<166>When James first came to England, he was anxious to put an end to those personal disputes between the leading men by which 1606.Marriage of the Earl of Essex and Lady Frances Howard.the later years of his predecessor had been troubled. He hoped to accomplish this by bringing about marriages between the great families. The Earl of Suffolk had two daughters who would, as he thought, serve his purpose. The elder was destined for Lord Cranborne, the only son of the Earl of Salisbury; the younger was to become the wife of the young Earl of Essex, who would, as it was hoped, forget his father’s fate in this new alliance with the Howards and the Cecils.[294] It was no obstacle to the King’s benevolent intentions that the bride and bridegroom by whose union such great things were to be accomplished were mere children. On January 5, 1606, they were called upon to pronounce those solemn vows of which they little knew the import. Essex was only fourteen, and Lady Frances Howard was a year younger than the husband who had been chosen for her; but by a doctrine which the ecclesiastical law of England had accepted without examination from the jurisconsults of more southern climes, they were held to be of full age for the purpose of taking upon themselves the engagements of married life. Great were the festivities by <167>which the auspicious event was celebrated. Ben Jonson did his best to produce a masque worthy of the occasion, and Inigo Jones gave his talents to construct the machinery and the decorations which were to amuse the frivolous crowd. The hollowness of the ceremony which had been witnessed by the admiring spectators must have betrayed itself by the necessity of separating the boy bridegroom from his wife. Two years after his marriage the Earl was sent to travel on the Continent, and it was not till some time after he had attained the age of eighteen that he returned, apparently shortly after Christmas, 1609, to claim his bride.[295]
If upon his return he looked for a faithful and loving wife, he was doomed to a bitter disappointment. He soon discovered that Conduct of Lady Essex to her husband.she regarded him with the deepest repugnance. Under the most favourable circumstances this ill-assorted pair could never have lived together with any degree of comfort. The sterling qualities which Essex possessed, and which had already gained for him the respect of Prince Henry, were shrouded from the eye of the thoughtless observer by the heaviness and imperturbability of his outward demeanour. Of all women then living, the young girl of seventeen who bore the name of Countess of Essex was the least capable of appreciating his virtues. Headstrong and impetuous by nature, she had received but an evil training at the hands of her coarse-minded and avaricious mother. The Court in which she had been bound to her child-husband was no place for the cultivation of the feminine virtues of modesty and self-restraint.[296] <168>She had already attracted the notice of the rising favourite, at that time still Sir Robert Carr, and if that unhallowed marriage had not stood in the way, she might have become his wife innocently enough, and have left no records of her butterfly existence with which history would have cared to meddle.
She was startled from her dream of enjoyment by the sombre figure of the man who claimed her as his wife. At first she refused to live with him; but she was at last forced by her parents to treat him as her husband, and finally to accompany him to his country seat at Chartley. The whole truth of her miserable life for the next three years can never be known; but enough has been told to repel even the most callous investigator of history. It is enough to say that the wretched woman set her heart upon remaining a wife only in name, and upon preserving herself for the man to whom she had given her affections. She called in the aid of Mrs. Turner, a widow of abandoned character, in whom she had found a confidant. With the aid of Doctor Forman, one of those quack doctors, half-physician and half-sorcerer, who were the pests of that age, these two women proceeded to administer drugs to the unconscious husband. Partly by such means as these, and partly by the forbidding demeanour which the Countess assumed towards him, she succeeded in repelling his advances.[297]
At the beginning of the year 1613, three years had passed away since the return of the Earl from the Continent. With the 1613.She thinks of procuring a divorce.completion of this period a new hope awoke in the breast of Lady Essex. It was now possible to obtain a declaration of the nullity of the marriage, if she could persuade a court to believe her declaration that her husband was incapacitated by a physical defect from entering into marriage; and she may have thought that, in his eagerness to escape from a connection which had brought him so much <169>misery, he would allow her statements to pass without any strict examination. She succeeded in gaining the support[298] of her father and of his uncle, Northampton, to whom she probably told only as much of the story as suited her convenience. Nor were they insensible to the advantages which would accrue to them from a close alliance with Rochester. They had no doubt that a marriage with him would follow immediately upon the divorce. To the Howards, at that moment, such an alliance would be most welcome. For some months they had encountered the opposition of Rochester, and they had found, by experience, that Rochester’s opposition was fatal to their endeavours to influence the policy or to share in the patronage of the Government.
The Howards found little difficulty in gaining over the King. He would naturally be pleased with any prospect of bringing about a reconciliation between the two factions which were so troublesome to him. It is not likely that he was acquainted with the darker side of the story, and it is probable that he was blind to much which a man of clearer moral perception would have detected at once. Nor should it be forgotten that he may well have been desirous of repairing the ruin of which he could not but feel that he had himself been, in no small degree, the author.
In May a meeting was held at Whitehall, to consider upon the course which was to be pursued. The Meeting of the friends of the parties.Earls of Northampton and Suffolk appeared for the lady, whilst her husband was represented by the Earl of Southampton and Lord Knollys.[299] It was found that Essex was determined to admit of no assertion which would throw any <170>obstacle in the way of his own remarriage; and both Suffolk and Northampton knew that they could not prove their case without his consent. They were consequently compelled to allow that, though the Earl was incapable of being the husband of his present wife, there was nothing to prevent him marrying another. Accordingly, Appointment of a commission to try the case.the way having been thus smoothed, a commission was issued on the 16th for the trial of the case, to Archbishop Abbot, Bishops King, Andrewes, and Neile, Sir Thomas Parry, and Sir Julius Cæsar, together with the civilians, Sir Daniel Dun, Sir John Bennet, and Doctors James and Edwards.
As the case[300] proceeded, the Howards found that they were likely to meet with an unexpected obstacle in the unyielding conscientiousness of the Archbishop. Supported as they were by the King, they had met with willing instruments in some of the Commissioners, especially in Bishop Neile and Sir Daniel Dun. But the more Abbot heard of the evidence the less he was satisfied with the part which he was expected to play. With incredible effrontery, Lady Essex allowed her counsel to argue that her husband was bewitched, though we may be sure that she took care that Dr. Forman’s name was not mentioned in court. Abbot’s reasons for dissatisfaction with the Countess’s case.Abbot had grave doubts concerning the probability of such effects being produced by witchcraft, and these doubts were shared by the more respectable members of the commission, and, as it appeared, even by the lawyers who pleaded on behalf of the lady. He was still more struck with the manner in which the proceedings were hurried over, and with the apparent shrinking on the part of Lady Essex’s counsel from entering into the particulars of the case. Nor did it escape him that, even if the alleged facts were true, such a precedent would open a wide field for future evil, and that the proceedings of the Commissioners would be quoted by every couple who happened to be without children, and who were anxious to obtain a divorce by means of collusive proceedings.
<171>After some time had been spent in hearing the evidence which was produced, and in listening to the arguments of the lawyers on either side, it was found that the Commissioners were equally divided in opinion.[301] Abbot, who knew that the King was bent upon obtaining a declaration in favour of a divorce, took an opportunity of an interview with him to beg to be released from his ungrateful task. James seemed much affected by the arguments which he used, and showed no signs of being displeased with him for the course which he had taken. But after the Archbishop had left him, and he was once more in the hands of Rochester and the Howards, he was again induced to The number of the Commissioners increased.take up their cause more warmly. The equal division of the members of the Commission gave him an excuse for adding to their number, and he allowed himself to take the unjustifiable step of appointing Bishops Bilson and Buckeridge, who could only be regarded in the light of partisans, to sit amongst the judges.
Abbot determined to write a letter to the King. It was a great opportunity, and if he had been content to set down the arguments which he was Abbot’s letter to the King.prepared to maintain when his opinion was asked amongst the other Commissioners,[302] he would at least have left on record an unanswerable defence of the course which he had taken, even if he had failed in producing any lasting effect upon the mind of James. But, unfortunately, the Archbishop had an unlucky knack of committing blunders when it would seem that he could hardly have avoided taking the right step. Incredible as it appears, he contrived, in the letter which he wrote, to omit the slightest mention of any one of the points upon which the strength of his case rested, and to substitute for them a number of most questionable propositions. To the deficiency of evidence, and to the danger of the precedent, he did not even <172>make a passing allusion. But he argued at some length that there was no express statement in Scripture bearing upon this case, and that although it was perfectly possible that the effects attributed to witchcraft might have been produced by that means in the times of darkness and of Popish superstition, yet that it was impossible that the devil should be possessed of such power where the light of the Gospel was shining. He had not heard that either Lord or Lady Essex had taken measures against the supposed witchcraft, either by applying themselves to prayer and fasting, or by using medical remedies. He concluded by appending to his letter a string of totally irrelevant quotations from the works of celebrated Protestant divines.[303]
It can hardly be a matter for astonishment that James refused to admit such reasoning as this. In the answer which he wrote,[304] Answer of James.he had evidently the better of the Archbishop, at least so far as the grounds were concerned upon which Abbot had based his reasoning. But he was not content with demonstrating that the arguments used in the letter were untenable. Proud of his own logic, he called upon Abbot to withdraw such insufficient reasonings, and to rest his faith for the future upon the unerring judgment of a Sovereign who was, as he told him, not without some skill in divinity, and who was undoubtedly impartial in the present case.
Abbot did not take the advice thus tendered to him. When the day came for pronouncing the decision of the Commissioners, The Commissioners pronounce for the divorce.the votes of the new members made it no longer doubtful which way that decision would be given. On September 25 there were seven votes given in favour of the divorce, against which the Archbishop, with four others, protested in vain.[305] In order to prevent the arguments of the protestors from being heard, an express order was brought from the King that the <173>Commissioners should content themselves with giving their decision without adding the reasons by which they were influenced.[306]
Of the conduct of James it is difficult to speak with patience. However impartial he may have believed himself to be, he in reality acted as a mere partisan throughout the whole affair, and Conduct of James,it was never doubted that his influence contributed materially to the result. Nothing could well have been more prejudicial to the interests of justice than his meddling interference at every step, which did even more harm than the appointment of the additional members. Yet it may reasonably be doubted whether he was conscious of doing anything which bore even the semblance of an error. He was thrown almost entirely amongst men whose interests led them to influence him in one direction, and he probably looked with complacency upon an act which, at all events, freed two wretched persons from a life of misery. That it was improper for a Sovereign to meddle with the proceedings of a court once constituted, was an idea which certainly never entered into his head.
There was one man who took part in these proceedings whose character for truthfulness and honesty of purpose is of far and of Andrewes.greater importance than that of James. Before the commencement of the sittings of the Commission, Andrewes had pronounced an opinion unfavourable to the divorce; and yet, soon after he had taken his seat, he changed his view of the case, and steadily adhered to the opinion of the majority. Suspicions could not fail to arise that he had given way before the influence of the Court, and these suspicions derived some importance from the fact that he made no use of his intimate knowledge of the canon law, but, with rare exceptions, remained silent during the whole course of the proceedings. All that can be said is, that against such a man it is impossible to receive anything short of direct evidence, and that it is better to suppose that he was, by some process of reasoning with which we are unacquainted, satisfied with the evidence adduced, though he must have felt that there was that in the conduct of <174>Lady Essex which prevented him from regarding the result of the trial with any degree of satisfaction.[307]
For four months the trial had formed the general topic of conversation wherever men met together in public or in private. Unanimous condemnation of the sentence throughout the country.The effrontery of the Countess, the shameless meddling of the King and of his courtiers, the truckling subserviency of Neile and his supporters, were discussed with a remarkable unanimity of abhorrence in every corner of the land. The sober stood aghast at James’s disregard for the decencies of life, whilst the light-hearted laughed at the easy credulity with which he took for granted all the tales of a profligate woman. It may be doubted whether his rupture with the House of Commons contributed so much to widen the breach between himself and his subjects as his conduct on this occasion.
