THE TRIAL (November 17).

On September 21 Ralegh had been indicted at Staines for having, with Cobham and Brooke, compassed in the Parish of St. Martin in the Fields to deprive the King of his crown, to alter the true religion, and to levy war. The indictment alleged that Cobham had discoursed with him on the means of raising Arabella Stuart to the crown; that Cobham had treated with Arenberg for 600,000 crowns from the King of Spain, and had meant to go to Spain in quest of support for Arabella. It alleged that Ralegh and Cobham had agreed Arabella should by letter promise the Archduke of Austria, the King of Spain, and the Duke of Savoy, to maintain a firm truce with Spain, to tolerate Papistry, and be guided by the three princes in her marriage. It alleged the publication and delivery by Ralegh to Cobham of a book traitorously devised against the King’s title to the crown. Finally, it alleged that Cobham had agreed, when he should have received the money from Arenberg, to deliver eight or ten thousand crowns to Ralegh to enable him the better to effect the intended treasons. Jurors were summoned in September for the trial of this indictment. But for some reason the hearing was deferred till November.

The plague raging in London and the neighbourhood may account for the delay. Pym relates in his Diary that it killed 2000 a week. The Tower was reported in September, 1603, to be infected. The King’s Bench kept the next term at Winchester. So to Winchester their respective custodians conveyed Brooke, Sir Griffin Markham, Sir Edward Parham, who finally was acquitted, Brooksby, Copley, Watson, Clarke, Cobham, and Grey. They were escorted by under-wardens of the Tower, the Keeper of the Westminster Gate-house, and fifty light horse. Ralegh set out on November 10 in his own coach, under the charge of Sir Robert Mansel and Sir William Waad. Waad wrote to Cecil that he found his prisoner much altered. At Wimbledon a group of friends and relatives had assembled to greet him as he passed. Generally he encountered none but looks of hatred. Precautions had to be taken to steal the planter of Virginia, the hero of Cadiz, the wit and poet, the splendid gentleman, the lavish patron, from the curs of London, without outrage, or murder. It was ’hob or nob,’ writes Waad to Cecil, whether or not Ralegh ’should have been brought alive through such multitudes of unruly people as did exclaim against him.’ He adds, that it would hardly have been believed the plague was hot in London in presence of such a mob. Watches had to be set through all the streets, both in London and the suburbs. ’If one hare-brain fellow amongst so great a multitude had begun to set upon him, as they were near to do it, no entreaty or means could have prevailed; the fury and tumult of the people was so great.’ Tobacco-pipes, stones, and mud were, wrote Cecil’s secretary, Mr. Michael Hickes, to Lord Shrewsbury, thrown by the rabble, both in London and in other towns on the road. Ralegh is stated to have scorned these proofs of the aversion of base and rascal people. Mr. Macvey Napier, in his thoughtful essay, attributes to him ’a total want of sympathy with, if not a dislike of, the lower orders.’ His disgust, perhaps, was rather evoked by the want of discrimination in all masses. He was habitually good to his dependents, and was beloved by them. A multitude, whatever the rank of its constituents, he regarded as ’dogs who always bark at those they know not.’ He had never flattered a mob. He did not now cower before it. To manifestations of popular odium his nature rose, as to every peremptory call upon his powers. He foresaw that posterity would understand him, and would right him.

