stable at the coronation. He had also been named, in the will of Henry VIII, as a member of the council of twelve, intended to assist the executors in cases of difficulty; but his influence was destroyed when Somerset became protector. Somerset soon disgusted the other members of the cabinet, and Arundel was among the first to urge his dismissal in favour of the Earl of Warwick. At length, in 1549, Somerset was sent to the Tower, while Arundel, Warwick, and four other lords were appointed to take charge of the king. Warwick quickly grew jealous of Arundel's influence. When the bill for the infliction of penalties on Somerset was brought before parliament in 1550 Arundel was still in office; but a series of ridiculous charges had been collected against him from the last twelve years of his life, and when the late protector obtained his release the earl had been dismissed from his employments. It was asserted that he had abused his privileges as lord chamberlain to enrich himself and his friends, that he had removed the locks and bolts from the royal stores at Westminster, had distributed ‘the king's stuff’ among his acquaintance, and had been guilty of various other acts of embezzlement. The proof of these charges was never exhibited, and Edward himself in his ‘Diary’ terms the offences only ‘crimes of suspicion against him;’ but the ‘suspicion’ was sufficient for the purposes of Warwick. Arundel was removed from the council, was ordered to confine himself to his house, and was mulcted in the sum of 12,000l., to be paid in equal annual instalments of 1,000l. each. His confinement, however, was of short duration, and the injustice of the accusations having been ascertained, 8,000l. of the fine was remitted. Arundel had been sent into Sussex to allay the insurrection of 1549. By his influence tranquillity was perfectly restored throughout Sussex (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1547–80, p. 19). When renewed symptoms of uneasiness appeared shortly after his release, the council made a second request for his assistance in repressing the disturbance. Arundel returned a severely dignified refusal. His late punishment, he said, for offences which he had never committed had injured him both in his fortune and his health, and he did not understand why his services, which had formerly been so ill requited, were again demanded. The council, after attempting to frighten him into submission, were glad to despatch the Duke of Somerset in his stead.
His opposition to Warwick and the ruling party at court subjected him to much persecution. Finding the necessity of offering a united resistance to the aggressions of Warwick, he formed a friendship with his old enemy the Duke of Somerset. On 16 Oct. 1551 Somerset was a second time committed to the Tower on charges of felony and treason. In the original depositions no mention was made of Arundel as an accomplice, but in a few days the evidence of one of the accused, named Crane, began to implicate him; by degrees Crane's recollections became more vivid, and on 8 Nov. Arundel was arrested and conveyed to the Tower (‘King Edward's Diary’ in Cotton MS. Titus, B. ii.). It was said that he had listened to overtures from Somerset, and that he was privy to the intended massacre of Northumberland, Northampton, and Pembroke, at the house of Lord Paget. These accusations rest entirely on the doubtful testimony of Crane (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1547–80, p. 36). During more than twelve months that Arundel was confined to the Tower, Northumberland, although he plotted unceasingly against the life of his prisoner, never ventured to bring him to his trial; Arundel's subsequent confession was exacted as the condition of his pardon, and on a subsequent occasion he publicly asserted his innocence in the presence, and with the assent, of Pembroke himself. On 3 Dec. 1552 he was called before the privy council, required to sign a submission and confession, and fined in the sum of six thousand marks, to be paid in equal portions of one thousand marks annually; he was bound in a recognisance of ten thousand marks to be punctual in his payment of the fine, and was at length dismissed with an admonition (Strype, Memorials, ii. 383, from the Council Book). The declining health of the king suggested to Northumberland the expediency of conciliating the nobility. Arundel was first restored to his place at the council board, and four days before Edward's death was discharged entirely of his fine. In June 1553 he strongly protested against Edward's ‘device’ for the succession, by which the king's sisters were declared illegitimate. He ultimately signed the letters patent, but not the bond appended, with a deliberate intention of deserting Northumberland whenever a chance should present itself. On the death of the king, 6 July 1553, Arundel entered with apparent ardour into the designs of the duke. But on the very same evening, while the council were still discussing the measures necessary to be adopted before they proclaimed the Lady Jane, he contrived to forward a letter to Mary, in which he informed her of her brother's death; assured her that Northumberland's motive in conceding it was ‘to entrap her before she
