State Trials, Political and Social.
by Various.
Volume 1.
To G. DE L"e. D.
DEAR GERALD,--As you suggested the idea of this book to me, and as I know that whether it succeeds or fails I can count confidently on your sympathy, I will throw into the form of a letter to you the few remarks which I might otherwise put into a preface. For as I have confessions to make which amount almost to an apology, I had rather address them to one who is pledged to express the most favourable possible view of my literary efforts, such as they are, than to that hypothetical reader, of whose tastes I feel most shamefully ignorant, though I am ready to a.s.sume everything in his favour.
Far abler writers than I have frequently dilated on the charms attending a study of the reports of State Trials, as they are best known to the world; namely, in one-and-twenty stately volumes compiled by the industrious Howells, father and son, and published, a year after the battle of Waterloo, by the combined efforts of on a few of my contemporaries the idea that persons long since dead on the block or the gallows were Englishmen very much like ourselves, my object is secured.
My task has been confined to a selection of pa.s.sages to be transferred bodily from Howell"s pages; to providing in an abbreviated form the connecting-links between them; and to the supply of sufficient notes to enable the ordinary reader to understand the main outlines of the stories of which the trial generally const.i.tutes the catastrophe. As to my takings from Howell, I need say but little. I have indicated their existence by a change of type. I have carefully preserved those departures from conventional grammar, and that involved and uncouth, but, for that very reason, life-like style of narration which he and his predecessors inherited from the original but unknown authorities. As to my abbreviations, I am fully aware that they do not represent any very high literary effort. It is, I suppose, impossible that mere condensation of another man"s narrative should be done very well; but it can certainly be done very ill. My aim, therefore, has been rather to escape disaster than to achieve any brilliant success. The charm of State Trials lies largely in matters of detail:--that Hale allowed two old women to be executed for witchcraft; that Lord Russell was obviously a traitor; that an eminent judge did not murder a woman in the early part of his career; and that a sea-captain did murder his brother in order to inherit his wealth, are in themselves facts of varying importance. What the trials in these cases tell us, however, as nothing else can, is what were the popular beliefs as to witchcraft shared by such a man as Hale; how revolutions were planned while such things were still an important factor in practical politics; and what was the state of the second city in the kingdom when a man could be kidnapped in its busiest streets by a gang of sailors and privateers-men. And this effect can only be reproduced by considering a ma.s.s of detail, picturesque enough in itself, but not always strictly relevant to the matter in hand. Again, to a lawyer at all events, it is impossible to omit those matters which show that the process which goes on at regular intervals in all the criminal courts in the country is essentially the same that it always has been since the Reformation; and accordingly I have not hesitated to indicate as fully as my original made possible the procedure, in the narrower sense of the word, followed at the various trials reported. In the matter of notes I have done my best, in a very narrow compa.s.s, to indicate how the trials were connected with contemporary history. I have also reminded the reader (to use the conventional phrase) of the fate of the various characters who are to be met with in each trial. In particular, I have aimed at bringing to the fore what must, after all, be the main point of interest in any trial; namely, who were the counsel briefed, and how they came to be briefed; who were the judges that tried it, how they came to be judges, and what position they held in the opinion of the junior bar at the time. For this part of my work I have taken care to have recourse to the best and most modern authority, and have stated hardly any facts which are not vouched for by the editor of the _Dictionary of National Biography_.
In my selection of cases to be reported I have been guided by a variety of considerations. Personally, I admit that I like the political cases best. There is a squalor about private crime, which, though I like it myself, is inferior to politics as a staple. Besides, one has heard of the heroes of the political trials before; and to read Raleigh"s little retort when c.o.ke complains of a want of words adequately to express his opinion of Raleigh; to be reminded how the worst of kings proved himself an admirable lawyer, and the possessor of manners which, in a humbler station, would a.s.suredly have made the man; to hear the jokes as to Ess.e.x"s responsibility for the financial prospects of the proposed revolution which amused the company of desperate men in the wine-merchant"s upper room; to come across the ghost of the conversation in lonely St. Martin"s Lane between the revellers at the Greyhound Tavern, and its interruption by the hostile band hurrying to the duel in Leicester Fields, creates, in my mind at least, the fantastic illusion that Raleigh, Charles I., Russell, Mohun, and the rest of them were all once actually alive.
