the Declaration of the Treasons of Essex, penned by Bacon for the Court: "Neither was the effect of the sentence that there passed against him any more than a suspension of the exercise of some of his places: at which time also Essex, that could vary himself into all shapes for a time, infinitely desirous (as by the sequel now appeareth) to be at liberty to practise and revive his former purposes, and hoping to set into them with better strength than ever, because he conceived the people's hearts were kindled to him by his troubles, and that they had made great demonstration of as much he did transform himself into such a strange and dejected humility, as if he had been no man of this world, with passionate protestations that he called God to witness, 'That he had made an utter divorce with the world; and he desired her Majesty's favour not for any worldly respect, but for a preparative for a Nunc dimittis; and that the tears of his heart had quenched in him all humours of ambition." "1 It is just possible that Essex may have been dissembling. We know that Bacon persistently urged him to dissemble long ago, and to "pretend to be bookish and contemplative:" but if Essex was really dissembling at Bacon's advice, and expressing his dissimulation in Bacon's own words, then it is intolerable that Bacon himself should afterwards turn round upon the Earl and charge him (by way of proving treason) with the dissimulation which he had himself put into the Earl's mouth. But this alternative is not probable. It is almost incompatible with Essex's character that he should have dissembled in religious matters. In such things he was timid even to superstition.2 Far more probably he was not dissembling at all, and Bacon, at the time, knew that he was expressing the Earl's true feelings. "But," it may be urged, "the 'sequel' showed Bacon afterwards that the Earl had really been dissembling." It is just this "sequel" that pervades the whole of Bacon's Apology and Declaration, making them both historically worthless, Bacon cannot look at the past with a simple eye, but always views it through the "sequel," doing violence to facts, converting impulsiveness into treason, 1 Spedding, ii. 260. 2 See Dr. Barlow's account of the Earl's confession, how that "sometimes in the field encountering the enemy, being in any danger, the weight of his sins lying heavy upon his conscience, being not reconciled to God, quelled his spirits and made him the most timorous and fearful man that might be."-Dr. Barlow's Sermon, Ed. 1601. and seeing in transient religious melancholy a deep-laid hypocritical plot.1 To return however to Essex in disgrace. The Queen's coronation day (17 November, 1600) passed, and still there was no relenting. Essex had lost his fortune, and was now hopeless of regaining it. He believed that the enemies who had deprived him of his fortunes were plotting to deprive him of his life; he believed (sincerely, as was afterwards proved) that Cecil was plotting for the succession of the Spanish Infanta; and he now began to persuade himself into the belief that the safety of his country, as well as his own, demanded the removal of the Queen's present advisers. Once before, in Ireland, he had made mention of such a course; and now he seriously recurred to it. It is a curious illustration of the factious feeling rife at this time, that the manifestly treasonable project of surprising the Court and forcibly removing the Queen's counsellors was regarded-even by so honourable a man as Sir Henry Neville, but lately the Queen's ambassador in Franceas essentially different from rebellion. Under a fresh alarm that he should be committed to the Tower, Essex determined (February 1601) not to wait for Parliament and quiet remedies, but to execute his project at once. One only of the Earl's adherents suggested that the City should be roused to arms before surprising the Court; but this suggestion found no favour, and on 4 February the meeting broke up, having resolved on nothing. On Saturday, 7 February, when nothing had been as yet 1 A version of Bacon's own speech in Essex's trial, printed below (see p. 76), and taken from the Lambeth MSS. 931]61, charges Essex with "carrying a shew of religion." When Coke brings this accusation of "hypocrisy in religion," Mr. Spedding ustly says "the imputation was not only irrelevant, but unjust." " It may be urged that Bacon-who describes himself as nothing but "the pen wherewith the Court drew up the Declaration-was not responsible for its truth. But few will admit that a man is justified in so far subordinating his own personality as to make himself a mere pen," especially for the purpose of penning about a benefactor and former friend what the "pen" knows to be false. 2 The sincerity of his belief was proved by the fact that he afterwards brought against Cecil a definite charge of supporting the claims of the Spanish Infanta. This charge indeed collapsed; but he would hardly have been so foolish as to injure himself by bringing forward an accusation which he knew to be baseless. It is certain that Cecil, if not now, was at all events subsequently, in receipt of a pension from Spain. This Essex may have suspected to be the case; and it may have aroused suspicions, though it could not supply proof, of intended treason. determined, the Government, suspecting the concourse at Essex House, summoned the Earl before Her Majesty's Council. Essex excused himself on the plea of health, and called his friends together. By Saturday night three hundred had gathered round him, but still no plans had been settled. On Sunday morning the Lord Keeper, with three others, coming to demand from Essex the cause of this gathering, found him in a state of great distraction, vociferating that his life was sought, that his hand had been counterfeited, and that he and his friends were there to defend their lives. The crowd forced their way into the library. "Kill them," cried some; "keep them prisoners," cried others. In his confession, a few days before his death, Essex speaks of the "confusion his followers drew him to even in his own house, that day he went into the City; " and indeed, the "confusion" was such, that when, a few moments afterwards, he issued from the gates, leaving the Lord Keeper and the rest, detained as hostages, no plan had been even now settled. “Το the Court! To the Court!" was the general