Bacon's Dictionary
Appendices
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
57 58 59
The exhibits and miniatures of which are found in this section, are designed to assist the serious student and reader in following the path of the Authorship Controvesy that has been so laboriously persued by many authors and researchers during its commence.
These exhibits have been placed here as not to interrupt the flow of reading in the Baconian Dictionary sections, being a finding list of Bacon’s works, his history, his thoughts and his aims, which are a subject of study and discussion.
Bacon’s Pedigree
Bacon Arms: Quarterly, First and fourth, Gules, on a Chief, Argent, two Mullets, Sable, for Bacon. Second and third, Barry of Six, Or and Azure, over all a Bend, Gules, for Quaplod. Bacon Crest: On a Wreath, Argent and Gules, a Boar passan Ermine. Bacon Motto: Mediocra Firma. Bacon Seat: Colchester in Essex.
The Bacon family derive their decent from Grimbaldus, who came into England at the time of the Norman Conquest, in company with William Earl Warren, to whom he was related; which Grimbaldus had lands in Normandy; and, after his arrival in England, settled at Letheringsett, near Holt in Norfolk. Grimbaldus founded a church, and made his second son, Edmund, parson of it. His other sons were Radulph and Ranulph. Roger, the son of Ranulph, was father of Robert, the first of the family we find mentioned by the name of Bacon, whose brother, William Bacon, was of Monks Bradfield in the county of Suffolk, temp. Ric. I., which William is taken notice of among the Knights bearing banners, as well Normans as of other provinces, in the reign of King Philip II., of France, and by a daughter of Thomas, Lord Bardolph, was father of another William, of the same place, whose son, Adam, lived in the time of Edward I., and left two sons: Wido Bacon of Bradfield aforesaid, who died without issue, and Robert Bacon of Hesset, alias Hegesett, in the said county. The said Robert, by Alice his wife, daughter of Burgate, had issue John Bacon of Hesset and Bradfield, who was father of John Bacon, and he of another John, of the same places, who married Helena, daughter of Gedding, and by her left a son of his own name, who married (first) Helena, daughter of Sir George Tillot, of Rougham in Norfolk, Knight, and (secondly) Julian, daughter of Bardwell; from which second marriage proceeded the Bacons of Hesset, who flourished there near five hundred years, and have not been extinct a century. John, son of the said John Bacon, (by Helena his first wife) married Margery, daughter and heir of John Thorp, son of William Thorp, (by the daughter and heir of Quaplod) son of Sir William Thorp (by the daughter and heir of Sir Roger Bacon, a commander in the wars, temp. Edward II., and Edward III., son of Sir Henry Bacon, son of another Sir Henry, a judge itinerant, temp. Henry., III. lineally descended from Grimbaldus); since which marriage this branch of the family quarter the arms of Quaplod with their own, viz. Barry of six, or and Azure, a Bend, Gules. The said John Bacon was father of Edmund Bacon of Drinkston, who married Elizabeth, daughter of Crofts, by whom he had issue John Bacon, who married Agnes, daughter of Thomas Cockfield, and had issue Robert Bacon of Drinkston, who lies buried at Hesset, with Isabella his wife, daughter of John Cage, of Pakenham in Suffolk, by whom he had issue three sons and two daughters, viz.
- Thomas Bacon, of Northaw, in Hertfordshire, who married the daughter of Brown, but died without issue.
- Sir Nicholas Bacon hereafter mentioned.
- James Bacon, Alderman of London, who died in 1573 and lies buried at St. Dunstan’s in the East London; leaving issue, Sir James Bacon, of Friston in Suffolk, Knight, who married Elizabeth, daughter of Bacon of Hesset. William and one daughter, Anne, married to George Revett of Brandeston in Suffolk. The daughters of the said Robert Bacon were, Barbara, married to Robert Sharp, and Anne to Robert Blackman, both of St. Edmondsbury in Suffolk.
Sir Nicholas Bacon was the second son to Robert. He was born at Chistehurst in Kent, and educated at Corpus Christi College in Cambridge, (to which he was a great benefactor, by endowing it with six scholarships, three whereof he appropriated to scholars from Botesdale school, near his feat at Redgrave, founded by himself, and building the chapel and library over it) after which, removing to Gray’s Inn for the study of the law, he made such a proficiency that King Henry VIII., in the thirty-eighth of his reign, made him attorney of the Court of Wards, having before, in the thirty-sixth year of his reign, granted him the manors of Redgrave, Botesdale, and Gillingham, late belonging to the monastery of St. Edmundsbury in Suffolk, with the park of Redgrave, and six acres of land in Wortham, as also the tithes of Redgrave, to hold in capite by Knight’s service and upon the death of that King (which happened soon after) he had his patent renewed; Edward VI., and in the sixth of the same King was constituted Treasurer of Gray’s Inn, of which society he was a member. Being grown still more famous for his knowledge, he had the honour of Knighthood conferred upon him by Queen Elizabeth I., in the first year of her reign, and was made Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England, which office in his time was by Act of Parliament made equal in authority with that of the Chancellor. He promoted the interest of England to his power and, to secure his own, made use of the policy of the age, viz. great alliance. He and Cecil [Lord Burghley] married two sisters: Walsingham and Mildmay, two more Knolles, Essex, and Leicester, were also linked together. As to greatness, Sir Nicholas never affected it, according to his motto, Mediocria firma; nor was he so much for a large, as a good estate. His houses at Redgrave in Suffolk and Gorhambury in Hertfordshire were convenient, but not stately; which made Queen Elizabeth tell him, when she called at Redgrave, in her progress, “That it was too little for his Lordship”, to which he answered, “No Madam, but your Highness has made me too big for it.” However, on that remark he is said to have added the wings to the house. Sir Nicholas Bacon died 21 Eliz. 1579 and was interred on the south side of the choir of St. Paul’s Cathedral, London, where a noble monument was erected to his memory, before the Fire of London, 1666.
