Bacon's DictionaryAppendices

6 J. Payne Collier. The Egerton Papers, 1840

7 Ibid.,

8 Library of the Society of Antiquaries; anonymous poem on the death of James Franklin, on December 9, 1615

 

The Trial of the Earl of Somerset For The Poisoning Of Sir Thomas Overbury,

In The Tower Of London, And Various Matters Connected There Within

From Contemporary Mss.

By

Andrew Amos, Esq.

1846

 

The Masque of Hymen, that delightful relic of literature and manners in the days of King James the First, introduced to public notice a female of noble family, who became the heroine (if we may use this term in a bad sense) of the Grand Oyer of Poisoning. This Masque was represented on the occasion of the marriage of the Earl of Essex with Lady Frances Howard. The Bridegroom was but fourteen years of age, the Bride was only thirteen. The elder of these children, in after times commanded the Parliament’s army at Edge Hill against the Cavaliers, headed by King Charles in person. The younger’s career of guilty enjoyment, magnificence, crime, and degradation will appear in the transactions, which are the subject of the following pages.

The altar of Union, with which the scene of the Masque opened, tile typification of the classical Deity Hymen, “with saffron robe and taper clear,” the invocation to King James, who presided at the festivity, and who thereby evinced, as was intimated by the poet, his desire to unite hearts and hands as he had united Kingdoms, are familiar to the admirers of that Prince of masque writers, Ben Jonson; at the call of whose genius there was wont, as he expressed it:

 

Masque of the Fortunate Isles

By

Ben Jonson

Spring all the graces of the age,

And all the loves of time;

With all the pleasures of the stage,

And relishes of rhyme:

And all the softness of courts,

The looks, the laughter, and the sports;

And mingle all their sweets and salts,

That none may say the triumph halts.

 

On the present occasion, Jonson’s coadjutor for contriving the ingenious machinery of the Masque was the distinguished architect Inigo Jones. These two eminent characters had not yet quarrelled about the precedency of their Dames in print. An eyewitness passes a high eulogium on their mutual exertions. He speaks of a dance in the shape of the Bridegroom’s name; he admires the white hem plumes worn by the maskers; and says that all the jewels and ropes of pearls to be found in the West End or borrowed in the City were laid under contribution by the Ladies of the Court, therein, as Jonson insinuates, betraying their motives prepare. The poet contrived a device for the Masque of Hymen, which subsequent events might lead us to characterise as prophetical of the disturbance that the marriage union he was called upon to celebrate was destined to undergo. He introduced eight maskers of the principal nobility, who represented the Perverse Affections. They were splendidly attired and distinguished by several ensigns and colours, and they issued from a globe allegorically figuring a man, on which were exhibited countries gilded, with the sea heightened by silver waves; whilst the interior of the globe represented an illuminated mine of several metals. The maskers, or Perverse Affections, drew their swords, and offered to interrupt the marriage rites. These intruders were quieted by a vulnerable female, who advanced from the top of the globe, as from the brain of man. This allegorical personage was Reason: her hair was white, trailing to her waist, her garments blue, with stars; her girdle covered with arithmetical figures: in one hand she bore a lamp, and in the other a bright sword. But as Reason had been outraged by a ceremony in which neither Bride nor Bridegroom had attained the years pointed out by nature, and dictated by prudence, for contracting the marriage union, so no wedlock is recorded in English history that led to consequences in which morality, law, and religion were equally prostituted for the indulgence of guilty and impetuous passions.

About seven years had elapsed since the representation of the Masque of Hymen, when the attention of the people of England was fixed on a transaction in which the parties were the somewhat incongruous personages of a King, Bishops, Doctors of Civil Law, Matrons, and Midwives. The females of this junto were directed to examine whether the Countess of Essex (the Child-Bride of the Masque of Hymen) appeared to their eyes, when disrobed, to be still a virgin; whilst their royal, right reverend, and learned associates were to decide, according to the verdict of the matrons, whether the lady had shown any adequate cause for divorce. The union-maker, King James, not only sanctioned the proceedings, but impatiently urged them on, and dictated their final conclusion. This was, in effect, that the supposed marriage, at which the King had presided, was adjudged to be no marriage at all, on the ground, that, although it could not be suggested that the Earl of Essex, now arrived at the age of twenty-one, was incapable of having children by other women, yet that the matrons discovered apparent cause for believing him incapable of having any by his own wife. A contemporary writer alleges, on the authority of the Chamberlain who presided at the door of this court of female inquisition, that Miss Mounson, daughter of Sir Thomas Mounson, was substituted for the Countess, and that, with her face thickly veiled, she eluded the detection of her identity, as she braved the searching investigation of her chastity. 9 If we suppose that the Countess of Essex was herself examined, her previous intrigues with Prince Henry, and the anecdote of her glove, which His Highness refused to pick up, because, he said, “it had been stretched by another,” and her midnight interviews, arranged by Mrs. Turner, which are detailed in the course of the Overbury trials, or are to be found in contemporary histories, give room to suspect that the matrons, who were doubtless carefully selected for the nonce, came resolved not to cast the first stone, whatever revelations might meet their eyes. We may not be surprised at means being resorted to for duping or suborning the matrons, when we read how the King prohibited the Judges of the Ecclesiastical Court from giving reasons for their opinions, and endeavoured to overawe the Archbishop of Canterbury by singular argument, couched in the following terms:

 

I will conclude, therefore, that, if a Judge should have a prejudice in respect of persons, it should become you rather to have a faith implicit ill my judgment, as well in respect of some skill I have in divinity, as also that I hope no honest man doubts of the uprightness of my conscience. And the best thankfulness that you, that are so far “my creature,”can use towards me, is to reverence and follow my judgment, and not to contradict it, except where you may demonstrate unto me that I am mistaken or wrong informed. And so farewell.

James R.

 

The royal writer of this letter assumed the character of a divine and a jurist, and trampled on the independence of a high court of justice, whilst he was, in reality, demeaning himself as the pander to a flagrant act of adultery.

On the festival day of St. Stephen, in the year 1613, King James, the Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Heads of the Church, and the Peers and Peeresses of the realm, were assembled in the Chapel of the Royal Palace of Whitehall to witness the marriage of the divorced Lady Essex with the King’s Favourite, created, for the occasion, in order that his rank might correspond with that of his bride, Earl of Somerset. On that same day, in the same place, just eight years before, the King had given away the same bride to a husband whom he may be justly charged with having, in effect, himself divorced. The same King paid the expenses of the second wedding. The same Dean of the Chapel, a Bishop of Bath and Wells, performed both ceremonies. The Bride, according to the language of a contemporary writer, was married “in her hair,” that is to say, her hair (which was very beautiful and long) hanging down to her feet. To be married “in their hair” was the appropriate etiquette of that day for virgin-brides. The historian Wilson, from being the companion of the Earl of Essex in his campaigns, and the constant inmate of his house, may be supposed to have expressed himself on this occasion according to the views and feelings or his much-injured friend. He writes of the Countess of Somerset, that those “who saw her face might challenge Nature of too much hypocrisy for harbouring so wicked a heart under so sweet and bewitching a countenance.” He adds, “That she had grown to be a beauty of the greatest magnitude in the horizon of the Court, and every tongue grew an orator at that shrine.”

It was in an Eclogue, written on the day of this marriage, in answer to a friend who reproached the poet for his absence on an occasion of so much festivity, that Donne wrote those lines which Dr. Johnson designates as “the poetical propagation of light,” and which he adduces as one of the most striKing examples of the conceits to be found in the works of the poets belonging to what Dryden calls “the metaphysical school;” of which Donne and Cowley were the leaders. Donne is more distinguished as a divine than as a poet; he was Dean of St. Paul’s, and, according to his epitaph, written by himself, he took orders after the age of forty, so he says, by the impulse of the Holy Ghost andby the suggestion of King James. That no qualms of religion or morality influenced his language as a courtier on the occasion of the marriage of the Earl and Countess of Somerset appears from his compliments to the Bride upon her masculine effrontery under circumstances at which female modesty revolts. Wilson observes of the Earl of Somerset, that he had a “comely personage, mixed with a handsome and courtly garb, which he bad been practising in France.” The Earl of Somerset, according to the description of Lord Thomas Howard, written shortly before the marriage, was “straight-limbed, well-favoured, strong-shouldered, and smooth-faced, with some sort of show of modesty. He was so particular in his dress to please the King, that he had changed his tailors and tire-men many times. And be was so decidedly the Court Favourite, that the King would lean on his arm, pinch his cheek, smooth his ruffled garment, and, when directing discourse to others, nevertheless gaze on him.” The King taught him Latin every morning. Lord Howard, in mentioning these facts to Harrington, then a young courtier in whose advancement he was interested, adds, that, in order to rise in favour with King James, it might answer to tell his Majesty “that the stars were bright jewels fit for Carr’s ears.” A nuptial sermon was preached by the Dean of Westminster; and one of his hearers tells us, what we might have conjectured, that, like another “soft Dean” who “never mentioned Hell to ears polite,” the gist of the discourse was the commendation, to use the writer’s own words, “of the young couple, glancing also at the praise of the Bride’s mother, whom he styled the mother-rine.”

Though the marriage was celebrated on a Sunday, in the evening there was a “gallant Masque of Lords.” On comparing the lists of the noble dancers, it will be found that four out of twelve maskers had danced in the Masque of Hymen at the former wedding. The Masque of the second wedding is still extant; it was composed by one Campion, who also wrote the Masque for the marriage of the Palgrave with Princess Elizabeth. This successful rival of Ben Jonson is now less read or known than even Lilly, Davenant, Shadwell, or Cibber, who pleased Sovereigns better, and were more munificently patronized by them, than their respective contemporaries Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, and Pope. It has been represented, by Gifford that Ben Jonson’s virtuous indignation recoiled at writing a Masque for the Countess of Somerset’s second marriage. But there seems no doubt that Jonson’s Challenge at Tilt and his Irish Masque were written for that occasion, though they had not the honour to be represented on the wedding night. The Challenge at Tilt was exhibited the day after the marriage. The Irish Masque contains intrinsic evidence, which I conclusive, so to the occasion upon which it was written. Ben Jonson deemed it prudent, in the collection of his works published by him after the downfall of the Earl of Somerset, to designate the Challenge at Tilt and the Irish Masque to having been respectively presented at amarriage. For the same reason the Masque of Hymen is described, in the same collection, as having been performed at a marriage; though in the previous edition of this Masque, published soon after it was composed, the names of the bride and bridegroom were mentioned in the title page.

Lord Bacon, who, in his Essays, has thought that the preparation of Masques was a subject worthy of his pen, presented the Earl of Somerset and his Lady with a Masque, which was performed eleven days after their marriage. The King and Queen honoured the representation with their presence. It was called the Masque of Flowers. The maskers were the members of the learned society of Gray’s Inn, who were metamorphosed into hyacinths jonquils, and other flowers. It is related that the Solicitor-General Yelverton was desirous of contributing to the expense of this masque, which amounted to £2.000; but that Bacon, from an ambition of ingratiating himself with the Favourite, would not admit of any co-rival in his sycophancy and extravagance. The Masque was concluded with a tribute of respect and zeal to the Bride and Bridegroom. And, by way of curious illustration of the current controversy regarding the truth of the Copernican system, which, at that time, Bacon disbelieved, and, much later, Milton doubted, be writes that Copernicus was borne out in his opinions by the general movement of men and things in honour of the Earl and Countess of Somerset.