The bitterest shafts of ridicule, however, were reserved for Bilson. Better things were expected of his known talents and learning; and General expression of dislike at the conduct of Bilson.those who thought it only natural that men like Neile should wallow in the mire for the sake of Court favour, were ill-pleased to see the Bishop of Winchester following his unworthy example. Bilson himself was not ill-satisfied with what he had done, and was gratified by the honour of knighthood which was conferred by the King upon his son. He was not long in discovering the unpopularity which he had incurred. His son was immediately nicknamed, by some wag, Sir Nullity Bilson, and the appellation stuck to the unfortunate man for the remainder of his life. His own son-in-law refused to live in his house, because he could not endure the jeers of his companions, who used to remind him that he only held his wife on the Bishop’s sufferance, who would be able at any time to declare that his marriage was a nullity.[308]
Abbot’s conduct thoughout the whole affair, on the other hand, made him for the time the most popular man in England. <175>The country was delighted to find that in that corrupt Court Popularity of Abbot.there was at least one who could hold his ground in opposition to the King’s wishes, when a matter of conscience was at stake.
When the long-expected sentence was pronounced, Lady Frances Howard, now no longer Countess of Essex, was once more Lady Frances Howard.free from the bonds under which she had writhed so long. The prize for which she had played the desperate game, and for the sake of which she had thrown away all feminine modesty, was within her reach at last; the man for whose sake she had braved the scorn of the world, and had submitted to make her name the subject of unseemly jests, was now ready to take her as his wife. But even those whose sense of her degradation was the deepest had failed to measure the full extent of her guilt. They did not know that, whilst she was receiving the congratulations of all who believed that her smile would light them on the road to wealth and honour, she was carrying about with her the consciousness that in an instant the edifice of her fortunes might tumble into the dust, and that she was liable at any moment to be dragged off from the bright scenes which she loved too well, to take her place in the felon’s dock as a murderess.
The story of the tragedy, in which the proud beauty enacted so fearful a part, will in all probability never be known in all its details with anything approaching to certainty. The evidence upon which it rests has only reached us in a mutilated state, and even that which is in our hands is in such an unsatisfactory condition that it is impossible to come to any definite conclusion on the greater part of the questions which may be raised. But amidst all these uncertainties one fact stands out too clearly to be explained away. The guilt of Lady Essex is proved by evidence of which no reasonable doubt can, by any possibility, be entertained.
Amongst those who had attached themselves to the rising fortunes of the favourite was Overbury’s connection with Rochester.Sir Thomas Overbury, a young man of considerable talents, and, as his published writings prove, not without some nobleness of character. He was not long in obtaining an <176>ascendency over the inferior mind of Rochester, who had submitted to be instructed by him in the wiles by which he hoped to make good his footing at Court.[309] It is difficult to say how far Overbury was actuated by any feeling higher than a desire for personal aggrandisement. It was probably through his means that Rochester adopted Neville as his candidate for the Secretaryship, and entered on a rivalry with the Howards. The position in which Overbury was placed was not one to develope whatever virtues he may have originally possessed. Even if he had not been naturally of a self-satisfied and overbearing disposition, he could hardly have continued for any length of time to supply Rochester’s deficiencies without contracting a habit of treating him His opposition to Rochester’s proceedings with regard to Lady Essex.with an arrogance which would, sooner or later, become intolerable. The inevitable breach was only hastened by the efforts which he made to deter his patron from the ill-advised course which he was pursuing with regard to Lady Essex. As it is certain[310] that in earlier times he had assisted Rochester to compose the letters with which he courted that lady, it is difficult to explain the abhorrence with which he regarded the proposed marriage. It is possible that whilst he was ready to wink at an adulterous connection with another man’s wife, he was startled by a proposal which would result in making a marriage possible, and which would bring with it a reconciliation between his patron and the Howards. If it had been through his influence that Rochester had placed himself in decided opposition to the powerful Earls of Suffolk and Northampton, he may well have dreaded lest he should be the first to fall a sacrifice as soon as a reconciliation with them was effected. But however this may have been, it is certain that he employed all his energies in deterring Rochester from the step which he was about to take, and that he let no opportunity slip of blackening the character of the lady upon whom his patron had set his affections.
<177>As the time drew on for instituting proceedings for the purpose of procuring the divorce, Overbury’s language became more than ever annoying to Rochester. Even if he knew no more than what was soon to be laid before the Commissioners, his behaviour was likely to lead to a rupture. It is, however, difficult to avoid the conclusion that he had heard something which would enable him to put a stop to the divorce if he pleased. Rochester was not the man to keep a secret, and if he had only told Overbury, in a moment of confidential intercourse, one half of the stories which he must himself have heard from Lady Essex, of the way in which she had treated her husband, he must have known that he had entrusted him with a secret which, if he should determine to reveal it, would make it impossible for the most subservient judges to pronounce in favour of the divorce.[311]
If this conjecture be correct, it becomes at once intelligible why all who looked hopefully for a sentence of divorce should be The King jealous of Overbury’s influence with Rochester.anxious to get Overbury out of the way, at least till the proceedings were at an end. It was not long before a golden opportunity presented itself of accomplishing their purpose. Some one or other told James that it was commonly reported that, whilst Rochester ruled the King, Overbury ruled Rochester. Upon hearing this He proposes to him a diplomatic appointment.James determined to prove his independence. He accordingly directed Abbot to suggest to Overbury, as from himself, the propriety of his accepting a diplomatic appointment upon the Continent. Overbury had no wish to leave England, where he knew that the road to advancement lay. He therefore requested Rochester to do what he could to save him from this banishment. From the uncertain evidence which we possess, it is difficult to make out precisely what Rochester’s conduct was.[312] It is possible that at first he had been ready to assent to the expatriation of <178>Overbury, but that when he discovered how unwilling he was to leave the country, he changed his plan, and encouraged him in resisting the King’s wishes, foreseeing that he would be committed to prison in consequence. An imprisonment of a few months would keep his mouth shut till the proceedings were over, and it is not unlikely that Rochester may have looked with favour upon a course which would enable him to retain the services of Overbury, whilst he would secure his attachment more completely by appearing in the light of his liberator.
Whatever Rochester’s part in the matter may have been, the King was indignant with Overbury. He sent Ellesmere and Pembroke to him, Overbury refuses to accept it and is committed to the Tower.with a formal offer of the appointment. As soon as Overbury perceived that excuses were of no avail, he boldly refused to comply, and added that neither in law nor in justice could he be compelled to leave his country. James was, of course, enraged with what he considered to be an insolent reply, and called upon the Council to vindicate his honour. They immediately summoned Overbury before them, and committed him to the Tower for contempt of the King’s commands.[313]
In giving his assent to Overbury’s imprisonment, Rochester was, no doubt, acting in concert with Northampton. As far as we can arrive at any probable conclusion as to their intentions, there is no reason to suppose that they meant any thing more than to get him out of the way for a time.[314] Orders <179>were given that he should have no communication with anyone beyond the limits of his prison; and, though his health was failing, he was not permitted to have a servant with him. So strictly were these orders interpreted by Sir William Waad, the Lieutenant of the Tower, that although Rochester sent every day to inquire after the health of the prisoner, the bearers of the messages were never allowed to see him, or even to deliver a letter which, on one occasion, they had brought with them.
This was not what was intended. If Overbury should be released without feeling a sense of obligation to Rochester, the first thing Sir G. Helwys appointed Lieutenant of the Tower in the place of Sir W. Waad.he would do upon leaving the Tower would be to disclose the secrets which Rochester was anxious to keep from the public ear. Waad must therefore be removed. It was not difficult to find charges against him. He was accused of carelessness in guarding his prisoners, and especially of allowing too much liberty to Overbury. He had also permitted the Lady Arabella to have the use of a key, which might, as it was alleged, prove serviceable to her if she had any design of effecting her escape.[315] A successor was found in Sir Gervase Helwys, who was likely to be more complaisant.
It is plain that Helwys, upon his appointment, entered into some kind of compact with Rochester and Northampton. Of Helwys’s agreement with Rochester and Northampton.its nature there is no sufficient evidence. But it is probable that he did not go farther than to agree to take care that their letters reached Overbury, whilst he would be at hand to supply whatever comments might be required, without allowing any suspicion to arise that he was acting from other motives than those of kindness to an unfortunate prisoner.[316]
<180>Whilst the confederates were calmly forming their plans, there was one person who was not content with such half-measures. Feelings of Lady Essex towards Overbury.To Lady Essex the language which Overbury had used was not merely a danger against the recurrence of which it might be necessary to take precautions; it was an intolerable insult, which cried aloud for vengeance.[317] With the same fixity of purpose with which she had for three years pursued the object which she had in view, she determined that Overbury should die before he left the Tower. She had already, whilst he was still at liberty, attempted in vain to induce a man who had a quarrel with him to waylay him and assassinate him.[318] She now resolved to accomplish her design by means of poison. Mrs. Turner was at hand to give her every information on the subject of the drugs which it would be necessary to use. Everything, however, depended upon the character of the man to whom was assigned the office of taking immediate charge of the prisoner. She procures the appointment of Weston to be his keeper.Lady Essex’s choice fell upon Richard Weston, who had for many years been a servant of Mrs. Turner, and who had lately been employed in carrying messages between the Countess and her lover. She accordingly used her interest with Sir Thomas Monson,[319] the Master of the Armoury at the Tower, who, in turn, persuaded Helwys to admit Weston as one of the keepers, and to give him the immediate charge of Overbury.
<181>Weston had not been long in charge of the prisoner when he was summoned by Mrs. Turner to attend upon Lady Essex at Whitehall. As soon as Requires Weston to poison him.he was admitted into her presence, she told him that a small bottle would be sent to him, the contents of which were to be given to Overbury. This bottle she had obtained from an apothecary named Franklin. At the same time she warned him not to taste any of the liquid himself. She added, that if he acted according to her orders, he should be well rewarded.
Soon after this conversation Weston received the poison. As he was on his way with it to Overbury’s lodgings, with the intention of mixing it with the soup which was to be sent up to him, he met the Lieutenant, and supposing him to be aware of what was going on, showed him the bottle, and asked him if he should give it to Overbury then. Helwys, as soon as he discovered what the keeper’s meaning was, persuaded him to desist from the wicked action which he was intending to commit. Weston put the bottle aside, and the next day emptied it into the gutter.[320]
Unhappily for himself and the other instruments in this abominable plot, Helwys had not the moral courage to denounce the culprit. They do not reveal the secret.Unless he could obtain credit for his tale, such a step would be certain ruin to himself, and he could not know how far the Countess’s secret was shared by the powerful members of her family. Even if they were themselves innocent, they would undoubtedly be able to do many ill offices to him, if by his means the shame of Lady Essex were published to the world.
