rejected all his overtures. Then the duke tried another scheme. Knowing Seymour's dislike for the Lord Keeper, Williams, who was a partisan of both France and the Romanists, Buckingham determined to remove him from office, and approached Seymour upon the subject through a friend. The idea was that if the Commons should 'set upon the Lord Keeper, they should be backed by the greatest men in the kingdom.' Seymour, realising that the duke was secretly abetting the plot, would have nothing to do with it. Instead, he answered sharply, 'I find nothing in the Lord Keeper but the malice of those great men.' The duke had utterly failed, and the next month Seymour renewed his attacks on the Government for its foreign policy, for peculation in high places and the sale of court offices. In this way he attacked the Duke of Buckingham, and, further, on these grounds, dissuaded the House from granting supplies. This was more than Charles could endure. Seymour was re-elected to the new Parliament, summoned in February 1625-6, but like Coke and Phelps, two others of his own views and calibre, he was made Sheriff to prevent his sitting. As Justice of the Peace he was one of those who opposed the illegal loan which Charles wished to raise without Parliament, and hence, in July 1625-6, his name was struck off the commission of the peace.

However, there were signs that his policy of opposition was undergoing modification. Already the popular party was becoming too fierce and unreasonable for his liking, and he began to realise that he must throw in his lot rather with Wentworth's moderating policy than theirs. His correspondence with Wentworth was frequent, and he joined the latter in advocating, against Eliot, a joint committee of the two Houses on the vital question of the Petition of Right in 1629. Ship-money aroused his wrath once more against the Crown, and he joined in the refusal to pay. Further, in the Long Parliament (to which he was re-elected for Wiltshire, as he

had been to the Short Parliament), he took prominent part in opposing the ecclesiastical grievances. But it is clear that he was gradually turning still further from the popular party, and his revulsion against the death of Lord Strafford (Wentworth) completed the change. Already, on the 19th of February 1640-1, he had been created Baron Seymour of Trowbridge, in Wiltshire, and had insisted in voting in the Lords against Strafford's attainder, although his right was denied by the popular party on the ground that when the charges had been made against Strafford he (Seymour) was not yet a peer. Evidently his change of front was not allowed to go unnoticed by his erstwhile friends. In the journals of the House of Commons there is an interesting note that Mr. Charles Gore was, on 15th February 1641, sent for as a delinquent for speaking very scandalous words (not specified) against Sir Francis Seymour as member of the House.' This was ten days before Seymour became Baron Trowbridge, and went to the Lords. Two days after this Gore had to protest his sorrow before the Speaker, and say that he did not remember the words he had spoken, they had evidently slipped from him.'

6

Henceforth, like his brother, the Marquis of Hertford, Seymour was king's man. He accompanied his brother to the West, and rendered service in organising the Royalist forces, and suppressing the parliamentary militia. His own county town, Marlborough, that he had so often represented in Parliament, was-according to Clarendon, who notes the 'obstinacy and malice of the inhabitants '-one of the most notoriously disaffected (towards the king) in all England. There, during the last ten years, Sir Francis had built a very fine house on the site of the old castle.1 In

1 The royal castle at Marlborough had been undoubtedly made up on the site of the old Roman castrum. It was one of the dower gifts of Henry VIII. to his unfortunate queen, Katherine of Arragon. Later, it was granted to the Protector, and was restored to him in 1550 with the other of his Wiltshire possessions. His estates were forfeited after his

this house, which must have been considered of great strength, he left his wife and daughter when in service in the west. Hence they were there at the first siege of Marlborough, and were taken prisoners. Parliament sent orders for them to be kept in safe custody in Marlborough. When the Royalists were gaining ground Sir Neville Poole, with halberds and pikemen, retreated to the mound near Lord Seymour's house, carrying with him Lady Seymour and her daughter. Then, setting up two lay figures on the top of the mound, dressed in white aprons and black hoods to represent the ladies, he sent word to the enemy that if they approached the mound the prisoners would be shot. This not very creditable ruse answered and the prisoners were safely conveyed to London, where Parliament settled their ransom. In November 1644, the king himself fortified Lord Seymour's house at Marlborough, on his way through the western counties. The Parliamentary war budget, Mercurius Civicus, for January 1644-5, reported that 'The cavaliers and townsmen of Marlborough have cut down most of [the] woods of [the] Marquis of Hertford: and some of the Lord Seymour's own tenants have cut down and much defaced his houses and buildings there. So courteous are that party even to their best friends.'