I feel that I have unduly neglected the claims of what, at the period I have had to do with, was the sister kingdom of Scotland. The Scotch were not then, taking the difference of the population of the two countries into consideration, at all behind the English in the production of treason, murder, and other interesting forms of crime; and their misdeeds were in many respects the more picturesque of the two. I had hoped to place before my readers the true account, or what pa.s.ses for such, of that murder of Colin Roy Campbell of Glenure which, as we now know, produced such romantic consequences for David Balfour. The "Forty-five should have been represented, and Lord Lovat"s adventures ought to have served my purpose to a turn. But, alas! the lawyers on these occasions have been hopelessly beaten by the professed story-tellers; and the reports of the trials of Lord Lovat and James Stewart are as dull as the romances of _Waverley_ and _Catriona_ are entrancing. Why this should be so I do not know. I can ascribe it only to the inferiority of the Scots criminal procedure to our own; and ignorance prevents me from proving that inferiority by any other fact than the one which I am anxious to account for.
After diligent and minute inquiry, I am pleased, though not surprised, to find that Ireland was perfectly free from serious crime during the whole of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
Since making my selection of trials I have become aware that Mr. Leslie Stephen, in his _Hours in a Library_, has chosen for notice precisely those trials which I have reported. I must disclaim any merit in having made the same selection as such an eminent critic; but at the same time I can confidently affirm that my choice was made before I had read the essay in question. Whether I have been guilty of the crime of plagiarism in this particular I cannot say; neither, as far as that goes, do I care. My readers at least have no reason to complain, and I can count on you, Gerald, to join with me in deprecating the wrath of the outraged author.
Trusting confidently in your co-operation to secure for this little collection as favourable a reception as may be from that public for whose taste we both have so much respect,--I remain, yours to command,
H. L. STEPHEN.
THE INNER TEMPLE, _31st December 1898._
SIR WALTER RALEIGH[1]
Raleigh"s trial is so closely connected with the politics of the time that it cannot be properly understood without reference to them. James owed his succession to the throne, at all events the undisputed recognition of his right to that succession, in a great measure to Cecil"s elaborate and careful preparations. It was therefore natural enough that Cecil"s position as chief minister should be confirmed at the beginning of the new reign: but this fact drove two important parties into opposition to the new order of things. The Earl of Northumberland, Lord Grey, Lord Cobham, and Sir Walter Raleigh found themselves deprived of all chance of obtaining power, and the Catholics gradually realised that their position was not likely to be substantially improved. Northumberland indeed was won back by promises of royal favour, but Raleigh was deprived of his captainship of the Royal Guards and his post of Warden of the Stannaries, whilst his monopoly in wine was threatened. The all-important question of foreign politics formed a centre on which the international struggle for power turned. James himself was a stranger to the national hatred for the Spaniards which had hitherto been Raleigh"s guiding principle. Cecil was probably more anxious for peace than anything else, though desirous to do all he could to advance the power of the Netherlands and hold the Spaniards in check. Meanwhile the various foreign powers concerned prepared to make what profit they could out of the altered state of England. A mission from the Netherlands effected practically nothing.
The Duke of Sully, the amba.s.sador from Henry IV. of France, obtained some a.s.sistance towards prolonging the defence of Ostend against the Spanish forces. The Archduke Albert[2] sent the Duke of Aremberg, not to negotiate, but to protract the time till the Court of Spain could decide upon a policy.
Northumberland, together with Raleigh and Cobham, seem to have made overtures to Sully which were rejected, on which the two latter transferred their attentions to the Spanish interest, and certainly put themselves into communication with Aremberg. Meanwhile an extreme and apparently weak party among the Catholics entered into an obscure and violent undertaking popularly known as the "surprising" or "Bye" plot as contrasted with Raleigh"s, known as the "Main." Watson, a secular priest, whose main motive, in Professor Gardiner"s view, was a hatred of the Jesuits, had taken a leading part in reconciling the English Catholics to James"s accession. Irritated by the exaction of fines for recusancy inst.i.tuted at the beginning of the new reign, he allied himself with Clarke, another priest, Sir Griffin Markham, a Catholic gentleman discontented with the government for private reasons, George Brooke, Lord Cobham"s brother, and Lord Grey. A fantastic scheme propounded by Markham was adopted, and the conspirators decided to seize the King while hunting, to carry him to the Tower, on the plea of protecting him from his enemies, and there install themselves in power under the shadow of his name. They were, as represented by c.o.ke in Raleigh"s trial, to swear to protect the Sovereign from all his enemies, and they affected to have a large following in the country. Copley, an insignificant recruit, was added to the party, and the execution of the plot was fixed for the 24th of June. On that day, however, their partisans proved to be too few for their designs, and the next day Grey separated himself from them. Meanwhile the Jesuits had become aware of the plot and communicated their knowledge to the government; and the conspirators were soon arrested. The connection of Brooke with the "Bye"
plot suggested Cobham"s complicity; and Raleigh, as his nearest friend, was summoned to Windsor by Cecil to be examined before the Council.
