colder tone than he had given it, or than he liked.1 But with regard to the more material changes introduced at the instance of the Councillors, he distinctly states that "their Lordships and himself both were as religious and curious of truth as desirous of satisfaction."2 In matters of substance therefore it must be considered as having his personal imprimatur as well as that of the Government. It was sent to the press on the 14th of April, 1601.3 Not having met with any contemporary notice of this publication, I cannot say what impression it made on popular opinion at the time. It had its effect probably in satisfying impartial minds of the then living generation, and in assisting the historian of the reign to relate that passage truly. But when a question of this kind has been practically disposed of and ceased to be a matter of business,-then, if the incidents be picturesque, pathetic, or otherwise exciting enough to attract a popular audience, it becomes a matter of fiction. Hence when in the heat of the unpopularity of the Spanish match, some twenty years after, "Essex's Ghost" was brought on the political stage to warn and exhort, he reappeared in all the colours of romance; as the representative hero of the then popular cause; the invincible captain before whose face nothing Spanish could ever stand; the true subduer of the Irish rebellion, of whose work another had merely inherited the fruit and carried away the credit; the patriotic councillor whose patriotism had brought upon him the hatred of wicked men, who by malicious intrigues and false accusations pursued him to death;—such a man in short as people delight to believe in. In this character he now took his place in our popular mythology; the true narrative sinking at the same time by necessary consequence into a slanderous libel. Thus the authentic history was superseded in authority by the unauthentic. The fiction which had neither evidence nor sponsor to support it was accepted as a revelation of "truth brought to light by time;" while the careful official declaration, framed with studious accuracy, guarded at every step with attested depositions, resting on the personal credit of men whom everybody 1 "Nay, and after it was set to 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."-Apology. 2 Apology. 3 Council Reg. Eliz. No. 17, fol. 152. 1601. April 14. "A lre. to Mr Barker her Matys Printer. You shall receive herewith a discourse in writing, containing a Declaration of the late Earl of Essex treasons, wch her M. thinketh fit should be published for the better satisfying of the world. And therefore these are to will and require you to take present order for the printing of the said Discourse, and to use therein all the expedition you may." I quote from a copy. VOL. II. R knew, containing not a single statement that could be fairly disputed, was denounced as a libel and a fiction. Such was the character it had acquired when Clarendon (for I cannot think that his judgment was formed upon any serious inquiry of his own, even in his early life) wrote his remarks on Wotton's 'Parallel,' and such is the character it still bears; one writer repeating it after another, though not one has ever attempted (so far as I know) to point out any clause of any sentence in it which asserts or implies what is not true. Nay the error instead of wearing out with time seems to be gathering other kindred errors round it: for within these thirty years a specific charge of dishonesty bearing personally upon Bacon has grown out of it; and though this charge breaks down the moment it is looked into, yet it rests upon authority too respectable, and has been received without examination or suspicion by too many subsequent writers, and is indeed when unexamined too specious in itself, to be passed by here without notice. 4. When the late Mr. Jardine was preparing his account of the trial of the Earls of Essex and Southampton for the "Library of Entertaining Knowledge," he searched or employed somebody to search the State Paper Office. There he found many of the depositions which were read at the trial and published by way of appendix in the Declaration of Treasons found them in their original condition, with Coke's memoranda and directions as to the parts which were to be read, still legible in the margin. In several places however he observed in another hand, which appeared to be Bacon's, the letters om. written: and looking at the printed Declaration for the passages so marked, he found that they were all omitted. Upon this he concluded that the passages in question, though they had been read and proved in Court, were struck out after the trial by Bacon himself, to suit the purposes of the Declaration: and then setting himself to guess what those purposes might be, fell upon this,-that they must have been omitted because they tended to soften the evidence against Essex, and to contradict or qualify in some of its material features the story of the transaction which the Government thought fit to circulate: whence it appeared that Bacon had been personally guilty of "garbling the depositions" in order to falsify the history of the case. A grave charge. To which however the auswer need not be long, though it falls into four divisions. First, it is by no means certain that the marks in question were made with reference to the Declaration at all. Secondly, it is quite possible that the passages in ques tion had been omitted at the trial. Thirdly, whether the omission were right or wrong, there is no ground for imputing it to Bacon personally. Fourthly, the