accuser. Southampton hesitated, and appeared at first to appeal to the court, but he then said to Cecil, "If you say, upon your honour, it will be fit, I will name him ;" and at last, upon Cecil's renewed entreaty, he named sir William Knollys, the queen's comptroller. Cecil prayed that Knollys might be sent for, "for I vow," he said, "before the God of heaven, if it will not please her majesty to send him, whereby I may clear myself of this open scandal, I will rather die at her feet, than live to do her any more service in that honourable place wherein her majesty employs me." And he charged the gentleman of the privy chamber, who was sent to obtain the leave of the queen, to make the same declaration as his message to her majesty.

Knollys came, and was asked whether he had heard Cecil use the imputed words. "I never heard him speak any words to that effect; only there was a seditious book written by one Doleman*, which very corruptly disputed the title of the succession, inferring it as lawful to the Infanta of Spain as any other; and Mr. Secretary and I being in talk about the book, Mr. Secretary spake to this effect,' Is it not a strange impudence in that Doleman, to give as equal right in the succession of the crown to the Infanta of Spain, as any other?' Hereupon was grounded the slander of Mr. Secretary whereof he is as clear as any man here present." This refutation of the ridiculous charge was followed by some conversation between Essex and Cecil, in which the minister traced the enmity of Essex, to their difference about the peace with Spain, which he laboured for the profit and quiet of the country. The rivals, however, now exchanged protestations of forgiveness.

In an account published by authority, of the behaviour and conversation of Essex after his conviction, it is said that he expressed himself ashamed of having brought his hearsay charge against Cecil; but as doubts

This is father Persons's conference about the next succession to the crown of England.

have been cast upon the credit of this paper*, I do not rely upon it. The declaration would have been creditable to Essex, but is not wanted for the entire acquittal of Cecil. In truth, the charge is refuted by its own absurdity.

In reviewing Cecil's conduct towards Essex, I do not find any ground whatever for the imputation which certain writers have freely cast upon him, of treachery, duplicity, and malignity.† Essex was the artificer of his own ruin, and was legally condemned. If any consideration impeaches the justice of his sentence, it is the extreme folly of his treason; but his offences were undoubtedly treasonable.

The wife of Essex, who was the daughter of secretary Walsingham, and the widow of sir Philip Sidney, solicited the interference of Cecil. Her letter already printed in this collection, refers to "the scandal which Cecil conceived had been given to him by her unfortunate husband," but alludes to old favours received from Cecil, and to her experience, which had taught her that Cecil was rather inclined to do good, than to look always to private interest.

When supplicating mercy for a husband, even the widow of sir Philip Sidney might condescend to flattery; still it is not very easy to believe that the writer of this letter addressed one whom she regarded as her

* Jardine, 366. In the account which Cecil gave to Winwood, the queen's minister in France, he affirms that Essex, when in the Tower after conviction, "being urged still to say what he knew or could record, especially of that injurious imputation to me, vowed and protested that in his own conscience, he did freely acquit me from any such matter, and was ashamed to have spoken it, having no better ground."-Winwood, i. 300.

I refer particularly to the Life of Ralegh, by Patrick Fraser Tytler, esq. whose extravagant and unsupported censure of Robert Cecil, for his conduct towards Essex and Ralegh, was criticised in Fraser's Magazine for July, 1833. vol. viii. p. 1. I think that it is shown in that review, that the charges have not even so much of plausibility as to require any mention of them here. I concur in all the statements in Fraser, with one very slight exception. If the story of Ralegh and the cloak be true, which must have happened before Cecil was twenty years of age, it is perhaps not correct to say (p. 2.) that Ralegh's introduction to court was much later than Cecil's. It should rather have been, participation in court influence. While I avow my agreement with the writer of the review, I must express my regret, and I can say confidently that the same is felt by the writer himself, that he should have been led into some of the harsh expressions which are applied there to a gentleman of Mr. Tytler's merit and assiduity.

Southey, p. 201.

VOL. V.

F

husband's enemy, or as a man of a bad heart. She appears quite aware that Essex had lately wronged Cecil, and that in all preceding transactions, Cecil had favoured Essex.* Whether an energetic attempt on the part of of her ministers would have procured the pardon of Essex from the daughter of Henry VIII. is doubtful. It will not escape notice, that lady Essex herself, only requests Cecil to join with other councillors in soliciting the queen for a pardon. The decision did not rest

with Cecil.