After this examination he wrote the letter to Cobham so often referred to in the trial, saying that he had said nothing to compromise him, and reminding him that one witness, possibly referring either to Aremberg"s servant, or Brooke, was not enough to convict of treason. He subsequently wrote to Cecil informing him that Cobham had been in communication with Aremberg, and Cobham was arrested. Raleigh"s own arrest followed on July 17th, and within a fortnight he attempted to commit suicide. He and Cobham were both subsequently examined, with the results that appear in the course of the trial. It must be remembered that the government probably had a quant.i.ty of private information which they did not produce, partly no doubt with the view of protecting Aremberg. This is particularly so in relation to the most serious part of the case; that, namely, relating to the scheme of placing Lady Arabella on the throne; as to which see Gardiner"s _History_, vol. i.
pp. 132, 133.
The leading members of the "Bye" were tried and convicted two days before Raleigh. Cobham and Grey were tried and convicted by the Chancellor sitting as Lord Steward soon after. The two priests and Brooke were hung. Cobham, Grey, and Markham were brought to the scaffold that they might be induced to make their dying declarations, and were then granted their lives. Cobham, when in instant expectation of death, persisted in avowing Raleigh"s guilt.
Beyond the interest that attaches to Raleigh"s trial from the historical and personal points of view, it is interesting as showing the methods in which an important trial was conducted at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The most remarkable feature of the trial itself in the eyes of a modern reader, beyond its extreme informality, is that Raleigh was condemned on the statement of a confederate, who spoke under extreme pressure, with every inducement to exculpate himself at Raleigh"s expense, and whom Raleigh never had a chance of meeting. The reasons given by Popham for refusing to allow Cobham to be called as a witness at the trial are instructive, and, as Professor Gardiner points out, prove that in political trials at all events, when the government had decided that the circ.u.mstances of the case were sufficient to justify them in putting a man on his trial, the view of the court before which he was tried was that he was to be condemned unless he succeeded in proving his innocence. This fact alone leads the modern Englishman to sympathise with Raleigh, and this feeling is naturally increased by what Sir James Stephen calls the "rancorous ferocity" of c.o.ke"s behaviour. The second cause added to Raleigh"s popularity, and the political reasons which led to his trial are probably what produced the same feelings among his contemporaries. It is beyond my present purpose to discuss how far Raleigh was really guilty of treason, even were I competent to express any opinion on the subject worth attending to. But for the credit of the lawyers who presided at the trial, I may point out that the a.s.sertions that the statute of Edward VI., requiring two witnesses in cases of treason, had been repealed, and that the trial at common law was by examination, and not by a jury and witnesses, were not as incomprehensibly unjust as they appear to us. A statute of Philip and Mary enacted that cases of treason should be tried according to the due order and course of common law, and the statute of Edward VI., being regarded as an innovation upon the common law, was thus held to be implicitly repealed. The rule as to the two witnesses seems to have been construed as referring to trial by witnesses as it existed under the civil law, which was taken to require two eye- or ear-witnesses to the actual fact const.i.tuting the crime. With such a trial, trial by jury was frequently contrasted, and if the rigour of the civil law was not to be insisted on, the only alternative seemed to be that the jury should form their opinion as they could, if not from their own knowledge, then from any materials that might be laid before them. This naturally did away with any rules of evidence as we understand them, and consequently Cobham"s confession became as good evidence as the jury could expect to have. In fact, as Sir James Stephen says, "The only rules of evidence as to matters of fact recognised in the sixteenth century seem to have been the clumsy rules of the mediaeval civil law, which were supposed to be based on the Bible. If they were set aside, the jury were absolute, practically absolute, and might decide upon anything which they thought fit to consider evidence." See further Gardiner"s _History_, vol. i. pp.
108-140; and Stephen"s _History of the Criminal Law_, vol. i. pp.
333-337.