cry. But Essex had just received word that the Court was prepared, and that the guards had been doubled. He, therefore, turned toward the City. For this change of plan horses were needful; but not a single horse had been provided. Without horses, without a plan, and without a leader-for who could give the name of leader to a man now distracted to madness, and described by an eye-witness as "extremely appalled and almost molten with sweat by the perplexity and horror of his mind "- the revolt had miscarried when it began. By 10 o'clock that night Essex and his friends had surrendered to the Lord Admiral, and the Earl was committed to the Tower. § 10 THE DEATH OF ESSEX The details of this clumsy and abortive outbreak are necessary for the appreciation of Bacon's subsequent conduct in the prosecution which brought the Earl to the block. That Essex was guilty of treason there could be no doubt, and that his execution was justifiable, if not necessary, there can be equally little doubt. But the Government desired to strengthen their position by proving that the plot had from the first contemplated not a mere change of the Queen's advisers, but a subversion of the State. For this purpose it was necessary to suppress all passages in the evidence which showed either that there had been an intention to avoid violence, or that the attempt on the City was an afterthought and not the original plan. It was also desirable to show that the Earl's fears of "enemies" at Court were mere pretexts assumed as a cloak for his ambitious treason. Accordingly, in their Declaration of the Treasons of Essex (which professed to contain "the very confessions taken word for word from their originals") the Government suppressed or mutilated seven passages which showed that no violence was intended, and six others which proved that the outbreak in the City had not been premeditated. The internal evidence is sufficient to show the reason for these omissions; but there is other testimony that they were deliberate. Opposite to these passages in the originals stands the mark om., sometimes in Coke's handwriting, sometimes in that of Bacon.1 But although the Government could with impunity mutilate the evidence of Essex's treason after his death, they could not do it as yet while he was alive and able (19 February, 1601) to defend himself. True, the evidence relied on by Essex to prove that Cecil was selling the State to the Spaniards altogether collapsed; yet, on the other hand, Essex indignantly disclaimed the intention of taking the Queen's life, imputed to him by Coke, and all original purpose of rousing the City; and the Government could prove neither of these two points. If the Earl could be believed, if he was not a hypocrite, he was guilty of a treasonable act, it is true, but still of no deliberate disloyalty aiming at the Crown. It was, therefore, necessary for the Government to show that he could not be believed, and that he was not only a traitor, but also a hypocritical traitor. To aid them at this juncture, by convicting his former friend of deep-laid treachery and hypocrisy, Bacon now rose. He ought not to have been in the court at all. The decencies of friendship demanded that, if the Government assigned him a part in the prosecution, he should decline it. Peace and order having been now assured, it could not be maintained that the 1 See Bacon and Essex, pp. 207-210. interests of the country would have suffered if Bacon had been absent. He was neither Attorney-General nor Solicitor, nor had he any regular position as a law officer of the Crown; he was merely one of the "Learned Counsel." There was no reason why one in so subordinate a position should have been called to so responsible a duty-no reason except that his intimacy with Essex made him an invaluable instrument in the hands of the prosecutors for pressing home a personal charge of hypocrisy. Combining the characters of barrister and witness, he could at once impute motives to the accused and also testify to them. Two or three years afterwards, Bacon was not employed in the trial of Raleigh nor in the subsequent trials arising out of the Gunpowder Plot. He was summoned now, not as one of the "Learned Counsel," but in the special capacity of "friend to the accused." There is no evidence at all that Bacon had ever deprecated the task; and he now performed it with a ferocious efficacy. Skilfully confusing together the proposed plan of surprising the Court and the actually executed plan of raising the City, he insists that Essex's action, instead of being a sudden afterthought, was the result of three months' deliberation, and he concentrates all his efforts on proving that Essex was not only a traitor but a hypocritical traitor. "In speaking of this late and horrible rebellion which hath been in the eyes and ears of all men, I shall save myself much labour in opening and enforcing the points thereof, insomuch as I speak not before a country jury of ignorant men, but before a most honourable assembly of the greatest peers of the land, whose wisdoms conceive far more than my tongue can utter.1 Yet with your gracious and honourable favours I will 1 I append another version of this speech from the Lambeth MSS. 931]61, manifestly an unrevised copy of notes taken by some one present at the trial. It is principally noticeable for charging Essex with the "shew of religion." "Then Mr. Francis Bacon spake to this effect. I expected not (quoth he) that the matter of defence should have been alleged for excuse, and therefore I must alter my speech from that I intended. To rebel in defence is a matter not heard of. In case of murder, to defend is lawful; but in this case to do all that was done that day and then to go about to blanch it-I cannot allow. I speak not to simple men, I speak to those that can draw proof out of the nature of things themselves. It is known by books, by experience, and by common talk, that no unlawful intendments are bent directly against the Prince, but there is a [?] waltering of government, as the phrase is in Scotland. These go [?] by no ways, but by particular someways. My Lord, I cannot resemble your proceedings more rightly than to that of Pisistratus in Athens, who lanced himself to the intent that by the sight of bleeding wounds the people might believe he was set upon. Your Lordship gave out that your life was sought by the Lord Cobham and |