<331>It seems hardly possible that in the ordinary course of events, with so many chances against him, Somerset would have succeeded long in retaining the King’s favour. It was, however, to no mere courtiers’ intrigue that he finally succumbed.
A few days before the conclusion of the progress, when James was at Lord Southampton’s house at Beaulieu, Winwood informed him that Information of Overbury’s murder brought to Winwood.he had received intelligence to the effect that Sir Thomas Overbury had met his death by other than natural means.[563] What the precise information was which he had received we do not know, but the most probable account is that the apothecary’s boy by whom the murder was actually committed, falling ill at Flushing, contrived to convey the information to Winwood.[564] As no immediate steps were taken in consequence, <332>it is probable that the confession did not enter into details, and, indeed, it is not likely that the criminal was aware of anything inculpating the higher personages by whom he had been employed.
It must have been within a few days after the return of the Court from the progress, that is to say early in September, that Sept.Confession of Helwys.a circumstance occurred which gave Winwood an opportunity of obtaining further information. The Earl of Shrewsbury, who had long been a patron of Helwys, spoke to Winwood in his favour, as a gentleman whose acquaintance was worth having. Winwood answered that he should be glad to befriend him, but that at present there was a heavy imputation upon him, as Overbury was thought to have come to a violent and untimely death whilst he was under his charge. Helwys, as soon as he heard what Winwood had said, having now no doubt that the whole matter was discovered, acknowledged that he was privy to an attempt which had been made to poison Overbury through Weston, but that he had prevented its being carried into execution. Winwood laid this confession before the King, who directed that Helwys should set down in writing all he knew about the matter.[565] On September 10, accordingly, Helwys wrote to the King, acknowledging that he had met Weston carrying the poison, and had prevented him from attempting to give it to Overbury. He stated that renewed attempts had frequently been made to convey poison to Overbury in his food, but that he had succeeded in frustrating them, till the apothecary’s boy at last eluded his vigilance. Who sent the poison he did not know. The only person whose name he had heard mentioned in connection with it was Mrs. Turner.[566]
As soon as James saw the letter, he charged Coke to <333>examine into the affair.[567] He knew that, in some previous conversation with Winwood, Helwys had hinted at being able to implicate the Earl and Countess of Somerset in the conspiracy, and he was never willing to hush up a charge against anyone whatever. He let it be known that he was determined to search into the crime without fear or favour.
Coke was of all men then living the one who would take most delight in conducting an inquiry of this nature, and he was Coke appointed to examine the suspected persons.perhaps also the most unfit for the purpose. His natural acuteness and sagacity were overbalanced by his readiness to look only to that side of the evidence by which his foregone conclusions were supported, whilst his violent temper made it impossible for him to scrutinise doubtful points with any degree of calmness, and his ignorance of human nature prevented him from seeing a whole class of facts by which the judgment of a wiser man would have been influenced.
It was not till eighteen days after Helwys wrote his letter to the King that Weston could be brought to confess that he knew Weston’s confession.anything about Overbury’s murder at all. As late as September 21, he declared that the prisoner’s death was caused by a cold caught through sitting too long at an open window. The next day, however, he acknowledged the truth of the Lieutenant’s story of the scene in which he threw away the poison in consequence of Helwys’s rebuke. This confession, coupled with the long delay, is no slight corroboration of the general accuracy of Helwys’s account of what had happened.[568] On the following day he was, at his own request, re-examined, and Lord and Lady Somerset implicated.having for the first time implicated Lady Somerset in the affair,[569] on October 1 he stated that Lady Somerset had herself, in Mrs. Turner’s presence, directed him to administer to Overbury the poison <334>which would be sent to him.[570] A day or two afterwards, Rawlins, a servant of Somerset, gave information that he had been the means of conveying a powder from his master to Overbury.[571] Mrs. Turner steadily denied that she knew anything about the matter, and Sir Thomas Monson, who was suspected, as having recommended Weston to his place, was equally steadfast in maintaining his own innocence.
It must have been shortly after Weston’s confession of September 29 that Coke petitioned the King to allow some who were of higher rank than himself to be joined with him in conducting examinations which threatened to inculpate persons of such standing as the Earl and Countess of Somerset. The King at once consented, and, probably on October 13, nominated the Chancellor, the Duke of Lennox, and Lord Zouch.[572]
As soon as Somerset heard that he was suspected, he left the King at Royston, and came up to London to justify himself. He must have felt ill at ease.[573] Even if, as was probably the case, he was innocent of Overbury’s murder, he must have <335>known that the difficulty of proving his innocence was so great as to render it Somerset’s dismay.almost a certainty that he would not escape if the King determined to bring him to trial. As he reviewed the circumstances of the case, he must have remembered how many of his actions, which at the time seemed to be trivial enough, would hardly escape the very worst interpretations. His share in Overbury’s imprisonment, the double part which he had played towards him, the food and medicines with which he had supplied him, the intrigue into which he had entered with Helwys and Northampton to keep him in ignorance of his real feelings towards him, all formed a network of evidence from which it would be difficult to escape, even if the judges before whom his cause was to be tried had been more impartial than they were likely to be.
There was but one course for him to take. He ought to have sat down at once, and after calling up before his memory every circumstance which had taken place during those months of Overbury’s imprisonment, and collecting every scrap of evidence which it was in his power to procure, to have laid before the King a true and full statement of his case.
Unfortunately for himself he did not take this step. No doubt it would have cost him something. He would have had to confess much that was to his discredit, and would, in all probability, have lost all chance of regaining the King’s favour; but he might possibly have been able to convince the world that he was not a murderer.