Sir Walter Raleigh was tried at Winchester on the 17th of November 1603 before a commission consisting of Thomas Howard,[3] Earl of Suffolk, Lord Chamberlain; Charles Blunt,[4] Earl of Devon; Lord Henry Howard,[5]
afterwards Earl of Northampton; Robert Cecil,[6] Earl of Salisbury; Edward, Lord Wotton of Morley; Sir John Stanhope, Vice-Chamberlain; Lord Chief-Justice of England Popham;[7] Lord Chief-Justice of the Common Pleas Anderson;[8] Justices Gawdie and Warburton; and Sir W. Wade.
The indictment charged Raleigh with high treason by conspiring to deprive the King of his government; to alter religion; to bring in the Roman Superst.i.tion; and to procure foreign enemies to invade the kingdom. The facts alleged to support these charges were that Lord Cobham,[9] on the 9th of June 1603, met Raleigh at Durham House in London, and conferred with him as to advancing Lady Arabella Stuart[10]
to the throne; that it was there agreed that Cobham should, with Aremberg, the amba.s.sador of the Archduke of Austria, bargain for a bribe of 600,000 crowns; that Cobham should go to the Archduke Albert, to procure his support for Lady Arabella, and from him to the King of Spain; that Lady Arabella should write three letters to the Archduke, to the King of Spain, and to the Duke of Savoy, promising to establish peace between England and Spain, to tolerate the Popish and Roman superst.i.tion, and to be ruled by them as to her marriage. Cobham was then to return to Jersey, where he would find Raleigh and take counsel with him as to how to distribute Aremberg"s bribe. On the same day Cobham told his brother Brook of all these treasons, and persuaded him to a.s.sent to them; afterwards Cobham and Brook spoke these words, "That there would never be a good world in England till the King (meaning our sovereign lord) and his cubs (meaning his royal issue) were taken away."
Further Raleigh published a book to Cobham, written against the t.i.tle of the King, and Cobham published the same book to Brook. Further, Cobham, on the 14th of June, at Raleigh"s instigation, moved Brook to incite Lady Arabella to write the letters as aforesaid. Also on the 17th of June Cobham, at Raleigh"s instigation, wrote to Aremberg through one Matthew de Lawrency, to obtain the 600,000 crowns, which were promised to him on the 18th of June, and of which Cobham promised 8000 to Raleigh and 10,000 to Brook.
To this indictment Raleigh pleaded Not Guilty; and a jury was sworn, to none of whom Raleigh took any objection.
Heale, the King"s Serjeant, then opened the case very shortly, merely reciting the facts mentioned in the indictment, concluding: "Now, whether these things were bred in a hollow tree, I leave him to speak of, who can speak far better than myself; and so sat down again.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Ed. c.o.ke[11])--I must first, my lords, before I come to the cause, give one caution, because we shall often mention persons of eminent places, some of them great monarchs: whatever we say of them, we shall but repeat what others have said of them; I mean the Capital Offenders, in their Confessions. We professing law must speak reverently of kings and potentates. I perceive these honourable lords, and the rest of this great a.s.sembly, are come to hear what hath been scattered upon the wrack of report. We carry a just mind, to condemn no man, but upon plain Evidence.
Here is Mischief, Mischief _in summo gradu_, exorbitant Mischief. My Speech shall chiefly touch these three points: Imitation, Supportation, and Defence. The Imitation of evil ever exceeds the Precedent; as on the contrary, imitation of good ever comes short. Mischief cannot be supported but by Mischief; yea, it will so multiply, that it will bring all to confusion.
Mischief is ever underpropped by falsehood or foul practices: and because all these things did concur in this Treason, you shall understand the main, as before you did the bye. The Treason of the bye consisteth in these Points: first that the lord Grey, Brook, Markham, and the rest, intended by force in the night to surprise the king"s court; which was a Rebellion in the heart of the realm, yea, in the heart of the heart, in the Court. They intended to take him that is a sovereign, to make him subject to their power, purposing to open the doors with musquets and cavaliers, and to take also the Prince and Council: then under the king"s authority to carry the King to the Tower; and to make a stale of the admiral. When they had the King there, to extort three things from him, first, A Pardon for all their Treasons: Secondly, A Toleration of the Roman Superst.i.tion; which their eyes shall sooner fall out than they shall ever see; for the king hath spoken these words in the hearing of many, "I will lose the crown and my life, before ever I will alter Religion." And thirdly, To remove Counsellors. In the room of the Lord Chancellor, they would have placed one Watson, a priest, absurd in Humanity and ignorant in Divinity.