We know from various accounts and records of the time, that Sir Nicholas Bacon had the deepest reach into affairs of any man that was at the Council Table; the knottiest head to pierce into difficulties; the most comprehensive judgment to surround the merit of a cause; the strongest memory to recollect all circumstances of a business to one view the greatest patience to debate and consider, and the clearest reason to urge anything that came in his way in Court or Chancery. His dexterity and dispatch advanced him to the Court of Wards; his deep experience made him Lord Keeper. Great was this Statesman’s wit, greater the fame of it. He was the exactest man to draw up a law in Council, and the mort discrete to execute it in Court. The Excellency of his parts was set off with the gravity of his person; his account of England and all its affairs was punctual; his use of learned artists was continual; his correspondence with his fellow statesmen exact; his apprehension of our laws and government clear; his model of both, methodical; his faithfulness to the church, eminent; his industrious invention for the state, indefatigable; he was that moderate man that was appointed to preside at the disputation between the Protestant and popish doctors in the first year of Elizabeth; in a word, he was a father of his country, and of Francis Bacon. At the accession of Elizabeth, Nicholas Bacon was about thirty-six years old; a large corpulent man, with a square massive face, deeply lined, high arched brows, and an aquiline nose; the expression of the whole visage keen, hard, and unsparing. As a politician, Nicholas Bacon was unknown to Elizabeth, but had been recommended by Cecil. He received a grant from Henry VIII., of three manors, and during Somerset’s government he conducted himself with skilful prudence, and gave no offence to any party. In Mary’s reign his official position was undisturbed. He appears in a favourable light as depicted by Mr. Froude in his Elizabethan Worthies. In speaking of her various ministers to La Motte Feneleon, the French Ambassador, Elizabeth said that she had the good fortune to have had in her employment two men possessed of more practical common sense than any others whom she had ever known, namely, William Cecil and Nicholas Bacon. The Queen added with a smile: “But those who had little sense or prudence sometimes pleased me more.” The latter passage would lead to the inference that “golden Eliza,” with perhaps a sigh, thought of the days when Dudley or Hatton enjoyed the royal favour. Sir Nicholas Bacon held the office of Lord Keeper, or Chancellor, for nearly twenty years. As a judge he gave general satisfaction; and it was remarked, by his contemporaries of all parties, that from the days of Sir Thomas More, justice had never been so well administered in the Court of Chancery. On the bench he was patient and courteous, and, like Wolsey, he displayed a sympathy for the poor suitor, and always discouraged that spirit of litigation for fostering which the attorneys and lawyers of those times were notorious.