He therefore thought it better to hush the matter up than to attempt to bring a powerful criminal to justice. However much the information may have shocked him at first, he soon <182>grew to view it merely as it affected his own position. Even whilst he was arguing with Weston, upon Weston’s telling him that he should have to administer the poison sooner or later, he replied that it might be done provided that he knew nothing of it. It was finally agreed that Weston should inform Lady Essex that the poison had been given, and should describe the supposed effects of it upon the health of the prisoner.
Weston had the less difficulty in doing this, as Overbury was in reality far from well. He was ailing when he first entered the Tower,[321] and Overbury’s health suffers from his imprisonment.the sudden disappointment of his hopes had worked upon his mind. Every day which passed without bringing an order for his release increased his despondency. Whilst he was in this state, he suggested to Rochester that he should procure him an emetic, in order that, as soon as he heard that he had taken it, he might attempt to work upon the King’s compassion by representing him as suffering from the effects of his confinement. Such treatment was not likely to improve his health. We may well believe that Rochester did not press the King very urgently to liberate the prisoner, even if he mentioned the subject to him at all. James consented to allow Overbury to receive the visits of a physician, but he was too much incensed at his presumption to give any heed to his request for freedom.[322]
Whether the course of the unhappy man’s disease was at this time assisted by poison is a question to which it is impossible Lady Essex persists in her attempts.to give more than a very uncertain answer. Amidst contradictory evidence and conflicting probabilities, all that can be made out is, that Lady Essex did not desist from her design. Rochester was in the habit of sending tarts, jellies, and wine to the prisoner, by means of <183>which he contrived to smuggle in the letters which he addressed to him. Lady Essex, if we are to believe a story which both she and Helwys afterwards admitted to be true, took advantage of this to mix poison with the food which was thus conveyed to him. This, however, as Helwys stated, was never allowed to reach the prisoner. It cannot, however, be proved whether the food thus provided was in reality kept back or not, excepting in so far that it is highly improbable that it should have reached him and that he should, after partaking of it, have continued to live. There are even strong grounds for suspecting that no poison was ever put into the tarts at all. What is certain is, that Overbury[323] grew gradually worse. In <184>writing to Rochester, he became more and more importunate. Rochester seems to have represented to him that Suffolk was an obstacle to his release. Overbury accordingly wrote to Suffolk, protesting that if he regained his liberty he would use all his influence with his patron in favour of Suffolk. About the same time he wrote to Northampton, assuring him that he had never spoken dishonourably of Lady Essex, and promising to abstain from all reflections upon her for the future.
From the stray fragments which have reached us of Overbury’s correspondence, it seems as if both Rochester and Northampton Proceedings of Rochester and Northampton.were still encouraging him in the belief that they were straining every nerve for his delivery, and as if Helwys was acting as their agent in bringing him to a sense of the obligations which he was supposed to be under to them. That Northampton, at least, received with pleasure the news of Overbury’s illness and probable death, there can be no doubt; but there is no evidence to prove that he was aware of his niece’s proceedings, though, on the other hand, there is no proof that he was kept in ignorance of them;[324] and Mrs. Turner certainly stated shortly before <185>her execution that he was as deeply involved in guilt as any of the rest.
Whatever may have been the cause of Overbury’s illness, he was not without hopes of recovery. Months had passed away since he had been committed to prison, and Lady Essex was growing impatient. She was tired of Weston’s protestations that he had given enough to his prisoner to poison twenty men. She found that, in the absence of the King’s physician, Dr. Mayerne, a French apothecary named Lobell attended upon Overbury. If we can venture to rest anything upon the uncertain evidence before us,[325] we may come to the conclusion <186>that an assistant of Lobell’s was bribed to administer the fatal drug. On September 14, he succeeded in accomplishing his purpose by means of an injection. On the following day the prisoner died, the unhappy victim of a woman’s vengeance. His death took place only ten days before the judgment was delivered by the Commissioners in the case of the divorce, by which his murderess received the prize which she had stooped so low to win. How far Rochester was aware at the time of what was taking place it is impossible to say with certainty. Lady Essex, in distress at her failures, may have told him of her design, and may even have enlisted his sympathy; but we have her own distinct statement to the contrary,[326] and the hypothesis <187>of the truth of that statement is, on the whole, most in accordance with known facts.
For two years the murder which had been committed remained unknown. Public curiosity was fixed upon matters of less personal interest. When governments are popular there is but little desire to scan their prerogatives closely, or to impose definite limitations on their authority. When they cease to have public opinion behind them, criticism on their actions and claims is certain to spring up. It is therefore easily intelligible that the year which witnessed the triumph of Northampton and Rochester should also have witnessed the first in a series of legal proceedings the object of which was to defend the prerogative from the assaults of hostile criticism.
In the course of the winter of 1612–13, a commission was issued to inquire into the abuses existing in the management of the Navy. Commission to inquire into the management of the Navy.A similar inquiry had been made a few years before, which had resulted in little more than the production of a voluminous report by Sir Robert Cotton.[327] As Cotton was at this time leaning towards the Catholic party, he was in high favour with Northampton and the Scottish favourite, and it is likely enough that the renewal of the investigation was due to his newly acquired influence.
The proposal to examine into the abuses of the dockyards was felt by Nottingham as a personal affront offered to him in his capacity of Lord High Admiral. He was a brave man, and had won the honours which he enjoyed by his services in command of the fleet which defeated the Armada; but he was without the administrative abilities which would enable him to make head against the evils which prevailed in the department over which he presided; and, as usually happens, he was the last to perceive his own deficiencies.
He determined, therefore, to oppose the inquiry to the utmost. He directed Sir Robert Mansell, who, as Treasurer of the Navy, Opposed by Nottingham and Mansell.was equally interested with himself in frustrating the proceedings of the Commissioners, to obtain a legal opinion upon the validity of the commission under which they were about to act.
<188>Upon this Mansell applied to Whitelocke, who had been brought into notice by his great speech on the impositions, as a man eminently fitted to deal with the legal questions by which They obtain from Whitelocke an opinion against its legality.the prerogative was affected. He obtained from him, without difficulty, a paper in which were set down the objections to the commission which presented themselves to his mind. Whitelocke’s paper has not been preserved; but as far as we can judge from the report of the proceedings subsequently taken against him he declared that the commission was illegal, as containing directions to the Commissioners to ‘give order for the due punishment of the offenders.’ Such directions, he urged, were contrary to the well-known clause of Magna Carta, which provides that no free man shall be injured in body or goods, except by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
This paper found its way into the King’s hands. Whitelocke, however, had taken the precaution of not signing his name to it, and probably had not allowed it to leave his chambers in his own handwriting. Although, therefore, he was strongly suspected of being the author of it, no steps were for some time taken against him.
Whilst he was thus exposed to the displeasure of the King, he drew down upon himself the anger of the Lord Chancellor, Whitelocke’s argument in Chancery.by an argument which he delivered in the course of his professional duties. Having occasion to defend a plaintiff whose adversary appealed to the Court of the Earl Marshal, he argued that there was no such court legally in existence, and succeeded in convincing the Master of the Rolls, and in obtaining an order from him by which the defendant was restrained from carrying his cause out of Chancery. May 17.A few days later an attempt was made before the Chancellor to reverse this order. Ellesmere burst out into an invective against Whitelocke. It was in vain that the sturdy lawyer proceeded to quote the precedents and Acts of Parliament upon which he rested the conclusion to which he had come. Ellesmere only inveighed the more bitterly against him and the other lawyers who troubled themselves about questions concerning the prerogative. Even he, <189>Lord Chancellor as he was, knew nothing about the precedents to which he had referred. The question was too great for him. He would acquaint the King with what had passed, who alone could judge of the whole matter.
It was to no purpose that Whitelocke protested that he had not questioned the power of the King to grant commissions He is committed to the Fleet.under which a Marshal’s Court could be held, but had only argued that, as a matter of fact, no such commission had been issued. On the following day Ellesmere told his story to Northampton and Suffolk, who, as Commissioners for May 18.executing the office of Earl Marshal, were personally interested in the question. These three together carried their complaints to the King, and aggravated the supposed offence by reminding him that Whitelocke had not only been one of the leaders of the opposition to the impositions in the late Parliament, but that he was, in all probability, the author of the exceptions to the commission for the reform of the navy, which had so greatly excited his displeasure.
James directed that the offender should be brought before the Council. The three lords, well satisfied with their success, obtained an order that very afternoon to summon the obnoxious lawyer to appear. After he had been examined, he was immediately committed to the Fleet, where Mansell was already in confinement.
About three weeks after his imprisonment, Whitelocke was again summoned before the Council to answer for the contempt which he was Mansell and Whitelocke charged before the Council with their proceedings in reference to the exceptions to the Commission on the Navy.said to have committed, in the opinion which he had given upon the Navy Commission. The charge against him on account of his argument in the Court of Chancery was dropped, in all probability in consequence of the discovery that he was right in point of law. At the same time Mansell was called upon to answer for the part which he had taken in acting as agent between Nottingham and Whitelocke, though, to save appearances, it was given out that Nottingham’s name had been improperly used in the affair.
Hobart and Bacon appeared against Whitelocke. After <190>objecting to the unceremonious language in which he had spoken of a document proceeding from the Crown, they charged him with making false statements in the opinion which he had given. Argument of Hobart and Bacon.It was not true, they said, that the Commissioners were empowered to inflict punishment themselves upon the offenders. It was never intended that they should do more than refer their offences to the ordinary course of justice. The commission itself has not been preserved, but in all probability it was ambiguous on this point. But the Crown lawyers took care not to rest their argument upon a mere question of fact which, however important to the parties themselves, would fail to command any general interest. They proceeded to argue that, even if the facts were as Whitelocke asserted them to be, he would still have been in the wrong. In the first place the officers who were subjected to the commission were the King’s own servants, and were therefore liable to punishment by him in his capacity of master, as well as in that of sovereign. This, however, was not enough; they declared that there was nothing in Magna Carta which made it unlawful for the King to issue commissions with power to imprison the bodies, or to seize the lands and goods of his subjects without any reference to the ordinary courts of law. They affirmed that, in requiring a condemnation by the law of the land, as well as by the verdict of a jury, Magna Carta had in view the case of proceedings before courts which existed in virtue of the King’s prerogative for the trial of cases in which political questions were involved. To deny this, they said, would be ‘to overthrow the King’s martial power, and the authority of the Council-table, and the force of His Majesty’s proclamations, and other actions and directions of State and policy applied to the necessity of times and occasions which fall not many times within the remedies of ordinary justice.’ The same reasoning was used to prove the legality of the precautionary imprisonment which was a matter of necessity whenever resort could not be had, at a moment’s notice, to the decision of a jury.
As soon as these arguments were completed, Montague who, upon Doderidge’s promotion to the Bench, had succeeded him <191>as King’s Serjeant, followed with charges of a similar nature against Mansell. Submission of Whitelocke and Mansell.The statements of the lawyers were, of course, supported by the Council itself. Both Whitelocke and Mansell acknowledged the justice of the censure passed upon them, and requested the lords to assist them in They are released, June 13.an appeal to the clemency of the King.[328] On the following day it was announced that the King had accepted their submission, and both the prisoners were set at liberty.
