RALEGHANA. PART VII. THREE STATE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE ARREST AND EXECUTION OF SIR W. RALEGH IN 1618. BY T. N. BRUSHFIELD, M.D., F.S.A. (Read at Lynton, July, 1906.) PART II. THE KING'S "DECLARATION." WE pass on to consider the third and most important of the State Papers that were composed and published in justification of the action of the King and Privy Council in their treatment and condemnation of Ralegh. Although usually known as the King's "Declaration," and by the general public regarded as his "Apology," the reprint in the Somers Tracts is headed, " His Majesty's Reasons for his Proceedings against Sir Walter Raleigh" (II (1809), 421). It was issued as a small quarto, with the following title-page: "A Declaration of the Demeanor and Cariage of Sir LONDON, Printed by Bonham Norton and Iohn The Royal Arms on the verso of the title-page. As to its authorship, Edwards affirms "Bacon suggested that document. He penned it, and published it" (I, 655. This is Gardiner's opinion also, III, 56, 152); but this is only partly correct. Probably he prepared the draft copy, much in the same way that a secretary of a committee A DECLARATION OF THE DEMEA NOR AND CARIAGE OF SIR WALTER RALEIGH, Knight,afwell in his Voyage,as in, and fithence his Returnes And of the true motiues and inducements which occafioned His Maicftie to Proceedin doing lustice upon him, as hath bene done." Printed by BONHAM NORTON and IOHN BILL, Printers to the M.DC. XVIII. does at the present time, as a basis for a report. This seems to coincide with the opinion of Spedding. It was— "penned by certain Councillors (Bacon being one), allowed by the Council, and printed by authority. Bacon's rank in Council, together with his concern in the actual composition, entitle us to impute to him a large share of the responsibility; but as he spoke in the name of others, and his authority was not absolute, to charge him with the sole responsibility is a mistake" (383). Brief references in the text (additional to those in "Trans. D. A.,” XXXVII, 285): Fort. Pap.="The Fortescue Papers" (Camd. Soc., 1871), ed. S. R. Gardiner. Inderwick="Side-Lights on the Stuarts," by F. A. Inderwick (1891). Camd. Misc." Documents relating to Sir Walter Raleigh's last Voyage," ed. S. R. Gardiner ("Camd. Misc.," V (1864), pt. ii). Howell" Familiar Letters" (ed. of 1903), three vols. Apologie "Sir W. Rawleigh his Apologie for his last voyage to Guiana." First printed in "Judicious and Select Essayes" (1650). Arraignment="The Arraignment of S Walter Rawleigh by Sir Tho: Overbvry" (1648). . . coppied ... M. Hume="Sir Walter Ralegh," by Martin A. S. Hume (1897). Stud. Hist. of Eng. "A Student's History of England," by S. R. Gardiner (1892). = Camb. Mod. Hist. "Britain under James I," by S. R. Gardiner, in "Cambridge Modern History," III (1904) CayleyLife of Sir W. Ralegh," by A. Cayley, Junr. (1806), two vols. Even. with a Rev. "Evenings with a Reviewer," by J. Spedding (1881), two vols. Edin. Rev. "Sir W. Ralegh," by Macvey Napier ("Edinburgh Review," CXLIII, 1840). That the Council fully assented to it in its final form is proved by the statement at its close, that it was attested by "sixe of his Maiesties priuie Counsell" (68). Edwards appears to imply that the King had nothing to do with its composition, although, as Gardiner notes, it was drawn up by his "express order" (III, 152); but James would never allow any State document to be printed in which his personality or his kingly duties were concerned, without some active interference on his part, and the "Declaration" was no exception to this rule. In it this paragraph is printed at p. 25: "This Commission so drawne and framed (as you see) his Maiestie himselfe did oft peruse and reuise, as foreseeing the future euents." And a letter from Bacon to the Marquis of Buckingham, dated 22 November, 1618, contains this note: "We have put the Declaration touching Ralegh to the press with his Majesty's additions, which were very material, and fit to proceed from his Majesty."1 Spedding adds: "There are no marks in the original to ] Spedding, 378, from "Gibson Papers," VIII, 99. distinguish these additions. But I suspect them to be the opening and the concluding paragraph." But the opening sentence, "Although Kings be not bound to giue Account of their Actions but to GOD alone," is simply a repetition. verb. et lit. of that which had appeared in the Council's letter of 