[91] Yet it may seem probable, from this poet’s conduct in Ireland, and his View of the state of that country, that his talents for business (such as Cecil himself must have approved) were no less considerable than for poetry. But he had served a disgraced man; and had drawn upon himself the admiration of the generous earl of Essex. So that, as the historian expresseth it, “by a fate which still follows poets, he always wrestled with poverty, though he had been secretary to the lord Gray, lord deputy of Ireland.” All that remained for him was, “to be interred at Westminster, near to Chaucer, at the charge of the earl of Essex; his hearse being attended by poets, and mournful elegies and poems, with the pens that wrote them, thrown into his grave.” Camden, lib. iv.
[92] As to Sir Francis Bacon, the queen herself gave a very plausible reason, and doubtless much approved by the grave lawyers and other judicious persons of that time, for her neglect of this gentleman. “She did acknowledge (says the earl of Essex in a letter to Mr. Francis Bacon) you had a great wit, and an excellent gift of speech, and much other good learning. But in Law, she rather thought you could make shew, to the utmost of your knowledge, than, that you were deep.” Mem. of Q. Elizabeth by Dr. Birch; to whom the public is exceedingly indebted for abundance of curious information concerning the history of those times.
If it be asked, how the queen came to form this conclusion, the answer is plain. It was from Mr. Bacon’s having a GREAT WIT, an excellent GIFT OF SPEECH, and much other GOOD LEARNING.
It is true, Sir Francis Bacon himself gives another account of this matter. In a letter of advice to Sir. George Villiers, he says, “In this dedication of yourself to the public, I recommend unto you principally that which I think was never done since I was born—that you countenance and encourage and advance ABLE MEN, in all kinds, degrees, and professions. For in the time of the Cecils, father and son, ABLE MEN WERE BY DESIGN AND OF PURPOSE SUPPRESSED.” Cabala, p. 57, ed. 1691.—But either way, indeed, the queen’s character is equally saved.
[93] The lord Mountjoy [then Sir Charles Blount], being of a military turn, had stolen over into France, without the queen’s knowledge, in order to serve in Bretagne, under one of her generals. Upon his return, which was hastened too by her express command, “Serve me so again, said the queen, once more, and I will lay you fast enough for running. You will never leave, till you are knocked o’ the head, as that inconsiderate fellow Sidney was. You shall go when I send you. In the mean time see that you lodge in the Court, where you may FOLLOW YOUR BOOKS, HEAD, AND DISCOURSE OF THE WARS.” Sir Robert Naunton’s Fr. Reg. in L. Burleigh.
[94] So good a judge of military matters, as Sir Walter Raleigh, was of this opinion with regard to the conduct of the Spanish war. “If the late queen would have believed her men of war, as she did her scribes, we had, in her time, beaten that great empire in pieces, and made their kings, kings of figs and oranges, as in old times. But her majesty did all by halves, and, by petty invasions, taught the Spaniard how to defend himself, and to see his own weakness; which, till our attempts taught him, was hardly known to himself.” See his Works, vol. i. 273.—Raleigh, it may be said, was of the Cecil faction. But the men of war, of the Essex faction, talked exactly in the same strain; which shews that this might probably be the truth.
[95] See Sir Henry Wotton’s Parallel of the earl of Essex and duke of Buckingham. The words are these: “He [the earl of Essex] was to wrestle with a queen’s declining, or rather with her very setting age, as we may term it; which, besides other respects, is commonly even of itself the more umbratious and apprehensive; as for the most part all horizons are charged with certain vapours towards their evening.” Remains, p. 11.
[96] The Disparity, p. 43
[97] This account of her policy is confirmed by what we read in the Disparity, before cited. “That trick of countenancing and protecting factions (as that queen, almost her whole reign, did with singular and equal demonstration of grace look upon several persons of most distant wishes one towards another) was not the least ground of much of her quiet and success. And she never doubted but that men, that were never so opposite in their good-will each to other, or never so dishonest in their projectments for each other’s confusion, might yet be reconciled in their allegiance towards her. Insomuch that, during her whole reign, she never endeavoured to reconcile any personal differences in the court, though the unlawful emulations of persons of nearest trust about her, were ever like to overthrow some of her chiefest designs: A policy, seldom entertained by princes, especially if they have issues to survive them,” p. 46. Her own historian, it is true, seems a little shy of acknowledging this conduct of the queen, with regard to her nobility and ministers. But he owns, “She now and then took a pleasure (and not unprofitably) in the emulation and privy grudges of her women.” Camden’s Elizabeth, p. 79. fol. Lond. 1688.
[98] We find an intimation to this purpose, in a writer of credit, at least with respect to the Dutch and Ireland—“Jam et divulsam Hiberniam, et in Batavis Angli militis seditiones, velut JUSSAS, erant qui exprobrarent.” Grotii Annal. l. xii. p. 432.