<336>Instead of this, he took the most damaging course which it was possible for him to have selected. Again and again he wrote to James, assuring him that the whole accusation was a mere factious attempt to ruin him. The King, he said, had allowed himself to give way too much to Coke’s wilfulness. Ellesmere was not a fit man to investigate the charge, as he had always been his enemy. He reminded the King of the share which the Chancellor had taken, as Solicitor-General, in the proceedings against the Queen of Scots, and begged that the examination might be conducted by the twelve judges, and that no Privy Councillor might be allowed to take part in the proceedings. If he had been contented to urge in a moderate manner that it was unfair that his conduct should be investigated by his personal enemies, what he said would have been deserving of attention; but he threw away all chance of making an impression when he actually threatened the King that his behaviour on this occasion would lose him the support of the whole family of the Howards.[574]
To these applications, which were supported by Suffolk, James returned a positive refusal. He told Somerset that his conduct, and James refuses to alter the course of investigation.that of his father-in-law, was that of men who shrunk from investigation. As to himself, he was determined that the examination should be conducted in the strictest possible manner. “If,” he said, “the delation prove false, God so deal with my soul as no man among you shall so much rejoice as I; nor shall I ever spare, I vow to God, one grain of rigour that can be stretched <337>against the conspirators. If otherways, as God forbid, none of you shall more heartily sorrow for it, and never king used that clemency as I will do in such a case. But that I should suffer a murder, if it be so, to be suppressed and plaistered over, to the destruction of both my soul and reputation, I am no Christian. I never mean willingly to bear any man’s sins but my own; and if for serving my conscience in setting down a fair course of trial I shall lose the hands of that family, I will never care to lose the hearts of any for justice’ sake.”[575]
On October 17 the Commissioners, who by this time had accumulated sufficient evidence to satisfy themselves of the guilt of the Earl and Countess of Somerset, wrote to both to direct them to remain in their respective apartments, without seeing anyone except their servants.[576] It was on that evening that Somerset burnt a number of his own letters to Northampton, having previously delivered those which he had received from Northampton and from Overbury to Sir Robert Cotton. His first idea seems to have been to affix false dates to them, in order to make them serve as the basis of a fictitious account of his dealings with Overbury. This was actually done by Cotton, but Somerset changed his mind, and preferred to send them away to a safe place of concealment. This treatment of the letters was afterwards, when it was discovered, very damaging to his case; but from the fragments which have come down to us, we can quite understand how he might have feared that, by a very easy process, they might be used to support the charge against him, though they did not in reality prove his guilt.[577]
The next day the Commissioners, hearing that, two days before, Somerset had abused his authority as a Councillor, to send a pursuivant to get possession of some papers relating to Mrs. Turner, and that he had sent a message to Mrs. Turner herself that very morning, committed him to the custody of Sir Oliver St. John, at the Dean of Westminster’s house.[578]
<338>On October 19, the day after Somerset was thus committed to St. John’s custody, Weston was brought to trial at the Guildhall. Trial of Weston.Those who take an interest in observing the progress which has been made in our judicial institutions since the reign of James I., can hardly find a more characteristic specimen of the injustice which once prevailed universally in criminal courts than is to be found in this trial of Weston. Strange to say, Coke, who had prepared the evidence against the prisoner, held the first place amongst the Commissioners on the Bench. But this, revolting as it is to our feelings, is a very small matter when compared with the method in which the indictment was drawn up. The principal facts, as we know, were these — that Weston received certain poisons to give to Overbury; that Overbury had lived on in a way which is perfectly inexplicable on the supposition that the poisons had really been administered; and that, finally, a poison was given by an apothecary’s boy, by which the object desired by the plotters was accomplished. It is plain that there was no evidence whatever that Weston had murdered Overbury, unless, indeed, the fact that he afterwards accepted a reward from Lady Essex is to considered as evidence that he had really earned the money. If Coke had lived in our own day he would have directed the jury to find a verdict of Not Guilty. But that he should take this course was not to be expected. Every temptation which could offer itself to him urged him on. His professional reputation was at stake. Such an opportunity of tracking out a great crime through a maze of contradictory evidence does not occur twice in a man’s life. Nor is it to be forgotten that a failure to procure Weston’s conviction would at once set every one of the criminals at large. Overbury’s blood would still be unavenged; Mrs. Turner and the Countess of Somerset would once more be beyond the reach of punishment. It was a maxim of English law that the accessory could not be convicted until the principal had been found guilty, and Weston was the only man in the hands of the Government who could on any pretence <339>be called a principal in the murder. The true murderer, indeed, according to all probability, was the apothecary’s boy; but it would be enough to constitute Weston a principal if it could be shown that he was present at the time that the boy was administering the poison, and that he aided him in doing so. Character of the indictment.The indictment against Weston not only asserted distinctly that he had given his aid on that occasion, but also stated that the other poisons were actually given by Weston to Overbury in his food. Of the truth of these two statements not a shadow of evidence was produced at the trial, nor, as far as we know, was there any such evidence in existence.
At the present day, a lawyer who should have a hand in drawing up such an indictment as this, or in allowing it to be pressed against a prisoner, would undoubtedly be guilty of the most deliberate act of wickedness which it is possible for a man to commit. And yet, strange as it seems, there is no reason to suppose that any one of those who took part in the trial suspected for a moment that there was anything wrong. So inured were the lawyers of that day to the habit of disregarding the simplest principles of evidence, and of seeing the case in hand through their wishes rather than their judgment, that there would be little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that Weston was the real murderer. He was certainly a liar, by his own confession; why therefore should he be believed in anything that he had said? and, if he really had a hand in the murder, were he and all the rest of his confederates to escape because of a mere formality? After all it was by no means material that indictments should be correct in their assertions.[579] If a few things were inserted which could not be proved, no harm would be done. The main point was that Weston was a villain, and deserved to be hanged; and hanged he should be, in spite of the rules of the law.
An unexpected obstacle was presented to carrying out immediately this foregone conclusion, by the refusal of Weston to put himself on his country. This refusal, which would now be equivalent to a plea of Not Guilty, was at that time a bar to all <340>further proceedings. The only resource was the horrible torture Weston refuses to plead.known as the peine forte et dure. The prisoner refusing to plead was laid under weights, which were from time to time increased till he could bear them no longer, at the same time that he was exposed to the utmost severity of cold and hunger. Coke, however, was unable to wait till the torment took effect. He could no longer contain the secrets with which, in the course of the last few days, he had become acquainted, and he accordingly directed Sir Lawrence Hyde (who had once been a leading member of the popular party in the House of Commons, but had now become the Queen’s Attorney) to read the accusations which Weston and others had brought against Mrs. Turner and the Earl and Countess of Somerset. In this way Coke practically threw the weight of his authority against prisoners who were not present, and who had no opportunity of being heard in their own defence. After this the proceedings were adjourned to the 23rd, in order to give Weston time to consider the course which he would take.
There can be little doubt of the truth of the supposition which was generally entertained at the time, that Weston had been He gives way.tampered with by those who hoped, by his refusal to plead, to escape the punishment of their misdeeds. Every attempt was made to induce him to reconsider his determination, but for some time without effect. Two Bishops, Andrewes and King, exhausted to no purpose the arguments which could be supplied by the different schools of theology to which they respectively belonged. What the Bishops were unable to do, however, was at last effected by the sheriff’s servant, on the morning of the day on which Weston was brought again before the Court. The change which he effected was attributed by Coke to ‘the instance of the Holy Ghost;’ but the result was probably obtained by a vivid description of the tortures which Weston, if he continued obstinate, would have to undergo, and by the conviction that he was only serving, at his own expense, those who had led him to destruction. When he saw the sheriff, he told him that he was now ready to put himself on his trial; and added that he hoped <341>that there was no intention of making a net to catch the little fishes, whilst the great ones were allowed to escape.
He was accordingly brought up for trial. The examinations were read, and Hyde again told his story. As on the former occasion, Oct. 23.Weston’s trial.Lord and Lady Somerset were put forward as the authors of the murder, and it was boldly stated that the poison had actually been administered by Weston. A lawyer would have made short work with the evidence, but in those days the criminal was not allowed the help of counsel. Weston stammered out some words in his own defence, but he was quite incompetent to sift the story which had been brought against him. To make it still more easy for the jury to bring in what he considered to be a proper verdict, Coke declared it to be good law that it was utterly immaterial whether or no Overbury had really been murdered by means of the poisons mentioned in the indictment. It was enough that they could come to the conclusion that he had been poisoned by Weston, without expecting any exact proof of the way in which it had been done. Under such guidance as this, it is no wonder that the jury, without difficulty, brought in a verdict of guilty against the prisoner.[580]
No trial exhibits more clearly than that of Weston, the difference between ancient and modern practice. Defective proof was, in his case, eked out by a ready imagination, until the collectors of the evidence actually allowed themselves to take for granted the only two points which had any direct bearing upon the guilt of the prisoner. Proof that Weston administered the poison, or was present when anyone else was administering it, existed only in the vivid imagination of Coke and of those who worked with him, though it was made evident that he had at one time intended to poison Overbury, and that he had at least connived at proceedings which enabled others actually to do so. It has been said that this system was admirably adapted for the discovery of the truth, if those who conducted the examinations could be credited with acting fairly on every occasion. To suppose, however, that they could act fairly, is to ascribe to them superhuman virtue. Even if a <342>trial were not a strictly political one, those who prepared the evidence were, by the very nature of their employment, interested in making out a case; and, to all intents and purposes, the previous examination was the real trial. Excepting, indeed, where political passions were aroused against the Government, it was not to be expected that twelve men, utterly inexperienced in the difficult task of sifting evidence, could come to a fair conclusion, when all the legal talent of the Bench and the Bar was arrayed on one side, and on the other was a poor helpless prisoner, charged with the basest crimes, and utterly unprepared, from the circumstances in which he was placed, to stand up, alone and unprotected, against the storm which was sweeping down upon him from every side.
