of the religious liberties of Europe, we are well warranted by the issue of similar experiments, both before and after, in concluding that the Lower House would have been liberal of subsidies. And if at the same time the particular points in dispute between the Commons and the Crown could have been quietly removed out of the way, and the King could have been persuaded to consent to some arrangement which would put it out of his power to indulge his taste in future for that thoughtless liberality in giving which was the origin of those illiberal anxieties about getting that lost him so much. majesty in the eyes of his subjects, and if he could. have acted his part well enough (for the assumption of an air of confidence and indifference at such a time would have required good acting), the experiment, though bold, would have been far from hopeless. - But there were two difficulties in the way, one of which I think Bacon cannot have been fully aware of. If to prepare against danger to religion from the intermarriages between France and Spain was to be the business of the session, the rumor of a marriage to be arranged between our own Prince of Wales and the Infanta would be a very intractable item in the programme. How Bacon proposed to treat it, we have seen; and one would like to know whether when he submitted that suggestion to the King he was aware of the state of the negotiation. If he did not know that such a proposal was under consideration (which is possible, for it was conducted with careful secrecy) we could only infer that he would not himself have advised the King to entertain it seriously. But if he knew that it had taken the shape of a series of formal articles, proposed by the King of Spain and accepted by the King of England as a basis for negotiation (which was the state of things at the end of June, 1615), we must suppose that he meant to interpose a very bold and emphatic warning against it. As an officer of the government who was not a Councillor, he could hardly have represented to the King more distinctly the inconvenience of the policy which he was meditating than by recommending him to let the prospect of it be held out in terrorem to his Parliament, as a thing so hateful that they would be the readier to take away the motive to it—which was the financial embarrassment. That in his private opinion the Spanish match would be a very impolitic measure is clear upon either supposition. The other difficulty was the want of harmony in the King's own household, which threatened discord in action. There were factions at Court, both political and personal. But I imagine that the divisions which Bacon referred to were chiefly political: as between the supporters of the French alliance on one side and the Spanish on the other; each interested in discrediting their rivals, and therefore in thwarting whatever measures they fa vored. Unless provision could be made against this contingency, it would be better to let the thing alone; and James resolved, before committing himself further, to ascertain how his Councillors were disposed. And a report, lately disinterred, of the consultation which followed, explains the position in which he and his Councillors of State stood towards the Legislature. None of them thought that the government could be carried on satisfactorily without the help of Parliament. All of them felt that to call in the help of Parliament without first removing the causes of quarrel and misunderstanding would be worse than useless. But they all hoped (more or less confidently) that with proper preparations a reconciliation might be effected, and all agreed in a general way as to the kind of preparations to be made. The King approved the course they recommended, and directed them to set about it at once. And the next day they arranged the several committees, so that each sev eral head of inquiry might be entered upon in earnest at the beginning of the next week. What would have come of it must be left to conjecture. The business was interrupted by a great accident, which threw other work upon the hands of the Government and made the time altogether unfit for the trial of such an experiment: as we shall see in the next chapter. Two years before the time at which we have now arrived, Sir Thomas Overbury, Somerset's great friend and adviser, died in the Tower, to which he had been committed for contempt. In the summer of 1615 a report reached Winwood that there was reason for suspecting that he died by violence. This report he mentioned casually to the Earl of Shrewsbury as a blot upon the reputation of Sir Gervase Hellwysse, who was lieutenant of the Tower at the time. Hellwysse, hearing of it from the Earl, volunteered a statement to Winwood, in which he admitted that there had indeed been a design to poison Overbury by the hands of Richard Weston, the under keeper; but asserted that he had himself detected, dissuaded, and taken measures to prevent, though he had not revealed it. This Winwood reported to the King, who immediately gave orders that Hellwysse should be required to set down his declaration in writing. In the declaration which he drew up in obedience to this command, Hellwysse admitted not only that he had himself discovered the intention of Weston to poison Overbury, but that he had since heard from Weston that Overbury was really murdered, and that it was done with a clyster administered afterwards by an apothecary's boy who had been bribed. The only actor in the business that he knew of, besides Weston, was (he said) one Mrs. Turner; who, as soon as she heard that the case was likely to be inquired into, had sent Weston to sound him and find out how much he knew, and what part he was likely to take. But he admitted that, though he had "set down the truth," it was "peradventure not the whole truth;" and as it seems that in his first communication to Winwood he had excused his own silence as proceeding from his fear of "impeaching or accusing great persons," the words were understood as an intimation that the Somersets were in some way implicated.1 This declaration was dated the 10th of September. On reading it, the King, who does not appear to have heard of the rumor before, referred the matter to " some Councillors," with directions to inquire in the first place whether there was any ground for such an imputation upon the Somersets; and if they found it to be a groundless calumny, then who was the author of it. The case proved on inquiry to be so grave that it was thought expedient to put it into the hands of Coke, as the man most practiced in such investigations and the highest officer of justice; who appears to have entered on the work on the 27th, the day before the meeting of the Council upon the Parliament question. Examinations were taken by him daily during the next week; and though the matter was still dark, the evidence began to tell so strongly against the Somersets that he thought it prudent to strengthen himself with the help of persons of higher rank than his own. For this purpose he went himself to Royston to speak with the King; who, upon his representation of the state of the case, joined in commission with him the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Lenox, and Lord Zouch. The date of their commission is not positively known; but I have little doubt that Mr. Gardiner is right in inferring that it was delivered to Coke in person at Royston on the evening of Friday the 1 Overbury had opposed the project of obtaining the divorce with a view to the marriage. |