pains to speak with me? truly in few words, either by much expense or much humblenesse.

[The letter here breaks off.]1

I must now leave the subject of "Sidney" to pursue the "Leicester " connection. And here I come to a very ungrateful part of my task. In 1584 a frightful attack on Leicester was printed in Antwerp anonymously and circulated in England. The book is known as Leicester's Commonwealth, and was attributed to Father Parsons, but evidently without foundation, as is now generally agreed. The author, in my opinion, is Francis Bacon, and the poem known as "Leicester's Ghost," which appeared for the first time in the 1641 edition, is also clearly (or, as I think, clearly) by the same hand. In arriving at this conclusion I base myself primarily on the style, and were I not satisfied on this point, I should have no hesitation in rejecting the other evidences of Baconian authorship, strong as they are. But as I cannot expect others to accept a judgment founded on what is a matter of opinion, I will endeavour briefly to set out the other considerations which point to the same conclusion.

The book appeared as "The Copie of a Leter, wrytten by a master of Arte of Cambridge to his friend in London concerning some talke past of late between two worshipful and grave men, about the present state, and some proceedings of the Erle of Leycester and his friendes in England." It was known, from the green-edged leaves of the original edition, as "Father Parson's Green Coat."

The Dictionary of the Anonymous and Pseudonymous Literature of Great Britain (Halkett and Laing) cites the following MS. note by Malone in the Bodleian copy:

1 An original copy of this book is in the British Museum, but this extract is given in Pears, Correspondence of Sir Philip Sidney and Hubert Languet.

2 Two copies are in the British Museum, one with the green edges (much faded).

Leicester's Commonwealth was written by Parsons, the Jesuit, from materials with which he is said to have been furnished by Lord Burghley. It was first published abroad in 8vo in 1584, under the title of "A dialogue between a scholar, a gentleman and a lawyer"; and was previously handed about in England under the name of Parsons' Black Book.

It is stated, however, in the Dictionary of National Biography that "some letters in Cole's MSS. xxx. 129 show clearly that Father Parsons was not the author, but that it was the work of a courtier who endeavoured to foist responsibility on to Parsons."1

The "Parsons" story was, no doubt, good enough for the uncritical and credulous public of that day, but it did not satisfy Sir Philip Sidney. In his reply to the attack on his uncle, which was written at the time when it first appeared (though only first printed in Collins's Letters and Memorials of State, 1746), he ends by a challenge to the anonymous author, concluding with the words: "and this which I wryte I woold send to thyne own Handes, if I knew thee; but I trust it can not bee intended, that he should be ignorant of this printed in London, which knows the very Whispringes of the Prive-Chamber." And above he writes: "and which is more base (if any Thing can be more base then a diffamatori Libeller) he counterfaites him self, in all the Treatis, a Protestant; when any Man, with Haulf an Ey, may easili see he is of the other Parti." In this statement Sidney was certainly at fault; he was blinded partly by indignation at the frightful attack on a member of his family, and partly by his strong Protestant convictions, which would probably prevent him understanding the plea for greater toleration of the Catholics which is found in this book. The book is written from the point of view of "uniformity," based on a liberal Protestantism, as always in the case of

1 I find that this is a copy of a letter by Dr. Ashton (an eighteenth-century scholar), in which he expresses this opinion for reasons similar to those which I have given, i.e. from the internal evidence; the concealment of the author being "to cover himself from the Bear's fury." In a note on the back his correspondent, Dr. Mosse, agrees with him.

Bacon's writings. Sidney's manuscript is endorsed by his brother Robert, and by his nephew, Robert's son, who writes: "In my uncles own Hand, worthy to be better known to the world." The book was suppressed, so far as it could be, and the Queen in Council wrote in 1585 to the Magistrates of Cheshire: "Her Highness not only knoweth to assured certainty the books and libels against the said Earl to be most malicious, false and scandalous, but such as none but an incarnate devil himself could dream to be true."

