Bacon's. Montagu restored the warning, and reopened the question by an elaborate collection of arguments for and against, but allowed the "Paradoxes" to keep their place among Bacon's theological writings. When it came to my own turn to deal with the question, I decided to withdraw them from their place among the works, and print them in an appendix, with a preface explaining my reasons for concluding that they were not written by Bacon. These reasons were founded upon considerations of style, simply. I saw nothing in the opinions, implied or expressed, which might not have proceeded from him: but I observed that "the composition had none of the marks of his manner, but a manner of its own essentially unlike his."

This was in 1859. In 1864 the Rev. Alexander Grosart, to whose affectionate study of the religious writers of that period we owe so many valuable reprints, had the good fortune to make all further doubt and discussion superfluous by producing the real author. The work in question forms a portion of the second part of Herbert Palmer's Memorials of Godlines and Christianity. It was published by himself in 1645 and went through no less than twelve editions. within the next 63 years. The first edition of the Memorials (which appeared in 1644) contained, it is true, the first part only: but the twelve succeeding ones which were called for between 1645 and 1708 must all have contained the " Christian Paradoxes:" and a very strange thing it is, considering the number of persons who must have been familiar with a work which enjoyed that kind of demand, that when it appeared, only 22 years after, in so conspicuous a book as the first opera omnia of Bacon, there was no one to claim it for its proper author; and that though it has attracted a great deal of attention and been the subject of much dispute in later years-the question in dispute being nothing less than whether Bacon was a believer in Christianity-Mr. Grosart should have been the first man whose reading extended far enough in both regions to enable him to set the matter right. He has reprinted the whole of Palmer's little volume from the fifth edition (published in 1655), and accompanied it with an interesting memoir of the man, and with much critical and bibliographical matter of his own, which make it a valuable book.1 But the proof of the authorship is so complete and decisive that as editor of Bacon I have no further business with it. All I have to do is to disclaim on his behalf all property and concern in it, and to confess on my own part that while Mr. Grosart's discovery confirms my judgment of these Paradoxes both as to authorship and character

1 "Lord Bacon not the author of the 'Christian Paradoxes.' Printed for private circulation, 1864."

-showing that I was right in concluding not only that the writer was not Bacon but that he was a profound believer in the Christian theology-he has at the same time convicted me of two grave editorial delinquencies. I have stated in my prefatory notice of the "Paradoxes," (referring to M. Charles de Remusat as my authority), that they "appeared first in 1613, in a separate pamphlet under Bacon's name." Instead of 1643 I ought to have said 1645; and I ought not to have said anything about the name. The first mistake was probably a slip of the eye, the figure 3 in the French type being easily mistakable for 5. How I came to say that the pamphlet appeared under Bacon's name, I cannot guess. For in the note from which I had my information there is nothing that could have suggested it; nor is it the fact. The pamphlet, of which there is a copy in the British Museum, bears no writer's name. If the controversy were still open, I should show that the correction of this error, instead of weakening my argument, helps it. But that question is closed: and I hope this other may now be considered as closed likewise.

6.

A letter from Bacon to the University of Cambridge, which being dated the 5th of July ought in due order to have come in a little before, will perhaps be read more conveniently here,-in connexion with another which belongs properly to the time at which we have arrived.

He was standing counsel to the University. In their letter of congratulation on his being made a Privy Councillor, they had expressed, it seems, some apprehension that his new dignity would interfere with his duties in that relation; some fear that it would, or some hope that it would not. The following letter, for which we are indebted to Tenison, is his answer.

RESCRIPTUM PROCURATORIS REGIS PRIMARII, AD ACADEMIAM CANTABRIGIENSEM, QUANDO IN SANCTIUS REGIS CONSILIUM CO-OPTATUS FUIT.1

Gratæ mihi fuere literæ vestræ, atque gratulationem vestram ipse mihi gratulor. Rem ipsam ita mihi honori et voluptati fore duco, si in hâc mente maneam, ut publicis utilitatibus, studio indefesso, et perpetuis curis, et puro affectu, inserviam. Inter partes autem reipublicæ, nulla animo meo carior est quàm academiæ et literæ. Idque et vita mea anteacta declarat, et 1 Baconiana, p. 37. There is a manuscript copy in Sloane MSS. 3562, f. 86.

scripta. Itaque quicquid mihi accesserit, id etiam vobis accessisse existimare potestis. Neque vero patrocinium meum vobis sublatum aut diminutum esse credere debetis. Nam et ea pars patroni quæ ad consilium in causis exhibendum spectat, integra manet; atque etiam (si quid gravius acciderit) ipsum perorandi munus (licentiâ Regis obtentâ) relictum est; quodque juris patrocinio deerit, id auctiore potestate compensabitur. Mihi in votis est, ut quemadmodùm à privatorum et clientelarum negotiis ad gubernacula reipublicæ translatus jam sum; ita et postrema ætatis meæ pars (si vita suppetit) etiam à publicis curis ad otium et literas devehi possit. Quinetiam sæpius subit illa cogitatio, ut etiam in tot et tantis negotiis, tamen singulis annis aliquos dies apud vos deponam; ut ex majore vestrarum rerum notitiâ vestris utilitatibus melius consulere possim.

