"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 kinship with the
leader of the revolt they were doubtless subjects of considerable
suspicion. There must, however, have apparently been other
circumstances 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 passage 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.