When we come to examine the “political character” of Nicholas Bacon, he at once appears to be the unscrupulous instrument of Elizabeth and Cecil. In 1568 the Queen appointed him to preside over the commission which was held at Hampton Court to enquire into the murder of Darnley, and investigate the “casket case.” On this occasion, he formed a friendship for such men as Moray and Buchanan. At one of the meetings convened for this investigation, Nicholas Bacon spoke in terms of scorn of Mary Stuart and those nobles and lairds who sustained her legitimate claims in Scotland. The Scots felt that the English Chancellor had offered an insult to their country, and the name of Bacon was long years subsequently execrated by the Scots. In the English Parliament Sir Nicholas Bacon was also unpopular. He told the Commons that “they should do well to meddle with no matters of State but such as should he propounded for them.” The Puritan spirit, was not, however, so easily humbled. Several members brought forward motions about the abuse of the royal prerogative in granting monopolies, and the necessity for settling the succession to the Crown. Several of those “unruly Puritans” were summoned before the Council, when Nicholas Bacon severely reprimanded them for their temerity; and one member, who persisted in stating that he had a right to express his honest convictions, was carried out of the House, and lodged in the Fleet, where he remained for two years, till death released him from Elizabeth’s anger. At the close of the Session of 1571, Nicholas Bacon highly extolled the “loyalty and discretion” of the House of Peers. The Queen was present on this occasion, and she attracted unusual crowds from the fact of her having made her journey to Westminster Abbey for the first time (April 2) in a coach, which was drawn by two palfreys covered with crimson velvet, embossed, and embroidered very richly; but this was the only coach in the procession; the Lord Keeper Bacon, and the Peers, Spiritual and Temporal, were on horseback, magnificently attired. The enthusiasm of the people for Elizabeth was immense; but they preferred seeing “golden Eliza” on horseback, “she looks so grand,” writes Speaker Puckering, who, by the way, was himself heartily despised by the people. The proceedings of the Session of 1571 did not end without a fresh attack being made on the liberties of the Commons by Sir Nicholas Bacon. When Elizabeth went to open Parliament he was present. He sat upon the woolsack, and delivered an oration in the Queen’s name to the members of both Houses. He was not permitted to take part in the Lords’ debates, although he sat on the woolsack as their Speaker. This arrangement often led to unpleasant incidents, for Nicholas Bacon was obliged to listen to attacks upon him, and remain silent. He sometimes signified his dissent by “a peculiar cough,” or playing impatiently with his “walking-stick.” He condemned the Commons “for their audacious, arrogant, and presumptuous folly, thus by superfluous speech spending much time in meddling with matters neither pertaining to them nor within the capacity of their understanding.” The Puritan party in the Commons were rapidly increasing at this time in strength and courage, and the Queen and her Council crushed them whenever an opportunity offered. It is affirmed that Sir Nicholas Bacon “framed the acts, and gave important suggestions as to the manner in which the Queen of Scots and her adherents were to be disposed of.” The noble author of the English Chancellors remarks, “that although death saved Nicholas Bacon from the disgrace of being directly accessory to the death of Mary Stuart, he is chargeable with having strongly supported the policy which finally led to that catastrophe, by urging the continuation of the captivity of the Queen of Scots, and by aiding in the efforts to blacken her reputation; and by contending, that though a captive Sovereign, she ought to be treated as a rebellious subject.” Sir Nicholas Bacon also played a noted part in the prosecution of those who sympathised with the Queen of Scots. Being a Commoner, Nicholas Bacon could neither act as Lord Steward, nor sit upon the trial of the Duke of Norfolk, who was one of the first who suffered for sympathising with Mary Stuart. Nevertheless, he put the Great Seal to the commission under which this mockery of justice was enacted, and must have superintended and directed the whole proceedings. He is to be considered answerable for such atrocities as depriving the prisoner of the use of books, and debarring him all communication with his family and friends; and placing him in a close dungeon in the Tower, giving him notice of trial only the night he bore his arraignment; keeping him in ignorance of the charges against him till he heard the indictment read in Court, and resting the case for the Crown on the confessions of witnesses whom the Council had ordered “to the plot to the rack, that they might find a taste there of Sir Nicholas Bacon, like his brother-in-law, Cecil, was determined to use every expedient to crush and enslave the believers in a religion which he himself had openly professed in the preceding reign, and had, like Cecil, partaken of Communion in the Queen’s presence; whilst, at the same time, he was in secret correspondence with the English reformers at Strasburg, for the overthrow of the religion in whose truth he publicly declared, in the manner above narrated, his solemn conviction.”
The Cottonian MS., Calig. f. 328., preserves a minute of the letter which Queen Elizabeth I., sent to the Scottish Queen to prepare herself for her arraignment, dated from Windsor Castle October 6, 1586. In the same folio is another letter from the Queen to Lord Burghley and Secretary Walsingham, upon some steps to be taken preparatory to the trial. From the following letter it will be seen that the trial had been finally agreed upon long before; and that at one time Hertford Castle was the place fixed upon for it to be held at. Lord Burghley was evidently in favour of bringing the Scottish Queen to Hertford and as will be seen, the nobility and gentry of the different counties appointed were to attend in relays to conduct the removal from Fotheringay: 1
1 Henry Ellis. English History, 1825
September 8, 1586.
A Memorial of matters with the Queen’s Majesty concerning the Scot’s Queen. 2
To what place the Queen of Scots shall be removed. About what time the Counsel and Noblemen shall assemble to hear the Scot’s Queen’s cause. At what time the judgment of the Noblemen shall be affirmed by Parliament. Hereupon order is to be given for execution of the Resolutions. Upon the first, Sir Amyce Paulett is to be warned to put things in order for her remove, without giving to her, or to any of hers, any warning longer than two or three days. Not shewing to her to what place certain she shall go, but the space of two or three day’s journey. Warning to be given to certain principal Gentlemen to attend with a number of servants for that purpose from Shire to Shire. To have letters sent severally to all Noblemen that are absent, to come to London about a day certain: or rather to the Court. According to the Queen’s resolution to have either a new summons presently, or else to expect November 14. The Name of the Gentlemen appointed to attend the Queen of Scots in her Remove:
Out of Staffordshire By Warwickshire By Northamptonshire
Sr. Walter Aston. Sr. Thomas Lucy. Sr. John Spencer.
