36
REIGN OF EDWARD THE SIXTH.
[ch. 28.
maintained by himself at Warwick's request.[1] Whether Palmer's treachery for the first time acquainted Warwick with Somerset's designs against him, or whether Warwick had watched their growth and sprang a countermine when the time was ripe, I am unable to determine.
- ↑ The Duke of Northumberland, before going to the scaffold, desired an interview with Somerset's sons:—Au quels il crya mercy de l'injustice qu'il avoit faict à leur Pere Protecteur de l'Angleterre, congnoissant avoir procuré sa mort à tort et faulsement. Palmer avant sa mort a confessé que l'escripture et l'accusation qu'il advouche et maintint contre la feu Protecteur estoit fausse, fabricquée par le dict duc (de Northumberland) et advoué par luy à la requeste du dict duc. Et y a d'estranges loix par de ça sur le faict d'accusation que ce peult faire par deux temoings, encores qu'ils deposent singulierement et diversement.—Simon Renard to Charles V.: MS. Record Office. Transcribed from the archives at Brussels. If Palmer and Northumland really made these confessions, the question whether there was or was not foul play at the trial of the Duke of Somerset is set at rest; and by adopting Renard's story in the text, I show of course that I think it true; yet I have not adopted it without hesitation. Although there was a general belief, in which Cranmer and Ridley shared, that Somerset had been unfairly dealt with, it is strange that a foreign ambassador should be the only authority for so important a feature in the evidence about it. Palmer's story had nothing in it which in itself was incredible or even improbable; and unless Edward was imposed upon (which it is hard to suppose), as to the acknowledgments which were made by Somerset in open court at that time of his trial, those acknowledgments confirm in substance all that Palmer stated. Renard's letter, too, was written when Northumberland had just failed in his attempt to alter the succession; and any charge against him, however monstrous, found ready hearing among the Queen's friends. On the other hand, a distinct circumstantial statement of a competent witness is not to be lightly set aside, merely from circumstantial objections. No English minister was better informed than Renard of everything which passed in London at the time of Mary's accession. He was writing from the spot, and he was not a person to report on hearsay the flying rumours of the hour.I give the result of my own reflections upon the subject. Readers who take an interest in the question will judge for themselves.