These proceedings are of no small importance in the history of the English Revolution. They drew forth a declaration from the Privy Council, Judicial irresponsibility claimed by the Government.against which the judges made no protest, to the effect that if it could be shown that a political question were involved in a case, it was an offence even to question the legality of the exercise of judicial powers by persons appointed by the Crown to act without the intervention of a jury.[329] Such a declaration was the counterpart of the judgment of the Exchequer in the case of impositions. In acting upon that judgment, the Government had done its best to make its authority independent of the votes of the House of Commons. It now declared its adhesion to a principle which would, in administrative disputes, make it independent of the verdict of a jury.
Amongst those who took a prominent part in establishing this conclusion was Bacon; and though he has not left on record any Bacon’s theory of government.sketch of his views on the English constitution, there can be little difficulty in arriving at his real opinion on the relations which ought to subsist between the Government and the representatives of the people.[330] His speeches and actions in political life all point in one direction, and they are in perfect accordance with the slight <192>indications of his feelings on this most important subject which are scattered over his writings, and with his still more expressive silences. There can be no doubt whatever that his ideal form of government was one in which the Sovereign was assisted by councillors and other ministers selected from among the wisest men of the kingdom, and in which he was responsible to no one for his actions within the wide and not very clearly defined limits of his political prerogative. The House of Commons, on the other hand, was called upon to express the wishes of the people, and to enlighten the Government upon the general feeling which prevailed in the country. Its assent would be required to any new laws which might be requisite, and to any extraordinary taxation which might be called for in time of war, or of any other emergency. The House of Lords would be useful as a means of communication between the King and the Commons, and would be able to break the force of any collision which might arise between them. In order that the Government might preserve its independence, and that, whilst giving all due attention to the wishes of its subjects, it might deliberate freely upon their demands, it was of the utmost importance that the Sovereign should have at his disposal a revenue sufficient to meet the ordinary demands upon the Treasury in time of peace, and that he should be able to command respect by some means of inflicting punishment on those who resisted his authority, more certain than an appeal to the juries in the courts of law. According to the idea, however, which floated before Bacon’s mind, such interferences with the ordinary courts of law would be of rare occurrence. The Sovereign, enlightened by the wisdom of his Council, and by the expressed opinions of the representatives of the people, would lose no time in embodying in action all that was really valuable in the suggestions which were made to him. He would meet with little or no opposition, because he would possess the confidence of the nation, which would reverence in their King their guide in all noble progress, and the image of their better selves.
It is impossible to deny that in such a theory there is much which is fascinating, especially to minds which are conscious <193>of powers which fit them for the government of their fellow-men. In fact, it was nothing else than the theory of government which had been acted on by Elizabeth with general assent, though in her hands it had been modified by the tact which she invariably displayed. It was, therefore, likely to recommend itself to Bacon, who had not only witnessed the glories of that reign, but had been connected with the Government both by the recollection of his father’s services, and by his own aspirations for office.
The glories of the reign of Elizabeth, however, would have failed to exercise more than a passing influence over a man of Bacon’s genius, They are favored by the bent of his genius.if the tendencies of his own mind had not led him to accept her theory of government even when it reappeared mutilated and distorted in the hands of her successor. The distinguishing characteristic of Bacon’s intellect was its practical tendency. In speculative as well as in political thought, the object which he set before him was the benefit of mankind. “Power to do good,” as he himself has told us, he considered to be the only legitimate object of aspiration.[331] His thoughts were constantly occupied with the largest and most sweeping plans of reform, by which he hoped to ameliorate the condition of his fellow-creatures. No abuse escaped his notice, no improvement was too extensive to be grasped by his comprehensive genius. The union with Scotland, the civilisation of Ireland, the colonisation of America, the improvement of the law, and the abolition of the last remnants of feudal oppression, were only a few of the vast schemes upon which his mind loved to dwell.
With such views as these, it was but natural that Bacon should fix his hopes upon the Sovereign and his Council, rather than He had more hope in the Privy Council than in the House of Commons.upon the House of Commons. It was not to be expected that the Commons would adopt with any earnestness schemes which, except where they touched upon some immediate grievance, were so far in advance of the age in which he lived, that even after the lapse of two centuries and a half the descendants of the generation to <194>which they were addressed are still occupied in filling up the outline which was then sketched by the master’s hand. Nor, even if the House of Commons had possessed the will, was it at that time capable of originating any great and comprehensive legislative measure. It was as yet but an incoherent mass, agitated by strong feelings, and moved by a high and sturdy patriotism, ready indeed to offer a determined resistance to every species of misgovernment, but destitute of that organization which can alone render it possible for a large deliberative assembly, without assistance from without, to carry on satisfactorily the work of legislation. The salutary action of a ministry owing its existence to the support of the House, and exercising in turn, in right of its practical and intellectual superiority, an influence over all the proceedings of the legislature, was yet unknown. To Bacon, above all men, a change which should make the House of Commons master of the executive government was an object of dread; for such a change would, as he imagined, place the direction of the policy of the country in the hands of an inexperienced and undisciplined mob.[332]
Nor was it only on account of its superior capability of deliberation on involved and difficult subjects that Bacon’s Bacon’s desire to free the executive from restrictions.sympathies were with the Privy Council; he looked upon it with respect from the mere fact of its being the organ of the executive government, by means of which those measures of improvement by which he set such store were to be carried out. He had always before him the idea of the variety of cases in which the Government might be called to act, and he allowed himself to believe that it would be better qualified to act rightly if it were not fettered by strict rules, or by the obligation to give an account of its proceedings to a body which might be ignorant of the whole circumstances of the case, and which was only partially <195>qualified to judge of the wisdom of the measures which had been taken.
Whilst, however, he was desirous to restrain the House of Commons within what he considered to be its proper bounds, he had His feelings with regard to the House of Commons.the very highest idea of its utility to the State. Whenever occasion offered, it was Bacon’s voice which was always among the first to be raised for the calling of a Parliament. It was there alone that the complaints of the nation would make themselves fully heard, and that an opportunity was offered to the Government, by the initiation of well-considered remedial legislation, to maintain that harmony which ought always to exist between the nation and its rulers.
Englishmen do not need to be told that this theory of Bacon’s was radically false; not merely because James was His mistakes.exceptionally unworthy to fill the position which he occupied, but because it omitted to take into account certain considerations which render it false for all times and for all places, excepting where no considerable part of the population of a country are raised above a very low level of civilisation. He left out of his calculation, on the one hand, the inevitable tendencies to misgovernment which beset all bodies of men who are possessed of irresponsible power; and, on the other hand, the elevating operation of the possession of political influence upon ordinary men, who, at first sight, seem unworthy of exercising it.
We can hardly wonder, indeed, that Bacon should not have seen what we have no difficulty in seeing. That Government Causes of them.owes its stability to the instability of the ministers who, from time to time, execute its functions, is a truth which, however familiar to us, would have seemed the wildest of paradoxes to the contemporaries of Bacon. That the House of Commons would grow in political wisdom and in power of self-restraint when the executive Government was constrained to give account to it of all its actions, would have seemed to them a prognostication only fit to come out of the mouth of a madman. That the strength of each of the political bodies known to the constitution would grow, not by <196>careful demarcation of the limits within which they were to work, but by the harmony which would be the result of their mutual interdependence, was an idea utterly foreign to the mind of Bacon.[333] Even if such a thought had ever occurred to him, at what a cost of all that he valued most in his better moments would it have been realised! The supremacy of the representatives of the people over the executive Government would undoubtedly be accompanied by an indefinite postponement of those reforms upon which he had set his heart, and, to him, the time which must be allowed to elapse before the House of Commons was likely to devote itself to those reforms, must have seemed likely to be far longer than it would be in reality — if, indeed, he did not despair of any satisfactory results at all from such a change. In this, no doubt, he was mistaken; but it must be remembered that, unlike the continental statesmen who have in our own day fallen into a similar error, he <197>had no beacon of experience to guide him. England was then, as she has always been, decidedly in advance, so far as political institutions are concerned, of the other nations of Europe. She had to work out the problem of government unaided by experience, and was entering like Columbus upon a new world, where there was nothing to guide her but her own high spirit and the wisdom and virtue of her sons. On such a course as this even Bacon was an unsafe guide. Far before his age in his knowledge of the arts of government, in all matters relating to the equally important subject of constitutional law, he, like his master, ‘took counsel rather of time past than of time future.’
But, after all, it is impossible to account for Bacon’s political errors merely by considerations drawn from the imperfections of his mighty intellect. If he had been possessed of fine moral feelings he would instinctively have shrunk from all connection with a monarch who proposed to govern England with the help of Rochester and the Howards. But there was something in the bent of his genius which led him to pay extraordinary reverence to all who were possessed of power.[334] The exaggerated importance which he attached to the possession of the executive authority led him to look with unbounded respect on those who held in their hands, as he imagined, the destinies of the nation. The very largeness of his view led him to regard with complacency actions from which a man of smaller mind would have shrunk at once. His thoughts flowed in too wide a channel. They lost in strength what they gained in breadth. An ordinary man, who has set his heart upon some great scheme, if he fails in accomplishing it, retires from the scene and waits his time. But whenever Bacon failed in obtaining support for his views he had always some fresh plan to fall back upon. He never set before himself any <198>definite object as one for which it was worth while to live and die. If all his plans were rejected, one after another, there would be at least something to be done in the ordinary exercise of his official duties; and the mere pleasure of fulfilling them efficiently would blind him to the rottenness of the system of which he had made himself a part.
To Bacon the Royal prerogative was the very instrument most fitted for his purpose. To act as occasion might require, His admiration of the prerogative.without being bound by the necessity of submitting to an antiquated, and, it might be, an absurd restriction of the law, was the very highest privilege to which he could aspire. He could not but regard the Sovereign who had it in his power to admit him to share in wielding this mighty talisman as a being raised above the ordinary level of mortals, and he was ever ready to shut his eyes to the faults with which his character was stained.
How far he did this voluntarily it is impossible to say with certainty. No doubt, in his time, the complimentary phrases which he used were looked upon far more as a matter of course than they would be at the present day. It is only to those who are unaccustomed to the language of Bacon’s contemporaries that his flattery appears at all noticeable. In many points, too, in which we condemn the conduct of James, that conduct would appear to Bacon to be not only defensible, but even admirable. Where, on the other hand, he was unable to praise with honesty, he may have been content to praise out of policy. To do so was the only manner in which it was possible to win the King’s support, and he knew that without that support he would be powerless in the world. Some allowance must also be made for his general hopefulness of temper. He was always inclined to see men as he would have them to be, rather than as they were. Nothing is more striking in his whole career than the trustful manner in which he always looked forward to a new House of Commons. He never seemed to be able to understand what a gulf there was between his own principles and those of the representatives of the people. Whatever cause of quarrel there had been, it was in his eyes always the result of faction. He was sure that, if the real <199>sentiments of the gentlemen of England could be heard, justice would be done him. It would seem as if he regarded the King as he regarded the Parliament; both had it in their power to confer immense benefits on England — both, it might be hoped, and even believed, would do their part in the great work.
