the ends of public justice would be the better accomplished.

This exhibition of the letter, has been treated as a cunning device to obtain a crimination of Ralegh, but surely its object was to procure a confession from Cobham. The accusation of the accomplice was a consequence which no sagacity could foresee.* Not Ralegh but Cobham was the person injured, if injury there was.

Some time previously to the trial, Ralegh again asserted his innocence, in a letter + addressed to Cecil, with lords Nottingham‡, Suffolk §, and Devonshire.|| He affirmed that he had not suspected that the mony offered to him was intended for the purpose of surprising the king. He denied all knowledge of Cobham's intended journey to Spain. "By what means that revengeful accusation was stirred, you" he said, "my lord Cecil knew right well that it was my letter about Keymis." He certainly refers to the letter shown to Cobham. The designation of it as the "letter about Keymis" is unintelligible, but might perhaps be explained if the whole letter were in our hands.

There is nothing else remarkable in this letter, except the apparent consciousness of weighty presumptions against him, and the appeals to mercy which pervade this address, and still more a letter T addressed to the king. That Ralegh's innocence was certain appears not to have been the opinion of any one contemporary; that it was manifest appears scarcely to have been his own.

It is impossible to peruse, even without the strict notions of a modern lawyer, the proceedings upon Ralegh's trial, without deciding that he was condemned

*Not only Tytler (p. 292.), but Cayley (ii. 27.) has supported this representation of the "device" used, by the authority of a contemporary writer whose statement is quite otherwise. "By a device," says the writer of a letter, in sir Toby Matthews's collection (p. 281.) Cobham, was brought to think that Ralegh had accused him."

† Cayley, i. 367.

Charles Howard, lord Howard of Effingham, who commanded against the Armada.

Thomas Howard, lord Howard de Walden, and first earl of Suffolk. Charles Blount, lord Mountjoy, lately created earl of Devonshire, while the patent preserving that title in the Courtenays was dormant. ¶ P. 372.

upon insufficient evidence. Robert Cecil sat as one of his judges, and must consequently share in the blame which attaches to the irregular and illiberal treatment of the accused; by which, no doubt, the jury were influenced in their verdict. But the part which Cecil himself took in the proceedings was, in almost every instance, favourable to the prisoner. Personal demeanour is

assuredly matter upon which contemporary evidence has peculiar weight. In the letter from a member of parliament preserved by Sir Toby Matthews, his behaviour is contrasted with that of Coke, the attorneygeneral, whose conduct was utterly disgraceful to him, as a lawyer or a gentleman.

On more than one occasion, Cecil interfered to protect+ the prisoner against the interruptions and vituperations of Coke; so much so indeed, as to cause the attorneygeneral to "sit down in a chafe."

The narrative which the secretary gave from the bench, of his share in the apprehension and examintion, is quite fair and correct; nor was any part of it impugned by Ralegh. One of the charges against sir Walter, was the giving to Cobham Persons's book against the king's succession. He affirmed that he took it out of Cecil's library. This Cecil confirmed, alleging as a reason for its being found there, that it was necessary for privy counsellors to keep such books.

Ralegh adopted the same defence for himself, and when Coke told him in a taunting reply, that he was no privy counsellor, lord Salisbury protected him by the observation, that though he was not a sworn counsellor, yet he had been called to consultation.§

Thus far all was favourable to Ralegh; but the most important point was the request of Ralegh that Cobham

The lord Cecil carried himself favourably towards him that day, the attorney-general most insolently. Sir Toby Matthews, p. 279. + Cayley, 415. 418. 425. S. T. ii. 8. 17, 18. 21. 26.

Jardine, 443. Again in p. 447-8, Coke objected to hearing Cobham's second letter, Cecil advised that it should be heard. "My Lord Cecil," said Coke, 66 mar not a good cause." "Mr. Attorney," replied Cecil, you are more peremptory than honest, you must not come here to show me what to do.

Jardine, p. 431.

might be confronted with him. This request was at Cecil's suggestion referred to the judges, in whose decision against the production of Cobham Cecil undoubtedly showed no indisposition to acquiesce. At this day, I cannot hesitate in declaring that justice was not done to Ralegh, when he had not the opportunity of crossexamining his accuser. But I do not believe that the practice of the courts of justice, previous to the seventeenth century, had been such as to require the judges to insist upon the examination of Cobham. According to a very learned and candid historian*, to be confronted with the witnesses, was in that age (he is speaking of the reign of Edward VI.) a favour rarely granted to state criminals." It had been denied to the protector Somerset, whose brother had not even been heard in his own defence. It could not reasonably be expected that Cecil should propose to overrule the decision of the judges.