Two days were taken to reach Bagshot, and three more to traverse the remaining thirty miles to Winchester. Ralegh and others of the accused were lodged in the Royal Castle of Winchester, built by Bishop Henry, Stephen’s brother. A King’s Bench Court had been fitted up in Wolvesey Castle, the old episcopal palace, now a ruin. There the trial opened on November 17. Sir John Popham was Lord Chief Justice of England. He was not prepossessing in appearance, ‘a huge, heavy, ugly man,’ and he had an uncouth history. As a child he had been stolen by gipsies. In early manhood he was a notorious gamester and reveller. He took purses, it is stoutly affirmed, on Shooter’s Hill, when he was a barrister, and thirty years of age. Then he reformed his morals, read law, and entered the House of Commons. In 1581 he was elected Speaker, and in 1592 was appointed Chief Justice. Essex had imprisoned him in Essex House on the day of the rising, but protected his life from his crazy followers. He had the generosity to requite the favour by venturing to advise the Queen to grant a pardon. He amassed a vast estate, part of it being Littlecote, which he was fabled to have wrested, together with an hereditary curse, from a murderer, Sir Richard Dayrell. With Popham, Chief Justice Anderson, and Justices Gawdy and Warburton, there sat as Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer, Lord Thomas Howard, since July Earl of Suffolk and Lord Chamberlain, Charles Blount, Lord Mountjoy and Earl of Devonshire, Lord Henry Howard, Robert Cecil, now Lord Cecil, Lord Wotton, Vice-Chamberlain Sir John Stanhope, and Sir William Waad. That the King, with his personal knowledge of Henry Howard’s fierce hatred of Ralegh, as evinced in the whole private correspondence with Holyrood, should have appointed him a judge was an outrage upon decency. Attorney-General Coke, Serjeant Hele, who had been Ralegh’s counsel against Meere, and Serjeant Phillips, prosecuted. The law allowed no counsel to prisoners. Sir Michael Stanhope, Sir Edward Darcy, Ralegh’s neighbour in Durham House, and Sir William Killigrew, had been, it was rumoured, on the jury panel, but were ’changed overnight, being found not for their turn.’ The report of a sudden modification in the list is not necessarily untrue, though the jury, it is said, was a Middlesex jury, and had been ordered long before to attend at Winchester. Other Middlesex men, of whom many were at Winchester, may have been substituted. At any rate, Ralegh did not except to any names. ‘I know,’ said he, ‘none of them. They are all Christians and honest gentlemen.’ Sir Thomas, or John, Fowler was chosen foreman.

Ralegh asked leave to answer the points particularly as they were delivered, on account of his failing memory and sickness. Coke objected to having the King’s evidence dismembered, ’whereby it might lose much of its grace and vigour.’ Popham was more considerate. He promised to let Ralegh, after the King’s counsel should have produced all the evidence, answer particularly what he would. Hele opened. I cull a few flowers of his eloquence and logic: ’You have heard of Ralegh’s bloody attempt to kill the King, in whom consists all our happiness, and the true use of the Gospel, and his royal children, poor babes that never gave offence. Since the Conquest there was never the like treason. But out of whose head came it? Out of Ralegh’s. Cobham said to Brooke: “It will never be well in England till the King and his cubs are taken away.” It appears that Cobham took Ralegh to be either a god or an idol. Bred in England, Cobham hath no experience abroad. But Ralegh is a man of great wit, military, and a swordsman. Now, whether these things were bred in a hollow tree, I leave to them to speak of who can speak far better than myself.’