Thomas Trentham. Sr. Fulk Grevil. Sr. Richard Knightly.
Thomas Grisseley. Sr. Francis Willoughby. Sr. Edward Montagu.
Edwardus Aston. Sr. John Harrington. Anthony Mildmay.
Edw. Littleton. William Boughton. Edward Griffyn
Walter Leveston. Edward Boughton. Thomas Brundell
John Bowes. John Shuckborough. Thomas Androos.
Richard Bagott. Bartholo. Tate.
Edward Cope.
By a part of Buckinghamshire By Bedford Into Hertford
Lord Grey. Earl of Kent. Sr. John Cutta.
Sr. John Goodwyn. Lord St. John. Sr. Henry Cock.
Robert Drury. Lord Cheyne. Sr. John Brocket.
Robert Dormer. Tho. Ratcliff. 3 Sr. Philip Butler.
William Hawtry. Henry Capel.
Griffyn Hampden. George Horsey.
Thomas Pygot. Edward Verney.
Tho. Fanshaw.
Tho. Sadler.
Car. Morysin.
Edw. Bashe.
Sir,
We are occupied with many offers to and fro in words, but I cannot certify you what shall be determined. Yesterday the Tower was flatly refused, and instead of Fothryngay, which we thought too far off, Hertford was named, and next to the Tower thought metest; and so for a time both liked and misliked for nearness to London. Nevertheless I hope it will be so concluded this day. And so I will write to Sr. Walter Mildmay for to stay brewing and provisions of coal, which by my last I required him to provide.
The Queen hath agreed upon nine Earls beside Counselors, and upon eight or nine Barons to hear the cause. Hertford shall be metar for such an assemble than Fothryngay can be. Grafton was also named, but unmet. We stuck upon Parliament, which her Majesty misliketh to have but we all persist, to make the burden better born and the world abroad better satisfied.
Naw offered on Tuesday to have opened much, and instead thereof, he hath only written to have a pardon as yesterday because it was the Queen’s birthday. I do send to Mr. Mills to challenge him, and to warn him to be sent to the Tower if he do not otherwise acquit himself of his promise.
I think Curle will be more open, and yet Naw hath amply confessed by his hand writing to have written by the Queen’s editing and her own minute that long letter to Babington, but he would qualify his Mistress’ fault in that Babington provoked her thereto, and Morgan prevailed her to renew her intelligence with Babington.
Yours as,
W. Burghley
To the right honorable Sr. Francise Walsyngham
Knight pr. Secretary to her Majesty.
In a letter from the Earl of Leicester to Sir Francis Walsingham, after Sir Philip Sydney’s death, there is a passage of no small importance to history upon the expected execution of the Queen of Scots, and which seems to present itself as no inappropriate introduction to Elizabeth’s disavowal. Lord Leicester says, “There is a letter from the Scottish Queen that hath brought tears; but I trust shall do no further herein; albeit the delay is too dangerous.” 4
Elizabeth sometimes consulted Sir Nicholas Bacon as to the treatment of heretics who “continued obstinate thinkers in battling against God’s Word.” At other times the Queen commanded Bacon to carry out her own views. The Anabaptists were the special objects of her aversion. She writes thus to Nicholas Bacon against the existence of “certain heretics”: “Those persons have been justly declared heretics, and therefore, as corrupt members, deserve to be cut off from the rest of the flock of Jesus Christ, lest they should corrupt others professing the true Christian faith. We, therefore, according to the regal functions of our office concerning the execution of justice in this special case, require you, our loyal and trusty Councillor, to make out and record our writ of execution for the said heretics.” Sir Nicholas Bacon, like other public men of his time, suffered in various ways, from the enmity of the royal favourite. Nicholas Bacon possessed the negative virtue of hating heartily and holding in supreme contempt the execrable Leicester; nevertheless, he had the prudence to be silent, when the merits of the Queen’s “Sweet Robin” were discussed in private society, where the “special gossipper” was happy to retain some thoughtless expression, which was quickly conveyed to Lord Leicester, who was, it is needless to add, universally detested. Of course Nicholas Bacon won the hatred of Leicester, and he was consequently expelled from the Privy Council. This manifested the power wielded, through a Sovereign’s despotic caprice, by a worthless favourite over a public servant. The reasons given for this action on the part of the Queen are not well understood. Some time before his death Nicholas Bacon was restored to the Council, but he refused to appear again at the Privy Council, or at any other public body, if the Earl of Leicester was present. The “Keeper” of the Queen’s elastic conscience, as well as her Fool, Clod, had to journey “unexpectedly” to the Hereafter.
On February 1, 1579 while under the operation of having his hair and beard trimmed, he fell asleep. The barber desisted from his task, and remained silent. Nicholas Bacon continued to sleep for some time in a current of air, and when he awoke he found himself chilled. To the question, “Why did you suffer me to sleep thus exposed?” the answer was, “I thought it a pity to disturb your nice little sleep.” Sir Nicholas replied: “Ah, my good-natured man, by your kindly feeling I lose my life.” He was immediately carried to bed, and died in a few days at his residence (February 1579) near Charing Cross, then known as York Place. [Also see Part I: York Place].
