he appealed to the King for help. His appeal was in the form of a petition, consisting of a recital of facts with answers to the aspersions of which he complained; and ended with two requests: first that he might have leave to confirm the truth of his statement by receiving the sacrament upon it in his Majesty's chapel; and secondly (which was more to the purpose) that "a declaration" might be suffered to come forth "from the State, for the clearing of these matters and further satisfaction of the world." The request was reasonable. The King owed as much, not to Stucley only, but to himself. For the world was talking, thinking, and feeling with passionate excitement about matters of which it had no means as yet of knowing the true history, or anything like it. That Ralegh's "late crimes and offenses were not as yet publicly known," was still as true as on the 18th of October when the Commissioners called the King's attention to the fact. But StucleyBut Stucley-thinking perhaps that his first defense had failed of effect for want of literary skill had now called in the aid of a practiced penman to point the sentences; under whose hands the composition lost all that appearance of simplicity and sincerity which formed the merit of his own "Apology," and assumed a shape as unfit as possible either to convince or to conciliate an ill affected public. The writer was said to be Dr. Sharpe. Whoever he was, he succeeded in exhibiting the unfortunate Sir Lewis in an attitude and frame of mind as insolent and offensive as he could, and as well contrived to turn everybody against him; and in making his petition a most unfortunate precursor for the manifesto which the vertunt, were preparing. It supplied, however, the wanted and was made to o against me in my flight, with all my hea rament this morning and I have forgiven all are perfidious, I am bound in clarity to spani them." Jardine, p At what time the "Petition" had been drawn up and presented, we do not know, but it was published by the King's printer on the 26th of November, and an effort was made to get the Declaration out immediately after. "Sir Lewis Stucley's petition" (so Naunton writes to Buckingham on the 27th) "was published yesterday; the declaration is this day, upon the dispatch of this packet, to follow after. The printer hath sent me two copies of each, for his Majesty and the Prince, and prays pardon for some escapes committed in their haste; which was such as they were fain to watch two nights, and set twenty presses to work at once." Perhaps it was thought that the Petition would create a desire for information without satisfying it, and so give the Declaration a greater value. Chamberlain's report of their first appearance suggests some such relation between them. Writing the next day, he says: 1 "You will find little in Sir Lewis Stucley's Apology but that they strive to beray one another. It is like we shall have no further Declaration if this may satisfy, which hitherto finds little credit. "But now when I am come thus far, my man brings me an authentical declaration of all that business. I have not read a word of it (more than the title); for it came forth but this morning and, as I hear, it is the work of the Lord Chancellor, Mr. Attorney, or Secretary Naunton; or rather fathered upon all three so that in all probability it must be as true as well written." The allusions to it in Bacon's letters to the King and Buckingham indicate a joint composition, but one in which he was himself concerned. And though it is imDossible to say how much of it was his own, yet, judging the style, I incline to think that the greater part was wholly written or largely corrected by himself. "Bacon's Declaration," as Mr. Edwards does, ik, his Petition, which had been published two days before. is both inaccurate and misleading. To call it "the King's Declaration," as has been done by others, is nearer the truth; for though not written by his hand nor issued in his name, it was issued with his knowledge and permission, as a manifestation of his mind. But its proper title is "the official Declaration:" a declaration drawn up by the King's direction, penned by certain Councillors (Bacon being one), allowed by the Council, and printed by authority. Bacon's rank in Council, together with his concern in the actual composition, entitle us to impute to him a large share of the responsibility: but as he spoke in the name of others, and his authority was not absolute, to charge him with the sole responsibility is a mistake. Wherever I have been able to compare the statements in this Declaration with the evidence upon which they were made, I have found them to be very careful and conscientious; and I have no doubt that the narrative may in all parts be depended upon for strict accuracy, so far as accuracy was attainable by studious comparison of conflicting witnesses. But it is much to be regrettedand must I think have been a great error of judgment in the King or his Councillors-that this evidence was not made public at the same time. Official statements put. forth in excuse of the Government are always apt to be suspected, because they are not exposed a criticism and those who want the excuse tell the story this, where the excuse had to be made of a strong popular prejudice, it was doubly ingly. That it was not because they would have failed to bear out the official story, I infer from the tenor of all those which I have seen. For though most of them have disappeared, a few have luckily survived; and that these at least might have been cited as witnesses every way unexceptionable in confirmation of the story as told by the government, which story, though it cannot claim the authority due to a judicial sentence by a judge who has no interest in the cause, framed as it was by those who were responsible for the action which it was written to justify, although, therefore, it is fairly open to such suspicions as must always attach to statements made in self-defense, I may surely claim such attention as statements made in self-defense are always held to be entitled to. Let it by all means be analyzed, criticised, confronted, disputed, and (where it can be convicted of error) set aside. But why should it not be heard? Now although, when I remember the importance which is claimed for it by Hume, I cannot suppose that its existence is not generally known; yet when I read the statements of the case as commonly set forth in our popular biographies and histories of state trials, I can hardly think that it has been read by the writers. For I find almost invariably that all the material points are omitted: and when I inquire in what particulars it is inaccurate and how the inaccuracy is proved, I find scarcely anything to enlighten me. I cannot indeed profess to be acquainted with all that has been written on the subject, 1 the question may have been satisfactorily answered ne book which I have not seen: but I cannot at recall more than two particulars in which the the present work does not admit of the introduction of collatkind. But in the larger work from which it is extracted as tions as I have met with, together with all other contei either way upon the matter treated of in the official are set forth at length in the form most convenient truth of the narrative has been definitely challenged one of which is a very small and immaterial error, if it be an error at all; and the other is merely an opinion stated to be erroneous, upon a question on which opinions. differ. Mr. Edwards has taken exception to the statement that Ralegh dealt with the owner of the French barque for a passage from Plymouth "before he was under guard;" and it is true that according to Captain King's narrative (as quoted by Oldys) it must have been after he had been arrested. But Captain King's narrative was not written till after the Declaration was published, and we do not know what other evidence the Commissioners had before them.2 That they were in error at all may still be doubted. That the error, if any, was immaterial, may be seen by this, the correction of it does not alter the case; a reasonable apprehension of arrest being as good a justification of the attempt to escape (if any justification were needed) as the arrest itself; and a cause for reasonable apprehension having been already furnished by the Proclamation. All that the attempt to escape could prove in either case was that Raleigh did not mean to trust himself in the hands of government if he could help it; and an attempt to escape "before he was under guard" did not prove this more conclusively than an attempt after. Mr. Gardiner, on the other hand, who has been careful 1 "Before Stucley's arrival at Plymouth," are Mr. Edwards's words. But I have only to deal with the real ones. 2 They must have had some kind of evidence that he had meditated escape before the arrest, because in the preceding before the Commissioners, among the "faults committed slo before commandment in up after the arrest upon hi |