$12 CONDUCT OF COKE, THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. [1603. foxes, which were joined in the tails, though their heads were severed." Let us pursue this dialogue a little further. Coke went on, again travelling far out of the indictment, to associate Raleigh with every charge against other conspirators of whose proceedings it is manifest that he knew nothing. "To what end do you speak all this?" said the prisoner. "I will prove you to be the most notorious traitor that ever came to the bar," rejoined Coke. "Thou art a monster. Thou hast an English face but a Spanish heart." Coke then proceeded with a recital of his charges against Cobham. "If my lord Cobham be a traitor, what is that to me?" said Raleigh. Then the great lawyer replied, " All that he did was by thy instigation, thou viper, for I thou thee, thou traitor!"* When Coke came to the words about "destroying the king and his cubs," which rested upon a declaration of one of the priests of what the Jesuits intended, Raleigh lost patience for a moment, and exclaimed, "O barbarous! Do you bring the words of these hellish spiders against me?" Coke retorted, "Thou art thyself a spider of hell." Such were the flowers of rhetoric with which the Attorney-General of that day sustained the dignity of English justice. There is an account of the trial, supposed to be written by sir Thomas Overbury, in which he contrasts the conduct of Coke, behaving himself" so violently and bitterly," and using so great provocation to the prisoner," with the demeanour of Raleigh: "As the attorney was noted, so was the carriage of Raleigh most remarkable; first to the lords, humble yet not prostrate; dutiful yet not dejected; for in some cases he would humbly thank them for gracious speeches; in others, when they related some circumstances, acknowledged that what they said was true; and in such points wherein he would not yield unto them, he would crave pardon, and with reverence urge them and answer them in points of law and essential matter of fact; towards the jury, affable, but not fawning; not in despair, but hoping in them; carefully persuading with reason, not distemperedly importuning with conjuration; rather showing love of life, than fear of death. Towards the king's counsel patient, but not insensibly neglecting nor yielding to imputations laid against him by words; and it was wondered that a man of his heroic spirit could be so valiant in suffering that he was never once overtaken in passion." The charge against Raleigh rested solely upon the accusation of lord Cobham, of which a contemporary letter-writer says, it "was no more to be weighed than the barking of a dog." Sir Dudley Carleton, in a letter from Winchester, gives a narrative of the trial of Raleigh. He says, "The evidence against him was only Cobham's confession, which was judged sufficient to condemn him; and a letter was produced, written by Cobham the day before, by which he accused Raleigh as the first practiser of the treason betwixt them, which served to turn against him; though he showed, to countervail this, a letter written by Cobham, and delivered to him in the Tower, by which he was clearly acquitted." Raleigh demanded that Cobham should be confronted with him. He contended that by the law of treasons two witnesses were necessary to conviction. His eloquence was unavailing. He was found The speech of sir Toby Belch, "if thou thou'st him some thrice it shall not be amiss," has been held to have been suggested by Coke's insult. But "Twelfth Night" had been acted in 1602. 1603.] RALEIGH AND OTHERS CONVICTED. 313 guilty, and sentenced to death. The opinion of after times is expressed by Mr. Hallam: "His conviction was obtained on the single deposition of lord Cobham, an accomplice, a prisoner, not examined in court, and known to have already retracted his accusation. Such a verdict was thought contrary to law, even in that age of ready convictions." Raleigh's contemporaries felt that his conviction was most unjust. Raleigh was unpopular, for he was proud; but his trial produced a complete change in the general feeling. One who was present at Winchester affirmed "that whereas when he saw him first, he was so led with the common hatred that he would have gone a hundred miles to see him hanged, he would, ere he parted, have gone a thousand to save his life." The priests and Brooke were found guilty of the "Bye" plot, and were executed. Cobham, Grey, and Markham were found guilty, and were brought upon the scaffold to die. After a theatrical mummery these were reprieved, and wore out long years of imprisonment. Raleigh was also reprieved, and was confined in the Tower till 1616. Those twelve years of captivity were not spent in vain repining. In his prison Carleton's letter in the "Hardwicke State Papers." This, and other documents connected with Raleigh's trial, are given by Mr. Jardine. 