Nor can it be denied that if he loved office for the sake of doing good, he also loved it for its own sake. He was profuse in his expenditure, and money therefore never came amiss to him. His impressionable mind was open to all the influences of the world; he liked the pomp and circumstance of power, its outward show and grandeur, the pleasant company and the troops of followers which were its necessary accompaniments. His mind was destitute of that pure sensitiveness which should have taught him what was the value of power acquired as it was alone possible for him to acquire it. The man who could find nothing better to say of marriage than that wife and children are impediments to great enterprises, was not likely to regard life from its ideal side. He learned the ways of the Court only too well. Of all the sad sights of this miserable reign, surely Bacon’s career must have been the saddest. It would have been something if he had writhed under the chains which he had imposed upon himself. Always offering the best advice only to find it rejected, he sank into the mere executor of the schemes of inferior men, the supporter of an administration whose policy he was never allowed to influence.
Whatever may have been Bacon’s opinion on the maintenance of the prerogative, there can be no doubt that he would have been gravely dissatisfied with a system in which Parliaments had no place. Nor was the question of summoning Parliament one 1612.Sir J. Cæsar’s Report on the Exchequer.the serious consideration of which could be postponed much longer. In June, 1612, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Julius Cæsar, informed the King[335] that the ordinary expenditure of the Crown exceeded the revenue by no less a sum than 160,000l., and that the debt had risen to 500,000l. from the 300,000l. at which it stood at the opening of the session in the spring of <200>1610. Upon this a Sub-Committee, of which Bacon as well as Cæsar was a member, Efforts to improve the revenue.was appointed to report to the new Commissioners of the Treasury upon the state of the finances. The result of their labours was a plan which was actually carried into effect, by which the deficit might be reduced by about 35,000l., leaving 125,000l. still unprovided for, to say nothing of the extraordinary expenses which were certain to arise from time to time. What the amount of these extraordinary expenses was may be calculated from the fact that in the two years which ended at Michaelmas, 1613, although many claims upon the Government were left unpaid, it was necessary to borrow 143,000l., of which a great part was raised by a new issue of Privy Seals; and that, in addition to the money thus obtained, no less a sum than 388,000l. had been obtained by means of payments, many of which were not likely to be repeated, and none of which could be considered as forming part of the regular revenue of the Crown. Some of this, no doubt, was expended in providing for outstanding claims; but, in spite of all the efforts of the Government, the debt, as has been seen, continued to increase. It must, however, be said that it was upon the report of this committee that James, for the first time, showed a desire to economise; and though he could not at once withdraw the pensions and annuities which he had heedlessly granted, or reduce in a moment the scale of expenditure which he had authorised, he did what he could to check his propensity to give away money to every one of his courtiers who begged for it.
In the year which ended at Michaelmas, 1613, the difficulties were especially great. In addition to the ordinary expenditure, a part at least of the expenses connected with the marriage of the Princess had to be met within the year. Those expenses amounted to more than 60,000l., to which 40,000l. had to be added for the portion of the bride. 16,000l. was wanted towards defraying the outlay at Prince Henry’s funeral. Other extraordinary charges were pressing for payment, and amongst them 105,000l. was required to pay off a loan which had fallen due.
No effort was spared to meet these demands. The Earl of <201>Northumberland was forced to pay 11,000l. on account of his fine in the Star-Chamber,[336] which, under other circumstances, would, in all probability, have been left in his pocket. 65,000l., which had long been owed by the French Government, was extracted from the King of France. The repayment of the debt which the Dutch had contracted with Elizabeth had commenced in 1611, and was still continuing at the rate of 40,000l. a year. 57,000l. was produced by baronetcies in the two years, and all other means which could be thought of were resorted to without scruple. Privy Seals were again sent out to a select few who were supposed to be capable of sustaining the burden, though the last loan had not been repaid, and 6,000l. was borrowed from other sources. On one occasion, when the Exchequer was all but empty, Rochester produced 24,000l., which he requested the King to accept as a loan until the present difficulty was at an end.[337] It was all in vain. Recourse was again had to the sale of lands and woods. By this means a sum of 65,000l. was realised.
Such a method of extricating the Exchequer from its difficulties must have an end. Already the entail of 1609 had been broken into, and June.Necessity of calling a Parliamentlands had been parted with which were intended to be indissolubly annexed to the Crown. 67,000l., moreover, of the revenue of the following year had been levied in anticipation, so that the prospect was more than ever hopeless. Under these circumstances, it is not strange that the idea of calling a Parliament was accepted even by those who had been most opposed to such a measure.
There were two men who had always consistently recommended advocated by Neville and Bacon.the summoning of Parliament. Immediately upon Salisbury’s death Bacon wrote to the King, advising this course, and offering to suggest measures <202>which might lead the way to a settlement of the differences between him and the House of Commons.[338] Some months before, Sir Henry Neville had a conversation with James on the same subject, and gave his opinion strongly in the same direction.[339] It was not, however, till the summer of 1613 that James was willing to admit the idea of appealing once more to the representatives of the people, who had been dismissed by him so summarily.
It was in 1612 that a memorial was drawn up by Neville, which brought plainly before James the popular view of the subject.[340] Neville’s memorial. Advises the summoning of a Parliament.Neville’s opinion was, that all the schemes which had been suggested for raising money in any way except by Parliament, would prove in the end to be failures. It was no mere question of money. The ill-feeling which had been caused by the dissolution of the last Parliament had not been confined to its members. From them it had spread over every constituency in the kingdom. All Europe knew that the king and his subjects were at variance, and the enemies of England would be emboldened to treat with contempt a nation where there was no harmony between the Government and the people. If James wished to maintain his position amongst the Sovereigns of the Continent, he must prove to them that he had not lost the hearts of his subjects; and there was no better way of accomplishing this than by showing that he could meet his Parliament without coming into collision with it.
It might indeed be said that the Commons would still be unwilling to give money under any conditions whatever, or that, even if they consented to grant supplies, they would clog their <203>concessions with unreasonable demands. To these objections Neville replied that Objections answered.it was a mistake to suppose that the opposition in the last Parliament arose from factious motives. He had himself lived on familiar terms with the leaders of the Opposition, and he was able to affirm, without fear of contradiction, that they bore no ill-will towards the King. He was ready to undertake for the greater part of them that, if the King would act fairly by his people, he would find these men ready to exert themselves in support of the Government. It was true, indeed, that it would be necessary to grant certain things upon which those who would be called to pay the subsidies had set their hearts. It remained to be considered what these concessions should be.
It was difficult, he said, for any one man to set down the requirements of all the members of the House; but from what he knew of Concessions to be made.the leading men of the last Parliament, he had ventured to draw up a list[341] of concessions which, as he thought, would prove satisfactory to them. In this paper, which was appended to his memorial, Neville set forth certain points in which he thought that the law pressed hardly upon the subject. None of them, however, were of much importance. He undoubtedly attached greater weight to the eight concessions which James had offered to the Commons shortly after the breach of the contract. These he copied out, and, adroitly enough, refused to give any opinion on them, taking it for granted that they still expressed the opinions of the King. Amongst them was a renunciation of the right of levying impositions without consent of Parliament.
Having thus laid before James a list of the points which it would be advisable to yield, Neville proceeded to urge that Conduct recommended to the King.Parliament should be summoned immediately. Let the King avoid the use of any irritating speeches, and let him do his best while he was on his progress to win the good-will of the country gentlemen. Let orders be given to the Archbishop to allow no books to be printed, or sermons preached, which reflected on the House of Commons. <204>Let the grievances presented in the last Parliament be examined, and, if the King were willing to yield on any point, let him do it at once, without waiting for the commencement of the session. Above all, let him see that all promises made by him were actually carried into execution.
No less important were Neville’s practical suggestions for the conduct of business in the House of Commons. He saw that the system adhered to since Salisbury’s elevation to the Peerage, of communicating the King’s wishes through members of the Upper House, had not worked well. He therefore recommended that the King should address the Commons either in person or by members of their own House, and that he should call on them to nominate a committee to confer with himself on all points on which he and they were at issue.
Excellent as in many respects this advice was, Neville absolutely ignored the important fact that he had proposed to James nothing less than a complete capitulation. The King was, in short, to accept the Commons as his masters, and to give way where they wished him to give way, even if the concession cost him the abandonment of his most treasured principles. It was not so that James understood his position as a king, and if the position which he claimed was becoming untenable, the reasons which were making it necessary for the kingship to change its ground ought certainly not to have been passed over in silence. Still less ought Neville to have abstained from descending to particulars, and from giving reasons why it would be well for James to give way on certain points on which he had up to this time maintained an attitude of unflinching resistance.
In Bacon James found an adviser who was not likely to commit this mistake. No one could be more fully convinced that Bacon’s advice.it was the duty of a Government to lead, and not to be dragged helplessly along without a will of its own. To the renewal of the Great Contract in any shape, Bacon was utterly opposed. He held that it had been the great mistake of Salisbury’s official life. It was introducing the idea of a bargain where no bargain ought to be — between the King and his subjects — who were indissolubly united as the head is united <205>to the body. He therefore recommended that a Parliament should be called for legislation, and not merely for supply. Let the King show his care for the public by giving the Commons good work to do, and he would once more stand in a befitting relation to them. He would be asking them to co-operate with him, not dealing with them as a merchant having adverse interests to theirs. As to money, let him say as little about it as possible, and strive to extenuate his wants by letting it be known that if only time were given him he could find a way without Parliament to balance his expenditure and his revenue. Probably the Commons would vote a supply which would be the beginning of future liberalities. Even if they did not, much would be gained if the session were to come to an end without a quarrel. “I, for my part,” he wrote, “think it a thing inestimable to your Majesty’s safety and service, that you once part with your Parliament with love and reverence.”
So far Bacon’s advice was but given in anticipation of all that modern experience has taught on the relationship between Governments and representative assemblies. That unity, which we secure by making the duration of a Cabinet dependent upon its acceptance by a majority of the House of Commons, Bacon would have secured by bringing the King to conciliate the majority by his skill in the practical work of legislation. Yet it is impossible to feel completely satisfied with the whole of the letter in which this admirable counsel is given. In dealing with the causes of the King’s difficulties in the last Parliament, he lays far too great stress on personal details, and none at all on that alienation of sentiment which was the true root of the mischief. He thought that the old grievances would now be forgotten, and that as James had not lately done anything unpopular, he was not likely to be annoyed by their revival. After having thus measured the retentive powers of his countrymen’s memories, he went on to say — at the time when Rochester’s interest in the divorce of Lady Essex was in the mouths of all — that Lord Sanquhar’s execution had produced a conviction that the King was now impartial in dealing justice to Scotchmen and Englishmen alike; that the deaths of the Earls of Salisbury and Dunbar had rid him of the odium which was <206>attached to their persons; and that the leaders of the House of Commons had found out by this time that nothing was to be gained by opposition, and would at last, through hope of the King’s favour, be ready to support him in his demands.[342]
No doubt Bacon would not have cared to breathe a word on James’s defects of character in a letter addressed to himself, but the total absence of any recognition of their existence in a set of notes drawn up solely for his own use[343] is fatal to the idea that he felt anything like the full difficulty of the task which he had undertaken. Here, as everywhere else in his career, his bluntness of feeling led him to overestimate the part played by intelligence and management in the affairs of the world.
