mond, and his step-mother the Duchess of Norfolk, used their joint endeavours to cut off this unfortunate

66 we are sur

soldier. His superiority in the accomplishments of chivalry was proved at a tournament held by him at Florence, in honour of his Geraldine, and at another exhibited at Windsor in the King's presence in 1540. His condemnation appears to have been occasioned by his talents, his popularity, his high spirit, a suspicion of his intending to marry the Princess Mary with a view of obtaining the crown, but above all, by a hatred treasured in the King's breast against the relations of Katharine Howard. (For a more particular account of this illustrious man, see Walpole's 'Royal and Noble Authors,' and Warton's History of Poetry.') "In the Sonnets of Surrey," observes Warton, prised to find nothing of that metaphysical cast, which marks the Italian poets, his supposed masters, especially Petrarch. Surrey's sentiments are, for the most part, natural and unaffected; arising from his own feelings, and dictated by the present circumstances. His poetry is alike unembarrassed by learned allusions, and elaborate conceits. If he copies Petrarch, it is Petrarch's best manner, where he descends from his Platonic abstractions, his refinements of passion, his exaggerated compliments, and his play upon opposite sentiments, into a track of tenderness, simplicity, and nature. For his justness of thought indeed, correctness of stile, and purity of expression, he may properly be pronounced the first English classical poet.'"

With Surrey may be named his friend Sir Thomas Wyat the elder, stiled by Wood "the delight of the Muses and of mankind.” They were, indeed, "two chieftains (as Puttenham, in his 'Art of English Poesie,' denominates them) of a new company of witmakers, who sprung up in the latter end of Henry VIII.'s reign. They having travelled into Italy, and there tasted the sweet and stately measures and stile of the Italian poesy, as novices newly crept out of the schools of Dante, Ariosto, and Petrarch, greatly polished our rude and homely manner of vulgar poesy, from that it had been before." Wyat however has more imitations, and even translations, from the Italian poets than Surrey; and he seems to have been more fond of their conceits. He is, confessedly, inferior to him in smoothness, distinctness, and ease; in elegance of sentiment, and in nature and sensibility. He was

youth; the former deposing, that her brother had a crown, instead of an Earl's coronet, engraven on his seals, and a cypher which bore the appearance of the royal signet. Upon these frivolous charges he was tried by an ignorant jury of commoners at Guildhall, found guilty of high-treason, and beheaded on TowerHill, January 19, 1547.

The Duke it was intended should share the same fate in a few days, the bill of attainder having passed the House of Lords; but in the Lower Assembly it, fortunately, met with some delay. Henry, perceiving his own end approaching, and anxious to prevent Norfolk from disturbing the reign of his successor, commanded the Commons to hasten it's progress; upon which it was passed, and the royal assent (on account of the King's weakness) being given by commission, the execution was fixed for the twenty-ninth of January. But Henry expiring on the morning of the twenty-eighth, the warrant became null and void; and the council judging it imprudent to commence a new reign with the death of so popular a nobleman, his sentence was not carried into effect. He remained, however, in confinement (being excepted by the Regency from the general pardon) during the whole of the short reign of Edward VI.; and soon after the accession of Queen Mary, by whom he was immediately replaced in his possessions and admitted to confidence, he died a natural death in 1554.

imprisoned by Henry VIII., on the charge of a connexion with Anne Boleyn; but he succeeded in justifying himself, and was restored to favour.

206

EDWARD SEYMOUR,

DUKE OF SOMERSET.*

[****—1552.]

THIS powerful statesman was the son of Sir John, and the brother of Jane Seymour, third wife of Henry VIII. and mother of Edward VI. No mention of him however occurs in history, till after the death of the Queen his sister; when the King, in honour to her memory, and anxious that the Prince should always have so near a relation about his person, created him Earl of Hertford in 1537. He had previously, indeed, been made a Peer by the title of Viscount Beauchamp; but he enjoyed no important office at court, till his second creation. Even then, the interest of the Duke of Norfolk prevented him from possessing any considerable share of the royal confidence till after his own disgrace, when he was appointed Lord Chamberlain.

As Edward VI. at his accession was not quite

* AUTHORITIES.

Baker's Chronicle, Hayward's Life of Edward VI., Biographia Britannica, and Burnet's History of the Reformation.

ten years old, his father had appointed sixteen executors, to whom during his non-age was entrusted the regal authority. But upon it's being suggested, that it must be extremely troublesome, especially for foreign ministers, to be under the necessity of applying to such a number of functionaries, it was proposed that some one should be appointed president of the body, with the title of Protector.' This motion was vigorously opposed by the Chancellor Wriothesley Earl of Southampton, who correctly anticipated that the new dignity, to the great diminution of his own power, would be conferred upon the Earl of Hertford. The Earl, however, had so strong a party in the council, that the question was carried in the affirmative; and it was resolved, on account of his relationship to the King, and his experience in state-affairs, that he should be declared Regent and Governor of the King's person. This was, accordingly, done; but with an express condition, that he should not undertake any thing without the concurrence of all his brother-executors.

The jealousy, which subsisted between the Protector and the Chancellor, now speedily burst into action; and the nation being at this time divided between the Romanists and the Reformers, Hertford (who was, shortly afterward, created Duke of Somerset) placed himself at the head of the latter party, and Wriothesley at that of the former. The Chancellor however quickly, by his imprudence, gave his adversary the advantage over him. Resolving to apply himself chiefly to state-affairs, he had put the great seal into commission, directed to the Master of the Rolls and three Masters in Chancery, and empowering them to execute his office in as ample a

manner as if he himself were present. This being done by his own authority, without any warrant from the Protector and the Co-regents, it was ordered that the judges should give their opinions concerning the case in writing. Their answer was, that the Chancellor, holding his office only as a trust, could not commit the exercise of it to others without the royal consent; that in so doing, he had by the common law forfeited it to the crown, and that he was farther liable to fine and imprisonment during the King's pleasure. When this opinion was delivered in council, Wriothesley told the Protector, that he held his office of Chancellor by an undoubted authority, since he held it from the King; whereas it was greatly to be questioned, whether he himself were lawfully Protector.' But his haughtiness only accelerated his disgrace: he was, immediately, confined to his house. It was then debated, what his punishment should be: and as it was judged inexpedient to divest him of his share in the Regency, in order to render it useless to him he was placed under an arrest, and the great seal was transferred to Lord St. John, till another Chancellor should be appointed. From this confinement, however, he was released, upon entering into a recognisance of four thousand pounds, to pay whatever fine the court should impose upon him.

After Somerset had thus got rid of his troublesome rival, he resolved to usurp the sole administration of the government. With this view he represented to the Regents and the council, that it had been controverted by several persons, whether or not they could by their sole authority create a Protector; and that the French embassador, in particular, had suggested his