strained against me, I pray you, Mr. Attorney, why might not I have told Arnold that John Fitzwilliams was angry with William Thomas, and yet not know the cause of the anger? Who proves that I knew anything of the design of William Thomas to kill the Queen? No man; for Arnold says not one word of it, but only that there was a difference between them; and to say that, implies neither treason, nor any knowledge of treason. Is this all the evidence you have against me, in order to bring me within the compass of the indictment?

Stamford. Methinks those things which others have confessed, together with your own confession, will weigh shrewdly. But what have you to say as to the rising in Kent, and Wyatt's attempt against the Queen's royal person in her palace?

Bromley, C. J. Why do you not read to him Wyatt's Accusation, which makes him a sharer in his treasons? Southwell. Wyatt has grievously accused you, and in many things which have been confirmed by others.

Sir N. T. Whatever Wyatt said of me in hopes to save his life, he unsaid it at his death; for since I came into the Hall, I heard one say, whom I do not know, that Wyatt on the scaffold cleared not only the Lady Elizabeth and the Earl of Devonshire, but also all the gentlemen in the Tower, saying none of them knew anything of his commotion; of which number I take myself to be one.

Hare. Nevertheless, he said that all he had written and confessed before the council was true.

Sir N. T. Nay, sir, by your patience, Wyatt did not say so that was Master Doctor's addition.

Southwell. It seems you have had good intelligence. Sir N. T. Almighty God provided this revelation for me this very day, since I came hither; for I have been in close prison for eight and fifty days, where I could hear nothing but what the birds told me, who flew over my head. And now to you of my jury I speak especially, whom I desire to mark attentively what shall be said: you see I have been indicted, and am now arraigned for compassing the Queen's Majesty's death, levying war against her, taking the Tower, deposing and depriving her of her royal dignity; and lastly, for destroying her

and adhering to her enemies. To prove me guilty of all these treasons, the Queen's learned counsel have given these material things in evidence; that is, for compassing and imagining the Queen's death, and the destruction of her royal person, they have offered the deposition of Sir Nicholas Arnold, which states that I said to him that Mr. John Fitzwilliams was angry with William Thomas. To this I answer as you have heard; I both deny the matter, and except against the same, because there is but one witness for it. And, even if the fact were admitted, it is no proof against me of compassing the Queen's death. As for levying war against the Queen, there is alleged my conference with Sir Thomas Wyatt, Sir James Crofts, Sir Edward Rogers, and Sir Edward Warner against the marriage with Spain, and the Spaniards coming into England, which discourse I do not deny in the manner I spoke and meant it; but, notwithstanding all the malicious interpretations which have been put this day upon this conference, it is no proof of my levying war. There is also alleged, to prove the same article, Sir James Crofts's Confession, which you may remember implies no such thing, but merely general discourse against the marriage with Spain, and of my going westward with the Earl of Devonshire; which yet Crofts does not avow here in court, and therefore I desire you to consider it as not spoken. Farther, as a proof of the same article, they have offered the Duke of Suffolk's Confession, with whom I never had any conference, and he only speaks of what was said to him by his brother, who has himself sufficiently cleared me by his silence; and yet, supposing the words were proved, they are not greatly material in law: For a farther proof of the same article, and of deposing and depriving the Queen of her royal estate, and of adhering to the Queen's enemies, they have produced the Confession of Cuthbert Vaughan, whose testimony I have sufficiently disproved by several authorities and circumstances, and principally by our own law, which requires "two lawful and sufficient witnesses to be brought face to face." Then as to the taking the Tower of London, Winter's Depositions are alleged, which show my disapprobation when he spoke to me of Sir Thomas Wyatt's project and

the resolution to attempt it. And last of all, my own Confession is greatly urged against me; wherein there appears neither treason, concealment of treason, whispering of treason, nor procurement of treason. Now for as much as I am brought hither to be tried by the law, though my innocence as to all the material points laid to my charge is very manifest, and sufficient to acquit me, and upon which I chiefly rely; yet for your farther information and satisfaction, I will shew you evidently, that if you should believe all the Depositions against me, which I trust you will not do, I ought not to be attainted of the treason comprised within my indictment, considering the statute of the last Parliament repealing all treasons, except such as are declared in the twenty-fifth year of King Edward III.; both which statutes, my Lords, I pray you may be read to the jury.

Bromley, C. J. No, there shall be no books brought at your desire; we know the law sufficiently without book.