passages omitted do not in any one particular tend to soften the evidence against Essex as explained in the narrative part, or to modify in any way the history of the case, as far as it concerned him. That the marks were made with a view to the Declaration I doubt, because, though it be true that none of the passages so marked are inserted in the appendix, it is also true that several which are not so marked are nevertheless omitted in the appendix, and that similar marks are found in other papers of which no part is printed there; and because they may be easily accounted for in another way. Several persons, each of whom had borne a different share in the action, and whose several cases required each a separate proof, were to be tried upon evidence contained in these same depositions. Why may not the marks have been made with a view to some of these trials,—the object of the omissions being to clear the evidence in those cases of superfluous matter? That the passages in question had been read and proved at the trial I also doubt. The fact is assumed by Mr. Jardine only because they had not been marked for omission by Coke. But why may not Coke have meant to produce a piece of evidence which he afterwards found reason to withhold? And why may not Bacon, in a publication professing to give "such confessions as were given in evidence at the arraignments," have struck out those parts which were not given in evidence ? That the fact of the marks being in Bacon's handwriting proves that he was personally responsible for them I deny: because the question what should be published and what withheld was for the Council to settle, not for him: and he may have been merely writing down their directions. In what respect the omitted passages alter the effect of the evidence, or contradict or correct the story told in the body of the narrative, the reader shall judge for himself. For though it will be seen that most of them were omitted for very good reasons,—to avoid the public exposure of persons who were by this time sufficiently penitent and ashamed, as well as the betrayal to neighbour nations of all the blots in our own tables-a point on which Cecil's correspondence with Winwood shows great anxiety,—yet all such reasons are now obsolete; and as the publication of these things can no longer do harm to anybody, he will find them all printed in their places and enclosed for distinction within brackets. 5. With regard to the general charge of untruthfulness, I have said that nobody has yet attempted to specify any particular untruth expressed or implied in the government Declaration. And it is singular that Mr. Jardine himself does not form an exception: for though he does specify, as contradicted by one of the omitted passages, a particular statement which he assumes to be contained in the Declaration, it is certain that there is no such statement there; but that on the contrary the precise import of that passage, as Mr. Jardine himself infers it, is represented in the body of the narrative with delicate exactness. In the absence of such specification, I can only oppose to the general charge a general expression of my own conviction; which is, that the narrative put forth by the Government was meant to be, and was by its authors believed to be, a narrative strictly and scrupulously veracious. It is true that it was written under the excitement and agitation of that last and most portentous disclosure, which in proving that Essex had been capable of designs far worse than anybody had suspected him of, suggested a new explanation of all that had been most suspicious and mysterious in his previous proceedings -and it may be that things which before had been rejected as incredible were now too easily believed. In so dark a thing as treason it is impossible to have positive evidence at every step. Many passages must remain obscure and fairly open to more interpretations than one: and in one or two of those points which are and profess to be “matter of inference or presumption," as distinguished from "matter of plain and direct proofs," there is room probably without setting aside indisputable facts for an interpretation of Essex's conduct more favourable than that adopted by the Queen and her Councillors. It does not indeed follow either that such interpretation is the more probable, or even that it was not known by them to be inadmissible. Still some mistakes in that direction are not unlikely to have occurred, and it is fit they should be exposed by those who can do it. Only it must be upon such a theory as explains, not ignores, the facts. In my own account of the matter so far, I have abstained, in deference to so general a prejudice, from using the Declaration as an authority; and have assumed as a fact nothing for which I cannot quote evidence independent of it. For the rest I shall let it speak for itself. It will be found to be a very luminous and coherent narrative, and certainly much nearer the truth than any which has been put forth since it became the fashion to treat it as a fiction. DECLARATION OF THE PRACTICES AND TREASONS ATTEMPTED AND COMMITTED BY ROBERT LATE EARL OF ESSEX AND HIS COMPLICES, AGAINST HER MAJESTY AND HER KINGDOMS, AND OF THE PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AT THE ARRAIGNMENTS AND CONVICTIONS OF THE SAID LATE EARL, AND HIS ADHERENTS, AS AFTER: TOGETHER WITH THE VERY CONFESSIONS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE EVIDENCES THEMSELVES, WORD FOR WORD TAKEN OUT OF THE ORIGINALS. IMPRINTED AT LONDON BY ROBERT BARKER, ANNO 1601. |