The Earl and Countess of Somerset were entertained by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen or London, nine days after their marriage, at Merchant Tailor’s Hall. There was a grand procession of equipages by torch-light, through Cheapside. At the entry of the Bride and Bridegroom into the Hall, they were greeted with music and a congratulatory speech. At the feast they were served by the most comely of the citizens, selected out of the twelve companies, who wore their “gowns and rich loins.” In the evening there was “a Wassail,” two Masque, and a Play. Nor did the Bride and Bridegroom return to St. James’ till three o’clock the next morning. The Countess of Somerset being desirous of going to the City festival in great state, applied to Sir R. Winwood for the use of four of his horses to draw her carriage which were the handsomest in London. He answered her Ladyship that it was not fit for so great a Lady to use any thing borrowed, and therefore begged her husband to accept his horses as a present. The Corporation of London, the East India Company, the Merchant Adventurers, the Farmers of the customs vied with each other in the costliness of their marriage offerings. The Queen gave silver dishes curiously enamelled. Sir E. Coke, the Chief Justice, presented a basin and cover of silver gilt; his Lady a pot of gold. Another sycophant gave a gold warming-pan; another hangings, worth £1.500; another a sword worth £500 besides its workmanship of enamelled gold, which cost 100 marks; another a cradle of silver to burn sea-coal; another candlesticks worth 1000 marks; another two oriental pearls; another a fire-shovel, tongs, pokers, creepers, and other chimney furniture, all of silver. The wife of a Bishop presented the bride cake.

Somewhat less than three years had elapsed after this gorgeous display of wedding gifts and entertainments, when, on May 24 and 25, 1616 a still more imposing spectacle occurred, in which the principal actors in the former scenes again engrossed the eyes and ears of the public. On the first of these days the Countess of Somerset, and on the second the Earl of Somerset held up their hands in Westminster Hall, where all the nobles and courtiers of the realm, and a multitude of more humble bystanders, perhaps the very individuals who had formerly echoed their praises, or joined chorus in their epithalamium, were now assembled to hear them answer upon their arraignments for the crime of murder. All places of public business and amusement were deserted during these proceedings, so intense was the curiosity thus excited. Ordinary courts of law presented the appearance of the Long Vacation. One contemporary letter-writer mentions that at the Earl’s trial “a world of people were as spectators;” another contemporary letter-writer relates that “four or five pieces was an ordinary price for a seat in the Hall.” He so knew a lawyer who had agreed to give 10l. for himself and family for the two days; and fifty pounds were given for a corner that would hardly contain a dozen. The writer himself got a place for ten shillings at the Earl’s trial, and, in order to secure it, went to Westminster Hall at six o’clock in the morning, the trial commencing at nine. His seat was probably incommodious in proportion to its cheapness, for he was obliged to leave it before the trial was over, in consequence of the beat, and fainting from fasting. The interest of the trials was increased by feelings of a superstitious nature; for at a previous arraignment of Mrs. Turner, whom the Countess calls in a letter “sweet Turner,” some mysterious articles were introduced which had been seized in the study of a noted Astrologer, Dr. Forman. This Magician is called by the Countess, in a letter, “Deaf Father,” and she subscribes herself “Your affectionate Daughter.” He supplied her with filters to chill the love of Lord Essex for her, and to kindle that of the Earl of Somerset. The articles consisted of enchanted papers and puppets, a piece of human skin, and a black scarf full of white crosses. A roll of Devils’ names had been produced at Mrs. Turner’s trial just before a crash was heard from one of the scaffolds, which were erected round the Hall: this sudden noise, we are told, caused “great fear, tumult, and confusion among all the spectators, everyone fearing as if the Devil had been present, and was grown angry to have his workmanship shewed by such as were not his scholars.” Dr. Forman had also a book, which had been produced in Court at a former trial, when Sir E. Coke would not suffer it to be read; for which the scandal of the day supplied a motive, that he found the name of his own wife registered in it. Lord Chancellor Ellesmere officiated as Lord High Steward; he sat under a “Cloth of Estate,” at the upper end of the Hall. Nearest to him stood an Usher bearing a white rod, the insignia of his office: a little farther off were Garter King at Arms, and the Seal-bearer, who were on his right hand; and the bearer of the Black Rod on his left. Eight Serjeants at Arms were placed on each side, more behind. On either side of the High Steward, on benches somewhat lower than his raised seat, placed in a gallery raised from the floor by twelve steps, sat the twenty-one Peers who were summoned to constitute the Lord High Steward’s Court. The Judges, dressed in their scarlet robes and collars of S.B., sat in a row somewhat lower than the Peers. Foremost among them was Sir E. Coke, whose name is still the most eminent of all names of lawyers that are repeated in Westminster Hall. At the lower end of the Hall sat the King’s Counsel, headed by an Attorney-General, the most distinguished of all who have ever held that office, the great Sir Francis Bacon.

The prisoners, at their respective trials, stood beyond the lawyers, and separated from them by a bar,in a place where every eye could behold the indications of inward emotion, evinced by expressions of countenance or changes of demeanour. A Gentleman Porter holding an axe stands before a Peer or Peers under trial. The edge of the axe is turned from the prisoners; but if sentence of death be pronounced, it is then immediately turned towards them. The Countess of Somerset, on her taking her place, “made three reverences to his Grace and the Peers.” Writers, to whom every minute particular of these trials seems to have been matter of the deepest interest, relate that she was dressed “in black tammel, a cypress chaperon, a cobweb lawn ruff and cuffs.” The Lord High Steward having explained the object of the proceedings, the Clerk of the Crown said, “Frances Countess of Somerset hold up your hand.” She did so, and continued holding it up till the Lieutenant of the Tower told her to put it down. The indictment was then read. Whilst it was read, the Countess stood looking pale, she trembled, and shed some tears. At the part of the indictment where the name of Weston, the actual perpetrator of the murder of Sir T. Overbury, was first mentioned, she put her fan before her face, and there held it covering her face till the reading of the indictment was concluded. The Clerk of the Crown then asked her, “Frances Countess of Somerset, are thou guilty of the felony and murder, or not guilty?” The Countess, making an obeisance to the Lord High Steward, answered “Guilty,” with a low voice, but wonderful fearful. Sir Francis Bacon next delivered an address to the Lord High Steward, in which he panegyrized the King, gave some account of the discovery of the plot by which Sir T. Overbury had been poisoned, and held out a plain intimation of pardon to the Countess, by citing the expression, that “mercy and truth be met together.” The King’s instructions for the investigation of Sir T. Overbury’s murder were then read. After which Sir E. Coke extolled the King’s sagacity, observing that the instructions that had been read “deserved to be written in a sunbeam.” The Clerk of the Crown then demanded of the Prisoner, “If she had any cause to allege why sentence of death should not be pronounced on her.” She answered, “I can much aggravate, but cannot extenuate my fault: I desire mercy, and that the Lords will intercede for me to the King.” This she spoke “so low, humbly, and fearfully,” that Sir Francis Bacon, who, as we have noticed, sat near her, was obliged to repeat the words to the Lord High Steward. An officer of the Court upon his knee delivered to the Lord High Steward the white staff: Sentence of death was then passed, but in passing it the Lord High Steward told the Countess of Somerset, “Since the Lords have heard with what humility and grief you have confessed the fact, I do not doubt they will signify so much to the King, and mediate for his grace towards you.”

An eye-witness observes, that the Countess, upon her arraignment, “won pity by her sober demeanour, which, in my opinion, was more curious and confidant, than was fit for a lady in such distress, and yet she shed, or made show of, some tears divers times.” Another eye-witness writes, “The Countess, after sentence given, in a most humble, yet not base manner, besought the Lord High Steward, to whom she first directed her speech, (and then likewise to the rest of the Lords,) that they would be pleased to mediate his Majesty on her behalf for his gracious favour and mercy, which they promised to do; and she, expressing her inward sorrow by the many tears she shed, departed.” Camden, in his jejune Annals, records the universal commiseration of the spectators. In those times, as on various occasions at the present day, and probably as long as human nature endures, the sympathies of mankind for a spectacle of suffering humanity, (especially in the instance of a lovely woman overwhelmed by contrition and near of death,) immediately presented to the eyes, outweighed in strength the sentiments of justice, and effaced the recollection of a crime marked by extraordinary malice and cruelty. Lord Essex, the former husband of the Countess, was present at her trial, but seemed purposely to keep out of public observation and the sight of the wife of his infancy.

On the next day, that trial took place the illustration of which is the principal object of these pages. The Earl of Somerset appeared at the Bar in the cloak, and George, and other insignia of the order of the Garter. He was not neglectful of that attention to dress, by which his early fortunes had been so much advanced. It is stated that he was apparelled “in a black satin suit, laid with two white laces in a seam; a gown of orient velvet, lined with unshorn: all the sleeves laid with satin lace; a pair of gloves with satin tops; his hair curled.” It was observed that his “visage was pale, his beard long, his eyes sunk in his head.” The Earl’s trial lasted from nine in the morning till ten at night. Towards the concluding part of the trial, the dramatic effect of the scene was increased by a multitude of torches casting a glimmering light through the high and vaulted roofs of the Hall, and making transiently visible the countenances of the Judges, the Counsellors, the Peers, Peeresses, and the mixed audience that crowded the lofty scaffoldings. It was at this period that the Earl of Somerset commenced his defence. On various great occasions he had been set up as the idol to be admired of all eyes, he was still wearing the ensigns of the highest order of Knighthood; but he was now pleading for his life. He had to exculpate himself from a charge of deep and mysterious malignity. His own wife had confessed her guilt. It was supposed, by some, that he would be overwhelmed by the consciousness of crime, or the sense of shame. It was doubted whether he had abilities to make any impression on a public assembly. Suspicions were abroad, that, in a moment of despair, he would make revelations which would cause the King to tremble on his throne. Repeated attempts were made, during the trial, by the Lord High Steward, to shake his firmness, and divert him from vindicating his innocence, by plainly telling him that his life would be spared or not, according as he made a confession, or demanded a verdict. Nevertheless, as an eye-witness observes, “A thing worthy of note in him was his constancy and undaunted carriage in all the time of his arraignment, which, as it began, so it did continue to the end without any change or alteration.” Amidst the mixed expectations of the audience, the Earl of Somerset began speech, in which he displayed a resolution of demeanour, and a flow of natural eloquence, that might have become a suffering patriot. We know that among many of the bystanders he produced an impression of his innocence. His address will be given much more fully in the present work, from a document in the State Paper Office, than according to any report of it hitherto published. Other orations have been spoken in the storied Hall of Westminster, with the eloquence of which the Earl’s speech will not admit for a moment of being compared; but the assemblies which have filled its spacious fabric, from its area to its root were not, perhaps, moved with more thrilling excitement, even by the voice of Strafford, or Burke, or Sheridan, than by the Earl of Somerset pleading for his life.

The details of the Earl of Somerset’s trial will be the subject of particular examination in the subsequent chapters of this work. But in this place it may be allowed to give room to the reflections that arise upon a view of the remarkable scenes in which we have observed the Earl and Countess of Somerset to have performed such a conspicuous part. It is a singular train of occurrences in the domestic history of England, that the same King should have given away a noble lady at her first marriage, and shared with her the homage or her nuptial masque should have afterwards, by the abuse of his learning, and licentious exercise of his prerogative, accomplished her divorce; should have presided at her second marriage, loaded her second husband with honour and riches and power, and afterwards have penned instructions, covering so we are told by Sir E. Coke, two sheets of paper on both sides, for conducting their trial for their lives. Nor, as it will be seen in the sequel of this work, does the King’s singular connexion with the history of the Earl and Countess of Somerset end with their trials. It is also a very striking circumstance, that the Countess of Somerset should have been receiving the homage of the most noble, the wealthiest, and the wisest persons of the land; that the lawyer and citizens should have been using in entertaining her with festive amusements; that the most distinguished poets of the day, in their eagerness to extol her, should have been exhausting the conceits of immoderate hyperbole; that a Dignitary of the Church should have been preaching at her wedding a sermon replete with incense to her vanity, and, probably, excitement to her lust; whilst, at the very time she appeared to be regaling deliciously on flatteries, an inward monitor was striKing at her heart, with the fearful memento of a most cruel murder committed by her scarcely three months before, and was agonizing her with the “rooted sorrows” of a mind such as our immortal Poet has depicted that of the blood-stained Lady Macbeth.

