after they have been legally commanded 'to disperse. In this case no such command or disobedience was

' pretended,' (England, ii. 265.) Certainly not, because this was not a case of actual assembly, but merely of conspiring to assemble. This excellent historian has here been misted into confounding the felony created by the second section, which relates to persons actually assembled for certain particular purposes with that created by the tenth section, which relates to persons stirring up others to assemble. It was upon the latter section that the Duke was found guilty.

Mr Tytler's comments principally affect the historical question of what were Somerset's real intentions; and he seems to prove that the design to assassinate the Duke of Northumberland, which was popularly attributed to Somerset, had no existence, That was not, however, part of his legal accusation, (State Trials, i. 518;) and the establishment of his innocence upon that point, although very important in the consideration of his character as a man, does not prove the injustice or illegality of his death. The following, which is the most important of Mr Tytler's new documents upon this subject, discloses as much of the actual design as could be drawn from one of the principals—a very unwilling witness. It is entitled, 'Confession of the Earl of Arundell.'

'At such time as the Duke of Northumberland and the Lord Marquis of Northampton were appointed by the King's Majesty's commandment to hear the confession of the Earl of Arundell in the Tower, of whom, when he was brought before them, and demanded what he had to say, they declared also, how, upon his own suit and request, they were sent unto him for that purpose. Who, after some protestations, with much difficulty, as a man loath to say any thing that might touch himself, finally confessed these words hereafter following, or the like, to the very same effect.

"My lords, I cannot deny that I have had talk and communication with the Duke of Somerset, and he with me, touching both your apprehensions; and, to be plain, we determined to have apprehended you, but, by the passion of God!" quoth he, "for no harm to your bodies." And when they asked him how he would have apprehended them, he said, “In the Council." And when he was demanded how oft the Duke and he had met together about these matters, he said, " But once.'

And after they had showed him, (which was known by the Duke's own confession,) that the Duke and he met sundry times together for that purpose, as well at Sion as at Somerset-place in London; with that he sighed, lifting up his hands from the board and said, "They knew all.”

And being demanded whether he did, at any time, send any message to the Duchess of Somerset by Stanhope, the effect whereof was, that she and the Duke should beware whom they trusted; for he had been of late at Barnard's Castle with the Earl of Pembroke, and did perceive by his talk that he had some intelligence of these matters; but, if they would keep their own counsel, he, for his part, would never confess any thing to die for it? he seemed to be much troubled with this demand, and with great oaths began to swear that he never sent no such message to

the Duchess by no living creature. And being answered, it might be that he sent the message to the Duke, he sware faintly, "By the passion of God, no!" But being farther charged by the said Duke and Marquis with the matter, he, perceiving that they had some knowledge of it, finally confessed that he did warn the Duke of the premises by Stanhope, but not the Duchess.

And afterwards, when Hampton, one of the clerks of the Council, was sent unto him to write all the whole matter, he would in a manner have gone from all again, and, in special, from the last, saying, he did not will Stanhope to warn the Duke, but only told it to Stanhope. Whereupon the said Duke of Northumberland and the Marquis were eftsoons sent to him again, in the company of the Lord Privy-Seal and the Earl of Pembroke; at which time he did, by circumstances, confess the whole premises, saving the sending of Stanhope to the Duke; but, nevertheless, he said that he declared it to Stanhope, to the intent he should warn the Duke of it; but in no wise he would confess again that he sent him.'-' NORTH ́UMBERLAND,'' J. BEDFORD,' WM. NORTHAMPTON,' PEMBROKE.'— Vol. ii. p. 43,

The period between the death of Somerset and that of the youthful sovereign was, in fact, the reign of Northumberland. He assumed a sort of regal state; acquired immense wealth by grants of the crown lands; travelled about with a train too great to be accommodated in any friend's house, (ii. 111;) and ruled that same council whom he had taught to revolt against the assumption of superiority by Somerset, in such manner that his tyranny over them passed into a proverb, (ii. 345.) His violence of disposition is strikingly exemplified by two facts, amongst many, in these volumes; one, his conduct towards the Chief-Justice, who refused to prepare Edward VI.'s settlement of the Crown-' He burst into the council-room, pale and trembling with anger, and, amongst other outrageous talk, called the ChiefJustice traitor,' and swore that he would fight in his shirt with any man in that quarrel,' (ii. 167)—the other, Cecil's emphatical expression in his submission to Queen Mary-'I did refuse to subscribe the book, when none of the Council did refuse; in what peril I refer it to be considered by them who knew the Duke.** (ii. 192.) This period was principally occupied in the conception and gradual development of the plot for diverting the suceession in favour of Lady Jane Grey. Mr Tytler details the circumstances, and produces some new documents which illustrate the characters of the principal actors; but without throwing much

* This word stands in the original' knew,' and not "know,' as printed by Mr Tytler. The difference of tense is important, as it proves that the paper was not written until after the death of Northumberland.

new light upon the facts. His comments are occasionally rather hasty; and those upon the conduct of Cecil are more than needfully severe. We doubt whether the documents yet published tell the whole truth respecting that distinguished man. If they do, the future Lord Burghley, although apparently conscious that to do an act of gross injustice was not the way to advance the interests of Protestantism, showed no heroism in defence of his principles. Still the hard words which Mr Tytler has applied to his conduct are overstrained, (ii. 206.) The details will not bear abridgement.

The documents during the reign of Mary are full of interesting anecdotes. The best of them are extracts from the despatches of Simon Renard, the Emperor's ambassador in England in 1553 and 1554; a transcript of which, procured by the late RecordCommission, during their searches on the Continent for papers relating to English history, is now lodged in the State Paper Office. Renard was a man of a bitter spirit, a good hater of heretics, and his statements ought not therefore to be indiscriminately relied upon; but a few extracts from Mr Tytler's translations will exhibit the nature, and prove the value of his despatches better than any description. The following is his account of the arrival of Elizabeth in London, when arrested on suspicion of being cognisant of Wyatt's rebellion :

The Lady Elizabeth arrived here yesterday, clad completely in white, surrounded by a great assemblage of the servants of the Queen, besides her own people. She caused her litter to be uncovered, that she might show herself to the people. Her countenance was pale; her look proud, lofty, and superbly disdainful; an expression which she assumed to disguise the mortification she felt. Mary declined seeing her, and caused her to be accommodated in a quarter of her palace from which neither she nor her servants could go out without passing through the guards. Of her suite, only two gentlemen, six ladies, and four servants, are permitted to wait on her; the rest of her train being lodged in the city of London. 'The Queen is advised to send her to the Tower, since she is accused by Wyat, named in the letters of the French ambassador, suspected by her own councillors, and it is certain that the enterprise was undertaken in her favour. And assuredly, sire, if now that the occasion offers, they do not punish her and Courtenay, the Queen will never be secure. Vol. ii. 310, 311.

* These despatches have hitherto been known only through the medium of Griffet's Eclaircissements sur l'Histoire de Marie, Reine d'Angleterre. He made use of a transcript in the Public Library at Besançon. The originals are at Brussels.