Nicholas Bacon’s contemporaries, Hayward and Camden, record a very flattering private and public character of him. But contemporaneous criticism is to be measured by the characters, opportunities, and principles of the critics, as well as by the circumstances of the times. At a different epoch Nicholas Bacon might have been a passably good man; but, swayed by ambition, led by his surroundings, just as cells multiply in the growing tissues of organized structures, the germs of evil in the nature of Nicholas Bacon grew and fructified in the torrid glow of an exceptionally corrupt atmosphere. Few good men or women can be pointed at as existing throughout Europe, or England, during the long reign of Elizabeth, of whose statesmen Nicholas Bacon may be quoted as an average sample, although mistaken encomiasts have sadly injured even his reputation, by placing him on the same dark platform with a man inconceivably his superior in all the tortuous arts of deceit, in every want of principle, in every vile and cruel characteristic of an evil and treacherous cunning, which was then called statesmanship, Elizabeth’s Prime Minister, Sir William Cecil. 5
Poem
By
Sir Nicholas Bacon 6
Calling to mind my wife most dear
How oft you have in sorrows sad
With words full wise and pleasant cheer
My drooping looks turned into glad,
How oft you have my moods too bad
Borne patiently with a mild mind,
Assuaging them with words right kind.
Thinking also with how good will
The idle times which irksome be
You have made short through your good skill
In reading pleasant things to me,
Whereof profit we both did see,
As witness can if they could speak
Both your Tully and my Seneck.
Calling to mind these your kind deeds
And herewithal wishing there might
Such fruit spring out of these your sides
As you might reap store due of right
Strait want of power appeared in sight
Affirming that I sought in vain
Just recompense for so great gain.
Then reason to my comfort said
That want of power will should supply,
If endeavour gave his whole aid
To think and thank right heartily,
And said she knows as well as I
That ultra posse non est esse 7
To do your best therefore address ye.
In doing this I had respect
As reason would to your delight,
And knowing that it doth reject
Such things as in most women’s sight
Though vain indeed seems most of might,
Therefore for you I could not find
A more deep thing than fruits of mind.
Lady Anne Cooke Bacon. Sir Nicholas’ second wife was Anne, daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke, of Giddy-Hall in Essex, Knight. By whom he had issue two sons: 1. Anthony, who was legate at Venice, and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and died at Essex House in the Strand, unmarried, before his father; and 2. Sir Francis Bacon, Knight.
Bacon’s birth is noted in the Baconiana published in 1679 as follows: “As to his parentage, he was born the youngest of those two male children, which Sir Nicholas Bacon of Redgrave, in Com. Suff. Knight, had by Anne his wife, one of the six daughters of Sir Anthony Cook, of Giddy-Hall, in Com. Essex. Knight; (a person much honoured for his learning, and being tutor to King Edward VI.,) all those daughters being exquisitely skilled in the Greek and Latin tongues.” In furtherance to Bacon’s birth, the entry continues: “His birth being at York House in the Strand, upon the 22nd day of January, Anno 1560. (2 Eliz.)” And here ends his boyhood, not much differently than how Dr. Rawley ends an account of it in the first edition of the Resuscitatio published in 1657. R.W. Church in his Life of Bacon gives the following: “Francis Bacon was born in London on the 22nd of January, 1560–61, three years before Galileo. He was born at York House, in the Strand; the house which, though it belonged to the Archbishops of York, had been lately tenanted by Lord Keepers and Lord Chancellors, in which Bacon himself afterwards lived as Lord Chancellor, and which passed after his fall into the hands of the Duke of Buckingham, who has left his mark in the Water Gate which is now seen, far from the river, in the garden of the Thames Embankment.” And nothing more toward Bacon’s young years. On June 10, 1573 he was matriculated in the University of Cambridge, and entered into Trinity College, under the care of Dr. White-Gift, [sometimes spelt Whitgift] then Master of the said College, and afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury. After he had passed through the circle of the liberal arts, his father thought proper to qualify him for the management of public affairs, and sent him over to France with Sir Amyas Paulet, Ambassador to that Court, who entrusted him with a commission to the Queen, which he discharged with great approbation, and returned to France, with an intention to continue some years. During his absence, his father died in 1579, upon which he returned to England, and applied himself to the study of the common law, which he resolved upon as his profession. He was appointed one of the Queen’s Council Extraordinary in the twenty-eighth year of his age an honour scarce ever granted before. He was one of the first that argued the difficult Case of Uses, called Chudleigh’s Case, which is reported by Sir Edward Coke. However, the greater figure which he made in the ten last years of the Queen’s reign, was in the House of Commons; and then it is thought he applied himself to politics; so that the Queen and Lord Treasurer Burghley [his uncle] employed his head and hand in affairs of state. He made no considerable advances in his fortune under Queen Elizabeth, but on the accession of King James I., to the crown, he was soon raised to considerable honours.