Meanwhile Lord Seymour, with his son Charles, was in Oxford, and was in 1645 made Chancellor of the Duchy of

attainder for felony, but early in Elizabeth's reign were restored to Edward, Earl of Hertford, his heir. After the death of the latter in 1621, Marlborough passed to his younger son, Francis, who also inherited the manor of Trowbridge (known in early days as Straburgh), from which he took his title (see supra). Both Marlborough and Trowbridge passed as family estates to Charles, second Baron Trowbridge, and Francis, third baron and fifth Duke of Somerset, thence to Charles, the fourth baron and sixth duke. On the marriage of Francis Seymour, daughter of the latter, to John Manners, Marquess of Granby, afterwards Duke of Rutland, Marlborough and Trowbridge were settled on her and her husband. From the Duke of Rutland, Marlborough reverted to the Bruce family (Earls of Ailesbury). Trowbridge was sold to the Timbrells, and later to William Stancourt of Blount Court, Potterne.

Lancaster, and one of the commissioners for preserving the city and university of Oxford. Like his brother, he was in Oxford when that city surrendered in June 1645, and was admitted with his son, Charles, in November 1646, to composition on the Oxford articles for the Trowbridge estates, upon a fine of £3725. Attempts had been made both by the commissioners for Wiltshire, and by several private persons in the county, to lighten the burden of delinquency for Charles Seymour. The commissioners certified that, although he had been four years past appointed one of His Majesty's commissioners for sequestrating Parliamentary estates he had only once come to the meetings of the commissioners, and had never, to their knowledge, executed anything, but did get many of the Parliament's friends freed from trouble that were quartered by the king's party.' Concerning the sequestration of his estate he had informed the commissioners in the last year that he was willing to pay £60 for it, and for the present year £80. They were credibly informed that he had not supplied the king with money or taken up arms against Parliament. The private petition also showed that for all the undersigned knew or had heard, Mr. Seymour did never take up arms against the Parliament, but whilst he lived at Allington, near Chippenham, behaved himself very nobly, friendly and lovingly amongst us and others.'

In May 1650, Lord Seymour placed a request before Cromwell for the exemption of both his son and himself from the decimation tax. Cromwell, acting with his unfailing wisdom, wrote to stay proceedings against them. The commissioners were 'very unsatisfied' with the request and the case was referred to Desborough, the majorgeneral for the district. He, with a characteristic hatred of the cavalier species, wrote to Cromwell that he was far from satisfied with Seymour's profession of peace. 'I have... perused his (letter) to your Highness,' he writes,

6

wherein I find no more than any cavalier in west of England shall pretend for himself. I must confess I should be glad of a real change, but I humbly conceive that without some public declaration made by him to the world of alteration of his spirit and principles, and of his real engagement to the present Government, it will but open the door and give occasion to the enemy to cry out of our partiality, especially if favour and respect be shown to him and denied to others who will do as much if not more than he hath done.' 'If,' the major-general continues, 'his spirit be such that he can cordially close with the people of God as Captain Burgess seems to hold forthe, he will not be ashamed to disown that interest wherein he formerly engaged, and for the satisfaction of friends manifest his integrity to the public.' For the present, however, according to Cromwell's pleasure, the commissioners were willing to 'let Lord Seymour alone until they ascertain whether there be any difference betwixt him and his former practices.' Seven or eight of the county gentlemen had already been taxed, among them Sir James Thynne, who, at first,' did plead as much innocency as my Lord Seymour hath done, but at last, having no refuge, was constrained to comply.' The result in Lord Seymour's case is not given, but in all probability Desborough had his

way.

The Civil War once over, Lord Seymour seems to have willingly turned to a quiet life at Marlborough, taking no part in the politics of the years of the Commonwealth. His house at Marlborough, which had undoubtedly suffered in the Civil War, was soon restored, and there, at Christmas 1648, Aubrey, the garrulous Wiltshire historian, visited him. I never saw the country about Marlborough,' Aubrey writes, until Christmas 1648, being then invited to Lord Francis Seymour's by the Honourable Charles Seymour, with whom I had the honour to be intimately acquainted, and whose friendship I ought to mention with