 

 

The Conntess of Somerset must have been conscious that Sir R. Winwood’s handsome horses drawing her decorated carriage, the low-browed and obsequious obeisance of men so admired as Sir E. Coke and Sir F. Bacon, begging her to deign to accept the glittering presents they presented with their own hand, her high and canopied “state at Merchant Tailor’s Hall of Gray’s Inn, only drew around her a splendid veil of deception, which hid from the eyes of mankind the foul character of a murderess. What the suspended sword was to Damocels, and the handwriting on the wall to Belshazzar, an imaginary axe, with its edge turned towards her, must, to her mind’s eye, ever have been visible, amidst the grandeur and brilliancy of festivals, in which all other persons were intent only on her own beauty and adornments, as on the Cynosure which the Court and the City seemed never satiated in beholding. Whilst presented with congratulatory and encomiastic speeches, poetry, and music, the Countess of Somerset must have felt as though she saw in those who enriched her with presents, and incensed her with flattery, her future accusers, and judges. So, indeed, it happened. The match-making King framed and penned sun-beam interrogatories for her examination in the Tower, and for her trial in Westminster Hall. The Queen, forgetful of her enamelled dishes, prevented, it is said, the Great Seal from being affixed to a pardon for the Earl of Somerset, which the King had signed. The Dean of Westminster, the preacher of the marriage sermon, or pulpit epithalamium, laying side his metaphors of vines and grapes, was appointed the private gaoler of the Earl of Somerset upon his first arrest and kept him in custody for fifteen days. Sir E. Coke, the donor of the basin and ewer, shone his former reputation for industry, by collecting upwards of three hundred examinations out of which choice might be made, for convicting the Earl and Countess, both of whom he pronounced guilty from his judgement seat before they were tried. Sir R. Winwood, the gallant presenter of the team of non parell horses, was, according to most accounts the person who first denounced the Earl and Countess of Somerset to the King. Lord Bacon, the exhibitor of the Masque of Flowers, exchanged his “Rowers of affection and duty,” for those of invective and obloquy, in expatiating to the Peers on their guilt, and exhausted his ingenuity in methodizing “the link of the chain” and the “points of the compass,” and in adjusting “the double and reflex lights,” by which he undertook to expose their dark machination. The marriage which Sir F. Bacon and Sir E. Coke had vied in celebrating, they afterwards contended which should stigmatize in the most vituperative language. An imputed connexion between adultery and murder, with the apposite example of David and Bathsheba, were the topics in the mouths of those great men, which were substituted for their former gratulatory presents of gold and silver, for hymeneals and epithalamiums.

Written examinations were taken in secret, and often wrung from prisoners by the agonies of the rack. Such parts of these documents, and such parts only, were criminative, were read before a Judge removable at the will of the Crown, and a jury packed for the occasion, who gave their verdict under the terror of fine and imprisonment. Speedily the Government published whatever account of the trials suited their purposes. Subservient Divines were next appointed to “press the consciences,” as it was called, of the condemned, in their cells and on the scaffold; and the transaction terminated with another Government full of dying contrition, and eulogy by the criminal on all who had been instrumental in bringing him to the gallows. In the meanwhile the Star Chamber, with its pillories, its S.L.’s branded on the cheeks with a hot iron, its mutilations of ears, and ruinous fines, prohibited the unauthorized publication of trials, and all free discussion upon them, as amounting to an arraignment of the King’s justice. The right of publishing State Trials, till a comparatively late period, appears to have been restricted to persons appointed for the purpose. Thus, in regard to the trial of Plunket, the titular Primate of Ireland, for high treason, in the thirty-third year of Charles II., we have the following imprimatur: “I do appoint Francis Tyton and Thomas Basset to print the trials of Edward Fitzharris and Oliver Plunket, and that no others presume to print the same:. F. Pemberton.”

In the time of Queen Anne, long after the abolition of the Star Chamber and the emancipation of the press, we have an instance of jealousy entertained in regard to the unrestricted publication of trials. It is the more remarkable as it occurred before Lord Holt, a strenuous champion for liberty. The transaction is thus related in Howell’s State Trials: 10 “Counsel. My Lord, we insist upon it, that these fellows should not go on writing. Ordered, that the writers be turned out of the Court.” And accordingly they were turned out, at the repeated instance, &c. However, thus far the shorthand writers had proceeded with great exactness; and they are ready, by their writing and notes, to justify all before mentioned in this trial, which by this time was very nearly ended.” In a paper which one Haagen, executed for the abduction of an heiress in the first year of the reign of Queen Anne, delivered to the Sheriff on the scaffold, he complains, “I expected my trial should be published, that the world might see my treatment what I have done, and what I have left undone in my case; but I am informed it may not be printed.” Mr. Jardine has furnished the readers of his Criminal State Trials with many interesting particulars concerning their secret history. He points out various in which the printed reports are contradicted by the original documents in the State Paper Office. In the case of most of these variances, an obvious motive of policy is assignable for the departure from truth. For example, so extant report, either in print or manuscript is now to be found of the trials for the Gunpowder Plot, except that printed by the King’s printer. The original examinations in the State Paper Office, which are represented to be truly set forth in this Government version of the trials, are full of interlineations and alterations. One interlineations, written in a different ink and different hand-writing from the body of Guy Fawkes’ declaration, changes the position of two conspirators, making the one, who was of more wealth and consequence than the other, appear to have been introduced into the plot at an earlier period than the other, and vice versa, contrary to Fawkes’ own statement, but in accordance with the printed report. A copy of a deposition in the State Paper Office contains in the margin a remark in the hand-writing of King James I, viz. “An unclear phrase.” This obscurity is accordingly removed by an interlineation, and the document is published in its altered state. In Fawkes’ declaration in the State Paper Office there is no mention of a person of the name of Owen; but in the printed report, Fawkes is made to say, that he went over to the Netherlands, “to acquaint Owen with the particulars of the plot.” The motive for this interpolation was, because the Government were at the time endeavouring to induce Archduke Albert to give up Owen, who was an English officer in his service in Flanders. In this instance, for fear of comparison being made between the interpolation and the original document, the date of Fawkes’ declaration is artfully suppressed in the printed report. The published indictment against the conspirator varies from the original record in the Baga de Segretis, in particular, with regard to the mode in which the conspirator Tresham is represented in the report to have been charged, which is different from the way whereby he was really charged. This circumstance, if taken in connexion with the very careful erasure or obliteration of Lord Mounteagle’s name in all the original documents connected with the plot, tends to confirm the supposition, that the plot was discovered by Tresham to Lord Mounteagle, and by him to the Government and thus to destroy the romance of the mysterious letter, for interpreting which King James, in the preamble to an Act of Parliament, is stated to have had the assistance of the Holy Spirit. The speeches of Sir E. Coke and the Earl of Northampton concerning the Gunpowder Plot contain anachronisms, which betray that they were manufactured subsequently to the trials at which they are reported to have been delivered.

In like manner, Lord Bacon’s published Declaration of the Treasons of Lord Essex is replete with variations from the original records. Numerous passages in the original papers are marked in Lord Bacon’s handwriting with the letters “Om” [Omit]. It is apparent that these omitted passages were all read at the trial, because upon the same papers are found the directions to the officer of the Court, in Sir Edward Coke’s (the Attorney-General) handwriting, as to what passages he was to pass over in reading. A single example will suffice to display the motive of such omissions. The part omitted by Bacon in the following declaration by Sir Christopher Bland is printed in italics: “Being demanded, to what end they went to the City he confesseth it was to secure the Earl of Essex’s life against such forces as should be sent against him. And being asked, what, against the Queen’s forces he answered, that must have been judged afterwards, for the forces might be such as came by direction of such of his enemies as might have had authority to command in the Queen’s name, and would have done that without the Queen’s privity.” In the same original paper it is also stated that the Earl of Essex “in his usual talk used to say that he liked not that any man should be troubled for his religion.” This passage is omitted by Lord Bacon; but it is also marked for omission by Sir E. Coke, and was therefore not read at the trial and agreeably to the prevalent usage of omitting whatever was favourable to a prisoner.

The report of the trials for the Overbury murder, with the exception of those of the Earl and Countess of Somerset, correspond verbatim with the reports of these trials published in the tract Truth brought to Light by Time. The dress of Sir Gervase Helwymen at his execution, it is believed, is the only circumstance in the tract which has not been copied in the State Trials. The tract does not include the trials of the Earl and Countess of Somerset, and it is not apparent from what source Hargrave and Howell obtained them.

 

The Trial of Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset

May 25, for the Murder of Sir Thomas Overbury

14 James I.A.D. 1616.

 

Ser. Cryer. O yes, my Lord High Steward of England purposes this day to proceed to the trial of Robert Earl of Somerset. Yes, whosoever have any indictments touching this cause, publicly give them in.

 

My Lord Coke delivers in the indictment of my Lord of Somerset to Mr. Fenshaw indorsed.

 

Ser. Cryer. O yes, Walter Lee, Serjeaot-at-Arms, return the precept for the Lords which thou best warned to be here this day. O yes. [He calls every Lord by his name, and they stand up as they be called.] My Lord High Steward excuses the Lords Mounteagle and Russell of their absence, in respect of their sickness.

 

Ser. Cryer. O yes, Lieutenant of the Tower return thy precept, and bring the prisoner to the bar. Which he did, and my Lord makes three reverences to the Lord High Steward and the Lords.

Mr. Fenshaw. Robert Earl of Somerset hold up thy hand.

 

He holds it up so long until Mr. Lieutenant had him hold it down. The indictment is read, containing Westop’s actions in the poisoning of Sir T. Overbury, and his abetting of him, the 8th of May, 1618. My Lord of Somerset was apparelled in a plain black satin suit, laid with two satin laces in a seam; a gown of uncut velvet lined with unshorn, all the sleeves laid with satin lace; a pair of gloves with satin tops; his George about his neck, his hair curled, his visage pale, his beard long, his eyes sunk in his bead. Whilst his indictment was reading, he three or four times whispered to the Lieutenant.

 

Mr. Fenshaw. Robert Earl of Somerset what sayest thou? Art thou guilty of this felony and murder whereof thou standest indicted, or not guilty?

 

My Lord of Somerset, making an [?] to the Lord High Steward, answered, Not guilty.

 

Mr. Fenshaw. How wilt thou be tried.

 

Lord Somerset. By God and the country; but presently recalling himself, said, By God and my peers.

 

Ser Cryer. O yes, all you that be to give in evidence against Robert Earl of Somerset, who stands now at the bar upon his deliverance, make your appearance, and you shall be heard what you have to say against him.

 

My Lord of Somerset upon his arraignment having pleaded not guilty, the proceeding after was thus:

 

Lord High Sterward (Ellesmere, Lord Chancellor). Robert Earl of Somerset, you have been arraigned, and pleaded Not guilty. Now, I must tell you, whatsoever you may have to say in your own defence, say it boldly without fear; and, though it be not the ordinary custom, you shall have pen and ink to help your memory. But remember that God is the God of truth. A fault be ended is a double crime. Hide not the verity, nor affirm an untruth; for to deny that which is true increases the offence. Take heed lest your wilfulness cause the gates of mercy to be shot upon you. Now for you, my Lords the Peers, you are to give diligent attention to that which shall be said; and you must not rest alone upon one piece of evidence, but ground your judgment upon the whole. This, moreover, I would have you remember, that though you be not sworn as common juries, upon a book, yet that you are tied in as great a bond your own honour and fidelity, and allegiance to the King; and thus I leave the whole proceeding to your censures. And for you that be of the King’s Counsel, free your discourse from all partiality, but let truth prevail, and endeavour to make it appear.

