distracted Duke, reacted in fear by offering to pardon all the rebels if they dispersed. Therefore, Bush’s view is convincing as Somerset enabled the rebellion to grow and was only compelled to intervene once the rebellion was obviously threatening; also supporting Manning’s (1979) assertion that “Somerset’s inept handling of the [1549 rebellions] brought about his downfall.” Indeed, the growth of the Cornish Rebellion in part inspired Kett’s Rebellion which occurred in the same year of 1549, proving that the state could not tolerate Somerset as leader if other rebellions had the confidence to develop. Kett’s Rebellion differed from the Cornish as it focused primarily on economic hardship, specifically the expansion of the enclosures. The enclosures meant that the gentry and local clergy men could expand small landholdings into larger farms and so took much away from the livelihood of the peasantry. Robert Kett himself was part of the gentry but felt so sympathetic to the peasantry that he had joined and even led the movement, making him a particular threat to the state. Kett’s rebellion resonated with far more than that seen in the Prayer Book rebellion in the same year; spreading the rebellion from Cornwall to East Anglia and gaining control of Norwich, the second largest city at the time. Somerset once again proved incompetent, sending a perfunctory commission to evaluate if the land was being taken at a disproportionate rate. Thus, Manning’s view is convincing as Somerset was clearly unable to differentiate between how serious Kett’s Rebellion was compared to the Cornish. Most significantly, Manning’s view is convincing because Somerset’s ineptitude created the opportunity for Dudley to exhibit his own competence by crushing Kett’s rebellion. Dudley then used this as his basis to overthrow Somerset as prince regent. Therefore, Somerset’s regency can indeed be labelled a ‘crisis’ for the Duke enabled England to grow into a state of severe conflict which directly threatened the state and eventually led to the overthrow of the prince regent himself.

In contrast, the Lord Presidency of the Duke of Northumberland (1550-1553) dealt with the issues formed under Somerset, resulting in an era of relative peace that cannot be deemed a crisis; beginning with the Duke’s need to resolve foreign affairs. Unlike Somerset, Northumberland recognised that even remaining in a deadlock with Scotland and France was not sustainable for England and that the Duke needed to turn his attention to pressing domestic discontent. However, one can see why historians such as Pollard (1910) argue that the Treaty of Boulogne, which Northumberland negotiated with France in 1550, was “the most ignominious… signed by England during the century”. Certainly, on the surface, the treaty appears to have been drawn up in indecent haste, as if Northumberland was attempting to quickly resolve foreign matters to focus