He meant Sir Edward Coke, who then addressed the Court. He started gently: ’We carry a just mind, to condemn no man but upon plain evidence.’ Thence he proceeded: ’Here is mischief, mischief in summo gradu, exorbitant mischief!’ He first explained ’the treason of the Bye.’ That was the alleged plot of Grey, Brooke, and Markham to surprise the King, and carry him to the Tower. Ralegh reminded the jury that he was not charged with the Bye. ‘No,’ retorted Coke, but ’all these treasons, though they consisted of several points, closed in together; like Samson’s foxes, which were joined in the tails, though the heads were severed.’ He anticipated the objection that the Crown had but one witness, Cobham. It had, he argued, more than two witnesses: ’When a man by his accusation of another shall by the same accusation also condemn himself, and make himself liable to the same punishment, this is by law more forcible than many witnesses, and is as the inquest of twelve men. For the law presumes that a man will not accuse himself in order to accuse another.’ That is, Coke chose to confuse an argument for the sufficiency of a man’s evidence of his own guilt with its cogency as evidence of another’s. After this, he declaimed upon the horror of the treason in the present case. ’To take away the fox and his cubs! To whom, Sir Walter, did you bear malice? To the royal children?’ Ralegh protested: ‘What is the treason of Markham and the priests to me?’ Coke burst forth: ’I will then come close to you. I will prove you to be the most notorious traitor that ever came to the bar. You, indeed, are upon the Main; but you followed them of the Bye in imitation.’ Ralegh asked for proof. ‘Nay,’ cried Coke, ’I will prove all. Thou art a monster; thou hast an English face, but a Spanish heart. Your intent was to set up the Lady Arabella, and to depose our rightful King, the lineal descendant of Edward IV.’ Coke, it will be seen, did not choose to trace the Stuarts to Henry VII. He treated the Tudors as interlopers. ’You pretend,’ he continued, that the money expected from Arenberg was to ’forward the Peace with Spain. Your jargon was peace, which meant Spanish invasion and Scottish subversion.’ Cobham, argued Coke, never was a politician, nor a swordsman. Ralegh was both. Ralegh and Cobham both were discontented, and Cobham’s discontent grew by Ralegh. Such was Ralegh’s machiavellian policy that he would never confer with but one at once. He would talk with none but Cobham; ’because, saith he, one witness can never condemn me.’

Next, Coke turned to the communications between Ralegh and Cobham in the Tower. He exclaimed to the jury: ’And now you shall see the most horrible practices that ever came out of the bottomless pit of the lowest hell.’ In reply to a protest by Ralegh as to his liability for some underhand practices of Cobham, as Warden of the Cinque Ports, Coke foamed out: ’All he did was by thy instigation, thou viper; for I thou thee, thou traitor! I will prove thee the rankest traitor in all England.’ ‘No, Master Attorney,’ was the answer: ’I am no traitor. Whether I live or die, I shall stand as true a subject as ever the King hath. You may call me a traitor at your pleasure; yet it becomes not a man of quality or virtue to do so. But I take comfort in it; it is all that you can do; for I do not yet hear that you charge me with any treason.’ The Lord Chief Justice interposed: ’Sir Walter Ralegh, Master Attorney speaks out of the zeal of his duty for the service of the King, and you for your life; be patient on both sides.’ It is hard to see how Ralegh had shown impatience. Some impatience he manifested on the reading of Cobham’s declaration of July 20. ‘Cobham,’ said he, ’is not such a babe as you make him. He hath dispositions of such violence which his best friends could never temper.’ He was not of a nature to be easily persuaded by Ralegh. Assuredly Ralegh was not likely to ’conspire with a man that hath neither love nor following,’ against a vigorous and youthful King, in reliance on a State so impoverished and weak as Spain, and so detested by himself. He ridiculed the notion that King Philip either could or would freely disburse 600,000 crowns on the mere word of Cobham. Elizabeth’s own Londoners did not lend to her without lands in pawn. Yet more absurd was the supposition that Ralegh was in the plot. Thrice had he served against Spain at sea. Against Spain he had expended, of his own property, 40,000 marks. ’Spanish as you term me, I had at this time writ a treatise to the King’s Majesty of the present state of Spain, and reasons against the peace.’