 

Serjeant Montague. My Lord High Steward of England, and you my Lords, this cannot but be a heavy spectacle unto you, to see that man that not long since in great place, with a white stain went before the King, now at this bar hold up his hand for blood; not this is the thing of fortune; nay, I might better say, the hand of God, and work of justice, which is the King’s honour. But now to the fact. Robert Earl of Somerset stands indicted, accessory before the fact, of the wilful murder and poisoning of Sir Overbury, done by Weston; but procured by him: this, my Lord, is your charge. The indictment hath been found by men of good quality, seventeen knights and esquires of the best rank and reputation, some of whose names I will be bold to read unto you Sir. T. Fowler, Sir W. Slingsby, and fifteen more; these have returned billa vera. Now, an indictment is but an accusation of record, in form thus: Weston, four several times, gave Overbury four several poisons the first, May 9, 1618 that was Rosalgar, carrying this poison in one band and his broth in the other; the second was June following, and that was arsenic; the third was July 10 following, and that was mercury sublimate in tarts; the fourth was September 14 following, and that was mercury sublimate in a clyster, given by Weston and an apothecary yet unknown, and that killed him. Of these four several poisons ministered by Weston, and procured by you September 16, 1616 Overbury died, and the author is ever worse than the actor. The first poison laid in the indictment, that Weston gave Sir Thomas Overbury, was May 9; and, therefore, we say, that the Lord Somerset, May 8, hired, counselled, and abetted Weston to this fact; and as this day, my Lord, I do charge you for a King, heretofore King David was charged in the like case, for the murder of Uriah, and though David was under his pavilion, and Uriah in the army, yet David was the cause of his murder; though you were in the King chamber and Overbury in the Tower, yet it was you that killed him. It was a stronger hand than Weston’s that wrought this. The proof, Mr. Attorney, will follow. And I will now conclude with two desires to the Peers: first, that they will not expect visible proofs in the work of darkness; the second is, that whereas in an indictment there be many things laid only for form, you are not to look that the proof should follow that, but only that which is substantial: and the substance must be this: whether my Lord of Somerset procured or caused the poisoning of Sir Thomas Overbury or no.

 

Lord High Steward. That, indeed, my Lords, is that which you are to look after whether my Lord of Somerset was the cause of his poisoning, or not.

 

Lord Coke. This was very well moved by Mr. Recorder, and the law is clear in this point, that the proof must follow the substance, not the form.

The Judges, all rising, affirmed this to be true.

 

 

The Charge Of Sir Francis Bacon, His Majesty’s Attorney General

By Way Of Evidence Before The Lord High Steward, And The Peers

Against Robert Earl Of Somerset Concerning

The Poisoning Of Sir Thomas Overbury 11

 

It may please your Grace, my Lord High Steward of England, and you my Lords the Peers; you have here before you Robert Earl of Somerset, to be tried for his life, concerning the procuring and consenting to the impoisonment of Sir Thomas Overbury, then the King’s prisoner in the Tower of London, as an accessory before the fact. I know your Lordships cannot behold this nobleman, but you must remember his great favour with the King, and the great place that he hath had and born, and must be sensible that he is yet of your number and body, a Peer as you are; so as you cannot cut him off from your body but with grief; and therefore that you will expect from us, that give in the King’s evidence, sound and sufficient matter of proof to satisfy your honours and consciences. And for the manner of the evidence also, the King our Master (who among his other virtues, excelleth in that virtue of the Imperial Throne, which is justice) hath given us commandment that we should not expatiate nor make invectives, but materially pursue the evidence, as it conduceth to the point in question; a matter that (though we are glad of so good a warrant) yet we should have done of ourselves; for far be it from us, by any strains of wit or art, to seek to play prizes, or to blazon our names in blood, or to carry the day otherwise than upon just grounds. We shall carry the lantern of justice (which is the evidence) before your eyes upright, and be able to save it from being put out with any winds of evasions or vain defenses, that is our part; not doubting at all, but that this evidence in it self will carry that force, as it shall little need vantages or aggravations.

My Lords, the course which I shall hold in delivering that which I shall say (for I love order) is this, first, I will speak somewhat of the nature and greatness of the offence which is now to be tried, and that the King, however he might use this gentleman heretofore, as the signet upon his finger (to use the Scripture phrase) yet in this case could not but put him off, and deliver him into the hands of justice. Secondly, I will use some few words touching the nature of the proofs, which in such a case are competent. Thirdly, I will state the proofs. And lastly, I will produce the proofs, either out of the examinations and matter in writing, or witnesses viva voce. For the offence itself; it is of crimes (next unto high-treason) the greatest; it is the foulest of felonies. And take this offence with the circumstances, it hath three degrees or stages; that it is murder; that it is murder by impoisonment; that it is murder committed upon the King’s prisoner in the Tower: I might say, that it is murder under the colour of friendship; but that is a circumstance moral, I leave that to the evidence itself. For murder, my Lords, the first record of justice which was in the world was a judgment upon murder, in the person of Adam’s first born, Cain: and though it were not punished by death, but with banishment and mark of ignominy, in respect of the primogeniture, or of the population of the world, or other points of God’s secret will, yet it was adjudged, and was (as I said) the first record of justice. So it appeareth likewise in Scripture, that the murder of Abner by Joab, though it were by David respited in respect of great services past, or reason of state, yet it was not forgotten. But of this I will say no more. It was ever admitted, and so ranked in God’s own tables, that murder is of offences between man and man (next to treason and disobedience of authority, which some divines have referred to the first table, because of the lieutenancy of God in Princes and fathers) the greatest. For impoisonment, I am sorry it should be heard of in this Kingdom: it is not nostri generis nec sanguinis; it is an Italian crime, fi t for the Court of Rome, where that person that intoxicateth the Kings of the earth with his cup of poison in heretical doctrine, is many times really and materially intoxicated and impoisoned himself.

But it hath three circumstances, which make it grievous beyond other murders: whereof the first is, that it takes a man in full peace; in God’s and the King’s peace: he thinks no harm, but is comforting nature with refection and food: so that (as the Scripture saith) His table is made a snare. The second is, that it is easily committed, and easily concealed; and on the other side, hardly prevented, and hardly discovered: for murder by violence Princes have guards, and private men have houses, attendants, and arms: neither can such murders be committed but cum sonitu, and with some overt and apparent act, that may discover and trace the offender. But for poison, the said cup itself of Princes will scarce serve, in regard of many poisons that neither discolour nor distaste; and so passeth without noise or observation. And the last is, because it containeth not only the destruction of the maliced man, but of any other; Quis modo tutus erit? For many times the poison is prepared for one, and is taken by another: so that men die other mens’ deaths; concidit infelix alieno vulnere: and it is as the Psalm calleth it, sagitta nocte volans; The arrow that flies by night, it hath no aim or certainty.

Now for the third degree of this particular offence, which is, that it was committed upon the King’s prisoner, who was out of his own defence, and merely in the King’s protection, and for whom the King and State was a kind of respondent, it is a thing that aggravates the fault much. For certainly (my Lord of Somerset) let me tell you this, that Sir Thomas Overbury is the first man that was murdered in the Tower of London, since the murder of the two young Princes. For the nature of the proofs, your Lordships must consider, that impoisonment, of offences is the most secret: so secret, as if in all cases of impoisonment you should require testimony, you were as good proclaim impunity. I will put book-examples. Who could have impeached Livia, by testimony, of the impoisoning of the figs upon the tree, which her husband was wont, for his pleasure, to gather with his own hands. Who could have impeached Parisatis for the poisoning of one side of the knife that she carved with, and keeping the other side clean; so that her self did eat of the same piece of meat that the Lady did that she did impoison. The cases are infinite (and indeed not fit to be spoken of) of the secrecy of impoisonments; but wise triers must take upon them, in these secret cases, Solomon’s spirit, that where there could be no witnesses, collected the act by the affection. But yet we are not to come to one case: for that which your Lordships are to try, is not the act of impoisonment (for that is done to your hand) all the world by law is concluded, but to say that Overbury was impoisoned by Weston. But the question before you is of the procurement only, and of the abetting (as the law termeth it) as accessory before the fact: which abetting is no more, but to do or use any act or means, which may aid or conduce unto the impoisonment. So that it is not the buying or making of the poison, or the preparing, or confecting, or commixing of it, or the giving or sending, or laying the poison, that are the only acts that do amount unto abetment. But if there be any other act or means done or used, to give the opportunity of impoisonment, or to facilitate the execution of it, or to stop or divert any impediments that might hinder it, and this be with an intention, to accomplish and achieve the impoisonment; all these are abetments, and accessories before the fact. I will put you a familiar example. Allow there be a conspiracy to murder a man as he journeys by the ways and it be one man’s part to draw him forth to that journey by invitation, or by colour of some business; and another takes upon him to dissuade some friend of his, whom he had a purpose to take in his company, that he be not too strong to make his defence: and another hath the part to go along with him, and to hold him in talk till the first blow be given.

All these (my Lords) without scruple are abettors to this murder, though none of them give the blow, nor assist to give the blow. My Lords, he is not the hunter alone that lets slip the dog upon the deer, but he that lodges the deer, or raises him, or puts him out, or he that sets a toil that he cannot escape, or the like. But this (my Lords) little needeth in this present case, where there is such a chain of acts of impoisonment as hath been seldom seen, and could hardly have been expected, but that greatness of fortune maketh commonly grossness in offending. To descend to the proofs themselves, I shall keep this course. First, I will make a narrative or declaration of the fact itself. Secondly, I will break and distribute the proofs, as they concern the prisoner. And thirdly, according to that distribution, I will produce them, and read them, or use them. So that there is nothing that I shall say, but your Lordship (my Lord of Somerset) shall have three thoughts or cogitations to answer it: first, when I open it, you may take your aim: secondly, when I distribute it, you may prepare your answers without confusion: and lastly, when I produce the witnesses or examinations themselves, you may again ruminate and readvise how to make your defence. And this I do the rather, because your memory or understanding may not he oppressed or over laden with length of evidence, or with confusion of order. Nay more, when your Lordship shall make your answers in your time, I will put you in mind (when cause shall be) of your omissions. First therefore, for the simple narrative of the fact. Sir Thomas Overbury, for a time was known to have had great interest and great friendship with my Lord of Somerset, both in his meaner fortunes, and after; insomuch as he was a kind of oracle of direction unto him; and if you will believe his own vaunts (being of an insolent Thrasonical disposition) he took upon him, that the fortune, reputation, and understanding of this gentleman (who is well known to have had a better teacher) proceeded from his company and counsel. And this friendship rested not only in conversation and business of Court, but likewise in communication of secrets of Estate. For my Lord of Somerset, at that time, exercising (by his Majesty’s special favour and trust) the office of the Secretary provisionally, did not forbear to acquaint Overbury with the King’s packets of dispatches from all parts, Spain, France, the Low Countries, &c. And this not by glimpses, or now and then rounding in the ear for a favour, but in a settled manner: packets were sent, sometimes opened by my Lord, sometimes unbroken unto Overbury, who perused them, copied, registered them, made tables of them as he thought good: so that I will undertake, the time was, when Overbury knew more of the secrets of State, than the Council table did. Nay, they were grown to such an inwardness, as they made a play of all the world besides themselves: so as they had ciphers and jargons for the King, the Queen, and all the great men; things seldom used, but either by Princes and their Ambassadors and Ministers, or by such as work and practice against, or at least upon Princes.

