justice and honour, eftsoons to make a public declaration of our own utter mislike and detestation of the said insolencies and excesses (if any such have been by any of our subjects committed) and for the better detection and clearing of the very truth of the said common fame, we do hereby straitly charge and require all our subjects whatsoever that have any particular understanding and notice thereof, upon their duty and allegiance which they owe us, immediately after publication of this our pleasure to repair unto some of our Privy Council and to discover and make known unto them their whole knowledge and understanding concerning the same, under pain of our high displeasure and indignation, that we may thereupon proceed in our princely justice to the exemplary punishment and coercion of all such as shall be convicted of so scandalous and enormous outrages."

A manuscript copy of this Proclamation in the Record Office is dated 9th of June. But the date given by Rymer, which I suppose to be that of publication, is the 11th; a date coinciding so nearly with the news of Ralegh's arrival in England, as to suggest a connexion between the two. The exact day indeed when the Destiny anchored in Plymouth harbour does not seem to be known. But we know that she had been arrested by order of the Vice-Admiral of Devon before he received orders from the Lord High Admiral to apprehend Ralegh himself; which was on the 12th of June; and I suppose it had been thought prudent to keep the proclamation back till his arrival, lest it should supply him with an additional motive for seeking a foreign port. What effect it had upon him when he first heard of it, we are not informed. Our information, such as it is, comes from Captain King, as quoted by Oldys. But if Captain

1 Rymer. xvii. 92.

2 Mr. Edwards makes it the 21st of June. But if he inferred it from Contarini's letter of that date (as I suspect he did) he forgot to translate new style into old-21 into 11.

3 "By a letter bearing date the 12th of June from the Right Honble the Lord High Admiral of England I had the first commandment given me for the apprehension of Sir Walter Ralegh, Knt: whose ship formerly had been by Thomas Harding, a public notary and my deputy at Plymouth, by my command arrested." Stucley's Apology. That his arrival was fresh news on the 11th we have the evidence both of Contarini and Salvetti.

4

Captain Samuel King's narrative of Sir W. Ralegh's motives and opportu nities for conveying himself out of the kingdom. With the manner in which he was betrayed. MS. 2 sheets fol. 1618." This is the title of the paper as given by Oldys (p. 513). What the contents were it is impossible to infer from his manner of citing them: for though in a few places where he uses inverted commas I presume that he quotes the words, in the greater part he only gives the substance; and the style in which he translates the substance of another man's words into his own does not usually convey a good idea of the original. Mr. Edwards refers to the narrative in his margin (p. 654) as if it were in the British Museum, but without saying where; and I suspect by accident. For he does not appear to know more about it than may be learned from Oldys; and I find on enquiry at the Museum that nothing is known there of any such paper.

:

King's story and Sir Lewis Stucley's dates are both correct,1 he can have lost no time in leaving Plymouth. For Stucley, going it seems in haste, for he had at first only a verbal commission-setting out the day after the date of the Proclamation, and travelling probably about as fast-met him (according to Captain King) at Ashburton : twelve miles to the north-east of Plymouth: on his way-whither? Perhaps to London, to report himself. That no doubt would have been the right thing for him to do. Perhaps to some other port. Who can say? The question does not seem to have been asked. Stucley told him what his orders were; but though he had come in haste he appeared to be in no hurry and having to look after the Destiny and her contents (for an account of which to the Crown he was, I suppose, by his office responsible) he began by taking Ralegh back with him to Plymouth. Ralegh, we must suppose, seemed quite willing to attend him; for very little constraint was put upon him for several days. But the arrest was a warning that he would be called upon to answer for his part in the conduct of the enterprise; and whatever may have been his intention in going to Ashburton, there is no doubt that from the time when he returned to Plymouth he meant to escape out of England if he could. I need not describe here the measures which he took for this purpose, which we shall find a little further on related in detail. It will be enough for the present to say that he had remained for above a month at Plymouth in Stucley's custody, who was busy about other things; when at last, upon a peremptory message from the Council, dated 25 July, requiring that he should be brought without further delay, he began his journey to London : -that he arrived at Salisbury on the 27th :—that while there he contrived to make himself look so ill, that Sir John Digby (who was with the Court, which arrived at Salisbury in "progress on the 1st of August) obtained leave for him to go to his own house for a few days on his arrival in London:-that he used the opportunity for another attempt to escape; but being detected, outwitted, and intercepted by Stucley (whose connivance and help he had endeavoured

1 If Mr. Edwards has Captain King's authority for dating Ralegh's departure from Plymouth towards Ashburton (before Stucley's arrival) in the second week in July, the two can hardly be reconciled. But I think somebody must have mistaken June for July.