When the first or second examination of Cobham was cited, Popham offered himself practically as a witness. He had heard Cobham say of Ralegh, as he signed his deposition: ‘That wretch! That traitor Ralegh!’ ’And surely,’ added the Chief Justice, ’his countenance and action much satisfied me that what he had confessed was true, and that he surely thought Sir Walter had betrayed him.’ Upon this Ralegh demanded to have his accuser, who was under the same roof, brought in, and examined face to face. Long before, and equally in vain, had his father-in-law, Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, called, as Sir Michael Foster mentions, for the witnesses against him ‘to be brought face to face upon the trial.’ Ralegh cited 1 Edward VI, that no man shall be condemned of treason, unless he be accused by two lawful accusers. He referred also to 1 and 2 Phil. and Mary, which ordained that an accuser of another of treason shall, if living and in the realm, be brought forth in person before the party arraigned, if he require it. The Canon of God itself in Deuteronomy, he urged, requires two witnesses. ’I beseech you then, my Lords, let Cobham be sent for. Let him be charged upon his soul, upon his allegiance to the King; and if he will then maintain his accusation to my face, I will confess myself guilty.’ Popham’s answer was: ’This thing cannot be granted; for then a number of treasons should flourish. The accuser may be drawn by practice while he is in prison.’ Again and again Ralegh called for Cobham. Popham objected that he might prevaricate in order to procure the acquittal of his ‘old friend.’ ’To absolve me,’ cried Ralegh sarcastically, ’me, the infuser of these treasons! Me, the cause of all his miseries, and the destruction of his house!’ Coke asserted: ’He is a party and cannot come. The law is against it.’ ‘It is a toy to tell me of law,’ was the reply, ’I defy law. I stand on the facts.’ At one moment his passionate appeal seemed to have awed the Court into justice. Cecil asked if he would really abide by Cobham’s words. ‘Yes, in a main point.’ ’If he say you have been the instigator of him to deal with the Spanish King, had not the Council cause to draw you hither?’ asked Cecil. ‘I put myself on it,’ answered Ralegh. ‘Then, call to God, Sir Walter,’ said Cecil; ’and prepare yourself; for I verily believe my Lord will prove it.’ Cecil knew of Cobham’s recent reiteration of his charge, and supposed he could be trusted to insist upon it in Court. The Lords Commissioners, on consultation, doubted this, and finally decided to keep him back, and rely upon his letter.

The trial pursued its course. Popham laid it down that 1 Edw. VI. , was repealed by 1 and 2 Phil. and Mary. Mr. Justice Gawdy corroborated this, uttering the solitary judicial dictum recorded of him, that ’the statute of Edward had been found inconvenient, and had therefore been repealed.’ The provision cited by Ralegh from Philip and Mary’s repealing statute, Popham ruled, applied solely to the specific treasons it mentioned. The Act ordained that the trial of treasons in general should follow common law procedure, as before the reign of Edward VI. But by common law one witness was sufficient. The confession of confederates was full proof, even though not subscribed, if it were attested by credible witnesses. Indeed, remarked Popham, echoing Coke, ’of all other proofs the accusation of one, who by his confession first accuseth himself, is the strongest. It hath the force of a verdict of twelve men.’ Coke himself later, when, as Mr. Justice Michael Foster expresses it, ’his disgrace at Court had given him leisure for cool reflection,’ intimated in his Institutes that the statute of Edward the Sixth had not been repealed, and that the obligation, as specified by it, to produce two witnesses to charges of treason remained in force. That was not the view of Elizabethan Judges. At the trial of the Duke of Norfolk it was laid down that the necessity no longer existed. In fairness it must be admitted that Popham and his brethren were bound to assume the law had then been correctly stated. They were equally bound by a series of precedents to allow written depositions to be treated as valid testimony. Only by the assent of counsel for the Crown was the oral examination of witnesses permitted. Ralegh did not struggle against the ruling. He could but plead, ’though, by the rigour and severity of the law, this may be sufficient evidence without producing the witness, yet, your Lordships, as ministers of the King, are bound to administer the law in equity.’ ‘No,’ replied Popham: ’equity must proceed from the King; you can have only justice from us.’ Coke triumphantly exclaimed: ‘This dilemma of yours about two witnesses led you into treason.’ Cobham’s letter of July 29 to the Council about the money asked of Arenberg was read. In it occurred the expression: ’We did expect the general discontentment.’ Coke’s comment was: ’The peace pretended by Sir Walter Ralegh is merely jargon; for it is clear the money was for discontented persons. Now Ralegh was to have part of the money; therefore, he was a discontented person, and, therefore, a traitor.’ That was the logic thought good enough at a trial for treason. So, to Ralegh’s indignant remonstrance at the use of the evidence of ’hellish spiders,’ like Clarke and Watson, concerning ‘the King and his cubs’ as evidence against him, Coke answered: ’Thou hast a Spanish heart, and thyself art a spider of hell; for thou confessest the King to be a most sweet and gracious Prince, and yet thou hast conspired against him.’ With equal relevancy he cited from the depositions: ’Brooke thinketh the project for the murder of the King was infused by Ralegh into his brother’s head.’ For Coke this was valid evidence against Ralegh.