Naturally enough, the Government was exceedingly jealous of any imputations which might be thrown upon the justice of its proceedings. Proceedings in the Star Chamber.At Weston’s execution a number of persons present asked him whether he were really guilty or not. He refused to give any explicit answer, acknowledging that he died worthily, and saying that he had left his mind behind with the Chief Justice. Two of the questioners, Sir John Holles and Sir John Wentworth, were summoned before the Star Chamber on a charge of having virtually impugned the decision of the Court, and were condemned to fine and imprisonment. Two other persons were imprisoned by order of the Council for the same reasons. At the same time Lumsden, a dependent of Somerset’s, was fined and imprisoned for presenting a petition to the King, in which he stated that Weston had declared that the statement which he had made during his examination had been untrue.[581]
On November 7, Mrs. Turner was brought up for trial. The story of the apothecary’s boy was put as much into the background Trial of Mrs. Turneras possible, and the prosecution rested their case upon the conviction of Weston as a principal in the murder. Assuming, as they did, that the <343>verdict against him had been true, they had little difficulty in showing that Mrs. Turner had been accessory to his proceedings. In the course of the trial a curious scene took place. After some of Lady Somerset’s letters, of the most indecent character, had been read, some magic scrolls and images were produced in court, which had been used by Dr. Forman and Mrs. Turner. Whilst they were being examined, a crack was heard in one of the scaffolds, probably caused by the crowding of the spectators to see the exhibition. The impression produced by the noise was, that the devil himself had come into the court, and had chosen this method of testifying his displeasure at the disclosure of his secrets. So great was the confusion in consequence, that a quarter of an hour passed before order was restored.
As a matter of course, the prisoner was found guilty. Though attempts were made, after the trial, to extract additional information from her, no evidence of importance was obtained, and she died with expressions of sorrow on her lips for the crime in which she, at least, had taken a principal part.[582]
Helwys was the next who was called upon for his defence. As far as the evidence went which was brought against him, there was and of Helwys.nothing inconsistent with his own account of the part which he had taken. It was shown that he had entered into an intrigue of some kind or another with Northampton; but that he had been directly guilty of giving culpable aid to Weston was not proved. He might, as far as anything was shown in court, have contented himself with hindering Weston from administering the poison, although, from fear of losing his place, he did not give information of what was going on. Under these circumstances he made a not unsuccessful defence, and it was generally expected by the spectators that he would be acquitted, when Coke produced a confession which had been made that very morning by Franklin, the person from whom the poison had been procured. In this Franklin declared that he had once been present when Lady Somerset put into his hands a letter which she had <344>received from Helwys, in which he wrote of Overbury that, ‘the more he was cursed the better he fared.’ It is true that Franklin’s character was very bad, and that he showed a tendency to fling his accusations broadcast, in hopes of procuring his own safety; yet, as Helwys never denied the words, it may be taken for granted that he really wrote the letter. This sudden production of new evidence struck him dumb at once, and the jury, seeing the impression made upon him, took it as an evidence of his complicity in the crime, and brought in a verdict of Guilty. There can be no doubt that he had connived at that which took place under his authority, though he may have kept out of the way when the actual murder was committed, but of his knowledge of the actual administration of the poison there was no evidence at all.[583]
On the day after Helwys’s trial, Franklin was placed at the bar. He could not deny that he had procured the poisons for Mrs. Turner. Trial of Franklin.After a short deliberation the jury brought in a verdict of Guilty against him too. Before he was executed he threw out wild hints of the existence of a plot far exceeding in villainy that which was in the course of investigation. He tried to induce all who would listen to him to believe that he knew of a conspiracy in which many great lords were concerned; and that not only the late Prince had been removed by unfair means, but that a plan had been made to get rid of the Electress Palatine and her husband. As, however, all this was evidently only dictated by a hope of escaping the gallows, he was allowed to share with the others the fate which he richly deserved.
Of the four who had now been executed, Franklin and Mrs. Turner were undoubtedly guilty; of the direct participation of the other two, doubts may reasonably be entertained. There was still one more of the inferior criminals to be <345>brought to the bar at Guildhall, and against him not a particle of reasonable evidence was in existence. Sir Thomas Monson had, indeed, assisted in recommending Weston to Helwys, and had had something to do with the correspondence which passed between Overbury and Somerset; but that seems to have been the extent of his connection with the affair. On December 4 he was arraigned, but he was informed by Coke that he was Sir T. Monson’s trial postponed.suspected of worse crimes than that for which he was now called in question, and that the trial would be postponed, in order that the investigation might be completed. Coke had already dropped hints that he had come upon the traces of a plot of no ordinary magnitude. “Knowing,” he said publicly, “as much as I know, if this plot had not been found out, neither court, city, nor many particular houses had escaped the malice of that wicked crew.” He had even let it be understood that he had discovered evidence that Prince Henry had met his death by violent means.[584] Coke’s imagination had been greatly excited by his disclosures. He had imparted to the King his supposed discovery without doing more than darkly indicating its nature.[585] James, however, had looked over the evidence against Monson, and had come to the conclusion that no sufficient proof existed against him.[586] This feeling on the part of the King, coupled with a desire to know more about Coke’s mystery, would be quite enough to account for his giving directions for the postponement of the trial.[587]
Coke did his best to follow up the scent, but he did not find that it led to much. All that he was able to discover was that, on a certain occasion, more than six months before his death, Prince Henry had eaten some dried fruits which had been prepared by a Roman Catholic confectioner, and that the cook <346>who prepared the tarts which were sent to Overbury had once been in the Prince’s service.[588]
There was, however, another quarter in which Coke was more successful. On October 26, the King had written to Information extracted from Cotton.some of the Privy Councillors, informing them that he had been told that Sir Robert Cotton had communicated information of importance to the Spanish ambassador, and requiring them to examine him, and, if it were found to be the case, to sequester his papers, and to take proceedings against him.[589] What was the immediate result does not appear, but Digby was written to, in order that he might give any additional information in his power on the subject of the pensions, and especially as to Somerset’s connection with Spain. He answered,[590] that Sir William Monson could give more information on the subject of the pensions than any other man; and that, as to Somerset, he believed that he had been careless, and had shown important State papers to persons who had allowed them to get abroad, but that he had no reason to suppose that he had ever accepted either a pension or a reward of any kind from the Spanish Government. He thought, however, that Somerset had been carrying on an intrigue with the ambassador by means of Cotton. If Cotton were arrested, he would tell what had happened. Accordingly, Cotton was placed in confinement,[591] and probably confessed to taking papers from Somerset to the Ambassador. Not long afterwards, Sir William Monson was committed, and Digby was summoned to England, in order to give further explanations.
When Digby arrived, he found that Coke had, in the course of his investigations, discovered that one of the despatches which Coke on a wrong scent.he had written with an account of the pensions had fallen into Somerset’s hands, and that he had come to the conclusion, which was perhaps not <347>unnatural, that Somerset had kept back the paper from the King, in order to conceal his own supposed participation in the Spanish bribes. Digby accordingly remonstrated with the King at these proceedings on Coke’s part, which could only lead to disagreeable consequences by spreading abroad information respecting the pensions, with which Somerset had nothing whatever to do. A few days afterwards Digby was called upon to confer with the Chancellor and with Bacon on the questions which were to be put to Cotton. Much to Bacon’s dissatisfaction, when the subject of the pensions was again brought up, Digby positively refused to say a word, alleging that he had the King’s warrant to be silent.
