Part 12

Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton (1540-1614), was the second son of the Earl of Surrey, beheaded in Henry VIII.'s reign. After a long period of political intrigue he rose to power on James's accession, having long been in correspondence with him. He was an avowed enemy of Raleigh. He maintained a position of great influence till the end of his life, generally using his influence in support of the king's prerogative and the Catholics. After his death he was accused of complicity in the poisoning of Sir Thomas Overbury in the Tower: not altogether without reason. He built Northumberland House.

Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury (1563?-1612), was at the time of this trial at the middle point of his long official career. He first appears in a public capacity in 1588, when he was sent to Spain in the train of Lord Derby, having been appointed ambassador to negotiate conditions of peace. He represented Hertfordshire in the House of Commons in 1589; in 1591 he was sworn of the Privy Council; and in 1596, during the absence of his rival Essex on the Cadiz expedition, he was appointed Secretary of State. In 1598 he took part in an embassy to Paris with Lord Brooke, Raleigh, and others to hinder an alliance between France and Spain. In 1600 Cecil was a member of a Commission appointed to report on Essex's return from Ireland without permission, and managed to mitigate the gravity of his offence; but in 1601, on Essex's trial for treason, had to defend himself from an accusation by Essex of having declared himself in favour of the Infanta's claim to the throne. By careful preparations he secured the peaceable accession of James II. to the throne, and was raised to the peerage, and eventually made Earl of Salisbury in consequence. For the rest of his life he remained James's most trusted minister.

John Popham (1531-1607) was born of a good family in Somersetshire. He was reported to have been stolen by gypsies in his youth, but was educated at Balliol. He began life in London as a law-student and a highwayman; but soon became, according to Campbell, a consummate lawyer, practising chiefly as a special pleader. He became a Serjeant and Solicitor-General in 1578, Speaker in 1580, Attorney-General in 1581, and Lord Chief-Justice in 1592. He presided at the trial of Guy Fawkes and his fellow-conspirators. He enjoyed the reputation of being a sound lawyer and a severe judge. He left the greatest estate that had ever been amassed by a lawyer; but it is probably untrue that he acquired Littlecot Hall by fraudulently acquitting 'Wild Darrell' of the murder of its newly born heir. He was, however, reported to have saved money while he was a highwayman.

Sir Edmund Anderson (1530-1605) was born at Flinborough or Broughton in Lincolnshire. He was educated at Lincoln College, Oxford, called to the bar, and made a Serjeant in 1577. He tried Robert Brown, founder of the Brownists, as assistant judge on the Norfolk Circuit in 1581; in the same year he tried Campian, the Jesuit, on the Western Circuit. In both cases he expressed strong views as to the claims of the Established Church. He was promoted to the chiefship of the Common Pleas in 1582, and tried Babington for treason in 1586, and Davison for beheading Mary, Queen of Scots. He also took part in the trials of the Duke of Arundel; Sir John Perrot, Lord Deputy of Ireland; and the Earl of Essex. He also tried Udall, the puritan, and no doubt tried to entrap him into a confession of guilt. Apart from political trials, he had the reputation of being a good judge and a sound lawyer.

Henry Brooke, eighth Lord Cobham, was the son of a leading favourite of Queen Elizabeth's. On his father's death he succeeded to much of his father's influence; Robert Cecil married his sister; and they were both enemies of Essex. Cobham's influence did not last into James's reign, and he entered on the transactions which are discussed in Raleigh's trial. He himself was tried and convicted after Raleigh (see p. 6), but after being pardoned on the scaffold he remained a prisoner in the Tower till 1617, when he was allowed to pay a visit to Bath for his health: he died on the way home.

Arabella Stuart was the daughter of the Earl of Lenox, younger brother of Lord Darnley, the grandson of Margaret, eldest sister of Henry VII., and thus stood next in succession to James. Her claim to the throne as against James was that she was born in England, whereas he was an alien. She had been arrested by Elizabeth in consequence of a rumour that she was to marry William Seymour, grandson of Catherine Grey. She was imprisoned in 1609 on another rumour of her marriage to some person unknown. In 1610 she became actually engaged to William Seymour: he promised not to marry her without the King's consent, but married her secretly a few months afterwards. The marriage was discovered, and she was committed to private custody whilst her husband was committed to the Tower. She escaped, disguised in a man's clothes, but was arrested in the Straits of Dover. She died in the Tower in 1615.

Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) came of an old Norfolk family, and was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar in 1578, having already acquired a reputation as a lawyer. He entered public life as member for Aldborough in 1589, and as member for Norfolk in 1592. He became Speaker in 1593, and in opposition to Bacon became Attorney-General in 1593. In 1598, on the death of his first wife, he married Elizabeth Hatton, Burghley's granddaughter, again depriving Bacon of a prize. He was retained to prosecute Essex, Southampton, and the Gunpowder Plot conspirators, against all of whom he showed the same animus that he did against Raleigh. In 1606 he became Chief-Justice of the Common Pleas, in which capacity he maintained the independence of the Law Courts against ecclesiastical interference. He likewise offered a resolute opposition to the King's claim to place impositions on imported merchandise, and to regulate by proclamation such matters as the erection of new buildings in London and the manufacture of starch from wheat. In 1613 Coke, much against his will, was promoted, on Bacon's advice, to the post of Chief-Justice of the King's Bench, where, though his dignity was greater, his profits were less, and he was less likely to have opportunity for opposing the King's measures. At the same time he was made a Privy Councillor. His opposition to the power of the Chancellor to exercise his equitable jurisdiction by injunction, and to the King's power to grant commendams proved less successful than his former measures; and what was considered his excess of zeal in inquiring into the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury, his opposition to the growth of the powers of the Ecclesiastical Commission and the Star Chamber, and no doubt other less public matters, led to his being deprived of his office on the 5th of November 1616. After his dismissal he became engaged in a most undignified quarrel with his wife as to whether their daughter should marry Buckingham's elder brother, which she eventually did. In 1617 he was recalled to the Council, and occasionally judicially employed. In 1621 he re-entered the House of Commons, and took up the popular side in resisting monopolies and other abuses. He was engaged in drawing up the charges against Bacon in the same year. He drew up the 'Protestation' affirming the privileges of Parliament in December 1621, and was committed to the Tower in consequence. He was released in August 1622, but remained in a kind of qualified confinement. He resisted an attempt by James to exclude him from the 1624 Parliament by sending him on a commission to Ireland, and though he continued in opposition contrived to reconcile himself to the King to some extent. He opposed Charles's demands for money in his first two parliaments and drafted the Petition of Right, and made his final appearance in the debate on the Grand Remonstrance (1628), when he openly accused Buckingham as being the cause of the misfortunes of the country.

Post, p. 45.

Andrews (1555-1626) was appointed to the living of St. Giles, Cripplegate, in 1589, through Walsingham's influence. He was made Master of Pembroke Hall soon after. He refused two bishoprics offered him by Elizabeth because he would not consent to the alienation of any part of their revenues; but became Dean of Windsor in 1601. He subsequently became Bishop of Chichester in 1605; of Ely in 1609; of Winchester in 1619. He took part in the Hampton Court Conference, and his name stands first in the list of the authors of the Authorised Version.

Patrick Galloway had followed the King from Scotland: he had assisted James in some of his religious writings, and was Moderator of the General Assembly in 1590 and 1602. He afterwards upheld the liberties of the Kirk against the attempts of James to restrict them, and warmly supported the Five Articles of Perth in 1618.

See ante, p. 5.

See ante, p. 7.

Sir Amyas Preston came of a good family settled at Crichet in Somerset. He was lieutenant of the Ark in the attack on the Armada: and afterwards ravaged the West Indies, in company of Somers, in 1596. He was knighted by Howard during his Cadiz expedition. He seems to have been a friend of Essex; the challenge to Raleigh took place in 1601, but did not lead to a meeting.

Edmund Campian (1540-1581), the famous Jesuit, was educated at Christ's Hospital, and afterward at St. John's, Oxford. He took an oath against the Pope's supremacy on proceeding to a Master's degree, in 1564; but was probably always a Catholic at heart. He welcomed Elizabeth to Oxford in a Latin oration in 1566, and was subsequently patronised by Leicester and Cecil. He took deacon's orders, and went to Dublin in the hope of having the direction of the Dublin University, which it was proposed to resuscitate. He fell under suspicion as a Papist, but managed to escape arrest and return to England, whence, after hearing Dr. Storey's trial in 1571, he repaired to Douay, and formally renounced the Protestant faith. He went to Rome, became a Jesuit, and was among the first to be despatched to England on a Jesuit mission. He landed at Dover in 1580, and was arrested, but released and went to London. After various adventures in different parts of the country he was again arrested, and brought to London in 1581. He was rigorously examined as to his mission, but concealed the fact that he was charged to persuade Catholics to separate themselves from the English communion. Afterwards he was tortured, and a report, probably false, was spread abroad that he had betrayed his companions. He was then called upon to meet his adversaries in a public disputation, which he did with great courage and skill. After being again tortured, he was tried and convicted of treason in stirring up sedition. His trial was most unfairly conducted, and it seems probable that the charge was altogether false. He was executed on 1st December 1581.

'Take heed of a preacher as Essex did.' Essex admitted his guilt at the end of his trial. Howell (State Trials, vol. i. p. 1358) says: 'On the 25th of February 1601, which was the day appointed for his execution, Thomas Mountford and William Barlow, doctors of divinity, with Ashton, the minister of the Church in the Tower, were sent unto him early to administer Christian consolation to his soul. In the presence of these men he gave thanks to Almighty God from the bottom of his heart, that his designs, which were so dangerous to the state, succeeded not. He told them he had now looked thoroughly and seriously into his sin, and was heartily sorry he had so obstinately defended an unjust cause at the bar.... He acknowledged how worthy he was to be spued out (these were his words) by the Commonwealth for the wickedness of his enterprize, which he likened to a leprosy spread far and near, and that he had infected many.'