But understand me (my Lord) I shall not charge you this day with any disloyalty; only I lay this for a foundation, that there was a great communication of secrets between you and Overbury, and that it had relation to matters of Estate, and the greatest causes of this Kingdom. But (my Lords) as it is a principle in nature, that the best things are in their corruption the worst: and the sweetest wine makes the sharpest vinegar: so fell it out with them, that this excess (as I may term it) of friendship, ended in mortal hatred on my Lord of Somerset’s part. For it fell out, some twelve months before Overbury’s imprisonment in the Tower, that my Lord of Somerset was entered into an unlawful love towards his unfortunate Lady, then Countess of Essex; which went so far, as it was then secretly projected (chiefly between my Lord Privy Seal and my Lord of Somerset) to effect a nullity in the marriage with my Lord of Essex, and so to proceed to a marriage with Somerset. This marriage and purpose did Overbury mainly oppugn, under pretence to do the true part of a friend (for that he counted her an unworthy woman) but the truth was, that Overbury, who (to speak plainly) had little that was solid for religion or moral virtue, but was a man possessed with ambition and vain glory, was loth to have any partners in the favour of my Lord of Somerset, and especially not the house of the Howards, against whom he had always professed hatred and opposition. So all was but miserable bargains of ambition. And (my Lords) that this is no sinister construction, will well appear unto you, when you shall hear that Overbury makes his brags to my Lord of Somerset, that he had won him the love of the Lady by his letters and industry: so far was he from cases of conscience in this matter. And certainly (my Lords) howsoever the tragical misery of that poor gentleman Overbury ought somewhat to obliterate his faults; yet because we are not now upon point of civility, but to discover the face of truth to the face of justice: and that it is material to the true understanding of the state of this cause, Overbury was naught and corrupt, the ballads must be amended for that point.

But to proceed, when Overbury saw that he was like to be dispossessed of my Lord here, whom he had possessed so long, and by whose greatness he had promised himself to do wonders; and being a man of an unbounded and impetuous spirit, he began not only to dissuade, but to deter him from that love and marriage; and finding him fixed, thought to try stronger remedies, supposing that he had my Lord’s head under his girdle, in respect of communication of secrets of Estate, or (as he calls them himself in his letters, secrets of all natures) and therefore dealt violently with him, to make him desist, with menaces of discovery of secrets, and the like. Hereupon grew two streams of hatred upon Overbury; the one from the Lady, in respect that he crossed her love, and abused her name, which are furies to women; the other of a deeper and more mineral nature from my Lord of Somerset himself; who was afraid of Overbury’s nature, and that if he did break from him and fl y out, he would mine into him, and trouble his whole fortunes. I might add a third stream from the Earl of Northampton’s ambition, who desires to be first in favour with my Lord of Somerset, and knowing Overbury’s malice to himself, and his house, thought that man must be removed and cut off. So it was amongst them resolved and decreed, that Overbury must die. Hereupon they had variety of devices. To send him beyond sea, upon occasion of employment, that was too weak; and they were so far from giving way to it, as they crossed it. There rested but two ways, quarrel or assault, and poison. For that of assault, after some proposition and attempt, they passed from it; it was a thing too open, and subject to more variety of chances. That of poison likewise was a hazardous thing, and subject to many preventions and cautions, especially to such a jealous and worKing brain as Overbury had, except he were first fast in their hands. Therefore the way was first to get him into a trap, and lay him up, and then they could not miss the mark. Therefore ill execution of this plot, it was devised, that Overbury should be designed to some honourable employment in foreign parts, and should under-hand by the Lord of Somerset be encouraged to refuse it; and so upon that contempt he should be laid prisoner in the Tower, and then they would look he should be close enough, and death should be his bail. Yet were they not at their end. For they considered, that if there was not a fit lieutenant of the Tower for their purpose, and likewise a fit under-keeper of Overbury: first, they should meet with many impediments in the giving and exhibiting the poison: secondly, they should be exposed to note and observation, that might discover them: and thirdly, Overbury in the mean time might write clamorous and furious letters to other his friends, and so all might be disappointed.

And therefore the next link of the chain, was to displace the then Lieutenant Waade, and to place Helwisse, a principal better in the impoisonment: again, to displace Cary, that was the under-keeper in Waade’s time, and to place Weston, who was the principal actor in the impoisonment: and this was done in such a while (that it may appear to be done, as it were with one breath) as there were but fifteen days between the commitment of Overbury, the displacing of Waade, the placing of Helwisse, the displacing of Cary the under-keeper, the placing of Weston, and the first poison given two days after. Then when they had this poor gentleman in the Tower close prisoner, where he could not escape nor stir; where he could not feed but by their hands, where he could not speak nor write but through their trunks; then was the time to execute the last act of this tragedy. Then must Franklin be purveyor of the poisons, and procure five, six, seven several potions, to be sure to hit his complexion. Then must Mrs. Turner be the say-mistress of the poisons to try upon poor beasts, what’s present, and what works at distance of time! Then must Weston be the tormentor, and chase him with poison after poison, poison in salts, poison in meats, poison in sweetmeats, poison in medicines and vomits, until at last his body was almost come, by use of poisons, to the state that Mithridate’s body was by the use of treacle and preservatives, that the force of the poisons were blunted upon him: Weston confessing, when he was chid for not dispatching him, that he had given him enough to poison twenty men.

Lastly, because all this asked time, courses were taken by Somerset both to divert all means of Overbury’s delivery, and to entertain Overbury by continual letters, partly of hopes and projects for his delivery, and partly of other fables and negotiations; somewhat like some kind of persons (which I will not name) which keep men in talk of fortune telling, when they have a felonious meaning. And this is the true narrative of this act of impoisonment, which I have summarily recited.

 

 

Now for the distribution of the proofs, there are four heads of proofs to prove you guilty (my Lord of Somerset) of this impoisonment; whereof two are precedent to the impoisonment, the third is present, and the fourth is following or subsequent: For it is in proofs, as it is in lights; there is a direct light, and there is a reflexion of light, or back-light. The first head or proof thereof is, that there was a root of bitterness, a mortal malice or hatred, mixed with deep and bottomless fears, that you had towards Sir Thomas Overbury. The second is, that you were the principal actor, and had your hand in all those acts, which did conduce to the impoisonment, and which gave opportunity and means to effect it; and without which the impoisonment could never have been, and which could serve or tend to no other end, but to the impoisonment. The third is, that your hand was in the very impoisonment itself, which is more than needs to be proved; that you did direct poison that you did deliver poison, that you did continually hearken to the success of the impoisonment and that you spurred it on, and called for dispatch, when you thought it lingered. And lastly, that you did all the things after the impoisonment, which may detect a guilty conscience for the smothering of it, and avoiding punishment for it, which can be but of three kinds. That you suppressed, as much as in you was, testimony: that you did deface, and destroy, and clip, and misdate all writings that might give light to the impoisonment; and that you did fly to the altar of guiltiness, which is a pardon, and a pardon of murder, and a pardon for your self, and not for your Lady. In this (my Lord) I convert my speech to you, because I would have you attend the points of your charge, and so of your defence the better. And two of these heads have taken to my self, and left the other two to the King’s two Serjeants. For the first main part, which is the mortal hatred coupled with fear, that was in my Lord of Somerset towards Overbury, although he did palliate it with a great deal of hypocrisy and dissimulation even to the end; I shall prove it (my Lord Steward, and you my Lords and Peers) manifestly, by matter both of oath and writing. The root of this hatred was that that hath cost many a man’s life; that is, fear of discovering secrets. Secrets (I say) of a high and dangerous nature; wherein the course that I will hold shall be this. First; I will show that such a breach and malice was between my Lord and Overbury, and that it burst forth into violent menaces and threats on both sides. Secondly; that these secrets were not light, but of a high nature, for I will give you the elevation of the pole. They were such as my Lord of Somerset for his part had made a vow that Overbury should neither live in Court nor country. That he had likewise opened himself, and his own fears so far, that if Overbury ever came forth of the Tower, either Overbury or himself must die for it. And of Overbury’s part, he had threatened my Lord, that whether he did live or die, my Lord’s shame should never die, but he would leave him the most odious man of the world. And further that my Lord was like enough to repent it, in the place where Overbury wrote, which was the Tower of London. He was a true prophet in that: so here is the height of the secrets. Thirdly; I will show you, that all the King’s business was by my Lord put into Overbury’s hands: so as there is work enough for secrets, whatsoever they were. And like Princes’ confederates, they had their ciphers and jargons. And lastly; I will show you that it is but a toy to say that the malice was only in respect he spake dishonourably of the Lady; or for doubt of breaking the marriage: for that Overbury was a coadjutor to that love, and the Lord of Somerset was as deep in speaking ill of the Lady, as Overbury.

And again, it was too late for that matter, for the bargain of the match was then made and past. And if it had been no more but to remove Overbury from disturbing of the match, it had been an easy matter to have banded over Overbury beyond seas, for which they had a fair way; but that would not serve their turn. And, periculum periculo vincitur, to go so far as an impoisonment, must have a deeper malice than fl ashes: for the cause must bear a proportion to the effect.

For the next general head of proofs, which consists in acts preparatory to the middle acts, they are in eight several points of the compass, as I may term it. First; that there were devices and projects to despatch Overbury, or to overthrow him, plotted between the Countess of Somerset, the Earl of Somerset, and the Earl of Northampton, before they fell upon the impoisonment: for always before men fix upon a course of mischief, there be some rejections; but die he must one way or other.

Secondly; that my Lord of Somerset was principal practicer (I must speak it) in a most perfidious manner, to set a train or trap for Overbury to get him into the Tower; without which they never durst have attempted the impoisonment. Thirdly; that the placing of the lieutenant Helwisse one of the impoisoners, and the displacing of Waade, was by the means of my Lord of Somerset. Fourthly; that the placing of Weston the under keeper, who was the principal impoisoner, and the displacing of Cary, and the doing of all this within fifteen days after Overbury’s commitment, was by the means and countenance of my Lord of Somerset. And these two were the active instruments of the impoisonment: and this was a business that the Lady’s power could not reach unto. Fifthly; that because there must be a time for the tragedy to be acted, and chiefly because they would not have the poisons work upon the sudden: and for that the strength of Overbury’s nature, or the very custom of receiving poison into his body, did overcome the poisons that they wrought not so fast, therefore Overbury must be held in the Tower. And as my Lord of Somerset got him into the trap, so he kept him in, and abused him with continual hopes of liberty; and diverted all the true and effectual means of his liberty, and made light of his sickness and extremities. Sixthly; that not only the plot of getting Overbury into the Tower, and the devices to hold him and keep him there, but the strange manner of his close keeping (being in but for a contempt) was by the device and means of my Lord of Somerset, who denied his father to see him, denied his servants that offered to be shut up close prisoners with him, and in effect handled it so, that he was close prisoner to all his friends, and open and exposed to all his enemies. Seventhly, that the advertisement which my Lady received from time to time, from the lieutenant or Weston, touching Overbury’s state of body or health, were ever sent up to the Court, though it were in progress, and that from my Lady: such a thirst and listening this Lord had to hear that he was despatched.

Lastly, there wag a continual negotiation to set Overbury’s head on work, that he should make some recognition to clear the honour of the Lady; and that he should become a good instrument towards her and her friends: all which was but entertainment: for your Lordships shall plainly see divers of my Lord of Northampton’s letters (whose hand was deep in this business) written (I must say it) in dark words and clauses; that there was one thing pretended, another intended; that there was a real charge, and there was somewhat not real; a main drift and a dissimulation. Nay further, there be some passages which the Peers in their wisdom will discern to point directly at the impoisonment. And now for producing of my proofs, I will use this course: those examinations that have been taken upon oath shall be here read; and the witnesses also I have caused to be here, that they may be sworn, and to justify or deny what they bear read, and to diminish or add to their examinations; and besides that, my Lord of Somerset, and you my Lord the Peers, may ask them what further questions you please.