What followed upon this is not very clear. We have an undated examination of Cotton, in which he acknowledges having taken to the Spanish ambassador Lerma’s paper of demands with respect to the proposed marriage. Digby was commanded to acquaint Bacon and the Chancellor with the secret of the pensions, and both Cotton and Somerset were again examined.[592] Coke was apparently compelled to withdraw from his unprofitable investigations,[593] and Cotton was some little time afterwards set at liberty.
It was not till the beginning of April that Digby assured the examiners that Somerset was innocent of any connection with the pensions. Three months before this, the Earl and <348>Countess had been indicted before the grand jury at Westminster, and 1616.a true bill had then been found against them.[594] The trial itself, however, was postponed, no doubt in order to wait for Digby’s evidence. Lady Somerset had, in her hour of misfortune, been delivered of her only child, a daughter, who lived to be the mother of the Lord Russell whose execution is one of the darkest blots upon the memory of James’s grandson. The Countess was allowed to remain with her child till March 27, when she was sent to the Tower, where her husband had been imprisoned for some weeks previously. The only sign of emotion which she showed was in her urgent entreaty that she might not be sent to the lodgings which had once been occupied by Overbury: a request which was at once acceded to.[595]
In the proceedings at the Guildhall, Bacon had taken no part whatever. Either from disinclination to appear upon a stage Part taken by Bacon in the cases of the prisoners.which Coke had made so peculiarly his own, or from a natural dislike to scenes of this kind, he had allowed the prosecutions to be conducted by others. But the same reasons did not apply to the trials of the Earl and Countess. As peers of the realm, they would be brought, not before the ordinary judges, but before the High Steward’s Court, which consisted of a certain number of peers summoned by the Lord High Steward, who was always a peer specially appointed by the King for the occasion. Consequently, though Coke would be present with the other judges, who would be in court as advisers on points of law, he would not sit in any place of authority.
The case now fell into the hands of Bacon. As far as Lady Somerset was concerned he would have Bacon’s opinion on the question of Somerset’s guilt.no difficulty at all. The evidence against Somerset was far less clear. There were arguments of very great weight which might be brought on either side. To us, who look calmly on the whole affair, and who are in <349>possession of some evidence which perhaps Bacon had not seen, it may seem probable that Somerset was an innocent man; but there is no reason to doubt that Bacon might have come to a very different conclusion in perfect good faith. His opinion seems to have been that, although it was exceedingly likely that Somerset was guilty, yet, that the evidence being incomplete, there was no absolute certainty to be attained.[596]
The inference which an Attorney-General in our own time would draw from this would be, that it was unfair as well as inexpedient His efforts to procure a conviction.to prosecute a man of whose guilt he was not himself thoroughly convinced. The inference drawn by Bacon was, that it was proper to bring the prisoner before the Court, to produce the evidence, and to do all that was in his power to procure a conviction, because he was aware the King had made up his mind that the conviction would not be followed by the death of the supposed criminal.
In fact, the point of view from which State trials were regarded at the beginning of the seventeenth century was one which it is now impossible to bring before the mind without considerable effort. That the part taken by the officials in conducting the examination was of far more importance than that taken by the judge and the jury in open court, was a belief which could hardly fail to root itself in the minds of those who went through the toil of conducting those examinations. It was hardly in the course of nature that they should resist the liability to regard the trial itself as a hard necessity which had to be endured, as a form which must be gone through in order to satisfy the people, but which could scarcely be expected to be of any value as a means of eliciting truth. If, therefore, those who had previously investigated the case came to the conclusion that the prisoner was probably guilty, but that the evidence was not perfectly satisfactory, they would without difficulty fall into the miserable error of thinking that it was necessary, for the credit of the Government, that a verdict should be obtained, but that everything would be well done <350>if a pardon were afterwards granted. In order to come to such a conclusion, however, it was necessary to adopt another theory, which has since been wisely rejected by all English lawyers. That theory was, that it was the duty of the Court to find the prisoner guilty, unless there was some positive reason to suppose that he was innocent. It is this theory which comes out unexpectedly in one of Bacon’s letters, which, utterly unintelligible as it is to the present generation, may enable us to understand how he reconciled it with his conscience to act the part which he took in these trials. If Somerset was in all probability guilty, and if it was the duty of the Court to convict a man against whom no more decisive evidence could be brought, Bacon may have fancied that he was doing no wrong in helping the court to do its duty, whilst at the same time he was helping the King to do his.[597]
Even if it be admitted that Bacon may very well have pursued the course which he took from other than consciously base motives, His views on the question of pardoning the prisoners.the way in which he viewed the question of the pardon which James was prepared to give to both the prisoners cannot be viewed otherwise than as a symptom of a want of delicate moral perception. He ought to have perceived at a glance the truth which lay at the bottom of Weston’s hope that the great fishes would not be allowed to escape at the expense of the lesser ones, and to have used all the eloquence of which he was possessed to persuade the King that justice could not be satisfied unless those who were in high places shared the lot of their meaner accomplices. Unfortunately, he did nothing of the sort. His habit of looking upon reasons of State as something sufficient to justify exceptional proceedings; his custom of thinking of the prerogative as a power lifted above the ordinary laws which regulated the proceedings of subjects; and his undue deference <351>for the wishes of the King (who was, by his office, the very foundation-stone upon which the whole political edifice rested), made him blind to the true bearings of the case. He cast about for one reason and another to justify the course which James was determined to take. He allowed himself to adopt such sophisms as that the blood of Overbury had been already sufficiently avenged; that the downfall from their places of dignity would be sufficient punishment for such great persons; and that, if they could be brought to confess their fault, their penitence would be sufficient to call for mercy.
The reasons which moved James to desire to pardon the prisoners were of a very mixed nature. If he did not still retain Reasons why the King desired to pardon the prisoners.any great regard for Somerset, it would undoubtedly have been very much against his wishes to send to execution a man with whom he had lived for so many years upon terms of such intimate familiarity. In the case of Lady Somerset, he had less personal reason for standing in the way of justice; but he could not but feel that it would be hard for him to meet the Lord Treasurer, day after day, if he had consigned his daughter to a murderess’s grave. Nor is it impossible that he may have remembered that he had himself been to blame for that too early marriage, which was the root from which all these evils had sprung. No doubt he ought to have set such feelings aside, but it would have been most discreditable to him if he had not entertained them. In addition to these reasons, he must have felt that, as regarded the Earl at least, the evidence was not completely satisfactory. His doubts on this point manifested themselves in an extreme anxiety to induce the accused man to confess that he was guilty. The tricks to which he condescended, in order to attain the desired end, were innumerable. But it was all in vain. Somerset maintained that he was an innocent man, and that he had no confession to make.
A few days before the trial, Somerset threatened to bring some charge or other against the King himself. James at once wrote to Sir George More, the new Lieutenant of the Tower, telling him that this was merely ‘some trick of’ his <352>prisoner’s ‘idle brain;’ that it was easy to see that he intended Somerset threatens to accuse the King.to threaten him by laying an aspersion upon him ‘of being in some sort accessory to his crime.’ All he could say was that, if Somerset had any message to send about the poisoning, there was no necessity to send it in private; if he wished to communicate with him on any other subject, he must wait till after the trial, as he could not listen to him then without incurring the suspicion of having in reality been accessory to the crime.