For the present nothing was done to carry out Bacon’s plan. In the beginning of July the Privy Council was still unconvinced that July.Parliament postponed.the state of the finances was beyond the reach of ordinary remedies, and the question of summoning a Parliament was postponed to a more convenient season. Yet, whether James was ultimately to adopt Bacon’s advice or not, an opportunity occurred of showing that he had learnt to value him as an adviser. A year before, it had seemed as if nothing was to be done for him. He had then Bacon’s prospects of promotion.applied in vain for the Mastership of the Court of Wards, which had again become vacant by the death of Sir George Carew. He had counted upon success so far as to order the necessary liveries, but for some reason or other he was disappointed. Perhaps he omitted to offer the <207>accustomed bribe to Rochester. At all events, the place was given to Sir Walter Cope, a man of integrity, but of no great abilities. The wits made merry over the discomfiture of the Solicitor-General. Sir Walter, they said, had got the Wards, and Sir Francis the Liveries.
Bacon, however, had probably, in the summer of 1611, received a promise from the King of succeeding to the Attorney-Generalship whenever that place should be vacated by Hobart,[344] and on August 7, two years afterwards, the death of Sir Thomas Fleming, the Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, opened the way for his advancement.
Bacon at once wrote to the King, and begged him to appoint Hobart to the post. In case of his refusal he asked that he might himself be selected.[345] Aug. 7.Vacancy in the Chief Justiceship of the King’s Bench.It was not long, however, before he communicated to the King a plan by means of which James might get rid of a hindrance to the exercise of his prerogative. Coke’s resistance to the King on the subject of the proclamations and the prohibitions had never been forgotten; and Bacon suggested that it would be well to grasp at so good an opportunity of showing the great lawyer that he was not altogether independent. The Chief Justiceship of the King’s Bench was indeed a more honourable post than that which Coke now held, but it was far less lucrative, and it was well known that Coke would be unwilling to pay for the higher title with a diminution of his income. His selection as Fleming’s successor would be universally regarded as a penal promotion, which would deter others from offending in a similar manner. Room would thus be made for Hobart in the Common Pleas. As for himself, he would take care to put forth all his energies as Attorney-General in defence of the prerogative. It was an office the duties of which he was better able to fulfil than his predecessor had been, who was naturally of a timid and retiring disposition. Coke was to be bound over to good behaviour in his new place by the prospect of admission to the Privy Council.[346]
<208>Except in the last particular, Bacon’s advice was followed. Coke, sorely against his will, was forced into promotion, but by his immediate admission to the Council all incentive to submissive conduct was removed. Hobart became Chief Justice of Legal promotions.the Common Pleas, and Bacon stepped into the place which had been held by Hobart. The Solicitorship was given to Yelverton, whose opinion on most points coincided with that of Bacon, and whose speech in defence of the prerogative, in the debate on the impositions, had not been forgotten.
Coke was grievously offended at his own promotion. It is probable enough that it was something more than the mere Coke takes offence.loss of income which rankled in his mind. He had aspired to be the arbitrator between the Crown and the subject, and his new place in the King’s Bench would afford him far less opportunity of fulfilling the functions of an arbitrator than his old one in the Common Pleas.[347] The first <209>time that he met Bacon after these alterations were completed he could not avoid showing what his feelings were. He ‘parted dolefully from the Common Pleas, not only weeping himself, but followed with the tears of all that Bench, and most of the officers of that Court.’[348] “Mr. Attorney,” he said to Bacon, when next he met him, “this is all your doing; it is you that have made this great stir.” “Ah, my lord!” was the ready answer, “your lordship all this while hath grown in breadth; you must needs now grow in height, else you will prove a monster.”[349]
The year which had been noted by the great divorce case, and which was afterwards known to have been marked by the <210>murder of Overbury, witnessed in its close the festivities which accompanied Dec. 26.Marriage of the favourite.the marriage of the favourite. The ceremony was performed on the day after Christmas day at the Chapel Royal. Lady Essex now appeared to have the world before her. In order that the lady Rochester created Earl of Somerset.might not lose her title of Countess, Rochester had, a few weeks previously, been created Earl of Somerset. As far as he was concerned, he showed the good taste not to appear surrounded by any extraordinary pomp. Lady Frances Howard, as she was now again for a short time styled, attracted attention by appearing with her long hair flowing down over her shoulders, a costume which was at that time reserved for virgin brides. The couple were married by the same bishop who had done a similar service to the bride six years previously. All who had to gain anything from the royal bounty Gifts presented at the wedding.pressed round the newly married pair with gifts in their hands. Nottingham and Coke, Lake and Winwood, did not think it beneath them to court the favour of the man who stood between them and their Sovereign. The City of London, the Company of Merchant Adventurers, and the East India Company, were not behindhand. Bacon, who had no liking for Somerset or the Howards, did as others, and prepared a masque to celebrate the marriage. He declared that, although it would cost him no less a sum than 2,000l., he would allow no one to share the burden with him.[350] A day or two after the marriage, the King sent for the Lord Mayor, and intimated to him that it was expected that he should provide an entertainment for Lord and Lady Somerset. The Lord Mayor, however, desired to be excused from entertaining the large company which might be expected to come in their train. He accordingly pleaded that his house was too small for the purpose. He was told that, at all events, the City Halls were large enough. He accordingly appealed to the Aldermen, who consented to take the burden off his shoulders, and directed that the preparations should be made in Merchant Taylors’ Hall. It was arranged that the guests should make <211>their way in procession from Westminster to the City, the gentlemen on horseback and the ladies in their coaches.
The bride was, naturally enough, anxious to appear on such an occasion in all due splendour. Her coach was sufficiently magnificent to attract attention, but, unluckily, she had no horses good enough for her purpose. In this difficulty she sent to Winwood, to borrow his. Winwood immediately answered, that it was not fit for so great a lady to use anything borrowed, and begged that she would accept the horses as a present[351]
When we remember what Lady Somerset was, there is something revolting to our feelings in the attentions which Conduct of the courtiers.she received from all quarters. Yet it must not be forgotten that, if many of those who took part in these congratulations believed her to be an adulteress, there was not one of them who even suspected her of being a murderess. Yet it was well for the credit of human nature that Silent protest of the Archbishop.one man should be found who would refuse resolutely to worship the idol. Whilst, in the persons of Coke, of Bacon, and of Winwood, the most learned lawyer, the deepest thinker, and the most honest official statesman of the age, combined with deans and bishops to do her homage, Abbot stood resolutely aloof. He appeared, indeed, in the chapel at the time of the marriage, but he refused to take any part in authorising what he considered to be an adulterous union. If conscience retained any sway over the heart of the giddy young bride, she must have been awed by the stern features of the man who was regarding her with no friendly eyes. To us, who know what the future history of England was, there is something ominous in this scene. It was, as it were, the spirit of Calvinism which had taken up its abode in that silent monitor; the one power in England which could resist the seductions of the Court, and which was capable of rebuking, at any cost, the immorality of the great. Abbot was not a large-minded man, but on that day he stood in a position which placed him far above all the genius and the grandeur around him.
<212>As yet Lady Somerset had no thought of sorrow. Two years of dissipation and of enjoyment were to be hers; and then the final catastrophe was to come, with all its irretrievable ruin. For the present, not a shadow crossed her path. Her husband was at the height of his power. Exercising more than Somerset’s wealth and influence.the influence of a Secretary, without the name, he shared in all the thoughts and schemes of the King. Nor was there any want of means for keeping up the dignity and splendour of his position; there was no need now to ask the King for grants of land or of ready money; every suitor who had a petition to present must pay tribute to Somerset if he hoped to obtain a favourable reply. What he gained in this way was never known. But it was calculated that, though his ostensible revenue was by no means large, he had spent no less than 90,000l. in twelve months. It is true that he never received a bribe without previously obtaining the sanction of James, but if this makes his own conduct less blameworthy, it increases the dishonour of the King.[352]
With this example of James’s infelicity in the selection of his companions, it was difficult for him to obtain credit in the eyes of the world Prevalence of duelling.when he stepped forward as a moral reformer. Yet there can be little doubt that he was in earnest in his desire to combat the evils of the time, especially when they took the shape of sins to which he was himself a stranger. Such was the case with the increasing prevalence of duels. The death of Lord Bruce of Kinloss, who had lately succeeded to the title of his father, the late Master of the Rolls, and who was slain in a duel with Sir Edward Sackville, the brother of the Earl of Dorset, brought the subject more immediately before the notice of the King. He exerted himself successfully to stop a threatened combat between the Earl of Essex and Lord Henry Howard, the third son of the Earl of Suffolk, 1614.Jan. 26.Star Chamber decree against it.arising out of the ill-will which prevailed between the two families in consequence of the divorce of Lady Essex. A proclamation was issued to put a stop to duels for the future. Bacon was employed to prosecute in the Star Chamber two <213>persons who were intending to engage in single combat, and he declared that similar proceedings would be taken against all who, in any way whatever, committed any act which was connected with the giving or receiving a challenge.[353]
It was little that could be done by proclamations and prosecutions to put a stop to an evil which was rooted in opinion. The sense of honour which made men duellists would only give way before a larger conception of the duty of self-sacrifice in the public service, and this conception had little place in James’s court. In the outer world it was strong and flourishing. There is something in a city community, when the city has not attained to an overwhelming size, which fosters the growth of local patriotism, and it is easy to understand why, in true liberality of spirit, the merchants of the City outshone the Northamptons and Somersets of Whitehall.
Such a merchant was Thomas Sutton, one of that class of moneyed men which had risen into importance with the rising 1610.Sutton’s Hospital.prosperity of the country, and which was already claiming a position of its own by the side of the old county families of England. He had no children to whom to leave his accumulated stores, and consequently his property was looked upon with longing eyes by all who could urge any claim to succeed to a portion of it at his death. An attempt had even been made to induce him to name Prince Charles as his heir, whilst the Prince was still a younger son, to whom an estate worth at least 6,000l. a year would be no unwelcome gift. To this proposal Sutton refused steadily to listen. He was more inclined to pay attention to those who, like Joseph Hall, successively Bishop of Exeter and Norwich, invited him to devote his money to some pious or charitable object. After some consideration he determined to erect a school, and a hospital for old and decayed gentlemen, at Hallingbury in Essex, and in 1610, he obtained an Act of Parliament giving him the powers requisite to enable him to carry out his intentions.
In the year after the passing of the Act, however, Sutton <214>purchased from the Earl of Suffolk the buildings of the old 1611.The Charter House bought.Carthusian monastery near Smithfield, then, as now, commonly known as the Charter House, and obtained letters patent authorising him to transfer the institution to that site. A few months later he died, in December 1611, leaving a will in which he directed others to complete the work which he had begun.
Scarcely was he in his grave when it was known that the heir-at-law had resolved to dispute the will. Strangely, as it seems to us, 1612.The validity of Sutton’s will questioned.the claimant was summoned before the Council and compelled to bind himself in the event of success ‘to stand to the King’s award and arbitrament.’ Upon this Bacon drew up an able paper of advice to the King, suggesting various ways in which, if the judges decided against the will, he might dispose of the bequest more usefully than the testator had proposed to do. In 1613, however, 1613.The will held to be valid.the will was declared to be valid, and Sutton’s intentions were accordingly carried out. After the trial was over, the executors took care to retain the good-will of James by presenting him with 10,000l., under the pretence that they gave it to reimburse him for his expenses in building a bridge over the Tweed at Berwick, and that they were in this way carrying out the intentions of Sutton, who had left a large sum to be employed upon objects of general utility.[354]
There might be differences of opinion as to the best way of employing a bequest left for charitable purposes. There could be no difference of opinion on the necessity of supplying London with pure water.