July 23, 1603 he was Knighted at Whitehall, and the year following he was made one of the King’s Council Learned in the law; and, as his abilities had appeared in Council, in Parliament, and in his profession, and especially in his speeches which he made in the House of Commons, he was in the year 1607 appointed Solicitor-General in the room of Sir Henry Hobart. In 1611 he was made joint Judge with Sir Thomas Vavasor, then Knight Marshal of the Knight Marshal’s Court, and October 27, 1613 he succeeded Sir Henry Hobart as Attorney-General; June 9, 1616 he was sworn of the King’s Privy Council, a trust rarely conferred, either before or since, on a gentleman in that office. March 7, 1616 he was appointed Lord keeper of the Great Seal, and January 4, 1618 he was made Lord Chancellor of England; on July 9 following created Lord Verulam, and January 27, 1620 he was advanced to the dignity of Viscount St. Albans, and appeared with the greatest honour and splendour at the opening of the session of Parliament on the 30th of that month. But he was soon after surprised with a melancholy reverse of fortune, for about March 12 following, a Committee was appointed of some members of the House of Commons, to inspect the abuses of the Courts of Justice, whereof Sir Robert Philips was appointed Chairman. The first thing they fell upon was bribery and corruption, of which the Lord Chancellor Bacon was accused by Aubery and Egerton, who affirmed, that they had procured money to be given to him, to promote their causes depending before him. This being corroborated by some circumstances, a report was made from the Committee to the House, upon the 15th of that month, yet with all imaginable tenderness and respect to his Lordship, in regard, as the Chairman declared, touched the honour of a great man, so ensued with all parts both of nature and art, as that he would say no more of him, being not able to say enough. Upon this a conference was had with the Lords, and afterwards Baron Denham and the Attorney-General were sent by the Lords, with a copy of the charge against him, and after several messages, on Monday, April 29 he sent his concession and submission to the House of Lords, in which he confessed some facts, denied others and endeavoured to answer or explain the rest in such a manner, as to take off the malignity of the offence. But the Lords taking this for a full and ingenuous confession, sent several of their members, to see if the Chancellor would own it, which he did in these words, “My Lords, it is my act, my hand, my heart; I beseech your Lordships to be merciful to a broken reed.” This answer being reported to the House, the Lords agreed to move the King to sequester the Seal, and on Wednesday, May 2 it was resolved to give sentence against him next morning, and accordingly he was summoned to attend, but he answered, that he was sick and protested that he did not feign this for an excuse; for if he had been well, he would willingly have come. On May 3, 1621 the Lord Chief Justice pronounced the following judgment, “That the Lord Viscount St, Albans, Lord Chancellor of England shall undergo a fine and ransom of £40.000 and that he shall be imprisoned in the Tower during the King’s pleasure. That he shall be incapable of any office, place, or employment in the State or Commonwealth, and, never sit in Parliament, or come within the verge of the Court.” The Prince of Wales and some others endeavoured to have mitigated the severity of this sentence; and many of the Lords, by way of excuse for the rigour of it, told him afterwards, that they knew they left him in good hands, and it might be presumed, that the King, who, as his Lordship writes, had shed tears upon the news of his being accused, would be indulgent and beneficent to him upon his sentence. [Also see Appendix Chronological Summary in Bacon’s Life].
2 MS. Lansd. No. 49., art. 68
3 Even here, Ratcliff would be present
4 Henry Ellis. English History, 1825
5 S.H. Burke. Historical Portraits, Vol III. 1883
6 To his wife Anne in 1557–58
7 It would be impossible to do more
There is a variety of opinions concerning his guilt in the points charged against him; Mr. Rushworth says his decrees were generally made with so much equity, that those gifts rendered him suspected for injustice, yet never any decree made by him was reversed as unjust. After the judgment given against him, and a short imprisonment in the Tower, he retired from the engagements of an active life, to the shade of a contemplative one, which he had always loved. The first, or at least the greatest act of kindness, which the King extended to him, was the remitting the Parliamentary fine, and granting it to some of his Lordship’s friends. In a letter to the King, dated July 30, 1624 wherein he uses the most mellow expressions, he implores his Majesty to grant him a total remission of his sentence, to the end that the blot of ignominy might be removed from him and from his memory with posterity. This request very probably was granted him, for we find that he was summoned to Parliament in the first year of King Charles I. However, it appears from the works, which he composed and designed during his retirement, that his thoughts were still free, vigorous, and noble and, as Dr. Tenison, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, observes, it did not appear by anything during all the time of his eclipse of fortune, that there was any abjectness of spirit in him; his writings show a mind in him, not distracted with anxiety, nor depressed with shame; not slow for want of encouragement, nor broken with discontent; such vigour of conceit, such a masculine style, such quickness in composition, appeared in his learned labours. The last five years of his life he devoted entirely to his studies, a thing which he would often speak of during the active part of his life, as if he affected to die in the shade, and not in the light. In this recess, he composed the greatest part of his Latin and English works. Bacon had happily escaped the plague, which infected the summer of the year 1625, and with some difficulty, being of a weak and tender constitution, passed the severe winter which followed; but going in the spring to make some experiment in natural philosophy, he was taken so ill, that he was obliged to stay at the Earl of Arundel’s house at Highgate about a week, and there expired on Easter day, April 9, 1626 in the sixty-sixth year of his age, of a gentle fever attended with a great cold, which occasioned such a defluxion of rheum, that he was suffocated with it. The Lord Keeper Bacon married Alice, daughter and coheir of Benedict Barnham, Esq; Alderman of London, by whom he had no issue.