On rolled the muddy stream of inconsequential testimony, and of reasoning to match; the ‘irregular ramble,’ as Sir John Hawles has termed it. Snagge’s book was discussed; how Ralegh borrowed it from Burleigh’s library; and how Cobham had it, whether by gift from Ralegh, or by borrowing it when Ralegh was asleep. To Ralegh the whole appeared the triviality it was. ‘It is well known,’ said he, ’that there came out nothing in those times but I had it. I believe they will find in my house almost all the libels writ against the late Queen.’ As utterly irrelevant against him was the introduction of Arabella Stuart to deny her knowledge of any plots in her pretended interest. Worse than irrelevant was pilot Dyer’s gossip with a gentleman at Lisbon, to whom Dyer had observed that the King of England was shortly to be crowned. ‘Nay,’ saith the Portugal, ’that shall never be; for his throat will be cut by Don Ralegh and Don Cobham before he be crowned.’ ’What will you infer upon that?’ asked Ralegh. ‘That your treason hath wings,’ replied Coke. Hereupon Serjeant Phillips relieved Coke, and almost outdid him. Phillips argued that the object of procuring money was to raise up tumults in Scotland, and to take the lives of his Majesty and his issue. For those purposes a treasonable book against the King’s right to the Crown was ‘divulged.’ Commencing with the unproved allegation that ’Sir Walter Ralegh confesseth my Lord Cobham guilty of all these treasons,’ Phillips proceeded: ’The question is, whether Ralegh be guilty, as joining with or instigating him. If Lord Cobham’s accusation be true, he is guilty. If not, he is clear. Ralegh hath no answer. Of as much wit as the wit of man can devise, he useth his bare denial. A denial by the defendant must not move the jury.’ Nothing could be more crushing than the calm rejoinder: ’You have not proved any one thing by direct proofs, but all by circumstances. I appeal to God and the King on this point whether Cobham’s accusation be sufficient to condemn me.’

So weak was the case for the prosecution that to this stage, by the admission of a reporter of the trial, the result was very doubtful. Coke, however, with the cognizance, it may be presumed, of the Court, had prepared a dramatic surprise. Cobham, the day before, had written or signed a repetition of his charge. Ralegh’s account of the transaction at the trial was that Lady Kildare, Lady Ralegh’s enemy, had persuaded Cobham to accuse Ralegh, as the sole way of saving his own life. A letter from her to him goes some length towards confirming the allegation. She writes: ’Help yourself, if it may be. I say no more; but draw not the weight of others’ burdens.’ According to another, and not very likely, story, told by Sir Anthony Welldon in his Court of King James, Cobham subsequently stated that Waad had induced him by a trick to sign his name on a blank page, which afterwards was thus filled in. The paper alleged a request by Ralegh to obtain for him a pension of L1500 for intelligence. ‘But,’ it ambiguously proceeded, ’upon this motion for L1500 per annum for intelligence I never dealt with Count Arenberg.’ ‘Now,’ added the writer, as if it were a conclusion from prémisses, ’as by this may appear to your Lordships, he hath been the original cause of my ruin. For, but by his instigation, I had never dealt with Count Arenberg. And so hath he been the only cause of my discontentment; I never coming from the Count, or Court, but still he filled and possessed me with new causes of discontentments.’ The reading of the statement was set in a more than usually decorated framework of Coke’s amenities. Ralegh throughout the trial had been for the King’s Attorney an ‘odious fellow;’ the ‘most vile and execrable traitor.’ He had been stigmatized as ‘hateful to all the realm for his pride,’ to which Ralegh had retorted: ’It will go near to prove a measuring cast, Mr. Attorney, between you and me.’ With Cobham’s deposition in his hand, Coke cried: ’I will lay thee on thy back for the confidentest traitor that ever came to a bar.’ When Cecil prayed him not to be so impatient, Coke flew out: ’If I may not be patiently heard, you will encourage traitors.’ Sulkily down he sat, and would speak no more till the Commissioners entreated him to go on. Resuming, he criticized Ralegh’s letter to Cobham in the Tower, which was next read: ’O damnable Atheist! He hath learned some text of Scripture to serve his own purpose. Essex died the child of God. Thou wast by.