Sir N. T. Do you bring me hither to try me by the law, and will not show me the law? what is your knowledge of the law to the satisfaction of these men, who have my trial in hand? Pray, my Lord, and my Lords all, let the statutes be read, as well for the Queen as for me.

Stamford. My Lord Chief Justice can tell what the law is, and will do it, if the jury are doubtful in any particular.

Sir N. T. You know it is but reasonable that I should know and hear the law by which I am to be judged; and for as much as the statute is in English, people of less learning than the judges can understand it; or else how should we know when we offend?

Hare. You know not what is proper for your case, and therefore we must inform you. It is not our business to provide books for you; neither do we sit here to be taught by you; you should have been better informed of the law before you came hither.

Sir N. T. Because I am ignorant I would learn, and therefore I have the more occasion to see the law, partly for the instruction of the jury and partly for my own satisfaction; which, methinks, would be for the honour

of the Court. And now, if it please you, my Lord Chief Justice, I do principally direct my words to you: When the Queen was pleased to call you to that honourable office, I did learn of a great man, and one of her Majesty's Privy Council, that her Majesty, among other good instructions, charged and enjoined you "to administer the law and justice impartially, and without respect of persons. And notwithstanding the old error among you, which did not admit any witness to speak, or anything else to be heard in favour of the adversary, where her Majesty was a party, it was her Highness's pleasure that whatever could be produced in favour of the subject should be admitted to be heard: and farther, that you in a particular manner, and likewise all other judges, were not to consider that you sat in judgment otherwise for her Majesty than for her subjects." Therefore this method of impartiality in your proceedings being principally enjoined by God's command, as I designed to have reminded you at first, if I could have had leave to do it, and the same being also given in command to you from the Queen's own mouth, I think you ought in justice to allow me to have the statutes openly read, and to reject nothing that could be spoken in my defence; in so doing, you shall approve yourselves worthy ministers of justice, and fit for so worthy a mistress

Bromley, C. J. You mistake the thing; the Queen said those words to Morgan, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; but you have no reason to complain, for you have been suffered to speak as much as you pleased.

Hare. What would you do with the statute book? the jury do not require it; they have heard the evidence, and they must upon their consciences try whether you are guilty or not; so that there is no need of the book; if they will not believe such clear evidence, then they know what they have to do

Cholmley. You ought not to have any books read here at your appointment; for, if any question arises in point of law, the judges are here to inform the Court; and now you do but spend time.

Attorney-General. My Lord Chief Justice, I pray you to sum up the evidence for the Queen, and give the

charge to the jury; for the prisoner will keep you here

all day.

Bromley, C. J. How say you, have you any more to say for yourself?

Sir N. T. You seem to give and offer me the law, but in very deed I have only the form and image of the law; nevertheless, since I cannot have the statutes read openly in the book, I will with your leave guess at them as well as I can; and I pray you to help me if I mistake, for it is long since I have seen them. The Statute of Repeal* made the last Parliament hath these words: Be it enacted by the Queen, that from henceforth, none act, deed or offence, being by Act of Parlia⚫ment or Statute made treason, petit-treason, or mispri'sion of treason, by words, writing, cyphering, deed, or ' otherwise whatsoever, shall be taken, had, deemed or adjudged treason, or petit-treason, or misprision of treason, but only such as be declared or expressed in or by 'an Act of Parliament made in the twenty-fifth of Ed'ward III. touching and concerning treasons, and the de'claration of treasons, and no other. Here you may see that this statute refers all the aforesaid offences to the statute of the 25th of Edward III, which statute hath these words concerning the treasons for which I am indicted and arraigned; that is to say, 'Whoever compasses or imagines the death of the King, or levies war against the King within the realm, or is an adherent to 'the King's enemies within or without the kingdom, and is thereof probably attainted by open deed, by people of their condition, shall be adjudged a traitor. Now I pray you of the jury, who have my life in trial, mark well what things at this day are treasons; and how these treasons must be tried and detected; that is, "by open deed," which the law doth sometimes call an overt act. And now I ask, besides my indictment, which is but matter alleged, where does the "open deed" of my compassing and imagining the Queen's death appear? or where does any "open deed" appear of my adhering to the Queen's enemies, giving them aid or comfort? or where does any open deed" appear of taking the Tower of London?

66

The Statute here referred to is the 1 Mary, c. i.