“Capacity (judgement) and memory were never in any man to such a degree as in this man; so that in a very short time he made himself conversant with all the knowledge he could acquire at College. And though he was then considered capable of understanding the most important affairs, yet so that he should not fall into the usual fault of young men of his kind (who by a too hasty ambition often bring to the management of great affairs a mind still full of the crudities of the school), M. Bacon himself wished to acquire that knowledge which in former times made Ulysses so commendable, and earned for him the name of Wise; by the study of the manners of many different nations. I wish to state that he employed some years of his youth in travel in order to polish his mind and mould his opinions by intercourse with all kinds of foreigners. France, Italy, and Spain as the most civilised nations of the whole world, were these whither his desire for knowledge (curiosity) carried him.” (Smedley). 8
Remaining on the merits to Bacon, and coming to Basil Montagu, in November 17, 1834 in his Preface to his Works of Francis Bacon, 9 gives a brief account of Archbishop Tennison, the admirer of Lord Bacon, and the friend of Dr. Rawley, his domestic chaplain, and on his mentions in Baconiana: “His Lordship owned it under his hand, [In his letter to King James, March 25, 1620] that he was frail, and did partake of the abuses of the times; and surely he was a partaker of their severities also. The great cause of his suffering is, to some, a secret. I leave them to find it out by his words to King James: ‘I wish, that as I am the first, so I may be the last of sacrifices in your times: and when, from private appetite, it is resolved that a creature shall be sacrificed, it is easy to pick up sticks enough from any thicket whither it hath strayed, to make a fire to offer it with.’” Bushell’s Abridgment of the Lord Chancellor’s philosophical theory is a work written more than forty years after his master’s death, abounding with constant expressions of affection and respect, states that, during a recess of Parliament, King James sent for the Chancellor, and ordered him not to resist the charges, as resistance would be injurious to the King and to Buckingham. 10 In the Lambeth Library, there’s a letter written by Bacon in Greek characters: “Of my offence, far be it from me to say, dat veniam corvis; vexat censura Columbas. I will say that I have good warrant for they were not the greatest offenders in Israel upon whom the wall fell.” In another letter to King James, May 25, 1620 he writes, “And for the briberies and gifts wherewith I am charged, when the books of hearts shall be opened, I hope I shall not be found to have the troubled fountain of a corrupt heart, in a depraved habit of taking rewards to pervert justice; howsoever I may be frail, and partake of the abuses of the times.” That an interview between the King and Bacon took place is clear, from the following entry in the Journals of the House of Lords of April 17:
The Lord Treasurer signified, that in the interim of this cessation, the Lord Chancellor was an humble suitor unto his Majesty, that he might see his Majesty and speak with him; and although his Majesty, in respect of the Lord Chancellor person, and of the place he holds, might have given his Lordship that favour, yet, for that his Lordship is under the trial of this House, his Majesty would not on the sudden grant it. That on Sunday last, the King calling all the Lords of this House which were of his Council before him, it pleased his Majesty to show their Lordships what was desired by the Lord Chancellor, demanding their Lordships advice therein. The Lords did not presume to advise his Majesty; for that his Majesty did suddenly propound such a course as all the world could not advise a better; which was that his Majesty would speak with him privately. That yesterday, his Majesty admitting the Lord Chancellor to his presence, his Lordship desired that he might have a particular of those matters wherewith he is charged before the Lords of this House; for that it was not possible for him, who passed so many orders and decrees in a year, to remember all things that fell out in them; and that, this being granted, his Lordship would desire two requests of his Majesty. That, where his answers should be fair and clear, to those things objected against him, his Lordship might stand upon his innocency and two, where his answer should not be so fair and clear, there his Lordship might be admitted to the extenuation of the charge; and where the proofs were full and undeniable, his Lordship would ingenuously confess them, and put himself upon the mercy of the Lords. Unto all which his Majesty’s answer was, he referred him to the Lords of this House, and therefore his Majesty willed his Lordship to make report to their Lordships. It was thereupon ordered, that the Lord Treasurer should signify unto his Majesty, that the Lords do thankfully acknowledge his Majesty’s favour, and hold themselves highly bound unto his Majesty for the same.
