and that some cautionary towns should be put into the hands of the associators during the king's life to make them good after his death. In March 1680–1 he is spoken of by Ormonde as furthering, with Howard, the belief in a ‘sham plot,’ in order to throw odium upon the queen and the Roman catholics generally (Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep. 744 b). On 25 Jan. 1680–1 he took the decided step of presenting a petition, in which he was joined by fifteen other peers, praying that the choice of Oxford for the meeting of parliament might be given up. The language of the petition was unwarrantably violent, declaring, along with much that was true, that they were deprived of freedom of debate, and were exposed to the swords of papists in the king's guards. The petition, which was printed and published, was answered by Halifax in a ‘Seasonable Address’ (State Tracts, ii. 129).
In the trial of Stafford, Essex appears to have thrown aside his usual fairness of judgment, and to have voted for the condemnation. He spoke vehemently against the popish lords, saying they were worse than Danby (Hist. MSS. Comm. 6th Rep. 740). He is represented, too, as eager in the prosecution of Lady Powys, who found money for the imprisoned catholics (North, Examen, 269). On the other hand, he honourably distinguished himself in urging upon Charles the pardon of Plunket, the archbishop of Armagh, illegally condemned on account of the pretended Irish plot (which, however, he is represented as diligent in discovering, see Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep. 739 b), declaring from his own knowledge that the charge could not be true. It was now that Essex received a just rebuke in the king's indignant reply, ‘Then, my lord, be his blood on your own conscience. You might have saved him, if you would. I cannot pardon him because I dare not.’ On the occasion when, in defiance of court influence, the Middlesex grand jury refused to return a true bill against Shaftesbury, a book was published to justify their action, of which Essex was the reputed author. It probably, however, was by Somers.
In 1682 Shaftesbury suggested to his friends the advisability of taking advantage of the ferment in the city on the occasion of the contest about the sheriffs, and of making themselves masters of the Tower during the confusion. Against this wild scheme Russell and Essex protested, and Shaftesbury left the country. Essex now took his place as Monmouth's principal adviser, but insisted upon Russell and Algernon Sidney being joined with him. He appears to have fallen much under the influence of the latter, at whose suggestion it was that he consented to take Howard, who afterwards betrayed them, into their confidence in the meetings frequently held with Monmouth for consultation as to the course to be pursued; he also almost forced Russell to admit Howard (Burnet's Journal; App. to Lord John Russell's Life of Russell). At these meetings much wild talk no doubt took place as to a possible rising; but in all such designs we have the authority of Burnet (i. 540) and all probability for saying that Essex took no part. He felt things were not yet ripe, and that an ill-managed rising would be ruin to the whig cause.
Upon the discovery of the Rye House plot, Russell and others were immediately imprisoned. It was not, however, until Lord Howard had been captured that upon his information a party of horse was sent to Essex's country house at Cashiobury to arrest him. Upon his arrest he appeared dejected, and said little, but that he did not imagine any one would swear falsely against him, and made no manner of profession of duty. Sir Philip Lloyd said ‘he was in some confusion at his own house, and changed his mind three or four times, one while saying he would go on horseback, and another while that he would go in his coach’ (North, Examen, 382). He appears also to have shown much mental distress when brought before the council. He sent from the Tower a very melancholy message to his wife, and he wrote also to the Earl of Bedford to express his regret at having helped to bring danger upon his son. Shortly after the beginning of Lord Russell's trial on 13 July 1683 it was whispered in court—and the news was made use of to injure Russell—that Essex had cut his throat in the Tower (Ralph, 759; North, Examen, 400). It is impossible here to enter into the controversy as to whether this tragedy was suicide or murder. It will be found exhaustively treated in Burnet (569), in the last edition of the ‘Biographia Britannica,’ in Ralph's ‘History’ (i. 759), and in North's ‘Examen.’ The court was, of course, roundly accused of murder; the charge, however, is utterly without antecedent probability, and is unsupported by trustworthy evidence. It was difficult for those who knew Essex's ‘sober and religious deportment’ (Evelyn, 28 June 1683) to believe in the suicide theory. But the occasional melancholy of his disposition; the sleeplessness with which he was troubled in the Tower; the danger of his friends: the fact that he found himself in the very rooms from which his father had been taken to execution; the recollection of his last interview with that father; his com-