All then that can be said is, that Cecil did not risk his own credit with the queen, to save a rival by whom he had been ill-used. Probably a man of no more exalted character than Cecil, living in our day, would have done more. But in truth a modern statesman conld not have been placed in the same position. The wildest or most factious politician could not perpetrate the extravagancies which Essex committed, so as to have forfeited his life to the law. Decapitation, more

over, was in those days an occurrence almost as familiar as dismissal is now, and a politician saw his rival carried to Tower-hill, with the feelings with which one now witnesses his departure from Downing Street.

The most unreasonable charge that has been made against Cecil is an insinuation that some of the bitter passages in Bacon's Declaration of the Treasons of the earl of Essex were dictated by the envy of Cecil.† Bacon himself, in apologising for the part which he had in this paper, tells us that Cecil, so far from aggravating his hostility towards the unfortunate earl, rather reproved him for it. "I must give this testimony to my lord Cecil, that one time at his house in the Savoy, he dealt with me directly and said, 'Cousin, I hear it, but I believe it not, that you should do some ill office to my lord of Essex; for my part, I am merely passive and not active in this action, and I follow the queen, and that heavily, and I lead her not. My lord

of Essex is one that in well as any one living.

nature I could consent with as The queen indeed is my sove

reign, and I am her creature; I may not lose her, and the same course I would wish you to take;' whereupon I satisfied him how far I was from any such mind."

There is in the British Museum a paper intitled "Sir Robert Cecil's letter to Squier, servant to the earl of Essex, by way of advice to his master the earl of Essex, after his coming out of Ireland, being in the queen's disgrace, anno 1600." It is very improbable that this letter was written by Cecil in 1600.* In the then state of the relations between the minister and the favourite, the one could hardly address such a letter to the other. And the only person of the name of Squire, who is known to have been connected with Essex, was hanged in 1598. Still the letter is too curious to be left unnoticed.

This affair of Essex was, in some way not explained, connected with the estrangement between Cecil and Ralegh. This appears in a letter from sir John Harrington to Doctor Still, bishop of Bath and Wells."Cecil doth bear no love to Ralegh, as you well understand in the matter of Essex." These words might imply either that Cecil's want of friendship for Ralegh appeared in the matter of Essex; or, that a difference between them arose out of the matter of Essex.

From 1592, under which date Ralegh was last mentioned to this year 1600-1, we know little of what passed between him and Cecil. I have already mentioned a letter of 1597, ascribed § to the secretary which mentions sir Walter with some disparagement. Ralegh was

*I do not feel certain that it was written by Cecil at all; what I find in the Museum is one of a great many entries in a book, all relating to Ireland, and all written in one hand; it is neither a copy taken at the time nor a draft. And the heading may be erroneous, both as to writer and date. Harl. 35. p. 199. b.

+ Camden.

See it in App. B.

Nugæ Ant. i. 342.

26th of July. 1597. Ellis's Letters, iii. 41. The signature of this letter which is in the British Museum, appears to have been carefully cut out; for what reason it is difficult to guess; but there appears little doubt of its having been that of Cecil.

afterwards talked of for the government of Ireland, but I know not whether Cecil either supported or opposed this suggestion. But in September 1600*, the son of Cecil was residing at sir Walter Ralegh's at Sherborne, for the purposes of education, and the secretary was believed to have visited him there. If this circumstance were to be taken as an indication of intimacy, at the very time of Essex's trial, it would support the conjecture, that the estrangement did arise out of the matter of Essex, at a late period of the transaction.

But unless we knew the terms upon which young Cecil was placed at Sherborne, we can draw no conclusion from his residence there. Ralegh was an accomplished man, and Cecil might have purchased for him instruction from Ralegh, or even change of air, without feeling entire confidence in the master of the house, or respecting his character. A series of mistakes has arisen from the erroneous notion, that Ralegh and Cecil were at any time intimate and equal friends.

The only known circumstance of Ralegh's interference in the matter of Essex is the most remarkable letter in which he urges Cecil "not to spare that tyrant." It has been generally supposed that this letter was written while Essex lay under sentence of death. But it is without date, though endorsed "sir Walter Ralegh, 1601." It is observed § that no Englishman of the seventeenth century would have given that date to a letter in February, 1600-1 (the date of Essex's condemnation), and that therefore the date must be erroneous. I do not think this quite clear. We have seen that Cecil, who probably endorsed the letter, was acquainted with the errors of our old calendar, and he may in his private papers have used the new calendar, or he may have docketted the letter some weeks after its receipt, which will bring it to 1601, according to either computation.

* Sidney Papers, 214.

He had been placed there in March, 1599. p. 181. Soon afterwards, Cobham and Ralegh both left London, much dissatisfied. See p. 186-8. See in Southey, iv. 162.

§ Jardine, 507.