her, that was esteemed to
be the contriver of Norfolk's ruin, yet his son followeth your father's
son and loveth him. Humours of men succeed not, but grow by occasions
and accidents of time and power. Somerset made no revenge on the Duke of
Northumberland's heirs. Northumberland, that now is, thinks not of
Hatton's issue. Kelloway lives that murdered the brother of Horsey; and
Horsey let him go by all his lifetime. I could name you a thousand of
those; and therefore after-fears are but prophecies, or rather
conjectures, from causes remote. Look to the present, and you do wisely.
His son shall be the youngest Earl of England but one, and if his father
be now kept down, Will Cecil shall be able to keep as many men at his
heels as he, and more too. He may also match in a better house than his;
and so that fear is not worth the fearing. But if the father continue,
he will be able to break the branches, and pull up the tree, root and
all. Lose not your advantage; if you do, I rede your destiny. Yours to
the end, W.R. Let the Queen hold Bothwell while she hath him. He will
ever be the canker of her estate and safety. Princes are lost by
security; and preserved by prevention. I have seen the last of her good
days, and all ours, after his liberty.' By Bothwell is meant Essex. The
real Bothwell was a natural son of James V. of Scotland, who had plotted
against the reigning king, and been pardoned, and had plotted again.

[Sidenote: _Difficulties of Construction._]

On the date of the letter depends whether it signify doing to death, or
grinding into obscurity. It is endorsed in Cecil's hand, 'Sir Walter
Ralegh,' and in a later hand, '1601.' That is hardly a possible date.
The civil, ecclesiastical, and legal year in England, by which a
secretary at Hatfield is likely to have reckoned, closed on March 24.
Consequently '1601' had not begun when Essex was already dead. The only
question is, when in the legal year 1600 the letter was written. If at
the end, when judgment had been pronounced, its object would be the
accomplishment of the capital sentence. If it were written early in 1600
its more probable purpose would be to induce Cecil to urge the Queen to
strip Essex of all his dignities and offices. Ralegh's apologists can
adduce for the less bloodthirsty interpretation the passage: 'If her
Majesty's favour fail him, he will again decline to a common person.'
The words naturally refer to disgrace, not to death. It has been
imagi