Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 09.djvu/182

 that when he was released he might not bring with him an angry feeling. This would explain the constant letters and messages, and even the sending of medicine to produce illness, which might work upon the king's feelings.

Lady Essex would naturally regard the affair from another point of view. Overbury's attack upon her character was an insult to be avenged, and she may very well have seized the opportunity afforded to her by her lover's plot to effect her purpose. We do not know enough of her character to say whether she was likely to preserve silence with her husband even after her design was carried out or not, and it is, of course, quite possible that she may have told him what was going on, even before the final act. If so, the anxiety which he showed to keep out of sight all evidence relating to his own proceedings would be more intelligible than ever. Under these circumstances there is no wonder, even if Somerset was not guilty, that his defence should have broken down in some points. The only question which can be raised is whether his failure to sustain his argument was owing to the reality of his guilt, or whether it was only what might fairly be expected from a man called on to fight an unequal battle against trained lawyers, and conscious that his part in the intrigue of Overbury's imprisonment was such as to lay him open to the worst suspicions (for the more favourable view see, History of England, ii. 353; for the less favourable, , Letters and Life of Bacon, v. 328. References to the original authorities are given in both these works, and most of them will be found in , Great Oyer of Poisoning, a book of no critical value). The court, besides, was hostile, and the verdict of guilty, which was ultimately given, was probably inevitable.

James had no intention of allowing either the earl or the countess to be executed. On 13 July 1615 a pardon was granted to the lady (State Trials, ii. 1005). Somerset was informed that his life would be spared, and a letter is extant (Cabala, i. 1) from the obscure phrases of which it would seem that an offer was made to him of leaving him at least part of his property if he would accept the intercession of a person unnamed, who was probably Villiers. Somerset, however, refused to do this, and strongly reasserted his innocence. Perhaps in consequence of this firmness, both he and his wife were kept in the Tower till January 1622, when they were allowed to exchange their captivity for residence at certain fixed places. At last Somerset received a formal pardon. The statement, often made, that James thought of taking him again into favour when he was displeased with Buckingham's conduct in 1624, is absolutely without foundation.

In 1630 Somerset once more came before public notice, as being prosecuted in the Star-chamber, together with other more important personages, for having, in the preceding year, passed on to the Earl of Clare a paper written long before by Sir Robert Dudley, recommending James to establish arbitrary government. On 29 May he and the others implicated were told that, in consequence of the birth of the king's son, who was afterwards Charles II, the proceedings would be dropped (State Trials, iii. 396). After this Somerset remained in obscurity till his death, which took place in July 1645.

 CARR, ROBERT JAMES (1774–1841), bishop of Worcester, the son of the the Rev. Colston Carr, a schoolmaster at Twickenham, who was afterwards vicar of Ealing, was born in 1774 at Twickenham. He received his primary education in his father's school. and afterwards went to Worcester College, Oxford. In 1797 he married Nancy, daughter of John Wilkinson of Roehampton, by whom he had a numerous family, of which only four children survived him. In the following year he was ordained by the Bishop of Salisbury, and, after holding some unimportant preferments for a short time, was presented to the vicarage of Brighton. In 1806 he graduated M.A. While he was vicar of Brighton his eloquence commended him to the prince regent, and a friendship was commenced which only terminated with the death of George IV. In 1820 he was appointed dean of Hereford, and in the same year he took the degrees of B.D. and D.D. Four years later he was consecrated bishop of Chichester, and, along with his bishopric, held a canonry in St. Paul's Cathedral. He was also appointed clerk to the closet, an honorary position which he held until the accession of Queen Victoria, when he was dismissed in account of a strict adherence to his political principles. In 1831 he was translated to the bishopric of Worcester, in fulfillment, as it was understood at the time, of a promise made by the late king. Carr was the prelate who attended George IV during his last illness. He devoted himself almost entirely to his episcopal duties, and, although constant in his attendance at the House of Lords, took little interest in politics. He was one of the bishops who voted against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, and, if 