A day or two later Somerset’s resistance took another turn. He declared that he would not go to the trial, on the plea, it would seem of sickness, being perhaps still hopeful that it would be possible to work on the compassion of the King.[598]
Bacon had been for some time engaged in arranging with the King the manner in which it was intended that the trial should be conducted. Arrangements for the trial.He was resolved to do all that he could to keep out of sight the wild stories which Coke had adopted from Franklin, and to restrict the evidence to that which had a direct bearing on the case.[599] He had also made arrangements for withdrawing the Countess from the court as soon as possible, lest she should make in public that declaration of her husband’s innocence which she had already made in private to two messengers sent <353>to her by the King at her own request,[600] and he had proposed that a similar course should be pursued towards Somerset himself, if he allowed himself to use language derogatory of the King’s honour.
On May 24, the Countess of Somerset took her place in Westminster Hall, as a prisoner, at the bar of the High Steward’s Court. Trial of the Countess.It was to this that the passions and frivolities of her young life had led her. The Hall was crowded with the faces of men who had come to look upon her misery as upon a spectacle. No wonder that, whilst the indictment was being read, she turned pale and trembled, and that when she heard the name of Weston first mentioned, she hid her face behind her fan. When the indictment had been read, she was asked, according to the usual form, whether she was guilty. The evidence was too plain, and there was nothing for it but to plead guilty. After Bacon had made a statement of her connection with the poisoning, she was asked whether she had anything to say in arrest of judgment. In a voice so low as to be almost inaudible, she replied that she could not extenuate her fault. She desired mercy and begged that the Lords would intercede for her with the King. Ellesmere upon this pronounced sentence, and the prisoner was taken back to the Tower, to await the King’s decision.[601]
The next day was appointed for the trial of the Earl. He had made one last effort to avoid the necessity of standing at the bar. The Earl hopes to escape a trial.He pretended to be mad or ill, and unable to leave the Tower. If he still hoped to work on the King’s feelings to save him from the degradation of a public trial, he had calculated wrongly, and at the appointed time Sir George More, the new Lieutenant of the Tower, was able to produce him at the bar.
<354>It does not follow that these repeated efforts to avoid a trial were equivalent to an acknowledgment of guilt. The Court was composed of English Peers, and there was scarcely an English Peer who was not his mortal enemy, whilst Ellesmere, who acted as Lord High Steward, had been one of the leaders of the party which had long striven to pull him down.
Whether he were innocent or guilty, at least Somerset bore himself proudly in the face of danger. All the efforts which had been made May 25.Trial of the Earl.to wring a confession from him had been in vain. In spite of threats and promises, he pleaded Not guilty. After a few words from Montague, Bacon opened the case. He spoke of the horrible nature of Bacon’s speech.the crime which had been committed, a crime from which no man could secure himself, and which, when it was once committed, it was almost impossible to detect. He then proceeded to lay down the doctrine which, however iniquitous it might be, was generally accepted at the time, that the Peers were bound to consider the verdict in Weston’s case as fully proved, so that they might not allow themselves to raise any questions as to the fact of the poison having been administered, as that verdict declared it to have been. All that he had to prove was that Somerset was accessory to the murder, the facts of which must be taken for granted. He then gave his account of the connection which had existed between the prisoner and the murdered man. Somerset, he told the Court, had been on terms of the closest intimacy with Overbury, till he found that his dependent was doing his best to deter him from the marriage upon which he had set his heart. Upon this Somerset grew alarmed, as he had entrusted Overbury with important state secrets, which might be easily used to his ruin. At the same time, Lady Somerset and Northampton agreed in hating the man who was opposing the marriage out of dislike both to the lady herself and to the whole family of the Howards. It was agreed amongst them that Overbury should be invited to go abroad, whilst Somerset was to induce him to refuse the employment offered to him. An excuse would in this way be found for his committal to the Tower, where it would be easy to get rid of him by poison. Whilst Weston, by Mrs. Turner’s direction, was giving him one poison after another, Somerset <355>was doing what he could to prevent his obtaining his enlargement from the King. Bacon then stated that there was evidence in possession of the Government sufficient to prove four points: namely, that Somerset bore malice to Overbury before his imprisonment; that he contrived the scheme by which that imprisonment was effected; that he actually sent poisons to the Tower; and that he did his best to suppress the proofs of his guilt. The first two of these he proposed to deal with himself, the others would be left to Montague and Crew, who were his assistants in conducting the prosecution.
There could be little difficulty in proving the two points which Bacon had selected for himself, as they referred to facts of which Evidence produced by him.there could be no reasonable doubt. The letters which Overbury had written, together with Somerset’s answers to Northampton, were now available as evidence, having been brought to Coke by the person to whom they had been delivered for the purpose of concealing them. By means of these and of some other evidence which was produced, it was shown beyond a doubt that Somerset had entrusted Overbury with state secrets, and that Overbury considered that he had been ill-treated by his patron. But when Bacon proceeded to argue that it was the fear of the disclosure of these state secrets which made Somerset desirous of putting Overbury to death, he was simply begging the question at issue.[602]
With the second point there was as little difficulty. Somerset had himself acknowledged that he had had a hand in procuring Overbury’s imprisonment, and it was easy to establish the fact that he had taken part in the appointment of Helwys and Weston. Passages were also produced from Northampton’s letters to Somerset, which proved that there had been some plot in which they had both been concerned, and that Helwys had expressed his opinion that Overbury’s death would be a <356>satisfactory termination to his imprisonment.[603] As soon as Bacon had concluded the part which had been assigned to him, Ellesmere pressed Somerset to acknowledge his guilt. “My lord,” was Somerset’s reply, “I came hither with a resolution to defend myself.”
The evidence by which it was intended to prove that the poison had actually been administered with Somerset’s knowledge, Montague’s argument.was then produced by Montague. He first showed that Somerset had been in the habit of sending powders to Overbury. Being, however, destitute of even a shadow of evidence to prove that the powders were poisonous, he was obliged to fall back upon the irrelevant assertion that four several juries had declared by their verdicts that they were so. He then produced a letter of the Countess of Somerset’s, written to Helwys, to prove that the tarts and jellies sent had contained poison, and attempted to show, by the interpretation of an expression which had been disavowed by Lady Somerset herself, that Somerset had been the person who had sent them. That there had been any poison in the tarts at all, was supported by a declaration of Lady Somerset; but we have no means of knowing whether this declaration might not have been made after she had discovered that it was impossible to make any satisfactory defence for herself, and when she was ready to confess anything that her examiners wished. Even if there had been poison in the tarts, it would be necessary to show something more than that they had been originally sent from his kitchen. Accordingly, a deposition of Franklin’s was produced, in which he declared that Lady Somerset had shown him a letter written by the Earl whilst Overbury was in prison, in which he said that ‘he wondered <357>these things were not yet despatched;’ and added, that ‘Overbury was like to come out within a few days, if Weston did not ply himself.’ Montague took care not to breathe a syllable of the worthless trash which Franklin had also sought to palm off upon the examiners in hopes of obtaining a pardon, which would have been sufficient to prove that no credit whatever ought to be given to the most solemn declarations of so unblushing a liar.