Et lupus et turpes instant morientibus ursae.’

Being asked what he said of Cobham’s statement to the Lords, ‘I say,’ answered Ralegh, ‘that Cobham is a base, dishonourable, poor soul!’ ’Is he base?’ retorted Coke. ’I return it into thy throat on his behalf. But for thee he had been a good subject.’

The document did not amount to a confession by Cobham even of his own treason. At highest it was evidence against him of negotiations with Count Arenberg which might have been ‘warrantable,’ and of discontent which need not have been in the least criminal. If such secondary testimony had been legal when its author was available as a witness, and if its statements had been incontrovertible, it ought to have been held worthless against Ralegh. Nothing, so far as appears even from the paper, was ever done towards the gratification of the desire for a foreign pension imputed to him. Within limits, Cobham’s allegation that Ralegh had fomented his anger against the new state of things is plausible enough. It would be strange if the two disgraced favourites did not at their frequent meetings club and inflame their mutual pique. Obviously, apart from acts, of which there was no evidence, no irritation by Ralegh, however envenomed, as it was not shown to have been, of Cobham’s discontent, could in him have been treason. Judged by all sound laws of evidence, the testimony of the statement was as flimsy as all the rest of the proofs. To attach importance to it was a burlesque of justice. It was treated as demonstrative by a packed Bench, a Bar hungering for place, and a faint-hearted jury, anxious above all things to vindicate authority, and not caring to discriminate among the prisoners on the charges against them. To the whole court it came like a godsend. The author of the fullest report, that which is preserved in the Harleian MSS., expresses the sentiment of Jacobean lawyers: ’This confession gave a great satisfaction, and cleared all the former evidence, which before stood very doubtful.’

In the reporter’s judgment it overwhelmed the defendant himself. Reasonably Ralegh ‘was much amazed.’ He could not have anticipated Cobham’s rétractation of his rétractation. He perceived the new peril in which he was plunged by the statement that he had solicited, or been offered by Cobham, a Spanish pension, though, as he told the King in January, 1604, so little account had he made at the time of the conversation in which the offer was made, that he never remembered any such thing till it was at his trial objected against him. He felt public opinion shaken. His faith in himself was not weakened. ‘By and by,’ says the reporter, ‘he seemed to gather his spirits again.’ Pulling out of his pocket the recantation, the second, which Cobham had addressed to him from the Tower, and attested by his hope of salvation and God’s mercy on his soul, he insisted upon having it too read in court. Hereupon, says the reporter, ’was much ado, Mr. Attorney alleging that the letter was politicly and cunningly urged from the Lord Cobham,’ and that the latest paper was ‘simply the truth.’ When Ralegh raised the natural objection that a statement written by Cobham on the eve of his own trial might be supposed to have been extorted in some sort by compulsion, Coke appealed to Popham to interrogate the Commissioners. Devonshire, as their mouthpiece, declared to the jury that it was ’mere voluntary,’ and had not been written under a promise of pardon. But Cecil supported Ralegh in the demand that the jury should have before it the earlier letter also. Coke, in a report printed in 1648 under the name of Sir Thomas Overbury, is represented as exclaiming: ’My Lord Cecil, mar not a good cause.’ Cecil replied: ’Master Attorney, you are more peremptory than honest; you must not come here to show me what to do.’ Throughout he had been careful to blend the friend with the judge, so far as professions of regret went. He had spoken of the former dearness between himself and this gentleman, tied upon the knot of his virtues. He had declared that his friendship was not extinguished, but slaked. He had vowed himself still his friend, ’excepting faults, I call them no worse.’ Now he strained that friendship to the extent of the simple justice of undertaking the duty, ’because he only knew Cobham’s hand,’ of reading out the letter, which, if the construction put by the prosecution on the other paper were correct, proved the writer a perjured liar either in the Tower or at Winchester.

