PREFACE.. XXXV 
his diocesan, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, was sent up to 
Lambeth to be tried before the High Commission, and sen- 
tenced to be deprived of his orders on the 19th of December, 
1614. Before the sentence his house was searched, and a 
finished sermon was discovered, the contents of which were 
decided by the Council to be of a treasonable nature, It was 
thought, moreover, to indicate a state of disaffection in the 
part of the country to which Peacham belonged, and as he 
refused to criminate any accomplices, the Council resolved 
that he should be put to the torture. In this there is no 
evidence that Bacon had any hand whatever, further than that 
he, as Attorney General, was one of the Commission appointed 
by the Council to attend the examination of the prisoner, 
It is clear that by the common law the use of torture for 
extracting evidence was regarded as illegal, but it is equally 
clear that it was employed by the Council for discovery, and 
not for evidence; that is, not to make a prisoner criminate 
himself, but to get from him other information which it was 
desirable to obtain. Bad as we may think this to be, it is not 
Bacon who was to blame for it. There is proof in his own 
letters that he engaged in the proceeding with reluctance, 
and that the step was taken against his advice. How far he 
can be justified against the other charge, of tampering with 
the judges, depends upon a clear knowledge of what his inter- 
ference really amounted to, and this is not easy to arrive at, 
As the torture had utterly failed to extort from Peacham any 
proof of the existence of a conspiracy, it became a question 
whether he himself could be proceeded against for treason, 
On this point of law the King was anxious to obtain the 
opinion ot the judges of the King’s Bench. It is not denied 
that the Crown had a right to consult the judges on points of 
this kind, but it does not appear to have been the custom to 
consult them separately, as was done in this case. There was 
no question with regard to Peacham’s authorship of the 
sermon, which was in his handwriting. The points for the 
judges’ consideration were, first, whether the sermon, had it 
been published, would have supported an indictment for 
C2 
