had been attainted, I bringing their Lordships' letter for their say, after the jury was sworn to pass upon them; so near it went: and how careful I was, and made it my part, that whosoever was in trouble about that matter, as soon as ever his case was sufficiently known and defined of, might not continue in restraint, but be set at liberty; and many other parts, which I am well assured of1 stood with the duty of an honest man. But indeed I will not deny for the case of Sir Thomas Smith of London, the Queen demanding my opinion of it, I told her I thought it was as hard as many of the rest: but what was the reason? because at that time I had seen only his accusation, and had never been present at any examination of his; and the matter so standing, I had been very untrue to my service, if I had not delivered that opinion. But afterwards upon a re-examination of some that charged him, who weakened their own testimony; and especially hearing himself viva voce, I went instantly to the Queen, out of the soundness of my conscience, and not regarding what opinion I had formerly delivered, told her Majesty, I was satisfied and resolved in my conscience, that for the reputation of the action, the plot was to countenance the action further by him in respect of his place, than they had indeed any interest or intelligence with him. It is very true also, about that time her Majesty taking a liking of my pen, upon that which I had done before concerning the proceeding at York-house, and likewise upon some other declarations which in former times by her appointment I put in writing, commanded me to pen that book, which was published for the better satisfaction of the world; which I did, but so as never secretary had more particular and express directions and instructions in every point how to guide my hand in it; and not only so, but after that I had made a first draught thereof, and propounded it to certain principal counsellors, by her Majesty's appointment, it was perused, weighed, censured, altered, and made almost a new writing, according to their Lordships' better consideration; wherein their Lordships and myself both were as religious and curious of truth, as desirous of satisfaction: and myself indeed gave only words and form of style in pursuing their direction. And after it had passed their allowance, it was again exactly perused by the Queen herself, and some alterations made again by her appointment: nay, and after it was set to 1 So in orig. 2 anew, writing in orig.

print, the Queen, who, as your Lordship knoweth, as she was excellent in great matters, so she was exquisite in small, and noted that I could not forget my ancient respect to my Lord of Essex, in terming him ever My Lord of Essex, My Lord of Essex, in almost every page of the book, which she thought not fit, but would have it made Essex, or the late Earl of Essex: whereupon of force it was printed de novo, and the first copies suppressed by her peremptory commandment. And this, my good Lord, to my furthest remembrance, is all that passed wherein I had part; which I have set down as near as I could in the very words and speeches that were used, not because they are worthy the repetition, I mean those of mine own; but to the end your Lordship may lively and plainly discern between the face of truth and a smooth tale. And the rather also because in things that passed a good while since, the very words and phrases did sometimes bring to my remembrance the matters: wherein I report me to your honourable judgment, whether you do not see the traces of an honest man and had I been as well believed either by the Queen or by my Lord, as I was well heard by them both, both my Lord had been fortunate, and so had myself in his fortune.

To conclude therefore, I humbly pray your Lordship to pardon me for troubling you with this long narration; and that you will vouchsafe to hold me in your good opion, till you know I have deserved, or find that I shall deserve the contrary; and even so I continue

At your Lordship's honourable commandments very humbly.

FINIS.

This letter was published in a small volume very convenient for circulation; and as another impression was issued in the following year, we may infer that it was circulated widely. It would have been very interesting to know what was thought and said of it then: but I can find no news of its reception. I do not remember to have met with a single allusion to it by any one living and forming his impressions at the time; a fact which does not countenance the notion that it was at the time felt to be unsatisfactory: for an ineffectual attempt to defend himself against a popular outcry is pretty sure to make the man more unpopular and the outcry louder. In later times judgment has been pronounced loudly enough: but later times have heard only half the case, and formed a conception of Essex's proceedings, not only partial, but utterly erroneous-mistaking altogether the meaning and spirit of them, and refusing to perceive the question of state which they involved. Bacon's apology" is indeed as well known by name, and as familiarly referred to, as any of his occasional writings; and as evidence of the facts which it relates, has been treated with due respect: being indeed the only authority for more of the circumstances in the story as now commonly told than readers are perhaps aware. But regarded as a justification of his own part in the matter, the popular judgment of recent times has certainly pronounced it a failure of the most egregious kind-not only failing to justify, but sufficing to condemn.