At this interview, the King, who had determined to sacrifice the oracle of his counsel rather than the favourite of his affection, gave him his advice, as it was termed, that he should submit himself to the House of Peers, and that upon his Princely word he would then restore him again, if they in their honours should not be sensible of his merits. How little this command accorded with the Chancellor’s intention to defend him, may be gathered from his distress and passionate remonstrance. “I see my approaching ruin: there is no hope of mercy in a multitude, if I do not plead for myself, when my enemies are to give fire. Those who strike at your Chancellor will strike at your Crown.” All remonstrance proving fruitless, he took leave of the King with these memorable words: “I am the first; I wish I may be the last sacrifice.” The parts were now cast, and the last act of the drama alone remained to be performed. On April 17, 1621 the House met when some account of the King’s interview with the Chancellor was narrated by the Lord Treasurer, and ordered to be entered upon the Journals of the House; and, a rumour having been circulated that Buckingham had sent his brother abroad to escape inquiry, he protested unto the Lords, that whereas the opinion of the world is, that his Lordship had sent his brother, Sir Edward Villiers, abroad in the King’s service, of purpose to avoid his trial touching some grievances complained of by the Commons, his Lordship was so far from that, that his Lordship did hasten his coming home; and, if anything blameworthy can be objected against him, his Lordship is as ready to censure him as he was Mompesson. His love of familiar illustration is to be found in various parts of the history: as when speaking of the commotion by the Cornish men, on behalf of the impostor Perkin Warbeck: “The King judged it his best and surest way to keep his strength together in the seat and centre of his Kingdom; according to the ancient Indian emblem, in such a swelling season, to hold the hand upon the middle of the bladder, that no side might rise.” (Montagu). 11
Francis Bacon died in the arms of Sir Julius Caesar, and of his funeral no account can be found, nor is there any trace of the site of the house where he died; yet Lovejoy states: “A few friends, faithful among the faithless, enthusiastic young disciples, among whom was Hobbes, the then budding philosopher of Malmesbury, Sir Thomas Meautys, his devoted chaplain, Rawley, and servants whom adversity could not alienate, composed the [funeral] train which followed fallen greatness to its last resting-place.” It has been said that Bacon was buried in the same grave with his mother, in St. Michael’s church, 12 however, today’s St Albanians differ. On a research visit of the summer of 2008, the supervisors of St. Michael’s affirm that no body of Bacon or of his mother is buried there.
Bacon’s imagination was fruitful and vivid; but he understood its laws, and governed it with absolute sway. He used it as a philosopher. It never had precedence in his mind, but followed in the train of his reason. With her hues, her forms, and the spirit of her forms, he clothed the nakedness of austere truth. Life seemed a succession of splendid dramatic scenes, and the gravest business a well acted Court masque; the mercenary place-hunter knelt to beg a favour with the devoted air of a Knight and even sober citizens put on a clumsy disguise of gallantry, and compared their royal mistress to Venus and Diana. Bacon’s wit was brilliant, and when it flashed upon any subject, it was never with ill-nature, which, like the crackling of thorns, ending in sudden darkness, is only fit for a fool’s laughter; the sparkling of his wit was that of the precious diamond, valuable for its worth and weight, denoting the riches of the mind. We may conclude that there is nothing more lamentable in the Annals of Mankind than that false position, which placed one of the greatest minds England ever possessed at the mercy of a mean King being James I., and a base Court favourite being Buckingham.
“Words are things; and a small drop of ink, falling like dew upon a thought, produces that which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think.” So Lord Byron wrote. Bacon’s birth may be wholly devoid of public interest; many great authors of time, and in explicit detail, have noted his life and works that still remain in a rustling forest of the Authorship controversy, and until this forest is deprived of trees, it shall continue to intrigue the reader, researcher, and writer. Possibly, Francis Bacon’s words that “this disease [controversy] requireth rather rest than any other cure,” stated in his Advertisement touching Controversies should be more thought upon. “If Lord Bacon could have foreseen that at some future time a dispute would arise concerning him, and especially as an author, he would have rested in entire security, to have his writings speak for him.” 13
Thomas Powell to Francis Bacon.
To True Nobility and Tried Learning Beholden
Francis, Lord Verulam, and Viscount St Albans. 14
O give me leave to pull the curtain by,
That clouds thy Worth in such obscurity;
Good Seneca, stay but a while thy bleeding,
T’accept what I received at thy Reading:
Here I present it in a solemn strain:
And thus I pluck this curtain back again.
8 William T. Smedley. Francis Bacon, 1915
9 Vol. I., 1850
10 Baconiana, p. 13
11 Basil Montagu. The Works of Francis Bacon, Vol. I. 1850
12 Ibid., Vol. I. p. 112, 1850
13 A statement from the author of Is There Any Resemblance Between Bacon and Shakespeare printed in 1888
14 Thomas Powell. The Attorney’s Academy, 3rd edition, 1630