The effort to show that Somerset had had any connection whatever with the administration of poisons to Overbury having thus, according to our notions, thoroughly broken down, and not even an attempt having been made to prove that he had so much as heard of the bribe which had been given to the apothecary’s boy, by whom the murder, as far as we can judge, was actually effected, Serjeant Crew rose, and took up the comparatively easy task of drawing inferences from the subsequent proceedings of Somerset. His suppression of the letters which had been written at the time, his authorising Cotton to misdate them so as to mislead the judges, and his attempt to procure a pardon from the King, were undoubtedly indications that Somerset had done something of which he was ashamed. But that they proved that he had poisoned Overbury was another matter altogether, which Crew himself could only take for granted.
Upon this the case for the prosecution was closed. In our own day the counsel who would appear on behalf of the prisoner would have little trouble in overthrowing the evidence which had been produced. Close of the case for the prosecution.He would probably content himself with pointing out, in a few short words, that no sufficient proof had been alleged that Overbury had ever been poisoned at all, and that, if he had been, it had certainly not been shown that Somerset had had anything whatever to do with the crime.
How different was the case when Somerset stood at the bar to reply to the charges which had been brought against him! He knew that Difficulties of Somerset.there were some amongst his judges who had long been prejudiced against him, and that even if they came with the most honest intentions, <358>they had never been trained to the difficult task of sifting evidence so as to arrive at the truth, and that they were liable to be led away, both by their own feelings, and by the skill and eloquence of the lawyers. He was allowed no counsel to undertake his defence, and, unpractised as he was, he was called on to point out the defects in a long train of evidence, much of which he had, on that day, heard for the first time, without the power of summoning any witnesses, or of producing any evidence which it had not suited the purposes of the Crown lawyers to bring forward of their own accord.
All these difficulties Somerset laboured under, in common with every man who, in those days, stood in the position which he was occupying. But there was one obstacle in his way which was peculiar to himself. It was necessary for him not only to show that the evidence against him was insufficient to justify his condemnation, but to make out a story in which the facts were sufficient to account for the suspicious circumstances connected with the imprisonment of Overbury, and with the subsequent destruction of the letters which he had written and received at that time. This story, though it was probably true, would not bear telling. He could not well tell the Court of all that had passed between himself and Lady Essex before the dissolution of the marriage, and that he had plotted and intrigued to detain Overbury in prison, through fear lest he should give evidence which might prevent the passing of the sentence of divorce, which the lady was then desirous of obtaining by means of false representations. And if he had told this tale of shame in the face of the world, what hope was there that the Peers, hostile to him as they were, would believe him, or, if they did believe him, that they would abstain from pronouncing a verdict against him, which they might easily justify to themselves by the loose views which prevailed in that age?
Whatever may have been his faults, and even his crimes, it is impossible not to look with some respect upon the man who stood up, exhausted by the long course of the trial, to make his defence in what he must have known to be a hopeless cause, rather than purchase the pardon which was held out to him by confessing himself to be guilty of murder. It was <359>late in the evening when he began to plead in defence of his honour rather than of his life. The daylight had died away before the Crown lawyers had done their part, and the torches threw their glaring light over the faces which were all turned in one direction, to hear what defence could possibly be made by the man of whom such a tale could be told as that to which they had just been listening.
He began by acknowledging that he had consented to Overbury’s imprisonment, in order to put it out of his power to His defence.hinder his marriage with Lady Essex. If any means had been used to poison Overbury whilst he was in prison, he had known nothing of it. As to Northampton’s letters, they proved nothing against him. He then referred to the letter which, according to Franklin, had been written by him, and which formed one of the strongest parts of the evidence against him. “If this letter,” he said, “be to be produced, if Frances ever confessed that I did ever send such a letter unto her, I am then guilty and convicted without excuse; but I call Heaven now to witness I never wrote any such letter, neither can such be produced. Let not you, then, my noble Peers, rely upon the memorative relation of such a villain as Franklin, neither think it a hard request when I humbly desire you to weigh my protestations, my oath upon my honour and conscience, against the lewd information of so bad a miscreant.” He then proceeded to answer the charge of having been concerned in sending poisons to the Tower. The tarts, he said, which he had sent were good; if his wife had sent any in which poison had been mixed, this was nothing to him. As to the powders, he had received them from Sir Robert Killigrew, and sent them on; and Overbury had himself acknowledged, in a letter which was before the Court, that he had not suffered from them. Here he was interrupted by Crew, who told him that the three powders which he had received from Killigrew had been otherwise accounted for. The powder in question was one not sent by Killigrew, and must have been poison. The discrepancy was not material, as it was not likely that Somerset would remember the exact history of the powders which he had sent to Overbury two years before, and it was a <360>mere assertion of the lawyers that this fourth powder, however acquired, was poison. But with the general feeling of the Court against him, Somerset’s inability to explain the origin of this powder was undoubtedly damaging to his case. Nor were his explanations as to his reasons for destroying the papers and obtaining the pardon altogether satisfactory.
When he had concluded his defence, the Lords retired to consider their verdict. On the one hand they had heard an argument The verdict.which had no inherent improbability in itself, and which was supported by a chain of evidence of which they, at least, were unable to see the deficiencies. On the other hand, the prisoner’s defence had been made with courage and ability, but it was not without some reticence on points which it was necessary to clear up. He had failed to prove his innocence to be beyond question, and the Peers unanimously agreed to pronounce him guilty.[604] Somerset, after expressing a hope that the Court would intercede with the King for mercy, was removed from the bar.[605]
<361>It was now left to the King to decide what he would do. James was greatly relieved when he heard that the trial had passed off Pardon of the Countess.without anything disagreeable to himself. He had shown great anxiety for news, fearing, no doubt, that Somerset would betray the secret of those negotiations with Spain which he was so desirous of concealing.[606] Whatever might be thought of the other actors in the tragedy, if there had been one thing which had been more plainly proved than another, it was that Lady Somerset had been the main instigator and author of the murder. It was unjust to take away the lives of her tools, whilst she herself was allowed to escape. Yet James never seems to have entertained the thought of allowing the sentence to pass upon her, and it would indeed have been very hard for him to decide otherwise than he did. Her youth and beauty, her powerful friends, her very womanhood, with its impulsive, passionate nature, all concurred to plead hard for her. On July 13 her pardon was sealed,[607] though the imprisonment in the Tower was not remitted. Before it was completed it had been sent back to Bacon,[608] with directions that he should insert in it the excuse that she had been drawn into crime ‘by the procurement and wicked instigation of certain base persons.’
We are left to depend upon conjecture for the motives which James allowed to influence him in sparing Somerset’s life. Somerset’s life is spared.We know that he refused to allow his arms to be taken down from amongst those of the other Knights of the Garter at St. George’s Chapel at Windsor. We also gain glimpses of a negotiation which was going on, by which Somerset might have obtained a pardon if he had chosen to submit to the conditions offered.[609] A letter[610] has <362>also been preserved, written by Somerset to the King, apparently after it had been agreed that his life should be spared, <363>in which he states that he had renounced all claim to pension, place, or office, and, as far as can be made out from the obscure allusions to circumstances which are unknown to us, refuses to accept of the intercession of some person whose name is not given, which he was, as it would seem, to purchase by the sacrifice of some portion of his property. Knowing as we do that there was a proposal to grant to Villiers the manor of Sherborne, which had been repurchased by Somerset from the Crown in the preceding summer, it is by no means unlikely that a pardon was offered to Somerset, with full restitution of his property, if he would agree to make use of the intercession of Villiers, and to give up to him the manor of Sherborne. This, however, was what Somerset steadily refused to do. He declared that he was an innocent man, and as such he would accept favours from no hand but from that of the King himself. It was He is kept a prisoner for many years.in all probability in consequence of this firmness that he was kept in prison, with the judgment which had been pronounced against him hanging over his head, till January 1622, when he and the Countess were permitted to leave the Tower, though they were still confined to certain places of residence which were allotted to them. But receives a pardon at last.At last, a few months before the King’s death, Somerset received a formal pardon for the offence of which he had been convicted.
