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 igth 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 



C 2 



