If Cecil did at this time exhibit feelings very hostile to Essex they were not unprovoked, nor without justification. According to the witnesses who had been examined, one avowed object of Essex in his movement was to revenge himself upon his enemies, Cobham, Cecil, and Ralegh, and the accused said the same on his trial. There is no evidence or even allegation of the unfriendly proceedings on the part of Cecil which provokes this hostility, and the conduct of Essex in this insurrection is really so wild and unaccountable, as to justify us in imputing to him a sort of mental delusion. The cry by which he attempted to raise the Londoners was, that England was sold to Spain, and he affected to believe that Cecil was in a plot for ousting James of the succession in favour of the Infanta. On the trial *, Essex did not attempt to bring evidence in support of this foolish story. "As for that I spake in London, that the crown of England was sold to the Spaniard, I speak it not of myself, for it was told me that Mr. secretary should say to one of his fellow counsellors that the Infanta's title comparatively was as good in succession as any other." + Cecil was in court, and after some objection from the peers, who reasonably made light of the allegation, obtained liberty to address the prisoner. Such an interruption would now be deemed irregular, but in those days there was often much colloquy between the prisoners, judges, counsel, and even bystanders.

"My lord of Essex," said Cecil, "the difference between you and me is great. For wit, I give you the pre-eminence, you have it abundantly; for nobility also I give you place. I am not noble, yet a gentleman; I am no swordsman,· there also you have the odds but I have innocence, conscience, truth, and honesty, to defend me against the scandal and sting of slanderous tongues; and in this court I stand as an upright man, and your lordship as a delinquent. I

* 19th of February, 1600-1.

+ Jardine, 352.

protest before God I have loved your person, and justified your virtues; and I appeal to God and the queen, that I told her majesty your affections would make you a fit servant for her, attending but a fit time to move her majesty to call you to the court again. And had I not seen your ambitious affections inclined to usurpation, I would have gone on my knees to her majesty to have done you good; but you have a wolf's heart in a sheep's garment, in appearance humble and religious, but in disposition ambitious and aspiring. God be thanked, we now know you, for indeed your religion appears by Blunt, Davis, and Tresham your chief counsellors, and by your promising liberty of conscience hereafter. Ah, my lord, were it but your own case, the loss had been the less, but you have drawn a number of noble persons, and gentlemen of birth and quality into your net of rebellion, and their bloods will cry vengeance against you. For my part, I vow to God, I wish my soul had been in heaven, and my body at rest, that this had not been." The bitterness of Essex's feelings towards Cecil appears in his reception of this address. "Ah! Mr. secretary, I thank God for my humiliation, that you, in the rust of all your bravery, have come hither to make your oration against me this day." "My lord," replied Cecil, perhaps losing his temper, "I humbly thank God, that you did not take me for a fit companion for you, and your humour, for if you had, you would have drawn me to betray my sovereign as you have done others. But I challenge you," he added, reverting to the point to which it would perhaps have been as well that he should have come at once, "I challenge you to name the counsellor to whom I should say those words; name him, if you dare, if you do not name him, it must be believed to be a fiction." Essex hereupon said that his fellow-prisoner Southampton, had heard the imputation as well as he. Cecil then solemnly adjured Southampton to name his

* These gentlemen, or some of them, were Roman catholics.

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 convic tion, "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.

If Cecil did at this time exhibit feelings very hostile to Essex they were not unprovoked, nor without justification. According to the witnesses who had been examined, one avowed object of Essex in his movement was to revenge himself upon his enemies, Cobham, Cecil, and Ralegh, and the accused said the same on his trial. There is no evidence or even allegation of the unfriendly proceedings on the part of Cecil which provokes this hostility, and the conduct of Essex in this insurrection is really so wild and unaccountable, as to justify us in imputing to him a sort of mental delusion. The cry by which he attempted to raise the Londoners was, that England was sold to Spain, and he affected to believe that Cecil was in a plot for ousting James of the succession in favour of the Infanta. On the trial *. Essex did not attempt to bring evidence in support of this foolish story. "As for that I spake in London, that the crown of England was sold to the Spaniard, I speak it not of myself, for it was told me that Mr. secretary should say to one of his fellow counsellors that the Infanta's title comparatively was as good in succession as any other."† Cecil was in court, and after some objection from the peers, who reasonably made light of the allegation, obtained liberty to address the prisoner. Such an interruption would now be deemed irregular, but in those days there was often much colloquy between the prisoners, judges, counsel, and even bystanders.

66

My lord of Essex," said Cecil, the difference between you and me is great. For wit, I give you the pre-eminence, you have it abundantly; for nobility also I give you place. I am not noble, yet a gentleman; I am no swordsman,—there also you have the odds but I have innocence, conscience, truth, and honesty, to defend me against the scandal and sting of slanderous tongues; and in this court I stand as an upright man, and your lordship as a delinquent. I * 19th of February, 1600-1.

† Jardine, 352.