The Monsons did not remain long in prison. In July, Sir William was set at liberty.[611] Sir Thomas was allowed to leave the Tower, Liberation of the Monsons.on bail, in October, and his case was referred to Bacon and Yelverton, who reported that there was not sufficient evidence to proceed against him. Accordingly, a pardon was granted to him, which he pleaded at the bar of the King’s Bench, declaring, at the same time, that he was perfectly innocent of the crime which had been imputed to him.[612]
[563] Carew Letters, 16.
[564] This is the story given by Wilson (Kennet, ii. 698). Trumbull’s name was mixed up with it by Weldon, probably because it was known that he came over to London about this time, but his letters in the Record Office show that he came on another matter. Winwood himself says: “Not long since there was some notice brought unto me that Sir Thomas Overbury … was poisoned in the Tower, whilst he was there a prisoner; with this I acquainted His Majesty, who, though he could not out of the clearness of his judgment but perceive that it might closely touch some that were in nearest place about him, yet such is his love to justice that he gave open way to the searching of this business.” Winwood to Wake, Nov. 15, 1615, S. P. Savoy. The idea that Winwood knew of the murder some time before, and only brought it out when Somerset was out of <332>favour, is totally inadmissible. Somerset had been in less favour in the spring than he was now. As early as July, however, there had been whisperings about the murder, which had frightened Mrs. Turner.
[565] Bacon’s charge against the Countess of Somerset (Letters and Life, v. 297). His story presupposes that Winwood was already in possession of some information.
[566] Helwys to the King, Sept. 10; Amos, 186.
[567] The story in Roger Coke’s Detection is too full of palpable blunders to be worthy of notice. It is, perhaps, a distorted recollection of a message sent to Coke by the King to examine Helwys.
[568] Examinations of Weston, Sept. 27 and 28, 1615, Amos, 177.
[569] Examination of Weston, Sept. 29, 1615, S. P. Dom. lxxxi. 118.
[570] Examination of Weston, Oct. 1, 1615, Amos, 178.
[571] Relation of Giles Rawlins, Oct. 1615, S. P. Dom. lxxxii. 24.
[572] Bacon’s charge against the Countess of Somerset. Letters and Life, v. 297.
[573] There is a difficulty in making out the chronology here. Weldon (Secret History, i. 410) makes Somerset to have accompanied James to Royston, to have returned immediately to London, and there to have been arrested at once. Of course this cannot be the case, as James was at all events at Royston before October 9, and probably at least a week earlier, and Somerset was arrested on the 17th. According to Weldon the day of Somerset’s departure from Royston was a Friday, i.e. the 6th or 13th of October; I feel little doubt that it was on the 13th, as the first meeting of the Commissioners was on the 15th. This would give some explanation of his story of James’s behaviour. The King, he says, parted from Somerset with extraordinary demonstrations of affection, telling him that he would neither eat nor sleep till he saw him again, but after he was gone he said, ‘I shall never see him more.’ Three or four days before the 6th, news would have reached Royston that there had been suspicions against the Earl, who finding them acquiring strength may have determined to go back to London, ‘to still the murmurs vented against him’ (Wilson, in Kennet, ii. 698). He would, of course, as he left, declare boldly that it <335>was all false, and that he would soon come back with his character cleared. The King’s conduct admits of various interpretations. The ordinary explanation is that he pretended hypocritically to part with him as a friend, whilst he knew he was running into destruction. On the other hand, Wilson’s account is probably correct, which assumes that Somerset knew perfectly well that he was going to meet an accusation. It is possible that his bold assertions overpowered the King for a time, and that he really dismissed him with the hope of seeing him return in a few days triumphant over his accusers, but that as soon as he was gone the force of the accusations recurred to him, and he may well enough have added, ‘I shall never see his face more.’ All depends upon the gesture and look with which the words were uttered. Wilson says it ‘was with a smile,’ but Weldon, who was at Royston at the time, omits this.
[574] The substance of Somerset’s letters may be inferred with tolerable accuracy from James’s reply (Halliwell, Letters of the Kings of England, 134). That reply must have been written about October 15 or 16. It was certainly after the Chancellor and others had been directed to examine into the murder. It could not have been immediately after their appointment, for James speaks of a message sent by Lennox ‘long ago’ to Somerset on the subject. On the other hand, the desire expressed by the King that Somerset should show his letter to Suffolk, seems to prove that he was still at large, and this view is confirmed by the absence of any reference to Somerset’s arrest, and by the possibility suggested that Ellesmere might be directed to take a certain course in the examinations, which appears to imply that they had not yet commenced.
[575] The King’s letter is printed in Mr. Spedding’s ‘Review of the Evidence,’ in the Archæologia, xli. 90.
[576] Amos, 40, 41.
[577] Amos, 83, 95; Cotton’s examination. Cott. MSS. Tit. B. vii. 489.
[578] Somerset to Poulter, Oct. 16. Declaration by Poulter, Oct. 18, <338>S. P. lxxxii. 49, 65, 66. Commissioners to the King, Oct. 18, 1615, Amos, 38.
[579] This was laid down by Coke himself at Somerset’s trial. See Amos, 247.
[580] State Trials, ii. 911. Amos, 371.
[581] The King to the Commissioners, Oct. 21, 1615, S. P. Dom. lxxxii. 80. State Trials, ii. 1021; Carew Letters, 17. All excepting Holles and Lumsden were released within little more than two months after the sentence, and Holles was certainly at liberty in the following July.
[582] State Trials, ii. 929; Amos, 219. Castle to Miller, Nov. 28, 1615; Court and Times, i. 376.
[583] State Trials, ii. 935. If Northampton’s letter, as printed in the second report of Somerset’s trial (Amos, 141), is correct, there can be no further doubt of Helwys’s fullest complicity. But the documentary evidence in this report is not, by any means, to be trusted. Before his execution Helwys admitted that, upon Weston’s saying, “Why, they will have me give it him, first or last,” he said, “Let it be done, so I know not of it.” — Amos, 215.
[584] State Trials, ii. 949.
[585] Coke’s letter, printed in Amos, 392, presupposes a former letter to the King to this effect.
[586] Examination of John Lepton, Feb. 2, 1616, S. P. Dom. lxxxvi. 31.
[587] Weldon’s story of the King’s discovering, the night before the trial, that Monson meant to say something disagreeable, and of his sending, in consequence, to Coke to let him see the evidence, and then returning a message that it was insufficient, refutes itself. The King was at <346>Newmarket, and there was not time for all this in the course of a single night. Besides, Coke’s letter, just quoted, contains no reference to messages passing in such desperate haste.
[588] Amos, 482.
[589] Court and Times, i. 371. For the date, see S. P. Dom. lxxxii. 111.
[590] Digby to the King, Dec. 16, S. P. Spain.
[591] On Dec. 29. — Carew Letters, 21.
[592] Cott. MSS. Tit. B vii. 489. Digby to the King, April 3, S. P. Spain. Bacon’s Letters and Life, v. 262. This examination, most probably, was taken about this time.