5 Julii 1616.

Amicus vester maximè fidelis et benevolus,

FR. BACON.1

The first occasion on which the University had to call for his help after his advancement to the Council-board was a petition from the townspeople of Cambridge for a new charter. The Mayor, Bailiffs, and Burgesses petitioned the King to give the University and Corporation of Cambridge equal rank with the University and City of Oxford, and therefore "to incorporate them to be a City by the name of Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Cambridge," with such liberties, privileges, franchises, etc., as the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Treasurer, and the Attorney-General should think meet.

1 I was glad to receive your letter and I congratulate with myself upon your congratulation. For the thing itself, I consider that it will be to me an honour and a pleasure in so far as I continue in the mind in which I now am-which is to apply myself with unwearied zeal, continual cares, and pure affection, to the public interests. Now that among the parts of the Commonwealth none is dearer to my mind than colleges and letters, both my past life and my writings declare. And therefore whatever addition I receive you may account as an addition to yourselves likewise. Nor need you suppose that even my services as counsel are withdrawn from you or impaired. For that part of a counsel's office which relates to the giving of advice in your causes is left entire ; and if any serious occasion should call for it, I shall still be able, (with the King's leave obtained,) even to plead for you in court; and whatever you lose in my services as counsel will be made up in the increase of my power. It is my hope, that as I am now translated from the businesses of private persons and clients to the government of the state, so my latter years (if life be continued to me) may be withdrawn again from public cares and fall to leisure and letters. Moreover the thought often occurs to me, that even in the midst of so many and great businesses I may nevertheless spend a few days each year among you, that by a better knowledge of your affairs I may be better able to consult your interests.

Your most faithful friend and wellwisher,

F. B.

To those three officers,-who were respectively the High Steward, the Chancellor, and the Standing Counsel of the University, the King (in accordance with the prayer of the petitioners) referred the petition. On the 12th of October, 1616, the Lord Treasurer transmitted it to the authorities of the University for their remarks. The authorities, not having had any reason to suppose that the townspeople were very zealous for their honour, and having had some experience of the effect of a charter which they had formerly "without good advice of their counsel" allowed to pass, feared some further encroachment upon their own grants, privileges, and customs, and wrote to entreat Bacon to assist in staying the suit, "until they might be truly informed how the town might receive grace and the University no dishonour." 1

We shall hear of the conclusion a little further on. In the meantime Bacon returned the following answer.

TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL THE VICE-CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS, THE MASTERS AND THE HEADS OF THE HOUSES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDge.2

After my very hearty commendations, I have received your letter of the 9th of this present December, and have taken care of you rather according to your request than at your request; forasmuch as I had done it before your letter came. This you may perceive by the joint letter which you shall receive from my Lord Chancellor, my Lord Treasurer, and myself. And for me you may rest assured, that nothing can concern you, little or more, nearly or afar off, but you shall have all care out of my affection, and all strength and help out of my means and power, to conserve and advance your good estate and contentment. And so I remain

Your very affectionate and assured friend,

December 28, 1616.

FR. BACON.

7.

I cannot speak with any certainty as to the nature of the business to which the next letter relates. But I think it was connected with the cloth question. It appears on the face of it that "the Farmers"-meaning no doubt the Farmers of the Customs-had commenced some proceeding in Chancery which the King wished 19 Dec. 1616, Add. MSS. 3562, f. 42. 2 Ibid. f. 27 b.

the Lord Chancellor to dismiss-probably as being an encroachment upon his Prerogative; that Bacon thought it unadvisable for the King to interfere—or at least to be seen to interfere; and suggested an arrangement by which it might be avoided. Now I find among the State Papers one undated, but supposed by the calendarer to belong to November 1616, the contents of which are thus described, "Remonstrance of the Farmers of Customs against the intended proclamation for wearing English cloth, as calculated to injure trade so much that they should be obliged to give up their patent."l If they resorted to the Court of Chancery for redress, and if the King directed Bacon to move the Lord Chancellor to refuse them a hearing, the following letter to Villiers-now Earl of Buckingham2— may very well have been his answer.

TO THE R. HON. HIS VERY GOOD L. THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAM.3 It may please your good L.

I pray let his Majesty understand, that although my Lord Chancellor's answer touching the dismission of the Farmer's cause was full of respect and duty, yet I would be glad to avoid an express signification from his Majesty, if his Majesty may otherwise have his end. And therefore I have thought of a course, that a motion be made in open court, and that thereupon my Lord move a compromise to some to be named on either part, with band to stand to their award. And as I find this to be agreeable to my Lord Chancellor's disposition, so I do not find but the Farmers and the other party are willing enough towards it. And therefore his Majesty may be pleased to forbear any other letter or message touching that business. God ever keep your Lordship.

Your Lordship's true and most devoted servant,
FR. BACON.

23 of Jan. 1616.

8.

The monopoly which is the subject of the next letter belongs to a class which is still considered legitimate. Clement Dawbeney had invented a machine for slitting iron bars into rods, and obtained a patent for the sole use of it. Upon complaint made to the Council by a rival bar-slitter that the monopoly was injurious to the public,

1 See vol. lxxxix. no. 54. Calendar, p. 410.

2 Created on the 5th of January 1616-7.

3 Fortescue Papers, orig. own hand.