The supply had long been deficient, but, although complaints had been constantly heard, and even an Act of Parliament[355] had been obtained in 1606, 1606.The water supply of London.authorising the corporation to supply the deficiency by bringing in a stream from the springs at Chadwell and Amwell, no steps had been taken to carry out the designed operations. <215>Vexed at the sluggishness of his fellow-citizens, Hugh Myddelton stood forward and declared that if no one else would do the work he would take it upon his own shoulders. His proposal was thankfully accepted. He had already paid considerable attention to the subject, as a member of the committees of the House of Commons before whom the recent Acts had been discussed.
The first sod upon the works of the proposed New River was turned on April 21, 1609. With untiring energy Myddelton 1609.The New River commenced.persevered in the work which he had undertaken, in spite of the opposition of the landowners through whose property the stream was to pass, and who complained that their land was likely to suffer in consequence, by the overflowing of the water. In 1610 his opponents carried their complaints before the House of Commons, and a committee was directed to make a report upon their case as soon as the House reassembled in October. When they met again, the members had more important matters to attend to, and Myddelton’s hands were soon set free by the dissolution.
Although, however, he had no longer any reason to fear any obstacle which might be thrown in his way by Parliament, the opposition of the landowners was so annoying, and the demands which were made on his purse were, in all probability, increasing so largely in consequence of them, that he determined to make an attempt to interest the King in his project. James, who seldom turned a deaf ear to any scheme which tended to the material welfare of his subjects, consented to take upon himself half the expense of the undertaking, on condition of receiving half the profits. Under the sanction of the royal name the works went rapidly forward, and on Michaelmas Day, 1613, all London was thronging to Islington to celebrate the completion of the undertaking.[356]
[294] It is also said that the match was proposed by Salisbury. The idea, probably, occurred to both of them. It is no argument against James’s participation in the affair that he afterwards inveighed against early marriages.
[295] The date is proved by the statement in the libel (State Trials, ii. 785) that Essex had lived with his wife for three years before the divorce case began, and after he had arrived at the age of eighteen. The date of his baptism was Jan. 22, 1591 (Devereux, Lives of the Devereux, i. 211), consequently he must have been eighteen in January, 1609. Lady Essex’s reference to ‘the winter’ in her letter to Mrs. Turner, State Trials, ii. 93, probably refers to the winter of 1609–10.
[296] It is difficult to pronounce with certainty upon the extent to which the Court immorality went. It is evident, from the circumstances which are known to us, that it was bad enough; but I believe that Mr. Hallam’s comparison of the Court of James with that of Charles II. is considerably <168>exaggerated. Would it be possible for a series of letters, such as that of Chamberlain, containing so little of a scandalous character, to have been written after the Restoration?
[297] The Earl’s account of the matter is probably that which is at the basis of the paragraphs in Wilson’s History relating to the divorce.
[298] In February a curious episode occurred. One Mary Woods accused the Countess of bribing her to procure poison for the Earl. This made the Howards for a little time hesitate about proceeding with the divorce (Chamberlain to Winwood, May 6, 1613, Winw. iii. 452). There are several examinations in the S. P. taken on the subject, but nothing can be made of them, as it is difficult to say whether it is more probable that Mary Woods invented the whole story, or that Lady Essex in reality tried to poison her husband.
[299] Lord Knollys was married to a third daughter of the Earl of Suffolk.
[300] State Trials, ii. 785.
[301] Chamberlain to Carleton, Aug. 1, 1613 (Court and Times, i. 260). In this letter four Commissioners only are mentioned as pronouncing against the nullity. Doctor James, however, though probably absent at that stage of the proceedings, would have joined them if they had actually come to a vote.
[302] In the speech prepared, but never delivered. State Trials, ii. 845.
[303] State Trials, ii. 794.
[304] Ibid. ii. 798, 860.
[305] Bishops Bilson, Andrewes, Neile, and Buckeridge, with Sir Julius Cæsar, Sir Thomas Parry, and Sir Daniel Dun, were in the majority. The minority was composed of the Archbishop Abbot, and Bishop King, with Doctors Edwards, James, and Bennet.
[306] Chamberlain to Carleton, Oct. 14, 1613. Court and Times, i. 275.
[307] In the Harl. MSS. 39, fol. 416, is a paper drawn up by Dr. Dun, which will give all that was to be said by those who were in favour of the divorce.
[308] State Trials, ii. 833.
[309] The nature of the relations which existed between the two men comes out strongly in their letters. Harl. MSS. 7002, fol. 281.
[310] This could not be believed on anything short of his own evidence. Overbury to Rochester, Winw. iii. 478.
[311] This seems a much more probable explanation than that Overbury was acquainted with some secret which would ruin Rochester, such as his supposed complicity in the imaginary murder of Prince Henry.
[312] The want of evidence is here felt the more, as the two reports of the trial of the Earl of Somerset differ in a material point. In one Somerset <178>(which was the title which was afterwards conferred upon Rochester) is represented as saying that Overbury asked him to take upon himself the refusal of the embassy; in the other, as acknowledging that he hindered Overbury on purpose to procure his imprisonment (Amos, Great Oyer of Poisoning, 105, 151). Overbury’s own letters, as well as the evidence given at the trial, corroborate the latter statement; but Sir D. Digges gave evidence that Overbury once told him that he meant to undertake the employment, but that he afterwards sent him a message that he had changed his mind (Amos, 88). I have attempted to give an explanation which finds room for both statements, but of course it is nothing more than a mere conjecture. Compare Wotton’s letter to Sir Edmond Bacon, April 22, 1613. — Reliq. Wott.
[313] Chamberlain to Carleton, April 29, 1613, S. P. Dom. lxxii. 120. The date of the committal was April 21.
[314] Is it not unlikely that, if Rochester and Northampton had determined on poisoning Overbury, they would have had him committed to the Tower? <179>Poison could have been administered far more easily in Rochester’s own house, and even if they could foresee that they would be able to substitute a dependent of their own for Waad, their doing so would only be likely to draw attention to their proceedings.
[315] Waad’s account of his dismissal, Sept. 1615, S. P. Dom. lxxxi. 84; Somerset’s speech, Amos, 109.
[316] This conjecture seems to derive some strength from the letters in Harl. MSS. 7002.
[317] A difficulty certainly occurs here. Is it likely that Lady Essex, who was preparing for a marriage with Rochester, and who had perhaps already committed adultery with him, would not have informed her lover of her intention? It is not a difficulty to be lightly disposed of, but it must be remembered that Sir David Wood had already offered to murder Overbury if Lady Essex could obtain Rochester’s promise to obtain pardon for him. When he came again, she told him that it could not be (Amos, 87). Either Lady Essex had been afraid to speak to Rochester on the subject, or he had refused to consent, or, if consenting, he had refused to compromise himself. In any of the three cases, she would avoid making him her confidant on such a subject in future.
[318] Examination of Sir David Wood, Oct. 21, 1615, S. P. Dom. lxxxii. 84.
[319] Here, again, why should Monson have been employed if Helwys had been appointed with the express purpose of poisoning Overbury? Surely Helwys would at once have been told to employ Weston.
[320] Weston’s Examination, Oct. 1. Helwys to the King, Sept. 10, 1615. Narrative of Helwys’s execution (Amos, 178, 186, 213). Helwys and Weston agree in all important particulars, and the way in which Weston’s confession was forced out of him makes this agreement valuable, as it shows that there had been no collusion between the two. Besides, is it likely that Overbury would have lived if the poison had been really given him so long previously?
[321] That there was some truth in the statement which he made of his ill-health, in order to excuse himself from being sent abroad, is shown by the first letter in Harl. MSS. 7002, fol. 281. Still he was to all appearances a healthy man at that time.
[322] Rochester to Craig. Northampton to Helwys (Amos, 166). Mr. Amos remarks that these papers show that Rochester was willing that Overbury should be visited by a physician. Sir R. Killigrew’s letter in <183>the Harl. MSS. 7002 proves beyond doubt that Rochester asked him for an emetic for himself. A later letter of Litcote’s proves that Rochester sent other medicines to Overbury. It is, to say the least of it, extremely improbable that, if he intended to poison Overbury, he would bring suspicion upon himself by sending him harmless medicines at the same time. The same remark applies to the sending of the tarts, &c., afterwards mentioned.
[323] The letter of Lady Essex to Helwys (S. P. Dom. lxxxvi. 6) was used at the time to prove the poisoning of the tarts, &c., and, together with the admissions of Helwys and Lady Essex, it certainly gives strong reasons for suspicion. The interpretation then given was that the word ‘letters’ in it signified ‘poison.’ But are there not reasons which make this interpretation, to say the least of it, very doubtful? The writer sends a tart to be changed ‘in the place of his that is now come.’ This is not very clear. Does it mean that Overbury had returned one? Possibly. She then promises to send a tart at four, and contemplates the possibility of Overbury’s sending the tart and jelly and wine to the Lieutenant’s wife, and warns her not to eat the tart and jelly, because there are ‘letters’ in them. Does it seem likely that when Weston was at hand, and, as she believed, still faithful to her, she would poison jellies and tarts which she was uncertain whether Overbury would ever touch? If we read this in the light of Overbury’s letter, in the Harleian collection, beginning: “You must give order,” the difficulty becomes still greater, for we there see that Overbury made a practice of sending the jelly, &c., back to the Lieutenant, which Lady Essex appears to have known. If Lady Essex really meant ‘letters’ when she wrote the word, all becomes clear. Helwys may afterwards have stated that ‘letters’ meant ‘poison’ in mere desperation, and when the lady confessed the same, she knew that her case was desperate, and probably meant to plead guilty. When, therefore, the examiners came to question her as to whether Helwys’s statement was true, she may <184>have allowed it in order to be quit of them, knowing well that it would not do her much harm, as the evidence against her was strong enough already. It must not be forgotten that she afterwards retracted some statements made in the lost confession, in which she first stated that ‘letters’ meant poison (Bacon’s Letters and Life, v. 282, and in the confession in S. P. Dom. lxxxvi. 6), and that if the second report of the trial be correct, she had only said that ‘she meant, perhaps, poison’ (Amos, 145). It seems to me much more probable that the tarts went backwards and forwards as media of a correspondence, and that Helwys invented the theory of the poison, in order to conceal his breach of trust in permitting it to go on through his hands, and to magnify his own merits in stopping the poison from arriving. If so much poison was really taken by Overbury, how came he to live so long as he did?
The warrant in the Council Register, July 22, 1613, shows that Rochester was anxious Overbury should be visited by others besides the physician.
[324] Here, again, the two reports of the trial are very perplexing. In the printed trial Northampton’s letter to Rochester is quoted thus: “I cannot deliver with what caution and discretion the Lieutenant hath undertaken Overbury. But for his conclusion I do and ever will love him <185>better; which was this, that either Overbury shall recover, and do good offices betwixt my Lord of Suffolk and you … or else, that he shall not recover at all, which he thinks the most sure and happy change of all” (Amos, 25). In the other report the important words are: “Overbury may recover, if you find him altered to do you better services; but the best is not to suffer him to recover” (Amos, 141). In quotations from written documents, the printed report seems to me to be the better authority, wherever they are not intentionally garbled. Does not all the constant correspondence with Overbury look as if it was expected that he would be free some day? Of what use was all this trouble if it was intended to poison him?