 

H. Payton, servant of Sir T. Overbury,

Now of his father, examined before the Lord Chief Justice.

 

He saw a letter of his master’s, whose hand he knew, to my Lord of Somerset, wherein were these words, “If I die, my blood lie upon you.” And in that or another letter there was this clause, “My Lord, you are now as good as your word, you have kept your vow to me.” Moreover, that in the privy gallery at Whitehall, my Lord of Somerset coming late to his chamber, met there Sir T. Overbury. “How now” said my Lord, “are you up yet?” “Nay,” answered Sir T. Overbury, “what do you here at this time of night? Will you never leave the company of that base woman? And seeing you do as neglect my advice, I desire that to-morrow morning we may part; and that you will let me have that portion you know is due to me; and then I will leave you free to yourself, to stand on your own legs.”

My Lord of Somerset answered, “His legs were strong enough to bear himself” and so departed in great displeasure. And to his certain knowledge they were never perfectly reconciled again. And being asked how he heard the discourse, he said, it was in the dead of the night, and he, being in a room within the gallery, heard all that passed. H. Payton. I acknowledge every part of this examination to be true and more, that my master being in the Tower, be sent a letter by Weston to me, to carry to my Lord; and withal to deliver my Lord this message, that that powder he had sent him had made him very sick, and given him in one night sixty stools, besides vomits. This letter I carried to the Court, and delivered to Mr. Pawlins to carry in to my Lord, who was then in his chamber. My Lord presently came out, asked me how my master did. I told him very sick, and withal this message how the physic bad wrought with him. My Lord smiled, and cried “Fish!” and so turned away.

 

L. Davis, sometime servant of Sir T. Overbury, now of

Sir H. May; his examination before the Lord Coke.

 

Saith that he hath heard his master say, that he would have gone ambassador, but that my Lord of Rochester dissuaded him. He bath seen some letters of Sir T. Overbury’s wherein he writ that the Lord of Rochester was even with him; but he thinks he (the Lord Rochester) never saw those passages.

 

Lord of Somerset. I pray you, my Lords, note: be says, I never saw those passages.

 

Mr. Attorney. It is true; for those letters were lost, but after found by him, who knew them to be his master’s (Sir Thomas Overbury’s) hand.

 

Sir Thomas Overbury’s first letter to my Lord Somerset: “Is this the fruit of my care and love to you? Be these the fruits of common secrets, common dangers? As a man you cannot suffer me to lie in this misery; yet your behaviour betrays you. All I entreat of you is, that you will free me from this place, and that we may part friends. Drive me not to extremities, lest I should say something that you and I both repent. And I pray God that you may not repent the omission of this my counsel in this place, whence I now write this letter.”

 

Lord Wentworth. How did you know these letters were sent from him to my Lord of Somerset?

 

Lord Coke. They were found in a cabinet, among some other things, left in trust by my Lord of Somerset with Sir R. Cotton, and thus they were discovered: Sir R. Cotton, fearing searches, delivers them to a friend of his in Holborn, one Mrs. Farneforth; she, to the intent they might be safely kept, sent them to a merchant’s house in Cheapside, where some nine months before she had lodged, and desired that they might safely be kept for her, pretending they were some writings that concerned her jointure. On St. Thomas’s Day she herself comes to have them again, saying she must carry them to her counsel to peruse. He said, “If you will suffer me to open it before you, and that there be nothing else, you shall have them.” But she by no means would consent to the breaking of it open. Then he answered, “It is a troublesome time; I will go to my Lord Chief Justice, and if he find so other writings than such as concern you, you shall have them again.” So coming to my chamber, and not finding me within, (for I was gone to St. Paul’s to the sermon,) he went to my Lord Zouch, one of the appointed commissioners for this cause; who himself alone would not break it up but came to St. Paul’s to me, where in a by-room we broke it up, and in it found these letters and divers from my Lord of Northampton, besides many other papers.

Lord Zouch. I affirm this relation of my Lord Coke’s to be true.

 

Sir T. Overbury’s second letter to my Lord Somerset: “This comes under seal, and therefore shall be bold. You told my brother Lidcote that unreverend style might make you neglect me. With what face could you do this, who know you owe me for all the fortune, wit, and understanding that you have? [Here were inserted some borrowed names.]

 

Mr. Attorney. Under these false names they meant great persons; Julius, the King; Dominic, my Lord of Northampton; Incline, my Lord of Canterbury.

 

The rest of the letter:

And yet pretend the reason why you seek not my liberty to be my unreverend style; whilst, in the meantime you sacrifice me to your woman, still holding friendship with those that brought me hither. You bade my brother Lidcote keep my desire of liberty secret. Yet this shall not serve your turn; for you and I, ere it be long, will come to a public trial of another nature; I upon the rack, and you at your ease; and yet I must say nothing I when I beard (notwithstanding my misery) bow you went to your woman, curled your hair, preferred Gibbe into the bedchamber, and in the meantime send me nineteen projects how I should cut about for my liberty; and give me a long account of the pains you have taken, and then go out of town. I wonder to see how you should neglect him, to whom such secrets of all kinds have passed; and suffer my mother and sisters to lie here in town, expecting my liberty; my brother Lidcote to be in a manner quite overthrown, in respect of my imprisonment and yet you stand stupid: nor have neither servant nor friend suffered to come to me. Well, all this vacation I have written the story betwixt you and me. How I have lost my friends for your sake; what hazard I have run; what secrets have passed between us; how after you had won that woman by my letters, and then you concealed all your after proceedings from me; and how upon this there came many breaches betwixt us; of the vow you made to be even with me, and sending for me twice that day that I was caught in the trap, persuading me that it was a plot of mine enemies to send me beyond sea; and urging me not to accept it, assuring me to free me from any long trouble. On Tuesday I made an end of this, and on Friday sent it to a friend of mine under eight seals; and if you persist still to use me thus, assure yourself it shall be published. Whether I live or die your shame shall never die, but ever remain to the world, to make you the most odious man living.

H. Payton and L. Davis.

We both, upon our oaths, know this to be Sir T. Overbury’s hand.

 

Simcock’s Examination before my Lord Coke, writ with his own hand.

He says that Weston many times, when Sir T. Overbury was in the Tower, told him that my Lord of Somerset charged him to look to Overbury well; for if ever he came out, one of us two must die.

 

Lord of Somerset. I would fain know whether Weston were examined or no.

 

Lord Wentworth. How long is it since this familiar acquaintance betwixt Simcocks and Weston?

Simcock. He and I were of ancient and familiar acquaintance long since.

 

Mr Attorney. Weston had continually access to my Lord, had rewards from him. My Lord charged him to look to Overbury well. It could not be that marriage that made him so much fear; but what the secrets were that caused it, it is not the work of this day. Now to show that the greatest matters of state were communicated to him, read Davies.

 

L. Davies examined. There was a packet of letters and sealed, which as he takes, came from Sir J. Digby, directed to the King; and his master (Sir T. Overbury) opened it, took brief notes for my Lord of Somerset, and sealing it again, sent both the notes and packet to him. Another of this he saw his master have at Newmarket from Sir Thomas Edmundes to the King, out of which, after he had taken extracts, he sealed it up again, and sent both back by this examinant to my Lord Somerset.

 

Mr. Attorney. I will not now, my Lords, endeavour to press the greatness of this offence. But I urge it thus, that you may see there were no mean secrets betwixt my Lord and Sir T. Overbury, that might rather cause him to fear him than the hindrance of his marriage: if that had been it alone, his going beyond sea would have served the turn.

 

Lord of Somerset examined, says, that amongst many other characters for names that passed between Sir T. Overbury and him, Simonist was for Sir H. Nevil, Wolsy for the now Lord Treasurer, Ductius for my Lord of Canterbury.

 

Mr. Attorney. In good faith these two made plays of all the world besides themselves; but though it were a play then, it hath proved tragical since.

 

A letter of my Lord of Northampton to my Lord of Somerset: “Now, all is concluded about the form of the tonality I doubt not but God will bless the next bargain. I hope hereafter to find better pen and ink in this lady’s chamber. Be still happy.” Underneath subscribed “H. Northampton,” and “I am witness to this bargain, Fra. Howard.”

 

This letter was shewed my Lord of Somerset, and he confessed the hand.

 

Mr. Attorney. For the second branch that I mean to follow, and that is, that you used the means to expose him to the Tower, and there to keep him close prisoner. It is a chain of eight links, and shall be shewed you upon eight points of the compass. But before we come to these, it is to be considered, that, as no consultation is ripe in an hour, as no more was there; for they purposed at first to have taken away his life by assault. And Franklin tells you the cause of this malice.

 

Franklin examined before my Lord Coke, but not upon oath.

He saith, that my Lady of Somerset said the cause of this hatred of Sir T. Overbury was, that he would pry as far into my Lord of Somerset that he would put him down.

 

Sir D. Woodes examined before Lord Coke.

He saith, my Lady Somerset knowing there was some discontent betwixt Overbury and him, in respect of a suit that he crossed him in, told him that if he would kill Sir T. Overbury he should have 10001., and besides she would make his greatest enemy to become his greatest friend; and he knew no enemy he had in Court but my Lord of Rochester. He answered, that if my Lord of Rochester would give him his hand, or but pass his word, if he did it, that he should escape and have his pardon, he would do it. Upon this she paused, and desired some time to give her answer; and when he came again to her she told him that could not be; but promised all favour possible unto him, and warranted him to go on upon her life.

 

Lord of Somerset examined. Saith, it was once resolved somebody in Court should fall out with Overbury, and offer him some affront; but that was not followed.

 

Mr. Attorney. Note, my Lords, he does not say it was disliked. And now to the puddle of blood; the first link of which is that the means to entrap Overbury for the Tower by the means of my Lord of Somerset.

 

Sir Dudley Diggs sworn. Sir T. Overbury once told me that he went to undertake the employment offered him to go beyond sea; but afterwards he sent me word by Sir R. Mansel that he had changed his mind. But Sir R. Mansel told me farther, that he saw a letter from the Lord of Somerset to Overbury that dissuaded him from that course. Seeing Mr. Attorney hath called me so far out of the country for this small testimony, I wish Sir R. Mansel were here to justify it.

 

My Lord of Somerset, Declaration in writing to the King.

Being told by my Lord Chief Justice that I was indicted, and was shortly to expect my arraignment, I did not then believe him, for I did not look for that way. Your Majesty hath three kingdoms wherein to exercise the prerogative of your power, and but few that taste of the first of your favours, in which number I did think myself, if not the first, yet inferior to very few. And having committed no offence against your person nor the state, I hope your Majesty will not for this bring me to a public trial, which for my reputation’s cause I humbly desire to avoid. Grace truly given may be a benefit; for it is not enough to give life and not to save reputation. But if I must come to my trial, knowing the presumptions may be strong against me in respect I consented to and endeavoured the imprisonment of Sir T. Overbury (though I designed it for his reformation, not his ruin), I therefore desire your Majesty’s mercy, and that you will be pleased to give me leave to dispose of my lands and goods to my wife and child, and graciously to pardon her, having confessed the fact. For myself, being uncertain how I shall be judged upon presumptions, I humbly desire that in the meantime you will be pleased to give my Lord Hays and Sir Robert Carr leave to come to me.

Mr. Attorney. The second link is, how that Elwes came to be Lieutenant of the Tower by your means, and yet that must have a colour; my Lord of Shrewsbury and Lord Chamberlain must prefer him to you as their friend, though it was resolved before he should have the place.