314 CONFERENCES AT HAMPTON-COURT. [1603. chamber he wrote his "History of the World"-a noble book, worthy of the man and of the days in which he had gloriously lived-full of poetry and high philosophy, and in its solemn recognitions of the "power, light, virtue, wisdom, and goodness" of the "Omnipotent Cause," and " Almighty Mover," furnishing the best answer to the scurrility of the Attorney-General, who called him "damnable atheist," and of the Chief Justice who, in sentencing him, said, "You have been taxed by the world, sir Walter Raleigh, with holding heathenish, atheistical, and profane opinions, which I list not to repeat, because Christian ears cannot endure to hear them; but the authors and maintainers of such opinions cannot be suffered to live in any Christian commonwealth." When the Puritan ministers presented their petition to James on his journey to London, they asked for a conference. On the 14th, 15th and 16th of January, 1604, the king summoned to Hampton Court the archbishop of Canterbury, eight bishops, five deans, and two doctors, who were to sustain the ceremonies and practices of the Church, and to oppose all innovation. To meet them, four members of the reforming party were summoned, including Dr. Reynolds, a divine of acknowledged learning and ability. Royalty never displayed itself in a more undignified manner. Episcopacy never degraded itself more by a servile flattery of royalty. James, in his insolent demeanour to the representatives of a growing party in the English Church, thought to avenge himself of the humiliation he had been occasionally compelled to endure from ministers of the Scottish kirk. He was the chief talker in these conferences. Harrington, who was present, says "The king talked much Latin, and disputed with Dr. Reynolds; but he rather used upbraidings than argument, and told the petitioners that they wanted to strip Christ again, and bid them away with their snivelling. . . . . The bishops seemed much pleased, and said his majesty spoke by the power of inspiration. I wist not what they mean; but the spirit was rather foul-mouthed."* few alterations were made in the Common Prayer Book; and a new version of the Holy Scriptures was ordered to be undertaken. James had taken his side; but his pedantic vanity, though suited to the taste of bishop Bancroft, who fell upon his knees and thanked God for giving them such a king, was not quite fitted for the government of the English nation. In the first Parliament of his reign James was at issue with the House of Commons. A On the 19th of March, 1604, the two Houses were assembled. In the proclamation by which the king called parliament together, he had, in his grand style of common places, chosen to prescribe the sort of men the people were to choose for their representatives. "There are often," he proclaims, many unfit persons appointed for that service; and where it is so well known to every private man of wit and judgment, much more to Us, who have had so long experience of kingly government, what ill effects do follow." Amongst other directions, he emphatically says, "We do command that an express care be had that there be not chosen any persons bankrupt or outlaw." Furthermore, "We notify by these presents, that all returns and certificates of knights, citizens, and burgesses ought, and are, to be brought to Nuga Antiquæ," p. 182. 1604.] PARLIAMENT QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. 315 the Chancery, and there to be filed of record; and if any shall be found to be made contrary to this proclamation, the same is to be rejected as unlawful and insufficient, and the city or borough to be fined for the same." Again and again, in the reign of Elizabeth, as they had done in former reigns, the Commons had successfully maintained the principle that no writ for a second election of knight or citizen or burgess should issue, without an order from the House itself. It is strongly but truly observed that, in spite of these assertions of the constitutional principle, "a stranger is no sooner seated on the throne than he aims a blow at the very foundation of the people's rights."* The House of Commons had no especial regard for bankrupts or outlaws; but they chose themselves to examine into an allegation of this nature, and not let the Chancellor exercise an authority which interfered with their Privileges. Sir Francis Goodwin had been returned for Buckinghamshire, in opposition. to sir John Fortescue, who was favoured by the government. An outlawry had been found to have formerly hung over him; and the election of Goodwin being declared void, a new writ was issued from Chancery. The House restored Goodwin to his seat; and then James, in his impatient ignorance of the spirit of the English monarchy, told the Commons that "they derived all matters of privilege from him, and from his grant;" and that precedents were not to be credited, when derived from "the times of minors, of tyrants, of women, of simple kings." His contemptuous mention of " women was an intimation of his scorn for his predecessor, before whose genius he had crouched like a whipped schoolboy. The dispute went on; and then this interpreter of the spirit of the old free monarchy of England said, "We command, as an absolute king, a conference with