2 "For it seems that his haste was so great, and his heart so set upon some supposed purchase, that he could not stay for a warrant." Captain King's narrative, as quoted by Oldys. Ralegh's works, vol. i. p. 519.

3 "For nine or ten days Sir Walter remained at the house of Sir Christopher Harris at Plymouth. Two or three of them passed without his ever setting eyes upon his custodian." Edwards, vol. i. p. 654; who, however, objects to their being described as days " before he was under guard;" as we shall see presently.

to secure by a bribe), was on the 9th of August lodged in the Tower: and that it was during this journey from Plymouth that he wrote his 'Apology.'

The Councillors appointed to examine and report upon the case were Abbot, Bacon, Worcester, Cæsar, Naunton, and Coke. Bacon came up from Gorhambury on the 17th of August; on which day the first of many meetings was held. But the history of their proceedings (of which our knowledge is at best imperfect and fragmentary) has had great darkness thrown upon it by an unlucky oversight in a work generally of high authority. In the Camden Miscellany for 1864 a paper appears with this heading: "Proceedings of the Privy Council against Sir Walter Raleigh: Aug. 17, 1618." It is a note of Sir Julius Cæsar's, to which attention was first drawn, I believe, by Mr. Jardine in the Library of Entertaining Knowledge, and well worth publishing. But it belongs to a much later date-nine weeks later at least. It is true that at the top of one of the columns of the manuscript-not the first column however but the last-the date "17 Aug. 1618" had been written; and below it the words "S Walter Ralegh Kn." But the transcriber failed to observe that both date and words had been afterwards carefully crossed out, and were evidently meant for another occasion. Sir Julius had no doubt prepared the sheet for the meeting of 17 August (the business of which was the examination of Ralegh, not the proceedings against him); but he had not used it. Another day, finding this paper blank (all but the heading) he turned the unwritten side uppermost, and filled column after column with his notes, till he came to what was now the last; 2 where encountering the old heading, he simply crossed it out and wrote on. It is plainly no part of the paper in question, and can only be admitted as evidence in confirmation of what we know otherwise that on the 17th of August the case of Sir Walter Ralegh, and probably Sir Walter himself, was to come before the Commissioners.

Of their further proceedings we have no formal record: but all the incidental notices which have come down to us seem to show

See a letter from the Archbishop to Sir Thomas Lake-from Royston, 14 Aug. 1618 which states that the Lords cannot meet till Monday next, [the 14th was a Friday] in the afternoon: that the Lord Privy Seal [Worcester], the Lord Carew, and Sir Edward Coke were to be written to; that Sir W. St. John, Sir Lewis Stucley, and the rest were to be commanded to attend at Whitehall on Monday after dinner. "I hear," he adds, "that my L. Chancellor mindeth to be with us at London on Monday." S. P. Dom. vol. xcviii. no. 82.

Camden's Annalium Apparatus seems to place the first meeting earlier, but I do not think the authority so good. "12 Aug. Cancellarius et alii consiliarii sæpius conveniunt et examinant Gualterum Raleighum."

2 For a fuller description of the manner in which the sheet was folded, see further on, p. 365.

that they went about their work in the regular way. The first thing. was to hear what Raleigh himself had to say. The points on which he was to be questioned were set out in articles drawn up either by the King or under his direction or with his concurrence, and the Commissioners repaired to the Tower from time to time to examine him. We learn by a letter from one of Carleton's correspondents that on the 4th of September he was examined for the third time "upon articles sent from the King." Each of these examinations would no doubt suggest questions to be put to other witnesses; and as there were reasons for suspecting him of many underhand practices, which the King thought it important to unravel, as bearing upon the loyalty both of servants and allies, it is not surprising that the investigation lasted long. Besides the formal examinations taken by the Commissioners, of which a few have fortunately been preserved,2-though I think only by collectors for the sake of the signatures; for I do not find that their historical importance has been perceived by any of those who have seen them—an endeavour was made to come at the truth another way. A keeper was appointed to attend Ralegh in the Tower with instructions to observe all that he said and did, and acquaint the Commissioners with anything that occurred worth reporting. Sir Thomas Wilson was appointed to this office on the 10th of September and continued in the execution of it till the 15th of October; when he was released upon his own representation (made ten days before) that there was

