Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

published in 1601, and was acknowledged by Bacon in his Apology to be written by him at the Queen's command; it is, undoubtedly, an unjust and partial narrative; one flagrant instance of partiality, in garbling the depositions, we have already pointed out; and, in this instance, Bacon himself is taken in the fact, and proved to be personally guilty, as his hand-writing in the directions to omit material passages may be recognized upon the face of the original documents beyond the possibility of mistake; but it would be unfair to impute to Bacon alone the discredit of an attempt, to blacken the memory of his patron, and to falsify the history` of the transaction. The Declaration was published without Bacon's name or authority, and was, in truth, merely advice of the Privy Council, intended to justify their own proceedings, and to stem the stream of popular opinion, which, for a long time, ran strongly against the Government, and in favour of the Earl of Essex. If we are to believe, literally, the account which Bacon himself gives of its manufacture, he must be exonerated from all responsibility for the accuracy of its contents, though a man of upright and independent mind would have refused to be employed in so dishonest a transaction; for, in the Apology above cited, he says, ' 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 I had made a first draught thereof, and propounded it to certain principal Councillors by her Majesty's appointment, it was perused, weighed, censured, altered, and made almost a new writing, according to their Lordships' better consideration; 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; and, after it was set to print, the Queen, who, 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, almost in 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.'

INTRODUCTION TO THE TRIAL OF SIR WALTER RALEIGH.

THE biography of Sir Walter Raleigh is much too important and interesting to be written in the summary manner in which alone it could be properly given as an introduction to his trial: it is intended, therefore, in this instance to depart from the plan adopted with regard to the previous trials, and merely to prefix a narrative of the transactions out of which the proceedings against him arose.

The accounts given by different historians of the several plots formed at the commencement of the reign of James I, are extremely obscure and confused. This has arisen partly from the paucity of authentic materials hitherto published, and in some measure from party spirit; but principally from a combination in the relations of several distinct conspiracies, unconnected both in their object and machinery, without sufficient attention to the difference between them.

[ocr errors]

6

The first and by far the most important of these conspiracies was that which, in the cant language originally applied to it by some of the conspirators, was called the Bye ;' and which was also called the 'Treason of the Priests,' from Watson and Clarke, two Catholic priests who were its chief promoters, and the Surprising Treason,' or The Surprise,? from the design of seizing the person of the King, which formed the immediate object of the plot. Of the original performers in this conspiracy, Sir Griffin Markham, a Catholic gentleman of inconsiderable wealth and influence, was the person of the greatest consequence: Lord Cobham was undoubtedly privy to it, but does not seem to have been actively engaged in it, his attention being mainly devoted to an intrigue which he considered of greater importance but the

[blocks in formation]

most actively mischievous parties were the two priests, Watson and Clarke, and George Brooke, a brother of Lord Cobham's, a man sensible and well educated, but turbulent and totally unprincipled. Watson had been with the King in Scotland on a mission from the English Catholics previously to Elizabeth's death, and he says in some of his statements to the Privy Council that he was induced to enter into the plot by James's apparent determination not to give toleration to the Catholics. Brooke's motive for joining the conspiracy it is difficult to ascertain, though it would appear from the statements of some of his confederates, as well as his own, that he was actuated neither by religious nor political considerations, but merely by a sordid view to his own aggrandizement. An oath was devised by Watson, and administered to all who were made acquainted with the design; and both he and Clarke were indefatigable in their exertions to excite the Catholic gentry to join their cause, and support the undertaking with men and money. Various arguments were urged to press the irresolute and fearful into the enterprise; to some they ingeniously represented that as the King had not yet been crowned and anointed, he was only a potential head,' and therefore that every man might proceed to redress his grievances for himself as he pleased, and that it was not treason to use force for the purpose; to others with whom it was thought unsafe to confide the full scope of their plot, they pretended that they had discovered a design by Lord Grey and the Puritans to kidnap the King, and that it would be good policy in the Catholics to raise a sufficient force to overpower the Puritans, to rescue the King's person, and then to obtain for their services a full toleration for their religion. They met, however, with small success; for with the exception of Copley, a Catholic gentleman in the west of England of some property,

[ocr errors]

but of a weak and pusillanimous disposition, they were not actively assisted by any persons of conse-quence among the Catholic body.

One of the most remarkable circumstances attending this singular conspiracy was the accession of Lord Grey of Wilton to the enterprise. He was a Puritan, and the leader of his party; and as such, might be presumed most unlikely to engage in an undertaking originated and promoted by Papists, and the main object of which was to advance the interests of the Catholic religion. Cecil says that 'Grey was drawn into the Priests' Treason at first by Brooke and Markham, not knowing that the priests and so many Papists were engaged in the action; whereof, afterwards, when he had kowledge, he sought to sever himself from that party by dissuading the execution of the project till some further time.' There appears, however, to have been from the beginning a severance between the plans of the priests and Lord Grey; the scheme of the latter being to terrify the King into a compliance with the requisitions of the party by presenting a petition at the head of a company of noblemen and gentlemen in arms, without any actual violence to the royal person. Shortly before the day on which the plot was to take effect, Lord Grey, perceiving the predominance of the Catholics in the councils of the conspirators, withdrew himself altogether from them, under the pretext that he should do nothing until the arrival of a company of horse which he expected from the Netherlands.

Such were the Dramatis Persona of the 'Bye.' The conspiracy was in operation as early as the month of May, 1603. Its leading features were that the King should be suddenly seized at Greenwich on Midsummer-day, or at Hanworth, at which latter place it was supposed he would spend the night on his way from Greenwich to Windsor by a party of men strongly

« VorigeDoorgaan »