the judges." The matter ended by both elections being set aside. James was wise enough not to engage in such a conflict a second time. The House of Commons, at this commencement of a new dynasty, the head of which had not scrupled to proclaim principles inconsistent with the foundations of national freedom, did not care to separate without leaving a solemn record of their opinions, and a justification of their proceedings. It is entitled an Apology of the House of Commons, made to the King, touching their Privileges." Had the doctrines therein asserted been respected by the Stuarts, the blood that was shed forty years afterwards might have been spared. We will extract one or two passages of this remarkable document. The Commons review the attempts to maintain that they held not Privileges of right, but of grace only; that they were not a Court of Record; and that the examination upon the return of writs was without their compass; and they thus proceed :-" Against which assertions, most gracious sovereign, tending directly and apparently to the utter overthrow of the very fundamental Privileges of our House, and therein of the Rights and Liberties of the whole Commons of your realm of England, which they and their ancestors from time immemorable have undoubtedly enjoyed under your majesty's most noble progenitors; we, the knights, citizens, and burgesses of the House of Commons assembled in parliament, and in the name of the whole Commons of the realm of England, with uniform consent for ourselves and our posterity, do expressly protest, as being derogatory in the highest degree to the * Brodie, "British Empire," vol. i. p. 343. 816 STATUTES OF THE SESSION. [1604. true dignity, liberty, and authority of your majesty's high court of parliament, and consequently to the rights of all your majesty's said subjects, and the whole body of this your kingdom; and desire that this our protestation may be recorded to all posterity. What cause we your poor Commons have to watch over our privileges is manifest in itself to all men. The Prerogatives of Princes may easily, and do daily grow. The Privileges of the Subject are for the most part at an everlasting stand. They may be by good providence and care preserved; but being once lost are not recovered but with much disquiet. If good kings were immortal, as well as kingdoms, to strive so for privilege were but vanity perhaps and folly; but seeing the same God, who in his great mercy hath given us a wise king and religious, doth also sometimes permit hypocrites and tyrants in his displeasure, and for the sins of the people, from hence hath the desire of rights, liberties, and privileges, both for nobles and commons, had its just original, by which an harmonical and stable state is framed; each member under the head enjoying that right, and performing that duty, which for the honour of the head and happiness of the whole is requisite." But it was not only upon the question of their Privileges that the Commons were not in accord with the Crown. There had been, with the king's assent, a novel code of canons established in convocation, which aimed at excluding non-conformists from civil rights, and setting up an unconstitutional authority over the laity, as well as the clergy. The Commons, in a conference with the Lords, remonstrated against such an innovation. The language in which the king was addressed in the "Apology," is the voice of men who have been nurtured in the belief that they were freemen, and who abide in the determination to remain freemen. They say to the king, "Your majesty would be misinformed if any man should deliver that the kings of England have any absolute power in themselves, either to alter religion, which God defend should be in the power of any mortal man whatsoever, or to make any laws concerning the same, otherwise than, as in temporal causes, by consent of Parliament. We have, and shall, at all times by our oaths acknowledge that your majesty is sovereign lord and supreme governor in both." During this session a parliamentary title was given to king James and his descendants by an Act for "a most joyful and just recognition of the immediate, lawful, and undoubted succession, descent, and right of the Crown."* The natural and wise desire of the king for an Union of the two countries was not very cordially met; and in their "Apology " the Commons say, "We were long in treating and debating the matter of Union. The propositions were new; the importance great; the consequence far reaching, and not discoverable but by long disputes; our numbers also are large, and each hath liberty to speak." But at length an Act was passed, appointing Commissioners to treat with the Scots upon this great question + Many years elapsed before public prejudices had been softened down, and private interests conciliated, so that Scotland and England became one nation. We must not be too ready to hold the legislators of this time as peculiarly ignorant, in passing a law to declare Witchcraft felony, without benefit of clergy. ‡ * 1 Jac. I. c. 1. 1 Jac. I. c. 2. 1 Jac. I. c. 12. |