Brook, of whom I will speak nothing, Lord Treasurer. The great Secretary must be Markham; _Oculus patriae_. A hole must be found in my Lord Chief-Justice"s coat. Grey must be Earl-Marshal, and Master of the Horse, because he would have a table in court; marry, he would advance the earl of Worcester to a higher place.
All this cannot be done without a mult.i.tude: therefore Watson the priest tells a resolute man that the king was in danger of Puritans and Jesuits; so to bring him in blindfold into the action saying, That the king is no king till he be crowned; therefore every man might right his own wrongs: but he is _rex natus_, his dignity descends as well as yours, my lords. Then Watson imposeth a blasphemous Oath, that they should swear to defend the king"s person; to keep secret what was given them in charge, and seek all ways and means to advance the Catholic Religion. Then they intend to send for the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen, in the king"s name, to the Tower; lest they should make any resistance, and then take hostages of them; and to enjoin them to provide for them victuals and munition. Grey, because the king removed before Midsummer, had a further reach to get a Company of Sword-men to a.s.sist the action: therefore he would stay till he had obtained a regiment from Ostend or Austria. So you see these Treasons were like Sampson"s foxes, which were joined in their tails, though their heads were severed.
RALEIGH--You Gentlemen of the Jury, I pray remember, I am not charged with the Bye, being the Treason of the priest.
ATTORNEY--You are not. My lords, you shall observe three things in the Treasons: 1. They had a Watch-word (the king"s safety): their Pretence was _Bonum in se_; their Intent was _Malum in se_: 2. They avouched Scripture; both the priests had _Scriptum est_: perverting and ignorantly mistaking the Scriptures; 3.
They avouched the Common Law, to prove that he was no king until he was crowned; alledging a Statute of 13 Elizabeth.
He then proceeds to mention other cases of treason where the accused had considered that their acts were _bonum in se_, and, defining treason, lays down that--
There is Treason in the heart, in the hand, in the mouth, in consummation: comparing that _in corde_ to the root of a tree; _in ore_, to the bud; _in manu_, to the blossom; and that which is _in consummatione_, to the fruit. Now I come to your Charge, You of the Jury: the greatness of Treason is to be considered in these two things, _determinatione finis_, and _electione mediorum_. This Treason excelleth in both, for that it was to destroy the king and his progeny. These treasons are said to be _crimen laesae majestatis_; this goeth further, and may be termed, _crimen extirpandae regiae majestatis_, and _totius progenici suae_. I shall not need, my lord, to speak anything concerning the king, nor of the bounty and sweetness of his nature whose thoughts are innocent, whose words are full of wisdom and learning, and whose works are full of honour, although it be a true saying, _Nunquam nimis quod nunquam satis_. But to whom do you bear Malice? To the Children?
RALEIGH--To whom speak you this? You tell me news I never heard of.
ATTORNEY--O sir, do I? I will prove you the notoriest traitor that ever came to the bar. After you have taken away the king, you would alter Religion: as you, sir Walter Raleigh, have followed them of the Bye in Imitation: for I will charge you with the words.
RALEIGH--Your words cannot condemn me; my innocency is my defence. Prove one of these things wherewith you have charged me, and I will confess the whole Indictment, and that I am the horriblest traitor that ever lived, and worthy to be crucified with a thousand thousand torments.
ATTORNEY--Nay, I will prove all: thou art a monster; thou hath an English face but a Spanish heart. Now you must have Money; Aremberg was no sooner in England (I charge thee, Raleigh) but thou incitest Cobham to go unto him, and to deal with him for Money, to bestow on discontented persons, to raise Rebellion on the kingdom.
RALEIGH--Let me answer for myself.
ATTORNEY--Thou shalt not.
RALEIGH--It concerneth my life.
LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE--Sir Walter Raleigh, Mr. Attorney is but yet in the General: but when the king"s Council have given the evidence wholly you shall answer every Particular.
ATTORNEY--O! do I touch you?
LORD CECIL--Mr. Attorney, when you have done with this General Charge, do you not mean to let him answer every Particular?
ATTORNEY--Yes, when we deliver the Proofs to be read. Raleigh procured Cobham to go to Aremberg, which he did by his instigation: Raleigh supped with Cobham before he went to Aremberg; after supper, Raleigh conducted him to Durham-House, from thence Cobham went with Lawrency, a servant of Aremberg"s unto him, and went in by a back way. Cobham could never be quiet until he had entertained this motion, for he had four Letters from Raleigh. Aremberg answered, The Money should be performed, but knew not to whom it should be distributed. Then Cobham and Lawrency came back to Durham-House, where they found Raleigh.