1 Pory to Carleton 5 Sept. 1618. S. P. Dom. vol. xcix. no 3.

2 See especially the examinations of William Herbert, Esq., Captain Roger North, and Captain John Chudleigh, taken on the 17th of September, upon these questions following; which show unmistakably what the points were which the Government thought it of most importance to ascertain, after a month's investigation. 1. Whether Sir W. Raleigh did really intend a mine, or did pretend it only to abuse the State and draw followers. 2. Whether Sir W. R. appeared to the examinate to have former knowledge that the country of Guiana where the mine was was inhabited by the Spaniards. 3. Whether the assault on the town of St. Thome was any ways directed and avowed by Sir W. R. or whether those that were sent for the discovery of the mine did not incidently assail the same. 4. Whether the examinate knoweth that Sir W. R. had or expected any commission or aid from France, and whether he had not some intention to go into France after the dissolving of his voyage, and what should be his employment there.

3 His instructions were to keep him safe and close prisoner in the condition as he was committed, not suffering any person to have access to him or to have speech with him except in your hearing, nor any at all but such as of necessity must attend him for his diet and such ordinary occasions as close prisoners usually have, and not otherwise. And whatsoever you shall observe worthy of our advertisement to acquaint us with it from time to time as becometh you." S. P. Dom. vol. xcix. no. 7.

Of the secret history of Sir Thomas Wilson's employment as expounded by Mr. St. John in his life of Ralegh (vol. ii. p. 297)—a speculation worthy of a place in the Great Oyer of Poisoning-I shall only say that the book must not be judged by that specimen. Mr. St. John is at all times prone to assume that a man who differs with another intends to kill him, and when one whom he favours dies, he requires no other evidence, beyond the fact that there was a difference, to

no chance of learning anything more. The preliminary investigation being therefore now complete, the question was how to proceed.

Many points remained obscure. But those which were doubtful, and about which so much time had been spent, were of small consequence compared with those about which no doubt could be. Whether Ralegh believed in the existence of the mine which was the professed object of the voyage; whether he had negotiated with the French for assistance or for an asylum; whether he would have left the river party to their fate, if his officers had consented; whether he would have betaken himself to piracy, if his men had been willing; what devices he employed or meditated for effecting his escape; and what he said about the King,-these are questions which do not much concern the main point. Whatever he would have done, he did in fact stay for the return of the river party; and he did not commit or sanction any act of piracy except the taking of the town beside the mine. For a man in his position to try to escape cannot be called a crime; and if he could not manage it without resorting to false pretences, to visit him with severe censure on that account would be to judge him by a higher standard of morals than he ever professed or his greatest admirers ever gave him credit for. If as soon as he was safe from pursuit he had transferred himself to a French ship, leaving his squadron to the second in command to choose its course and seek its fortunes, few people would have thought the worse of him. It would have been an act of "contempt," and justified closer restraint and greater severity in case of recapture: but no one would have called it a crime for a man in his case to deceive and outwit the King in a plot for the recovery of his own indicate and convict his murderer. And how shy he is of exhibiting the facts upon which his conclusions rest, may be seen in his treatment of the Winchester trial; the entire business of which is despatched in about thirty lines; from which (except the general heads of the indictment) nothing whatever can be gathered or guessed as to the particulars either of the charge or the evidence or the answer. But where he does descend to facts, and reports them upon evidence which he has personally examined, he generally does better. In this case he appears to have relied upon a collection of documents" placed at his disposal by a distinguished literary artist, who had made it for his own purposes. (See Preface p. ix.) If it was a collection of copies, it would of course have its own value whatever use it was designed for, and Mr. St. John would be answerable for his inferences. But were they copies? Were they not rather notes and sketchespassages of history "collected" by the writer from what he had seen or heard of the documents? With nothing before him but the contents of the correspondence as indicated in the Calendar, a man of bold imagination that way inclined might possibly find traces in it of a secret purpose to get rid of Ralegh by assassination. But I think no strength of imagination could make any man fancy such a thing who had read the correspondence itself. Mr. St. John seems also to have adopted the style as well as the ideas of his distinguished correspondent. It is not a style which two men working independently could fall into; and though it crops up here and there in other parts of his book, it strikes me as not in his own natural manner, which (as far as style goes) is good.