"STAPLE (Stapulum)," says Cowell, in his 'Interpreter,' "signifieth this or that town or city, whither the merchants of England by common order or commandment did carry their wools, wool fells, cloaths, lead and tin, and such like commodities of our land, for the utter ance of them by the great." These towns were provided with tribunals for the regulation of the trade; and the privilege, which was conferred at the pleasure of the crown by letters patent, had been "in times past," says Coke, "so renowned and beneficial, as it enriched every place where it was holden, and it was commonly said that riches followed the Staple."1 Ireland had at this time only four such towns, all in the south; and upon complaint made that "great quantities of wools were exported out of that realm into foreign parts, to the exceeding prejudice of the clothing of this kingdom," directions were given by the Council to Chichester, St. John, and others "to consider as well of such ports in the realm of Ireland from whence only wools should be shipped into England, as also of such ports in England to which only the wools of Ireland should be brought." This was accordingly done; and certain places having been recommended by them for erection into Staple Towns, "forasmuch as the business was of great consequence and had relation to matter of law," it was thought necessary before proceeding further to consult the Attorney General. The report was

accordingly referred to Bacon on the 13th of July 1616, who on the 22nd returned the following certificate.

MR. ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATE TOUCHING THE WOOLS OF

IRELAND,1

According to your Lps reference of the 13th of this instant July, I have considered of the certificate of the Lord Chichester, the Lord Deputy of Ireland, Alderman Cockaine, and George Lowe, concerning restraint of exportation of wools, woollen yarn, etc. out of Ireland into foreign parts. And I do approve the said certificate with the explanations, alterations, and provi sions following.

1. First, that the five Towns named in the certificate as staple towns in England be not understood to receive any new charters or privileges of staple, but only be understood to be towns correspondent for the receiving of wools, etc. out of the staple towns of Ireland, without any other novelty.

2. Secondly, that whereas of the eight towns of Ireland mentioned in the certificate, four of them are ancient staple towns, viz.: Dublin, Waterford, Corke, Drogheda, and one is made a staple town by a late charter from his Majesty, viz.: Lim. bricke, and three are not yet erected to be staple towns, viz. : Gallway, Knockfergus, and London Derry; it is fit that the three towns which have yet no charter of staples, have charters to erect them into staple towns only for these commodities. And it is convenient also that the four other ancient staple towns, and Limbricke, either by accepting of new charters or otherwise by order of the Council of State there, be reduced to be conform unto the orders which shall now be prescribed for the staple, to the end there may be one uniform course held in all the eight towns.

3. Thirdly, that the orders and privileges of all the said charters be considered of and framed here in England, and also the charters thercupon to pass here.

4. Fourthly, that whereas part of the commodities mentioned in the said certificate are expressly forbidden by the sta

1 8. P. I1eland, vol. 234. no. 19. Original. The heading is from the docket.

Bacon's before him." Now nobody who can read finds any trouble in distinguishing small pica from long primer. If he wishes to see only what is Bacon's, he has only to refrain from reading anything which is not in small pica, and his trouble will consist in turning over the leaves. If that is too much, the capitals in the table of contents will show him at a glance all the pages which contain anything of Bacon's own, and he can go to them at once without so much as turning over the other leaves. More than this I cannot do for him without manifest injustice to his weaker brethren, for whoin, as being presumably in the same condition in which I was myself when I began, I have a fellow feeling. It is true that the work is constructed on the supposition that both the comment and the text will be read; nor do I regard any one who skips either the one or the other as having read the book or qualified himself to criticize it; but certainly nothing can be easier than to read all that is Bacon's without looking at anything that is mine, or all that is mine without looking at anything that is Bacon's.

Another and a very different critic, who complains of "the absence of the man, Francis Bacon, from the scene," will, I hope, profit by the same information. If he will take the trouble to read some of the larger type, he will find that the man, Francis Bacon, is the principal person in every sceno throughout the work, and that the business of the smaller print is only to prepare the reader for his entrance. Wherever ho sees small pica he may be sure that Bacon himself is there, in a much more authentic shape than either he or I could present him in; that he is there in his own person, speaking in his own words.

There are some cases also in which, though he is not speaking, he may be regarded as really present,-cases in which writings have been popularly ascribed to him which were not his. Of this kind is the discussion of the famous letter to Sir Edward Coke upon his loss of office (pp. 121-131); which is the fulfilment of a promise made by me in a former volume to justify the opinion there expressed—namely that nobody could

PREFACE.

believe it to have been written by Bacon "who knew what it was about." In connection with which case I have also taken occasion to draw attention to the remarkable discovery, made five or six years ago by the Rev. Alexander Grosart, of the real author of another work with which Bacon has been falsely credited "The character of a believing Christian in Paradoxes and seeming contradictions."

As this is a preface of explanations, I will use it to acknowledge an error which I shall probably not have an opportunity of correcting. Having occasion to mention a Bill concerning Religion brought into the House of Commons in 1605–6 by Sir Edwin Sandys (Vol. III. p. 264), and having found it stated on good authority that his books had been publicly burned a few months before by order of the High Commission, I noticed the fact in passing, as significant of the relation in which he stood towards the authorities of the Church. I am indebted to a correspondent of " Notes and Queries" (19 April 1871, p. 359) for the knowledge of a circumstance which entirely alters the case, and makes the inference inapplicable. It appears that, if the Publisher's Preface to the Europæ Speculum may be trusted, what was burned was only spurious stolen copy, in part epitomised, in part amplified, and throughout most shamefully falsified and false printed from the author's original, insomuch that the same knight [Sir E. was infinitely wronged thereby;" and that it was burned by his own

Sandys]

a

desire. "As soone as it came to his know

ledge that such a thing was printed and passed under his name, he caused it (though somewhat late, when it seemes two impressions were for the most part vented) to be prohibited by anthority; and, as I have heard, as many as could be dis-covered to be deservedly burnt, with power also to punish the Printers." I have very little doubt that this is the true account of the matter, and therefore that the inference which I had drawn was a mistake. Luckily nothing of importance' depended upon it, and it will be completely removed by leaving out all the words within the parenthesis. Carleton, to