At the time when this book was written Leicester was at the height of his power, and the possibility that the Queen might still marry him was always present to the mind of Burghley and other leading men.1 To this Burghley was always bitterly opposed, and he had spoken of Leicester on one occasion as "infamed by his wife's death," in spite of the fact that he had been cleared of complicity at the inquest. The writer of the book adopts the same view, that "Amy Robsart" (as she is best known) was murdered by Leicester's orders. He also charges him with many other murders and enormities, and, in doing so, he was, to some extent, only giving expression to popular opinion.2 As to the truth or

1 Leicester was at this time married to Lettice Knollys, widow of Walter Devereux, 1st Earl of Essex. But there probably would have been little difficulty in setting the marriage aside, as it was believed by many that he was already married to Lady Sheffield, by whom. he had a son. Leicester, however, was also entertaining a project for bringing the Crown of England into his family by the marriage of his infant son by his wife Lettice to Arabella Stuart. He had further suggested that one of his step-daughters would make a good wife for James VI. of Scotland. The appointments about the Court were also largely in his hands. For these facts and other information the reader is referred to the excellent article in the Dict. Nat. Biogr. I think, however, there is good reason for some qualification of the view there expressed that "the piety with which he has been credited in later life does not merit serious attention." Such contradictions were common in those days, when human life was held cheap by those who were in a position to take it with impunity. No one, for instance, has suggested that Hawkins was a deliberate hypocrite, yet he combined atrocious violence with strong expressions of religious feeling, after the manner of the age.

2 As, for instance, in the following passage in the Traditional Memories of Francis Osborne: ". . . the Queen's affection, from whence Leicester, that terrestrial Lucifer, was cast, for abusing his Sovereign's favour to pride and murder"; and again: "Leicester was hated by the people for the death of many."

falsehood of the main charges it is impossible at this date to be certain; the presumption seems to be that there was justification for them, or for some of them; but as regards many of the details, it is evident, from their extravagance and inherent improbability, and still more from the manner in which they are presented (often by insinuation or on reported conversations, many of which seem to be deliberate inventions), that they were false and that the writer did not believe them himself. These personal charges, however, which bulked so largely in the eyes of contemporaries, were evidently, in the purpose of the writer, only a means to an end. The real object of the book was to advocate the succession of James of Scotland, and, with this end in view, to break the dangerous power of Leicester. The author did his work with terrible effect, and with total disregard for human feeling or personal obligation. The book is a "philippic," in which every resource of rhetoric is employed (probably in emulation of ancient models in this style) with the object of rendering Leicester odious to the people and incensing the Queen against him. His execution even is advocated as the only means of saving the country from ruin and a renewal of the wars of succession. Among other things he is charged with having secured the rejection of proposals for the marriage with the Duc d'Anjou1 in the interests of himself and his own family. All this is in accord with the views of Burghley, and the tradition mentioned by Malone, in the note quoted above, may have been correct in attributing complicity to that minister. He would find in his nephew a ready instrument, who, in his anxiety for State employment, and with his peculiar temperament, would put out all his powers on such a task. Bacon was evidently frequently employed by Burghley in the underground business of Government; see the references in his correspondence to "Tower work."2 On the whole,

1 Alençon.

2 Cf. Spedding, Life, i. 316, ii. 106, and Bacon's vindication, in the Observations on a Libel, of Government methods in cases of treason, i. 204.

however, I think it more probable that Bacon acted independently in this matter. He had, as we have seen, incurred the displeasure of his early patron, and the pen which produced Mother Hubberds Tale some four years earlier is now turned against Leicester and employed on Burghley's side. It was, in short, a desperate bid for employment when other means had, so far, failed; for a man who could wield such a pen would be worth securing, or at least disarming. And this would account for the intensity of effort which is a feature of the book. But the writer over-reached himself, as he probably had done in Leicester's cause, being carried away by excess of imagination and through deficiency in "common sense." One thing is quite certain, that no one could have written this book who was not a lawyer, and also, as Sidney said, intimate with the life of the Court. He must also have had an exceptional memory and imagination, and been a practised writer. There is no one, except Bacon, known to history in that time who combined these qualifications.

One of the most significant features of the book is the absence of personal feeling. This is seen in the absurdity of many of the charges, and in the irony and a certain mischievous humour which plays over the surface, as though the author were amusing himself with his own performance. The tone entirely changes when he comes to the legal argument about the succession, and similarly in the early portion of the book, where he uses the dialogue (the book being in that form) to put forward, in very cautious language (an expression, evidently, of the writer's private opinion), a plea for the extension of greater toleration towards Catholics who were loyal to the Government.

The same ironical humour is still more noticeable in "Leicester's Ghost," a long ballad-like poem, in rhymed seven-line metre, which first appeared in print in 1641, and was suppressed by order of the Privy Council. The style of the poem indicates that it was deliberately written for popular reading, and it was evidently intended to be a sort of palinode, or measure of justice, to the