 

The original manuscript of the trial of the Earl of Somerset is among the archives of the State Paper Office. It is endorsed, “The Arraignment of the Earl of Somerset.” The endorsement is apparently in the hand-writing of Sir R. Winwood. The discrepancies between the printed report and the manuscript afford matter for some reflection and conjecture. Are they the result of the different manner in which oral matters will be repeated by individuals probably almost equally competent to understand the proceedings, and equally attentive to them? It is notorious that great dissimilitude is to be expected in the accounts of any transaction, especially if it consist of oral statements, when it is related again by persons of greater or less capacity, or feeling a greater or less interest in what they have heard; but, in the present case, the reporters, if they were in fact different persons, were probably selected by the Government for ability in duty to report all that passed. Or is the printed report to be regarded as exhibiting the emendations which the King, his ministers or law officers, thought it politic that the original notes of the trial constituting the present manuscript should receive, before it was deemed prudent to subject it to the public eye in print? Whether the printed report was taken from the manuscript now in the State Paper Office, or from a manuscript prepared by a different reporter present at the trial, the sagacious reader will probably be of opinion, that it has appearances on the face of it of having, like the accounts of the trials for the Gunpowder Plot, for the Essex conspiracy, and other matters published by authority, undergone the process of curtailing, expanding, and correcting to such an extent as was deemed expedient for the vindication of the Government. Although the order of the witnesses is precisely the same in the two reports, and Payton is the first witness mentioned in each, the printed report makes Payton relate a very remarkable altercation between Somerset and Overbury, about the Countess, which he overheard, and which he represented to have taken place at midnight in a gallery at Whitehall: It is singular that there is nothing of this kind in the MS. If such a statement was made by Payton, it is too striking not to have been remembered by any person present at the trial, still less by a reporter; nor could it be deemed otherwise than very important for giving a clue through the labyrinth of this mysterious history.

It appears from the MS., that the Earl of Somerset relied greatly in his defence upon a letter written to him by Overbury, to the effect that a powder, which he had received from the Earl, had agreed with him, but that, nevertheless, he did not intend to take any more powders of the same kind. It is shown, further, by the MS., that letter was proved by Sir R. Cotton; and the reporter exerts himself to take off the force of this piece of evidence. But it is remarkable, that, in the printed report, no mention whatever is made of this letter of Sir T. Overbury, either in the Earl’s defence or Sir R. Cotton’s examination. In the printed report the Earl of Somerset is represented to have written to Mrs. Overbury in these terms: “Your stay here in town can nothing avail your son’s delivery; therefore I would advise you to retire into the country.” The Earl’s letter to Mrs. Overbury is set forth in the manuscript. One and the same letter is evidently intended to be exhibited in both reports; but the manuscript statement of the letter contains no such page as that above mentioned. Again, both reports contain a second letter written after Overbury’s death; one report represents it to have been written to Mr., the other to Mrs. Overbury. The language of the letter in the two reports differs; and the printed report omits a promise on the part of the Earl to defray the expenses of Mr. Overbury’s second son then in France; and also an obscure allusion to obtaining the pardon of some gentlewoman. The two letters written by Overbury whilst in the Tower to Somerset correspond closely in substance, but differ throughout in expressions. The reports might not improbably seem to be those of two different persons hearing letters read, and not being very expert in short-hand writing. Nevertheless, the printed report presents some appearances of exhibiting the MS., in a more pointed and polished form. Thus, in the MS., Overbury’s second letter concludes thus: “This I have sealed under seven seals whereof my friends shall know; and if you persist to deal thus inhumanly with me, I will leave you to die with shame.” The printed report has it: “On Tuesday I made an end of this, and on Friday sent it to a friend of mine under eight seals; and, if you persist still to use me thus, assure yourself it shall be published. Whether I live or die, your shame shall never die, but ever remain to the world, to make you the most odious man living.”

The letter of the Countess of Somerset, sent to the Lieutenant of the Tower, is different in point of expression in the two reports. The printed report omits a pronoun “he”, contained in the MS.: “If he did send you any wine.” The omission is so far remarkable, that this pronoun is mentioned in Lord Bacon’s letters, where he compliments the King on his sagacity in doubting whether the Countess meant the pronoun “be” to relate to Somerset. And Bacon promises to give order to Serj. Montague to leave out of the evidence what the Countess had said regarding this pronoun. It further appears that the printed report omits a “perhaps” in the Countess’s confession relative to the word “letters” being intended to signify poison. In the manuscript it is mentioned that Sir Davie Wood desired to have an assurance of pardon for assassinating Overbury under the Earl of Somerset’s hand, “which being denied him,” the MS., concludes, “he refused to undertake it, and so the enterprise was quashed.” But the printed report states that when the Countess told Sir Davie that the Earl’s assurance of pardon could not be got, she further “promised all favour possible to him, and warranted him to go on upon her life.” It appears from the manuscript, that Lobell, the apothecary, in his examination, stated that the Earl of Somerset “Willed him to write to Doctor Maiot” (probably Mayerne, the King’s physician) “concerning physic to be given to Overbury.” This is a circumstance very favourable to Somerset, and it is omitted in the printed report. The printed report also omits another circumstance contained in the MS., viz., that the letters of Somerset which were found by Sir R. Cotton among the Earl of Northampton’s papers after his death, were delivered by him to the Lord Treasurer. This of itself would have been important, for then the Lord Treasurer might have been examined as to their contents: but, further, it is left in doubt, by the manuscript, whether the fact that the papers ever reached Somerset, or that he burnt them, did not depend solely on the hearsay of Sir Robert Cotton. The printed report makes the Earl of Somerset acknowledge that he burnt them: there is no such acknowledgment in the MS. The MS., mentions a confession of Franklin taken on November 12; this is not noticed in the printed report. A confession of Franklin bearing that date would have destroyed the credit which Sir E. Coke had on several occasions endeavoured to attach to Weston’s examination of November 16, that it was voluntary.

In the manuscript report a date is given for the conversation in which Franklin represents that the Countess told him that she had received a letter from the Earl in which were these words: “that he wondered things were not yet dispatched.” The date is omitted in the printed report. It was, according to the MS., “about a month after Whitsuntide”. Easter Day in the year 1613 fell on April 4, and Overbury died September 14, about three months after Whitsuntide. And it might have been thought improbable that the Earl should have remained so long in a state of wonder, without taking any step for expediting the business, or making further inquiry about it. The printed report contains a statement in the confession of Helwysse which is not to be found in the MS., viz., that “Weston never received any wages from him.” There is much difference in the two reports with regard to all the speeches. A remarkable passage in the MS., is omitted in the printed report of Sir F. Bacon’s speech; viz., that Overbury, “in his writings, had dared to promise this Lord the unlawful love of the greatest woman in this kingdom.” Bacon’s speech in the printed report appears a more finished production than that given in the MS. In the MS., Bacon obliquely compliments the Lord High Steward, by quoting one of his sayings in the Court of Chancery thus: “I have often heard your Grace in the Chancery to say that fraud and frost always end foul, and so it hath justly happened in the friendship of Overbury.” This conceit is more elaborated in the printed report thus: “I have heard my Lord Steward say sometimes in the Chancery, that frost and fraud end foul; and I may add a third, and that is, the friendship of ill men.” Some rhetorical flourishes contained in the MS., are omitted; as the comparison between Sir T. Overbury and St. Lawrence on the gridiron; and the oratorical flight, that Somerset did keep his honour in delivering Overbury, but that “his bail was death.” And Sir F. Bacon’s eulogy on his own methodical arrangement: “My Lord, if you omit to answer anything objected against you, I shall rather count it your guiltiness that shall make you unable, than any want of memory, when there is so plain a method as I shall use.” Perhaps, on reflection, Sir F. Bacon may have deemed it more consonant to good taste to omit these passages. Sir R. Crew’s speech in the printed report and in the MS., are quite different compositions. The passage is to Somerset, respecting his following Adam in his fig-leaves “one step further into the thicket;” the comparison of King James to an eagle, and the introduction of the ghost of Overbury crying to Somerset “Et tu, Brute” are flights of rhetoric which can scarcely be supposed to have escaped any reporter. But it is easy to suppose that a severe critic or a rival orator, in preparing a manuscript report for publication, may have judged it advisable to prune these luxuriances. The reports of the Earl of Somerset’s speech in the MS., and in the printed trial are strikingly different. The MS., report of the speech is the more life-like. Besides containing some arguments not noticed in the printed report, it represents the Earl to have made forcible appeals concerning the credit of the witnesses; as where the Earl exclaims against the memorative relation of such a villain as Franklin;” and desires that “his own protestations, on his oath, his honour, and his conscience, should be weighed against the lewd information of so bad a miscreant.” The printed report contains no trace of these remarks; and it is obvious that such passages would be the most likely to be struck out by persons desirous of publishing a version of the proceedings, which might diffuse an opinion among the public, that one of the wickedest of men bad been condemned after one of the fairest of trials, and by one of the justest of prosecutions.

It will be apparent from the remarks which in the manuscript accompany the report, that the writer was actuated by an adverse feeling towards the Earl of Somerset. Even, therefore, if we suppose that the manuscript contains a more faithful report of the trial than what was published by Government, there may be ground to suspect that an impartial reporter might have given a version of the proceedings different from any that has transpired. As to which it is remarkable, that we learn from the letter of an eye-witness to the Earl of Somerset’s trial, that the Earl was desired to write his name, in order that his hand-writing might be compared with that of certain letters; but that the Earl contended it was contrary to law to require him to furnish proof by comparison of handwriting for his own condemnation; neither the manuscript nor the printed report of the trial contains the slightest allusion to this circumstance. It was probably omitted, as indicating an endeavour, by the law officers, to implicate the Earl by illegal and oppressive means, which had been unsuccessful.

There is in the British Museum a manuscript entitled “A Booke touching Sir Thomas Overbury, who was murthered by Poison in the Tower of London, September 15, 1613 being the thirty second year of his age.” It contains the proceedings of the divorce, the trials of Weston, Turner, Franklin, and Helwysse, the Earl and Countess of Somerset’s arraignments, a ballad on the Earl and Countess of Somerset not fit for publication, and “Notes taken A.D. 1637 from the mouth of Sir Nicholas Overbury, the father of Sir Thomas.” From the Earl’s trial we collect, (but it is only by implication, the evidence having been adduced with a different object), that Sir Thomas Overbury was seen in prison by one of the King’s physicians, and likewise by Sir R. Killigrew, a medical man, and by the apothecary Lobell. The King’s physician, who was sent to the Tower for the purpose of visiting Overbury by the express direction of his Majesty, does not appear to have been examined at all. Neither Sir R. Killigrew nor Lobell is asked whether Sir T. Overbury exhibited any symptoms of being poisoned.

The following documents now published for the first time, show that the celebrated physician Mayerne prescribed for Sir Thomas Overbury during his imprisonment. Mayerne had been physician to King Henry IV., of France, and had been invited over to England by King James, in order to be his own physician. Several of Mayerne’s medical remains are extant, which contain very circumstantial and elaborate statements of the cases of the patients whom he visited. It was his custom to note down a variety of minute circumstances regarding his patients, which are sometimes ludicrous on account of their particularity. His memoranda comprise very minute details concerning King James’ physical peculiarities; as, for instance, that the King had a diarrhoea in the spring and autumn, the return of which was always preceded by his looking with suspicion on every body; and that he concealed hurts with which he often met in hunting, for few of being pressed to take physic. In Mayerne’s collection of cases for which he wrote prescriptions, everything that relates to Prince Henry’s last illness is torn out of the book. Another of the King’s physicians, Dr. Craig appears, from the following papers, to have been admitted to visit Sir T. Overbury, by the express orders of the Earl of Somerset, and also of the Earl of Northampton. Lobell, the apothecary, was a Frenchman, and was placed in immediate attendance on Sir T. Overbury by his countryman Mayerne. He saw the dead body. The clyster alleged to have contained corrosive sublimate, which was the only imputed cause of Sir Thomas Overbury’s death at all proximate to that event in point of time and which was stated (or rather related to have been stated) by Weston to have actually killed Sir Thomas Overbury, was by the like evidence said to have been administered by Lobell or one of his assistants.

