for the "manner in which he brought about his brother's death." Throckmorton attributes the subsequent fate of the Duke of Somerset to retributive justice. This condemnation does not come with a good grace from a man like Nicholas Throckmorton, whose name appears so often in the "black ledger" of the times. Equity, however, might pronounce a similar verdict against nearly all the leading Reformers of Edward and Mary's time. Sir Thomas Seymour was a more far-seeing politician than his brother, Somerset; yet equally rapacious and dishonest. Both were addicted to gambling, a vice of which they acquired almost a professional knowledge at the Court of Henry VIII. CHAPTER XVIII. CONSPIRACY AGAINST SOMERSET. THE leading Reformers having filled the gaols with those who protested against the violation of their oaths in the case of the King's "will," and the setting aside of the national religion through the agency of foreign mercenaries, now quarrelled amongst themselves. The result was the overthrow of Somerset. The weakness, ambition, and despotism of the man paved the way for his ruin. He possessed little control over his military agents. Kingston and Russell perpetrated many barbarous deeds in Somersetshire and the Western counties. The number slain by Lord Russell in Devonshire amounted to five thousand. In Norfolk, Lord Warwick boasted that he had "killed four thousand of the enemy. A few words as to the Norfolk campaign. On the morning of the 27th of August, 1549, "the Norfolk insurgents," numbering fifteen thousand brave, honest, but undisciplined men, marched to Duffindale to meet Lord Warwick and his German mercenaries. They took a position in some fields, which gave Warwick a military advantage over them; they had no chance of success, still they advanced * King Edward's Journal; Holinshed, p. 1002; Hayward, p. 295; Strype, vol. ii. p. 170; State Papers of Edward VI.'s reign. and courageously discharged their artillery-such as it may have been. The effective fire of the German troops, however, soon threw them into confusion, and, Warwick's cavalry having charged them, they retreated in thorough disorder, and were pursued for miles, and cut down without mercy or pity. The roads were strewed with the bodies of the Norfolk yeomen, whose only crime was to demand "Liberty of conscience; the liberty to practise the faith held by their fathers for one thousand years." Three thousand five hundred men were butchered in the retreat. Commenting upon this terrible spectacle, Mr. Froude deals in a sanguinary epigram. One rarely hears of wounded on those occasions, except amongst the victors.* Mr. Froude makes many very candid admissions as to the rising of the Norfolk people. He observes :-"The people were put down and the leaders disposed of." Yes; the Norfolk squires were speedily disposed of. Mr. Froude further remarks:"A success which involved the destruction of ten thousand brave Englishmen by the arms of foreigners, added little either to the credit or the popularity of the Government."+ In an antecedent chapter (p. 202) Mr. Froude admits that the " commonwealth was betrayed for the benefit of the few." No doubt it was betrayed for the interests of a few political adventurers. Lord Warwick, for instance, won his "blood-stained spurs" in a few weeks. And, as the reader is aware, Kingston distinguished himself in Devonshire by the sanguinary promptitude of his action, and the levity of his manners. Here is another example of his general conduct. * Froude's History of England, vol. v. p. 213; State Papers of the Reign of Edward VI.; Holinshed's Chronicle. + Froude's History of England, vol. v. p. 216. Having dined with the Mayor of Bodmin, he asked his hospitable host if the gallows in that town were sufficiently strong. The Mayor replied that he thought so. "Then," said Colonel Kingston, "go out and try." The Mayor was hanged within one hour from the period of the conversation.* Mr. Froude does not credit this horrible narrative. "Had Anthony Kingston's despatches survived the account would have been different."+ It happens, however, that the murder of the Mayor of Bodmin, by Anthony Kingston, has been well authenticated long since. So much for this attempt at a defence of Kingston and his foreign mercenaries. For more than a century the traditions of Devonshire furnished many a black narrative of Russell and Kingston's campaign. On another occasion, having received information against a miller, Kingston proceeded to the mill, and not finding the master he hanged his servant, bidding him "be content, for it was the best service he had ever rendered to his master." It is painful to recur to such narratives ; but the writers who chronicle these transactions are not "Papists of any shade," but uncompromising advocates of the Reformers; nevertheless, they felt compelled to place before the world the cruel actions of Somerset's agents, who perpetrated them with the sanction of their chief. The deeds of Kingston and Russell hastened the fall of the Protector. His own visits to Scotland however, were marked with rapine and slaughter even more extensive than those * Holinshed's Chronicle. + Froude's History of England, vol. v. p. 200. Speed, p. 113; Hayward, p. 295. which have rendered so obnoxious the memories of Kingston and Russell. Somerset never enjoyed any real popularity. He is said to have been "beloved by the merchants and traders of London," yet these bodies were the first to approve of Warwick's impeachment of him. The Common Council of London being applied to by Lord Warwick for their support, with one voice declared their approbation of the new measures against Somerset, and their resolution of supporting them.* Chancellor Rich and Lord Russell, who perpetrated so many arbitrary actions at the Protector's order, had abandoned him, and the populace, on whom he so much depended, "did not rise at his summons." The great mass of the country adhered to the principles of their ancestors; and, looking at Somerset as one of the chief organizers of the new order of things, they rejoiced at his overthrow. The large estates which he had so quickly acquired at the expense of the Church and of the Crown, rendered him likewise an object of envy. The palace which he was building in the Strand served, by its magnificence, and still more by the circumstances which attended its construction, to expose him to public indignation. He despised popular opinion when he thought he had become permanent Regent. He had learned to disregard the rights of property." He pulled down three bishops' houses and the Church of St. Mary, to furnish ground and materials for his new palace. He ordered St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, to be demolished in order to obtain building materials; but the parishioners indignantly resisted, and would not permit such an act of vandalism and |