[325] Weston stated, in his examination of October 1, 1615 (Amos, 180), that Helwys ordered ‘that none should come … but the former apothecary,’ i.e. Lobell … ‘or his man, and that no other came at any time, or gave any clyster to Sir Thomas Overbury,’ and on October 6 (Amos, 182), that ‘little before his death, and as he taketh it, two or three days, Overbury received a clyster given him by Paul de Lobell.’ The clyster by which death was caused was not administered two or three days before, but the very day before the death of Overbury. The only evidence of any kind against Lobell is derived from Rider’s examination (Amos, 168). From this it appears that Rider met Lobell in October 1615, and talked to him of the rumours of Overbury’s having been murdered. Lobell asserted that he died of consumption, and that the clyster which was said to have caused his death was prescribed by Mayerne, ‘and that his son had made it according to his direction.’ A week afterwards Rider met him again, walking with his wife, and told him the poison was given by an apothecary’s boy, meaning by this a boy who had at the time of the murder been young Lobell’s servant. Upon this Mrs. Lobell said to her husband, ‘Oh! mon mari, &c.’ — ‘that was William you sent into France.’ Upon this Lobell trembled and exhibited signs of great discomposure. It does not, however, follow that he had known of the servant’s act. He knew <186>that his sending him away would bring suspicion upon himself. Lobell’s own account was that the boy’s parents asked him to give him an introduction to some friends in France, which he did the more readily, as he knew his new master used him hardly. The argument against Lobell, however, acquires weight from the fact that he was not put on his trial. It should, however, be remembered that it was the interest of the prosecution to keep the whole history of the apothecary’s boy in the background. He was out of England, and if it had been proved that he was the real murderer, all the other prosecutions would fall to the ground at once; as an accessory could not be prosecuted until a verdict was obtained against the principal. I have omitted all reference to Franklyn’s evidence, as no weight whatever can be attached to the assertions of so unblushing a liar. The strongest points against Somerset have been put by Mr. Spedding (Bacon’s Letters and Life, v. 326); but while his arguments are conclusive against the theory that Rochester had a clear case, and only wished in his proceedings before his arrest to shield his wife, they do not exclude the possibility that he, knowing as he may be supposed to have done in 1615, that Overbury had been poisoned, and knowing too that his behaviour about the tarts and powders laid him open to grave suspicion, did all that he could to remove the evidence of such suspicious conduct, and to free himself from a charge which, though untrue, might easily be believed to be true.
[326] On Jan. 12, 1616, when she was in prison she acknowledged to Fenton and Montgomery that she had had part in the murder ‘como moza agraviada y ofendida de que el,’ i.e. Overbury, ‘hablava indignisimamente de su persona, pero que el conde de Somerset, que entonces aun no era marido, ni lo havia sabido ni tenido parte en ello, antes ella se guardava y recatava dél en esto, porque le tenia por muy verdadero amigo del Obarberi, que esto era la verdad, aunque el haver sido ella sola en ello fuese mas culpa.’ Sarmiento to Philip III. Jan. 30, 1616, Simancas MSS. 2595, fol. 23.
[327] S. P. Dom. xli.
[328] Whitelocke’s Liber Famelicus, 33–40, 113–118. Bacon’s Letters and Life, iv. 346; Chamberlain to Carleton, June 10, Court and Times, i. 241; Whitelocke’s submission, June 12, Council Register.
[329] Bacon’s Letters and Life, iv. 348.
[330] De Augmentis, viii. 3. But it is noticeable that even here he only says, “Venio jam ad artem imperii, sive doctrinam de Republicâ administrandâ.” Of constitutional theory, not a word.
[331] In the essay ‘Of Great Place.’
[332] What the faults of the House of Commons were when they did obtain the highest place in the State, has been shown in Lord Macaulay’s posthumous volume. His narrative is enough to convince us that though the suspicions of those who thought with Bacon were unfounded, they were certainly not absurd.
[333] The following extract from Mr. Ellis’s preface to Bacon’s Philosophical Works (Works, i. 62) is interesting, as showing that Bacon’s speculative errors were precisely the same in kind as those which lay at the bottom of his political mistakes:— ‘Bacon … certainly thought it possible so to sever observation from theory, that the process of collecting facts, and that of deriving consequences from them, might be carried on independently and by different persons. This opinion was based on an imperfect apprehension of the connection between facts and theories; the connection appearing to him to be merely an external one, namely, that the former are the materials of the latter.’ According to Bacon’s view of the Constitution, the House of Commons was the collector of facts, whilst the work of the Privy Council was to derive consequences from them, and the connection between the two bodies appeared to him to be merely external. Ranke gives in a few words the true explanation of Bacon’s attachment to the prerogative: ‘Bacon war einer der letzten, die das Heil von England in der Ausbildung der monarchischen Verfassung, oder doch in dem Uebergewicht der Berechtigung des Fürsten innerhalb der Verfassung sahen. Die Verbindung der drei Reiche unter der verwaltenden Autorität des Königs schien ihm die Grundlage der künftigen Grösze Groszbrittanniens zu enthalten. An die Monarchische Gewalt knüpfte er die Hoffnung einer Reform der Gesetze von England, der Durchführung eines umfassenden Colonialsystems in Irland, der Annäherung der kirchlichen und richterlichen Verfassung von Schottland an die englischen Gebräuche. Er liebte die Monarchie, weil er grosze Dinge von ihr erwartete.’ — Englische Geschichte, Sämmtliche Werke, xv. 93.
[334] The feeling with which Lord Chatham regarded George III. is another example of the extent to which active minds are sometimes overawed by the possessors of power. Chatham’s loyalty was probably sharpened by his dislike of the Whig aristocracy, as Bacon’s was by his opposition to Coke and the lawyers of his class.
[335] Cæsar’s notes, Lansd. MSS. 165, fol. 223.
[336] It is generally supposed that the Star-Chamber fines formed a large portion of the King’s revenue. This is by no means the case. The large fines were almost invariably remitted.
[337] Receipt Books of the Exchequer. In Chamberlain’s letter to Carleton, April 29, 1613 (S. P. lxxii. 120), the sum is erroneously given as 22,000l.; 20,000l. was repaid within the year.
[338] Bacon to the King, May 31, 1612, Letters and Life, iv. 279.
[339] C. J. i. 485. The conversation at Windsor there mentioned took place in July, 1611. But the mention of projects in the memorial looks as if it had been drawn up at a later date. It is, perhaps, a repetition of arguments formerly presented.
[340] The copies which are among the State Papers are all anonymous. But Carte (Hist. iv. 17), who had another copy before him, speaks distinctly of the memorial as being Neville’s, and the internal evidence all points in the same direction.
[341] This list will be found among the State Papers, Dom. lxxiv. 46.
[342] “That opposition which was, the last Parliament, to your Majesty’s business, as much as was not ex puris naturalibus, but out of party, I conceive to be now much weaker than it was, and that party almost dissolved. Yelverton is won. Sandys is fallen off. Crew and Hide stand to be Serjeants. Brock is dead. Nevill hath hopes. Berkeley will, I think, be respective. Martin hath money in his purse. Dudley Digges and Holles are yours. Besides, they cannot but find more and more the vanity of that popular course, especially your Majesty having carried yourself in that princely temper towards them as not to persecute or disgrace them, nor yet to use or advance them.” Bacon to the King, Letters and Life, iv. 368.
[343] Reasons for calling a Parliament. Letters and Life, iv. 365.
[344] Letters and Life, iv, 242.
[345] Bacon to the King, ibid. iv. 378.
[346] Letters and Life, iv. 381.
[347] See Letters and Life, iv. 379. In writing of this affair, as well as of that of Bacon’s advice on the calling of Parliament, I have considerably modified my statements, upon consideration of Mr. Spedding’s arguments. But I have found it impossible to adopt his views altogether. Take, for instance, such sentences as these: “To a man of Coke’s temper, the position of champion and captain of the Common Law in its battles with Prerogative was a tempting one. His behaviour as Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, though accompanied with no alteration in himself, had entirely altered his character in the estimation of the people; transforming him from the most offensive of Attorney-Generals into the most admired and venerated of judges, and investing him with a popularity which has been transmitted without diminution to our own times, and is not likely to be questioned. For posterity, having inherited the fruits of his life, and being well satisfied with what it has got, will not trouble itself to examine the bill, which was paid and settled long ago. To us, looking back when all is over, the cost is nothing. To the contemporary statesmen, however, who were then looking forth into the dark future, and wondering what the shock of the contending forces was to end in, his triumphs were of more doubtful nature. To some of them, even if they could have foreseen exactly what was going to happen, the prospect would not have been inviting. A civil war, a public execution of a King by his subjects for treason against himself, a usurpation, a restoration, and a counter-revolution, all within one generation, would have seemed, to one looking forward, very ugly items in the successful solution of a national difficulty; and those who saw in Coke’s <209>judicial victories the beginning of such an end, might be pardoned if they desired to find some less dangerous employment for his virtues.”
I have given the whole of this passage because it brings into a focus the real difference between Mr. Spedding’s way of regarding the history of the seventeenth century and my own. With the main current of the argument I am in complete agreement. I hold that Bacon was a far better counsellor than Coke, and that if Bacon’s whole advice had been taken we should have escaped much mischief. Nor can I deny that contemporary statesmen, if they could have foreseen what afterwards happened, and if they thought that Coke’s conduct was likely to lead to the Civil War and the other evils in store, would have been very anxious to get Coke out of the way. What I complain of is of Mr. Spedding’s omission to add that if contemporaries thought this they thought wrongly. The Civil War came about, not because Coke’s principles prevailed, but because half of Bacon’s principles prevailed without the other. If James and his son had stood towards Parliament as Bacon wished them to stand, there would have been no danger to be feared from Coke. If he had gone wrong, it would have been easy to suppress his activity. The real mischief lay not in the inevitable change in the relationship between the Crown and the Commons being carried out — Mr. Spedding acknowledges that it must have been carried out — but in its being carried out with a shock. What my opinion is as to the cause of the calamity none of my readers will have any difficulty in understanding. As I write this note the saddening remembrance of the loss of one whose mind was so acute, and whose nature was so patient and kindly, weighs upon my mind. It was a true pleasure to have one’s statements and arguments exposed to the testing fire of his hostile criticism.
[348] Chamberlain to Carleton, Oct. 27, S. P. Dom. lxxiv. 89.
[349] Bacon’s Apophthegms, Prof. and Lit. Works, ii. 169.
[350] Letters and Life, iv. 394.
[351] Chamberlain to Lady Carleton, Dec. 30. Chamberlain to Carleton, Jan. 5, Court and Times, i. 284, 287.
[352] Sarmiento to Lerma, Dec. 26, 1615, Simancas MSS. 2594, fol. 94.
[353] Letters and Life, iv. 395.
[354] Herne, Domus Carthusiana, 37–95; Bacon’s Letters and Life, iv. 247.
[355] 3 Jac. I. cap. 18, explained by 4 Jac. I. cap. 12.
[356] Smiles’s Lives of Engineers, i. 107. It is often said that Myddelton was knighted in reward for his services. This was not the case; he received no honour till he became a baronet, many years later.