66

While I think that it was the duty of Cecil, as a minister, to put Ralegh upon his trial, and that there is no ground for imputing to him harshness in the conduct of it, I cannot admit that he ought to have been deterred from the performance of this duty by any recollections of former intimacy. There never did exist, nor did Cecil at any time affect, that feeling of perfect confidence which makes it impossible for one friend to believe any evil of another. There was nothing in Ralegh's character, which made it impossible that he should be concerned in a wild political enterprise, or that he should accept money from a foreign power. Cecil was, I suspect, in the state of belief in which we may reasonably be at this moment: he saw in the whole affair an unintelligible mystery; it appeared to him "that dangerous designs had been entertained,” and that Ralegh was involved in them: of the extent of his guilty participation, he could form no decided opinion.

Ralegh, though not his friend, could scarcely now be deemed his rival; there is no reasonable ground for

Hallam's Const. Hist. i. 54.

charging him with a systematic plan for bringing Ralegh to the block; there is, on the other, none for believing that he was eagerly anxious to save him.

Some stress has been laid * upon a remark by the French ambassador, that Cecil, in the prosecution of Ralegh, "acted with a heat more suitable to his own interests and passions, than to a becoming zeal for the good of the realm.” † This opinion given on the first discovery of the plot has no reference to what passed on the trial nor is it, as the opinion of a foreigner always hostile to the English minister, entitled to much weight.

:

That which appears to me most objectionable in Cecil's behaviour on the trial is bis continued expression of regret and reluctance, and even of affection for Ralegh without agreeing with the vituperators of Cecil, that this was altogether affectation, I acknowledge that it was the part of a courtier, and greatly overacted. Had it been coupled, as his enemies pretend, with active hostility towards its object, it would have been wickedly disgraceful; united as I believe it to have been, with a passive acquiescence in the judgment against him, it is distasteful to a manly mind.

Cecil's demeanour at the trial, as well as his station in the council, would entitle him to a full share of the credit which may belong to those who advised James to spare the life of Ralegh §; but we have his assurance || that neither he nor any other of James's counsellors had

*Thomson.

† Beaumont. Desp. July 23. 28. 30.; in Carte, iii. 719.

"I am in great dispute with myself to speak in the case of this gentleman; a former dearness between me and him, tied so firm a knot of my conceit of his virtues, now broken by a discovery of his imperfections. I protest, did I serve a king, that I knew would be displeased with me for speaking in this case, I would speak, whatever came of it; but seeing he is compacted of piety and justice, and one that will not mislike of any man for speaking the truth, I will answer your question." State Tr. ii. (Čayley i. 397.) "I would have trusted sir Walter Ralegh as soon as any man; though since for some infirmities the bands of my affection have been broken, and yet reserving my duty to the king my master, which I can by no means dispense with, by God, I love him, and have a great conflict with myself." (Cayley, 414.) Excepting your faults (I call them no worse) by God I am your friend." Cayley, 421.

Mrs. Thomson says, p. 293., that the Lords of the Council with one accord, urged James to show mercy, but she gives no authority. Winwood, ii. 10. 12th December, 1603.

any share in this act of comparative mercy. According to his own account, which is consistent with the practice of those days, though it would be quite incredible under the present system, this question of life and death was resolved by the king alone; and the warrant to stay execution was sent to the sheriff of Hampshire from the king's bedchamber, not from the secretary's office.

This fact gives a greater air of sincerity to the answer which would otherwise appear evasive, returned by Cecil to lord Grey's application for his interference. "Till my lords (on whom I attend by his majesty's order) have spoken with the king, I can say no more than this, that I have neither power nor purpose to proceed in this, but by their direction, who have more judgment and longer interest in matters of justice and honour than I have."+ During Ralegh's confinement in the Tower, which lasted three years after Salisbury's death, there was no intercourse between them, except that Cecil occasionally received official reports of his health. It would appear indeed that on one occasion, Ralegh was brought before Cecil, who accorded to him some further liberty in his prison. §

Within about one year after the conclusion of Sully's mission, peace was concluded between England and Spain. It is generally said that Cecil had not much share in this transaction, which has brought much obloquy upon the reign of James; and his previous letters continually refer to it as a matter which it did not rest with him to arrange ||; but he was unquestionably one * Archæologia, xxi. 175.

+ Thomson, 490.

Thomson, 306. 495.

Cayley, ii. 41. The same writer (p. 48.) quotes from sir Anthony Weldon, a story of a re-examination of Cobham, and a deceitful report of it made to the king. Weldon's unsupported testimony has never been thought worthy of credit.

"To give you my judgment of what particular things will be concluded in the treaty is more than I can do, for any thing which is yet passed; but when I observe the fashion of things, how they are carried, I do conclude sufficiently that peace we shall have, without the company of the states of the Low Countries, whose fall or standing is the only object of