cepted any offer of French assistance. He intended to make his way to
France. He would not go in a French vessel.

[Sidenote: _Preparations for Flight._]

The plan on which he decided had been concerted with King. A former
boatswain of King's, called Hart, had a ketch. Cottrell, apparently
Ralegh's old Tower servant, who had once before borne witness against
him, had found Hart for King. Before Ralegh reached London, King had
arranged with Hart through Cottrell that the ketch should be held ready
off Tilbury. Implicit trust was placed in Cottrell's supposed devotion
to Ralegh. In reality he and Hart had at once betrayed the whole
arrangement to a Mr. William Herbert, not the Herbert of the Guiana
Expedition. Herbert told Sir William St. John, who in 1616 had traded in
Ralegh's liberation. St. John in company, it would seem from Stukely's
subsequent account, with Herbert, had posted off with the news to
Salisbury. He had met Stukely and his prisoner at Bagshot on the road,
and warned the former, who scarcely required the information. Stukely
showed such zeal for Ralegh's safety as wholly to delude both him and
King. He had obtained a licence from Naunton to enter, without
liability, into any contract, and comply with any offer. Though in
theory Ralegh was under his charge in Broad-street, he left him full
liberty of action. Ralegh's own servants were allowed to wait on him.
Stukely borrowed L10 of him. The pretence was a wish to pay for the
despatch into the country of his own servants, that they might not
interfere with the flight. He promised to accompany Ralegh into France.
Ralegh, with all his wit and experience of men, his wife, with her love
and her clearness of vision, the shrewd French diplomatists, and honest
King, were dupes of a mere cormorant, like Stukely, and of vulgar
knaves, like Cottrell and Hart. Without the least suspicion of foul play
Ralegh on that Sunday night, after le Clerc and de Novion had left, went
down to the river side.

It was a foolish business. Nothing, except success, could have been more
woful than all its features and its failure. If the attempt be blamed as
rebellion against the law, the correctness of the condemnation cannot be
disputed. Ralegh derived no right to fly from the injustice of his
treatment. Had he been of the nature of Socrates he would not have
thought of flight. His respect for authority was not like that of
Socrates. His conscience never particularly troubled him f