Now those who say that it fails of what it aims at must (if they have read it—which I doubt) mean to say that they do not believe the story which Bacon tells: for what he asserts is that, up to the day of Essex's insurrection, he not only wished for his restoration to favour, but used all the influence he had to bring it about: and the question being whether he acted as a friend or an enemy, the answer is surely conclusive, if true. To the means which he resorted to for this purpose exception may be taken in one or two particulars on other grounds; for he did undoubtedly both advise and practise some indirect dealing; and indirect dealing is never justified in principle, and only approved in practice when-what shall we say Pwhen employed for a purpose which we approve, and which we perceive to be unattainable by direct dealing. But indirect dealing employed to serve a friend, however culpable otherwise, is not "falsehood or unthankfulness" to that friend; and falsehood or unthankfulness to the Earl of Essex was the charge against which he was defending himself. The question therefore comes simply to this -Is his narrative to be believed? It is a perfectly fair question, and must have been anticipated and considered by everybody who

VOL. III.

M

desired to form a fair judgment; for a story told in a man's own defence about things long past, concerning many of which he is himself the sole surviving witness, may always be justly suspected of errors both intentional and unintentional. But then, before I disbelieve the positive statement of a man whose character for veracity has not been otherwise forfeited, I want for my own part to know why. What reason can anybody give me for refusing my belief to the positive statements in this letter? The two passages which may seem at first sight to be inconsistent with other existing evidence-and, so far as I know, the only two-have been quoted at full length in my own narrative, side by side with the evidence with which they have been thought inconsistent ; and as my narrative in both cases accepts and includes both, I cannot admit the inconsistency. In other respects it has all the outward appearances of fairness and sincerity. It is full and circumstantial: it is written with a great deal of feeling it makes no attempt to throw blame on others, or to depreciate his own obligations, or to exaggerate his own services: it resorts to no special pleading; indulges in no rhetoric; merely states the facts and leaves them to suggest the judgment. What the judgment was, of those to whom he appealed, I cannot (as I said) produce any positive evidence. But the negative evidence is significant. "It is not probable," says Lord Macaulay, "that Bacon's defence had much effect upon his contemporaries. But the unfavourable impression which his conduct had made appears to have been gradually effaced." From this I infer that Lord Macaulay's reading. furnished no expression or anecdote which implied, or could be made to seem to imply, that the unfavourable impression continued after the explanation had been heard. And as this is exactly what would have happened on the supposition that his defence did produce its natural effect upon his contemporaries, and is very hard to explain upon any other supposition, (seeing that Bacon's course of life, as a rising man in Court favour, in the House of Commons, and in his profession, exposed him to envy and free criticism in a world which was in this matter prejudiced against him), I think we may fairly leave it there.

1 Vol. II. pp. 127-133, 150, 151.

THE resolution to call a Parliament, having been postponed from month to month in consequence of the sickness then prevailing in London, was at length announced by Proclamation on the 11th of January 1603-4. The session began on the 19th of March and was opened by the King in person with a gracious and judicious speech, explaining his views on peace, on the union of the kingdoms, on the limits of toleration in religion, and on the general duties of government in all which there seems to be nothing to find fault with: and if he had not called the Devil "a busy bishop "-upon which one of the Bench is said to have remarked that "his Majesty might have chosen another name"1-I am not aware that any exception would have been taken to it.

But a clause in the Proclamation, introduced it seems by the Lord Chancellor, had sown the seed of a difficulty which threatened to spoil the concert; and of which the history is worth telling at large, not only for the part which Bacon took in it, but also for the light which might have been taken from it as to the true method of arranging those disputes between Privilege and Prerogative which were destined to be the trouble of the times.

The Proclamation had notified that all returns and certificates of Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses were to be brought to the Chancery, and there filed of record: and if any were found to have been made contrary to the Proclamation "the same was to be rejected as unlawful and insufficient." A previous clause had forbidden the election of bankrupts or outlaws. Sir Francis Goodwin, who was returned for Buckinghamshire, was objected to as having been outlawed: the

1 Nuga Antiquæ, i. 182.

2 Egerton Papers, p. 38. Gardiner, i. p. 180. 3 With whom the objection originated does not clearly appear. In a letter to Winwood (Mem. ii. p. 18), Cecil seems to imply that it was an electioneering manœuvre advisedly adopted by the government. "Sir Francis Goodwyn (he says) having laboured to be Knight of Buckinghamshire, to the exclusion of an