The Strife of the Roses and Days of the Tudors in the West Part 25

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,--

"1551, xvj. day of October, was had to the Towre, Sir Thomas Arundell and Lady (with many others)."

and the King writes,--

"16 Oct. Arrondel was taken."

Twenty-seven peers took part in the trial of Somerset, his rival the Duke of Northumberland being one, and the Marquis of Winchester presided as Lord High Steward.

On the 2nd December following, narrates Grafton,--

"the sayd Duke was brought out of the Tower of London, with the axe of the Tower borne before him, with a great number of billes, gleves, holbardes, and polaxes attending upon him; and was had from the Tower by water, and having shot London bridge, at five of the clock in the morning, so came unto Westminster Hall, where was made in the middle of the Hall a new scaffold, where all the Lords of the King's Counsaill sate as his judges, and there was he arraigned and charged with many articles both of treason and felony. And when after much milde speeche, he had aunsered not guiltie, he in all humble manner put himselfe to be tryed by his peeres, who, after long consultation among themselves, gave their verdict that he was not guiltie of the treason, but of the felony."

The King says in his diary,--

"The Duke of Northumberland wold not agree that any searching of his death shuld bee treason. So the lordis acquited him of high treason and condemned him of treason feloniouse, and so he was adjudged to be hangid."

As the punishment was hanging, he "departed without the ax of the Toure"--which the people outside not understanding, "shouted harf a dousen times so loud that from the halle dore it was harde at Charing Crosse plainely, and rumours went that he was quitte of all."

But his adversaries had got him too safely for release on this side of the grave, once more he was to appear before his fellow-men when the axe, and not the halter as was adjudged him, was to finish all.

On Friday, the 22nd of January following, the Duke was, at eight in the morning, beheaded on Tower Hill.

It was not until five days after the execution of the Duke that Sir Thomas Arundell, and his companion Sir Ralph Vane were put on their trial.

The first to be tried was Sir Thomas' presumed confederate, Sir Ralph Vane. Machyn relates,--

"1551-2,--The xxvii. day of January was reynyd at Westmynster Hall, ser Raff a Vane knyght of tresun and qwyt of hytt, and cast of felony to be hangyd."

Of this resolute and brave man, says Hayward,--

"He was charged with conspiring with _Somerset_, but his bold answers termed rude and ruffian-like, falling into ears apt to take offence, either only caused, or much furthered his condemnation. 'The time hath been,' said he, 'when I was of some esteem, but now we are in peace which reputeth the coward and couragious alike.'"

He strongly denied that he had practised treason against the King, or any of the Lords of the Council, and added that "his blood would make Northumberland's pillow uneasy to him." The 'qwest' were not long in disposing of him, and the King comments,--

"27 Jan., 1551-2. Sir Rafe Vane was condemned of felony in treason, aunsering like a ruffian."

The next day was appointed for Sir Thomas Arundell to appear before his judges. It was apparent they must have had very slender or unsatisfactory evidence, and it is cruel to read with what pertinacity they were required to decide on his case.

It is probable that, like the Duke of Somerset, he was taken from the Tower to Westminster Hall by water, and imagination can easily depict the various phases of the scene. Aroused early on the morning of the twenty-eighth of January, in mid-winter almost, it may be in cold and pitiless weather, escorted by the Lieutenant of the fortress, Sir John D'Arcy, and accompanied by his officers, down to the well-guarded boat waiting for him, under the shadow of the great arch that spans the Traitor's Gate, the way lit by the feeble light of a lantern, which, as they seated themselves in the little craft, faintly revealed the portcullis raised for the occasion, and the dark waters of the Thames, just discernible through it, made visible by the flickering gleam thrown upon its surface, rippling to the inconstant night-breeze. Then their emerging from the gloomy portal, the prisoner sitting silent and motionless in the stern, the officers and halberdiers ranged on each side, and in front the heads-man's official, with the dread axe resting on his shoulder. Then their pa.s.sage down the quiet river, with no sound to break the solitude, but the measured splash of the oarsmen steadily rowing him to his doom. Then their landing at Westminster in the just-breaking light of morning, and the sad little procession wending its way up to the main door of the vast Hall, its dim, cavernous roof, scarcely distinguishable by the cl.u.s.ter of twinkling points of light gathered in its centre, where, arrayed in all the picturesque costume of the age, emphasized by the scarlet cloaks of the judges, were congregated a large body of legal and civic functionaries, the solemn array of the jurors of the 'qwest,' and a throng of anxious citizens, a.s.sembled to decide whether he was guilty, or not guilty,--if he should live or die.

But the 'qwest' had not so easy a matter before them, in the disposing of his case, as they had the day before with that of Sir Ralph Vane.

The evidence was presumably of slight or doubtful character, and so the day pa.s.sed by and evening arrived, but no decision was arrived at.

Sir Thomas had to endure this prolonged suspense, and was taken back to the Tower again, to wait through the anxious night, and then the following morning, go through the same dread ordeal, and appear once more before his judges, to learn his fate.

The 'qwest' of the jury appear to have thoroughly and st.u.r.dily debated the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, and not being able to agree, were thereon subjected to the usual inhuman treatment of being starved in cold and darkness into agreement,--if such it may be called,--or rather a decision, one way or the other. And so they "sate shut up" in a house all that live-long night, and it was not until day-break the next morning that "they did cast him,"--the dissentients probably being wearied into compliance. "When Sir Thomas--who perhaps may justly have had latent hope that their disagreement might end favourably for him--stood before his accusers for the second time, his doom was decided on, and he heard the fearful result that "they had acquitted him of treason, and cast him of felony, to be hanged."

Machyn thus describes the a.s.siduous process of his condemnation,--