Coke need not have feared the consequences. Both judges and jurymen had comfortably made up their minds. They were not to be moved by so slight a thing as a contradiction of Cobham in one place by Cobham in another. So prejudiced were they that the Tower letter does not appear to have produced any effect at all. Ralegh, at all events, could do no more. He had striven for many hours, and was utterly exhausted. Without more words he let the jury be dismissed to consider its verdict.

In a quarter of an hour it returned into court with a verdict of guilty of high treason. Ralegh received the decision with dignity: ‘My Lords,’ said he, ’the jury hath found me guilty. They must do as they are directed. I can say nothing why judgment should not proceed. You see whereof Cobham hath accused me. You remember his protestation that I was never guilty. I desire the King should know the wrong I have been done to since I came hither.’ Then Popham pronounced judgment. Addressing Ralegh, he said: ’In my conscience I am persuaded Cobham hath accused you truly. You cannot deny that you were dealt with to have a pension of L1500 a year to be a spy for Spain; therefore, you are not so true to the King as you have protested yourself to be.’ He lamented the fall of one of ‘so great parts,’ who ‘had showed wit enough this day,’ ’who might have lived well with L3000 a year; for so I have heard your revenues to be.’ Spite and covetousness he held to have been Ralegh’s temptations. Yet the King could not be blamed for wishing to have for Captain of the Guard ‘one of his own knowledge, whom he might trust,’ or for desiring no longer to burden his people with a wine monopoly for Ralegh’s particular good. Popham embellished his confused discourse, partly apologetic, and partly condemnatory, but not intentionally brutal or malevolent, by a glance at Ralegh’s reputed free-thinking. He had been taxed, said Popham, by the world with the defence of most heathenish and blasphemous opinions. ‘You will do well,’ the virtuous Chief Justice exhorted him, ’before you go out of the world, to give satisfaction therein. Let not any devil,’ or, according to the Harleian MSS. version, ’Hariot nor any such doctor, persuade you there is no eternity in Heaven; if you think thus, you shall find eternity in Hell fire.’ Ralegh had warned Cobham against confessions. Let him not apply the advice to himself. ’Your conceit of not confessing anything is very inhuman and wicked. In this world is the time of confessing, that we may be absolved at the Day of Judgment.’ By way of peroration he added: ’It now comes into my mind why you may not have your accuser face to face. When traitors see themselves must die, they think it best to see their fellow live, that he may commit the like treason again, and so in some sort seek revenge.’ Lastly, he pronounced the savage legal sentence.

When Popham had ended Ralegh spoke a few words. He prayed that the jury might never have to answer for its verdict. He ’only craved pardon for having concealed Lord Cobham’s offer to him, which he did through a confidence that he had diverted him from those humours.’ Praying then permission to speak to Lords Suffolk, Devonshire, Henry Howard, and Cecil, he entreated their intercession, which they promised, Cecil with tears, that his death might be honourable and not ignominious. He is alleged further to have requested their mediation with the King for a pardon, or, at least, that, if Cobham too were convicted, and if the sentence were to be carried out, Cobham might die first. The petition was not an ebullition of vindictiveness. It had a practical purpose. On the scaffold he could say nothing for Cobham; Cobham might say much for him. It was possible that, when nothing more was to be gained by falsehoods, his recreant friend would clear his fame once for all. Then he quitted the hall, accompanying Sir Benjamin Tichborne, the High Sheriff, to the prison, according to Sir Thomas Overbury, ’with admirable erection, yet in such sort as a condemned man should.’