CHARLES I

The following report was first published 'by Authority, to prevent false and impertinent relations.' It was licensed by Gilbert Mabbot, and, so far as one can judge from internal evidence, is rather the slightly amplified transcript of a barrister's note, than the work of anybody who in those days might represent a modern newspaper reporter. The whole is carelessly put together, as far as form is concerned; the grammar is often halting, and the sentences are not always finished. But I should suppose that all the arguments used on either side are fairly indicated, except in those places where it is suggested in a note that 'authority' made excisions. If such excisions were made, however, the fact that the gaps were left in their present state is evidence of the substantial accuracy and fairness of the rest of the report. Taking a purely legal view of the matter, which no one will pretend covers the whole, or indeed the most important part of the case, one does not see why, if Bradshaw left in as much as he did, he should not have left in everything. From the point of view of defending counsel, Charles had an unanswerable case, and he was enough of a lawyer to make the most of it. Bradshaw, on the other hand, seems, to me at least, to have played his part not badly. Considering all things, I do not myself see that his behaviour to Charles was unnecessarily harsh. If you have made up your mind to cut off a man's head, and if you are aware that your position as a judge is a false one, you are bound to assert your authority without much regard to prisoners' feelings, or even good manners. I am not in a position to discuss what effect the essential illegality of the trial, from a formal point of view, produced on contemporary and subsequent opinion; but I think it may safely be said that the trial presents the most striking example to be found in English history of the view held in this country of the authority of the law. I have only to add that in this trial I have reproduced the original report exactly as I found it.

On Saturday, being the 20th day of January 1649, the Lord President of the High Court of Justice, with near fourscore of the members of the said Court, having sixteen gentlemen with partizans, and a sword, and a mace, with their and other officers of the said Court, marching before them, came to the place ordered to be prepared for their sitting at the west-end of the great Hall at Westminster; where the Lord President, in a crimson velvet chair, fixed in the midst of the Court, placed himself, having a desk with a crimson-velvet cushion before him; the rest of the members placing themselves on each side of him upon several seats, or benches, prepared and hung with scarlet for that purpose; and the partizans dividing themselves on each side of the court before them.

The Court being thus sat, and Silence made, the great gate of the said Hall was set open, to the end that all persons without exception, desirous to see or hear, might come into it. Upon which the Hall was presently filled, and silence again ordered.

This done, colonel Thomlinson, who had the charge of the Prisoner, was commanded to bring him to the Court; who within a quarter of an hour's space brought him, attended with about twenty officers with partizans, marching before him, there being other gentlemen, to whose care and custody he was likewise committed, marching in his rear.

Being thus brought up within the face of the Court, the Serjeant at Arms, with his mace, receives and conducts him strait to the bar, having a crimson-velvet chair set before him. After a stern looking upon the Court, and the people in the galleries on each side of him, he places himself, not at all moving his hat, or otherwise shewing the least respect to the court; but presently rises up again, and turns about, looking downwards upon the guards placed on the left side, and on the multitude of spectators on the right side of the said great Hall. After silence made among the people, the Act of Parliament for the trying of Charles Stuart, king of England, was read over by the Clerk of the Court, who sat on one side of a table covered with a rich Turkey-carpet, and placed at the feet of the said Lord President; upon which table was also laid the sword and mace.

After reading the said Act, the several names of the Commissioners were called over, every one who was present, being eighty, as aforesaid, rising up, and answering to his call.

Having again placed himself in his Chair, with his face towards the Court, silence being again ordered, the Lord President stood up, and said,

LORD PRESIDENT--Charles Stuart, king of England, the Commons of England assembled in Parliament being deeply sensible of the calamities that have been brought upon this nation, which is fixed upon you as the principal author of it, have resolved to make inquisition for blood; and according to that debt and duty they owe to justice, to God, the kingdom, and themselves, and according to the fundamental power that rests in themselves, they have resolved to bring you to Trial and Judgment; and for that purpose have constituted this High Court of Justice, before which they are brought.

This said, Mr. Cook, Solicitor for the Commonwealth standing within a bar on the right hand of the Prisoner, offered to speak; but the king having a staff in his hand, held it up, and laid it on the said Mr. Cook's shoulder two or three times, bidding him hold. Nevertheless, the Lord President ordering him to go on, he said,

MR. COOK--My lord, I am commanded to charge Charles Stuart King of England, in the name of the Commons of England, with Treason and High Misdemeanors; I desire the said Charge may be read.

The said Charge being delivered to the Clerk of the Court, the Lord President ordered it should be read; but the king bid him hold. Nevertheless, being commanded by the Lord President to read it, the Clerk begun, and the Prisoner sat down again in his chair, looking sometimes on the High Court, sometimes up to the Galleries; and having risen again, and turned about to behold the guards and spectators, sat down, looking very sternly, and with a countenance not at all moved, till these words, viz.:--'Charles Stuart to be a Tyrant and Traitor,' etc. were read; at which he laughed, as he sat, in the face of the Court.

The Charge being read, the Lord President replied;