completely identified himself with the interests of Essex (cf. Cal. Hatfield MSS. vols. v. and vi.). Richard Verstegan reported in May 1595 that the queen had given him leave ‘to serve the emperor against the Turk’ (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1595–7, p. 40). On 26 July 1595 he was at Greenwich, and ‘in presence of all the court received of her majesty a friendly public welcome’ (Birch, Queen Elizabeth, i. 269). In September he was sent by the government to France to report on the political situation (ib. pp. 277, 294). He was in England again two months later, and was taken fatally ill. He died in London on 12 Dec. 1595, according to Wood, ‘in his house in the parish of St. Benedict near to Paul's Wharf.’ Rowland Whyte wrote to Sir Robert Sidney next day that Williams ‘died of a surfett in B[aynards] Castell … He gave all he had to my Lord of Essex, who, indeed, saved his sowle, for none but he cold make hym take a feeling of his end, but he died well and very repentant’ (Sydney Papers, i. 377). He was buried on 23 Dec. in St. Paul's Cathedral, ‘in very good martiall sort.’ His kinsmen, Thomas Powell of Usk and Gelly Meyrick [q. v.], made the funeral arrangements. The Earl of Essex and ‘all the warlike men of the city of London’ were among the mourners.
Williams's personal property, which passed to Essex, was considerable. ‘His jewels are valewed at 1000l. Tis sayd he had 1200l. out at interest. In ready gold he had 200l. and 60l. in silver. His plate is worth 60l., his garments 30l., his horses 60l.’ (ib. i. 377). Williams fully deserved the commendations that were heaped upon him by his contemporaries (cf. Thomas Newton's ‘Illustrium aliquot anglorum Encemia’ in Leland's ‘De Rebus Britannicis Collectanea’). He claimed with justice that no living Englishman ‘ventured himself freer and oftener for his prince, state, and friends than he.’ An echo of the esteem in which he was held is found in George Chapman's play of ‘Byron's Conspiracy’ (act ii. sc. i. end), where Henry of Navarre is made to liken ‘the swelling valour’ of Colonel Williams, ‘a worthy captain,’ to that of his own marshal, Byron. Williams's impulsive temper did not render him the less effective on the battlefield. His letters and literary work prove him to have possessed command of a blunt and forcible vocabulary as well as much sagacity as a student of the art of war.
Williams was author of ‘A Brief Discourse of War, with his opinions concerning some part of Martial Discipline,’ London, by Thomas Orwin, 1590, 4to. The book, which was dedicated to the Earl of Essex, contained much personal reminiscence; it was designed to prove the proposition that success in war depended on ‘a good chiefe, a good purse, and good justice.’ Williams commends the generalship of the French officer and military writer De la Noue, and grows especially enthusiastic over the discipline maintained in the Duke of Parma's army in the Low Countries. He strongly advocates the use of the musket, and at close quarters the pike, and wholly condemns the antiquated bow and arrow. The work passed through two editions within a year. At the same date there came out a somewhat similar work, ‘Certain Discourses,’ by Sir John Smith or Smythe [q. v.] Smith set a higher value than Williams on archery, and he reflected so directly on Leicester's efficiency as a general that his book was promptly suppressed. Smith protested to Lord Burghley on 20 May 1590 that, although Williams's book was equally hostile to the English military authorities, it ‘hath bene verie well allowed of and never called in question for anie suppression.’ Next year Humfrey Barwick brought out ‘A Breefe Discourse,’ ‘with his opinion concerning the severall discourses’ of Williams and Smith, both of whom he attacked with asperity. Of the three military tracts, Williams's pamphlet showed the greatest ability and alone achieved any lasting success. Wood also ascribes to Williams ‘A Discourse of the Discipline of Spain,’ but there is no doubt that this is identical with ‘A Brief Discourse of War,’ which deals largely with the military discipline of Spain.
In dedicating his ‘Brief Discourse’ to Essex, Williams stated that he had written in French an account of his action in Holland down to the siege of Sluys, but had lost the greater part of his manuscript through a servant's carelessness. Some portion of this unlucky work apparently survives in ‘A Brief Discourse.’ Another portion appeared posthumously in ‘Actions of the Low Countries, written by Sir Roger Williams,’ London, 1618, 4to. This tract was dedicated to Sir Francis Bacon by Sir Peter Manwood, ‘in whose hands the manuscript has long lyen.’ An introductory address to the reader by Sir John Hayward [q. v.] was prefixed. Hayward, while commending the author's veracity, states that the original was very roughly penned, and that he had thoroughly revised it in both ‘sense’ and ‘phrase.’ It was reprinted in ‘Somers's Tract’ (1806, i. 329–82). It is a contribution to history rather than to autobiography. No dates are given, and the chief incidents which it relates belong to the period 1567–74. A Dutch translation made early in the seventeenth century by Jacob Wijtz was published with a bio-