It will appear from the following documents, that, if credit be given to Lobell, Sir Thomas Overbury died of a consumption. Mayerne’s prescriptions, which Lobell delivered to Sir E. Coke, probably confirmed that opinion, or they would have been produced at the trial. This part of Lobell’s examination was suppressed, though his testimony upon other points was adduced against the Earl of Somerset on his trial. It has been noticed that the printed report omits a fact contained in the manuscript report, that the Earl of Somerset wished Lobell to write to Dr. Mayerne concerning physic to be administered to Sir Thomas Overbury. The documents about to be set forth will further show a very curious piece of evidence, tending to create a suspicion that Lobell, in fact, poisoned Sir Thomas Overbury. If this were the case, the connection between Lobell and Mayerne, and between Mayerne and the King, would tend to throw some new light on these mysterious transactions. Wilson, who, from being the intimate friend of Lord Essex, the Countess of Somerset’s injured husband, is entitled to peculiar attention in regard to the transactions under consideration, relates that the discovery of Overbury’s murder arose “from the apothecary’s boy that gave Sir Thomas Overbury the clyster falling sick at Flushing, having revealed the whole matter, which Sir. R. Winwood, by his correspondents, had a full relation of.” Sir A. Weldon confirms Wilson, and is still more particular in his narrative of the discovery of the plot; for he mentions that the name of the apothecary’s boy was Reeve, and that he was afterwards an apothecary in London, and “died very lately.” And he relates that Thoumbal, the foreign agent, would not commit the story he had heard to writing, but only informed Secretary Winwood that he had a secret of importance to communicate if a licence for his returning to England could be obtained, which was accordingly granted.

In a letter remaining in the State Paper Office, dated November 15, 1615 Lord Cecil wrote to Mr. Wake in these terms: “Not long since there was some notice brought unto me that Sir Thomas Overbury was poisoned in the Tower; with this I acquainted his Majesty.” The letter is full of news and gossip and, therefore, if Bacon’s account of the discovery of the plot were true, it is, perhaps, likely that the miraculous circumstances of it would have been mentioned by Cecil to his friend.

It will naturally be asked, why was not Mayerne produced as a witness at the Earl of Somerset’s trial? Why was not Lobell interrogated more particularly as to the cause of Sir T. Overbury’s death? Why was not the imputation cast upon Lobell of having been concerned in poisoning Sir T. Overbury probed to the bottom? Why was not the relation attributed to Weston, that an apothecary poisoned Sir Thomas Overbury with a clyster, for a reward of £20, further inquired into in any of Weston’s or Franklyn’s numerous examinations? If the reader thinks that there are grounds for suspecting the truth of Sir Francis Bacon’s narrative of the discovery of the plot, (owing, according to his statement, to an introduction merely complimentary that was said to have passed between a deceased nobleman and an anonymous Counsellor of estate, which story, therefore, could not be easily confuted,) why was the true history of the discovery concealed? A question of more pregnant importance, seeing that authorities concur in attributing the discovery of the plot to the confession of an apprentice of an apothecary placed in charge of Overbury by the King’s chief physician.

The papers are so far relevant in this place, as they indicate that Somerset, the supposed poisoner, was willing that his victim should be visited by the King’s doctors: they also awaken a suspicion, that, if the circumstances of Overbury’s death had been minutely inquired into, it would have been found either that he did not die of poison, or that, if he did, some important circumstances collected with his death were studiously kept out of public view. It would seem to have been very important for an impartial investigation of the charge against the Earl of Somerset, to have inquired what means had been afforded to any of Sir Thomas Overbury’s relations of examining his body after death. All the evidence that could have been procured as to the post mortem appearances should have been collected; and then medical witnesses should have been examined as to the inferences which might be drawn from such appearances. From the statements of counsel at the different trials, it might be supposed that no relative or friend or the deceased bad been allowed to see his body; that the body bore unequivocal marks of poison; and that no coroner’s inquest had sat upon it. It was ambiguously alleged that there had been no coroner’s inquest “which could be found.” It has been seen that Lobell, the apothecary who had attended Sir Thomas Overbury during his imprisonment, saw his body after his death, and could, doubtless, have given material evidence upon the point under consideration. From the documents, it appears that a coroner’s inquest did, in fact, sit upon Overbury’s body; and that Sir J. Lydcote, brother-in-law of Sir Thomas Overbury, and other friends of the deceased, were particularly invited to inspect his body after death by the express desire of the Earl of Northampton.

Bacon’s character appears in an unfavourable aspect in the proceedings relative to the Great Oyer of Poisoning, because, in various transactions connected with it, he seems to have acted under an impression that preferment arid honours were to be obtained by pursuing a different course from that which uncompromising virtue would have dictated. To such struggles of honourable self-denial, in opposition to the impulses of a towering ambition, the mind of Bacon was unequal, superior as it was to the general standard of human intellect in most respects in which he can be compared with the greatest men of all ages and nations. Sir Francis Bacon’s first public appearance in the proceedings connected with the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury, was, on the occasion of preferring, in the Star Chamber, the information against Sir J. Hollis, Sir J. Wentworth, and Mr. Lumsden, for traducing public justice. In his speech on this occasion, Sir Francis Bacon, after referring to the statute of Henry VIII., making poisoning and species of High Treason, says, “And, therefore, it was most gravely, judiciously, and properly provided by that statute, that empoisonment should be High Treason because whatever offence tendeth to the utter subversion and dissolution of human society, is the nature of High Treason.” Of the offence of poisoning, he further says: “It is an offence that I may truly say of it is thanks be to God, rare in the Isle of Britain. It is neither of our country, nor of our church: you may find it in Rome or Italy. There is a Region or, perhaps, a Religion for it.”

Of Sir Thomas Overbury, Sir Francis Bacon observes, on the same occasion, “I knew the gentleman. It is true, his mind was great, but it moved not in any good order; yet, certainly, it did commonly fly at good things. And the greatest fault I ever heard of him, was, that he made his friend his idol.” That Villiers on many occasions availed himself of Bacon’s compliant and obsequious dispositions towards him, in order to serve his own ends at the cost of justice towards individuals, and of duty to the State, can scarcely be doubted:

 

Villiars to Bacon: “I could not but recommend to your Lordship’s favour a special friend of his, [Lord Norris] Sir F. Monk, who hath a suit your Lordship in the Chancery with Sir R. Basset. I therefore desire your Lordship shew, in this particular, what favour you lawfully may, for my sake, who will account it as done unto myself.” Sir F. Monk succeeded in his suit, and, after the decision, Bacon received from him 100 pieces.

 

Villiars to Bacon: “Desiring your Lordship to show what favour you lawfully may unto Mr. Wyche, according as the justice of the cause shall require, which I will acknowledge as a courtesy from your Lordship.”

 

Villiars to Bacon: “My desire to your Lordship is, that you should show the said John Huddy what favour you lawfully may, and the cause will bear, when it cometh before you, for my sake, which I will not fail to acknowledge.”

 

Villiars to Bacon in a postscript: “I thank your Lordship for your favour to Sir J. Wentworth in the dispatch of his business.”

 

Villiars to Bacon: “I having understood by Dr. Steward, that your Lordship hath made a decree against him in Chancery. I desire your Lordship, if there be any place left for mitigation, your Lordship would show him what favour you may, for my sake.”

 

After such cursory view of Bacon’s conduct, we cannot rely on his having followed the dictates of his own judgment in the proceedings relative to the murder of Overbury. The preliminary arrangements for the trial would stamp Bacon as one of the most wicked men recorded in history, who have prostituted their consciences and talents in order to ruin a victim of royal caprice. But so must also be said of Sir Edward Coke, and all other eminent law men who were judge and jury at that mocking trial for the royal head.

It seems that Franklin, the apothecary who was concerned in the poisoning of Overbury, finding himself condemned to death, began to talk of certain dreadful disclosure which he could make if he liked; how more were to be poisoned than were yet known; how the Earl and Countess of Somerset had the most aspiring minds that ever were heard of; how the Earl never loved the Prince [Henry] nor the Lady Elizabeth; how strange it was that King James kept an outlandish physician about his person and the person of the Prince deceased; “thereon lieth a long tale;” how he knew things he was ashamed to speak of; and lastly how “he could make one discovery that should deserve his life.” On the strength of these hints, before making further inquiry, Sir Edward Coke gave out a mysterious intimation in open Court of iniquities not yet brought to light, “which he knew of;” and even added a direct allusion to the death of the Prince, as a mystery concerning which “he knew somewhat.” 12 William Oldys, Esq., gives the following abstract on a poem written on the Overbury Case: 13

“This is a Poem composed in our Epic verse, and, as may be gather’d from the seventeenth page, by the author of the additional Legends in that edition of the Myrror for Magistrates, which was printed in 4to, 1610, whose name was Richard Niccols. It is perhaps with some impropriety entitled Sir Thomas Overburie’s Vision, for it is indeed the vision or dream of the author, upon whose imagination the Trial of Sir Thomas’ Murderers in Guild-Hail, where he had heard it, made such impression that Sir Thomas appeared to him at night in his sleep, and led him to the Tower, and there relates how barbarously he was treated for his faithful services to his Master, (Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset.) There is a wooden print of Sir Thomas, his Ghost, and he concludes his tale with a request that our Author should transmit to posterity his true tragedy. The late Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, Esq., had in his library a rare tract, entitled The Just Downfall of Ambition, Adultery, and Murder, printed at London, small 4to. On the title page there is a rude cut of Mrs. Turner, of which a copy was etched by that gentleman, and prefixed, with other similar cuts, to the reprint of an unpublished work, entitled The Whore’s Rhetoric, 14 originally printed, London, 12mo 1683. There is no resemblance whatever between the two wood engravings. It is evident neither Anthony ά Wood, nor, at a more recent period, Haslewood, ever saw a copy of the original edition of Sir Thomas Overburie’s Vision, which is of extreme rarity, and of which there is no copy in the library of the British Museum, or in that of the Faculty of Advocates. Neither did Mr. Amos, who, in his elaborate work, entitled The Great Oyer of Poisoning, 15 has quoted several portions of the poem, from the Harleian Miscellany, Vol. VII.” This learned gentleman, albeit a lawyer and a member of the Supreme Council of India, duly appreciated the poetical merits of Niccols, for he ventures to say, “The student of English poetry will read with much interest several of the lines; which, if he had not been apprized of their date, he would probably have supposed to have been written after the period of Waller and Denham.” “Richard Niccols,” says Anthony ά Wood, “esteemed eminent for his poetry in his time, was born [about the year 1584] of genteel parents in London, and at eighteen years of age, 1602, was entered a student in Mag. coll in Michaelmas term; but making little stay there he retired to Mag. hall, and took the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1606, being then numbered among the ingenious persons of the University. After he had remained there for some time he retired to the great City, obtained an employment suitable to his faculty, and at length honoured the devotees to poetry with these things following.” 16

Haslewood, in his reprint of the Mirror for Magistrates says that Niccols, who had published an edition of that popular Miscellany in 1610, with the text of which he had ventured to take liberties, had, when about twelve years stage, embarked in a vessel called the Ark, which failed with the expedition against Cadiz in June, 1596 and was present at the great and complete victory obtained by sea and land on that occasion. Whether this voyage was the result of boyish ardour, or that he was originally intended to be actually employed for his country in either marine or military service, is not known. [Also see Appendices Quarles’s Work.]