[593] If it is true that Coke’s proceedings with reference to these trials brought him into disfavour with the King, there is quite enough to explain it without adopting the gratuitous hypothesis that James had a hand in the murder. Coke let it be known that he believed that Prince Henry had been murdered, on the exceedingly slender grounds which have been already mentioned. Indeed, it would seem, from the length of time which, according to Coke’s theory in this and the Overbury case, poisons might remain in the system without affecting life, anyone might be accused of poisoning who had ever supplied food to any person who died long afterwards under suspicious circumstances. Coke’s blunder about the pensions too, though far more excusable, must have been still more provoking to James.
[594] Carew Letters, 23.
[595] Chamberlain to Carleton, April 6, 1616. Court and Times, i. 395. She was at first lodged in the Lieutenant’s own room, and then in Raleigh’s apartments, which had just been vacated by him.
[596] In his letter to the King of April 28, Bacon acknowledges that the evidence ‘rests chiefly upon presumptions.’
[597] “For certainly there may be an evidence so balanced as it may have sufficient matter for the conscience of the peers to convict him, and yet leave sufficient matter in the conscience of a king upon the same evidence to pardon his life; because the peers are astringed by necessity either to acquit or condemn; but grace is free; and, for my part, I think the evidence in this present case will be of such a nature.” — Bacon to the King, April 28, Letters and Life, v. 275.
[598] The King to Sir George More (Amos, 273, 276). Mr. Amos’s supposition that James had anything to do with the Overbury murder is quite inadmissible. It not only contradicts all that we know of his character, but it is rendered improbable by these letters themselves. If it had been true, would James have refused to receive any private message from Somerset? would he have sent Lord Hay and Sir Robert Carr to see him? Murderers, if they choose anybody to be a confidant of their secrets, would take care not to double the danger of disclosure by employing two persons where one would be sufficient. But, in fact, the theory above referred to stands on no basis sufficiently solid to admit of argument. It is impossible to prove a negative in such a case.
[599] This seems to be the meaning of the letter of January 22 (Bacon’s Works, ed. Montagu, vi. 219). In asking for the choice of a ‘Steward of judgment that may be able to moderate the evidence and cut off digressions,’ Bacon, probably, was thinking of the way in which Essex’s trial had been allowed to lapse into a scene of mutual recrimination.
[600] Bacon to Villiers, May 10. Letters and Life, v. 290; see p. 186, note 1.
[601] State Trials, ii. 951. Chamberlain says, “She won pity by her sober demeanour, which, in my opinion, was more curious and confident than was fit for a lady in such distress, yet she shed or made show of some tears divers times.” Chamberlain to Carleton, May 25, Court and Times, i. 406. It is easy to see that there was a difference of feeling on the part of the observers. Chamberlain was evidently in a critical mood.
[602] “That,” he says, “might rather cause him to fear him than the hindrance of his marriage; if that had been it alone, his going beyond sea would have served the turn.” Not at all, if he was afraid that Overbury might give information to the Court then sitting, which would lead it to reject the suit for the dissolution of marriage. He might do this by letter; which was the very thing he was prevented from doing in the Tower.
[603] In the printed trial it is said that the Lieutenant concludes that Overbury ‘will recover and do good offices betwixt my Lord of Suffolk and you, which, if he do not, you shall have reason to count him a knave; or else, that he shall not recover at all, which he thinks the most sure and happy change of all.’ In the other report, the last sentence stands, ‘but the best is not to suffer him to recover.’ If Northampton really had written this, it is inconceivable that no more use should have been made of it by the prosecution.
[604] Mr. Spedding’s argument on the side of Somerset’s guilt should be compared with what I have said, especially in Letters and Life, v. 328. Still, closely reasoned as the greater part of the argument is, I cannot convince myself that the destruction and falsification of evidence is so fatal to the theory of Somerset’s innocence as Mr. Spedding thought. Knowing, as Somerset did, that he had been at the bottom of the original scheme of administering emetics, he must have seen that all the evidence of that which he had done would tell against him on the graver charge. Nor does Mr. Spedding take account of Somerset’s knowledge of the violent hostility of the lords and gentlemen about the Court, which must have made him feel that everything against him would be interpreted in its worst sense. This comes out strongly in incidental allusions to his position in Sarmiento’s despatches, which I have recently been able to read over again in Mr. Cosens’s transcripts.
[605] Amos, 65–111; 122–156. It is difficult to say what is the principle upon which the differences between the reports printed by Mr. Amos rest. The two reports of Lady Somerset’s letter show that neither reporter had access to the documents read in Court, as do also the mistakes in the nicknames applied to persons in the Overbury correspondence. If this is the case it would not be right to attribute the alterations in the first report to an official hand. Yet some of the discrepancies noticed by Mr. Amos (113–120) are suspicious. It is curious that he does not mention the most important of all, that in the letters from Northampton.
[606] Sherburn to Carleton, May 31, S. P. lxxxvii. 40.
[607] State Trials, ii. 1005. Sherburn to Carleton, July 13, S. P. lxxxviii. 15.
[608] This is implied in Bacon’s letter to Villiers, July 11, Letters and Life, v. 375.
[609] Nethersole to Carleton, Sept. 2, 1624, S. P. clxxii. 2.
[610] The letter is printed in Cabala, i. 1. It has been used to prove that Somerset was aware of some secret with which he was able to threaten the King, a use which can be made of it only by those who come to the reading <362>of it with a foregone conclusion. The intention of the writer is evidently to ask for the restitution of his property from the King himself, without being obliged to obtain the intercession of anyone. The passage, “I will say no further, neither in that which your Majesty doubted my aptness to fall into; for my cause, nor my confidence is not in that distress as for to use that means of intercession, nor of anything besides, but to remember your Majesty that I am the workmanship of your hand, &c.,” plainly bears the meaning which I have assigned to it, as does the earlier sentence, “I am in hope that my condition is not capable of so much more misery as that I need to make myself a passage to you by such way of intercession.” The whole letter, I think, presupposes that Somerset’s life had already been granted him. He is now petitioning for the restoration of the whole of his property. He distinctly declares his innocence. “I fell,” he says, “rather for want of well-defending than by the violence or force of any proofs: for I so far forsook myself and my cause, as that it may be a question whether I was more condemned for that, or for the matter itself which was the subject of this day’s controversy.” Another passage is very curious: “Aspersions are taken away by your Majesty’s letting me become subject to the utmost power of the law, with the lives of so many of the offenders. … Neither ever was there such aspersion (God knows), in any possibility towards your Majesty, but amongst those who would create those pretences to mislead your Majesty, and thereby make me miserable.” Does not this refute the idea that Somerset threatened James that he would accuse him of having part in the murder of Overbury? The idea had first proceeded from the King himself, who wrote to More that he could not hear a private message from the prisoner without making himself accessory to his crime. The aspersions just spoken of evidently refer to James’s fear lest he should be supposed to have had part in the crime. Would Somerset have written thus, if he had ever threatened James with accusing him of taking such a part? Still, however, the difficulty remains unsolved as to the real purport of Somerset’s messages, which threw James into such consternation. There is a slight hint in the letter which may, perhaps, help us a little. “Nay, to some concerned in this business, wherein I suffer, you have pardoned more unto than I desire, who (as it is reported), if they had come to the test, had proved copper, and should have drunk of the bitter cup as well as others.” Does not this refer to the Monsons? And if we put this together with whatever fact is at the bottom of Weldon’s distorted story about the trial of Sir T. Monson, it makes it not altogether improbable that it was something connected with the Spanish pensions which Somerset threatened to blurt out at the trial.
[611] Carew Letters, 39.
[612] Ibid. 47. Bacon and Yelverton to the King, Dec. 7, 1616. Statement of the case of Sir Thomas Monson, Feb. 12, 1617, Bacon’s Letters and Life, vi. 120.