18 October, usually assigned to Bacon.1 Then in his reply to this letter, James certainly suggested some of the details to be subsequently embodied in the “Declaration " :— "After the sentence for his execution . . . a declaration be presently putt forth in print, . . . Wherein we hold the French Physitian's confession very materiall to be inserted, as allso his own and his consortes confession that, before they were at the Islandes, he told them his ayme was at the fleet, with his son's oration when they came to the town, and some touch of his hatefull speeches of our person." In his reprint of this letter, why did Spedding omit the important phrase here shown in italics? (364). That the "Declaration," like Stukeley's "Petition," was not prepared, or was not completed, until after Ralegh had been executed, is shown by these paragraphs in it :— "Leauing the thoughts of his heart, and the protestations that hee made at his death to God that is the searcher of all hearts, and Iudge of all Trueth" (2). "As to Sir Walter Raleigh his confession at his Death, what he confessed or denied touching any the points of this declaration, his Maiestie leaues him and his conscience therein to God, as was said in the beginning of this Discourse. For Soueraigne Princes cannot make a true iudgement vpon the bare speeches or asseuerations of a delinquent at the time of his death, but their iudgement must be founded vpon examinations, re-examinations, and confrontments, and such like reall proofes," etc. (67-8). Bacon must have been aware that at Ralegh's trial in 1603, when the latter requested permission for a "confrontment" (i.e. "the advice of bringing face to face," H. E. D.) with Cobham, the only witness against him, he was refused. Of the extreme haste in which the printing was effected, so as to get the work published with as little delay as possible, we have ample evidence. Bacon's letter of 22 November (already quoted from) implies it was sent to press within a day or two of that date. And on the day of publication, 27 November, Naunton writes thus to the Marquis of Buckingham : "The printer hath sent me two copies of each [i.e. of the 2 "Fort. Pap.," 58. 1 "Trans. D. A.," XXXVII, 294. "Petition" as well as of the "Declaration"] for his Majestie and the Prince, and prayes pardon for some escapes committed in theyr haste, which was such as they were faine to watche 2 nights and sett 20 presses aworke at once.' We have further proof of this on collating a number of copies with each other. As at that period stereotyping was unknown, the twenty presses would require as many distinct settings of type; probably each worked off a definite number of pages or sections, as apparently indicated in the occurrence of blank pages (8, 44), which were otherwise not needed. We may accept as the most satisfactory copy the one with 68 pages, of which the earliest was probably that having the word "which" (line 12 from top on p. 41) wrongly placed, but amended in other copies. It is printed in "Great Primer," the portion between pages 9 and 24 being in italics. The signatures are A to H in fours, I two leaves, and it ends at "FINIS," there being no colophon. Another copy (penes me) has only 63 pages, all in "Great Primer," except pp. 45-58, which are in "English" type. The signatures terminate at H 4; and the work ends with this colophon, similar to the imprint on the title-page :"Imprinted at LONDON by Bonham Norton and Iohn Bill, Printers to the Kings most excellent Maiestie. Anno 1618." In a number of impressions that have been examined, some are wrongly paged, while others show variations in spelling; thus the surname "Stewkley," and "Stewkeley in the first copy noticed, appears as "Stucley" in some of the others. The only portions in all where no variation has been detected, consist of the title-page and the Royal Commission (pp. 9-24). A singular attempt to explain the blank page 44 is thus advanced by Spedding: "In the original a blank page is interposed here: apparently for the purpose of distinguishing what follows as resting only upon the testimony of Mannoury" (401); but the joint account of him and of Stukeley commenced on page 42. He offers no suggestion why page 8 also is blank. A due examination of these circumstances must lead to the conclusion that the "Declaration," although contemplated, was probably not written, from being deemed unnecessary, until the burst of 1 "Fort. Pap.," 67. |