Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

the plot, not only from the Scotchman's confession, but from two original letters of Aremberg's, which the King showed to Mons. de Beaumont; and that he (the Ambassador) was perfectly satisfied of Raleigh's guilt by various circumstances and relations upon which he could absolutely depend, and by the knowledge he had of his and Cobham's designs from the proposals made to himself and Sully, and their correspondence in France.' It is very probable that James may have possessed such evidence as is here alluded to it is said that Sir Edward Coke, on Raleigh's trial, declared that he had proofs which would convict Aremberg of treason if he could be tried in England;' and though no such letters or proofs were produced at either of the trials, this circumstance is easily to be accounted for by James's anxiety for peace with the King of Spain and the Archduke, which might have been obstructed if a prejudice against either of them should be excited or strengthened by the publication of evidence of this kind. The same motive probably influenced him, upon a complaint made by the Spanish Ambassador of the above language of Coke, to command the Attorney-General to qualify his expressions on the trial of Cobham, and apologize for them. motives of state policy might account for the assurances contained in Cecil's letters to Sir Thomas Parry, the English Ambassador at Paris, and to Winwood, that the King of Spain and the Archduke were merely ignorant of what Raleigh and Cobham had conceived in their minds and discoursed of amongst themselves, it being merely pretended to Aremberg that the money was to be for the advancement of the peace, and to be bestowed only for gaining friends to stand for the treaty, without any further reference.** Shortly after Raleigh was committed to the Tower,

[blocks in formation]

Similar

a circumstance occurred which has not been generally noticed by his biographers, but which, as it seems to have been considered by his contemporaries as indicative of a consciousness of guilt on his part, may properly be related here. It is related by Cecil, in a letter to Sir Thomas Parry, dated the 4th of August, 1603. After stating his commitment to the Tower, he says, Although he was treated with all humanity, and lodged and attended as well as in his own house, yet one afternoon, whilst divers of us were in the Tower, examining some of these prisoners, he attempted to have murdered himself: whereof when we were advertised, we came to him and found him in some agony, seeming to be unable to endure his misfortunes, and protesting innocency, with carelessness of life; and, in that humour, he had wounded himself under his right pappe, but no way mortally, being, in truth, rather a cut than a stab, and now very well cured both in body and in mind.' It is singular that Sir Edward Coke, who on the trial certainly spared no part of Raleigh's character or conduct which was assailable, did not in the slightest degree allude to this attempt at suicide. That no such allusion was really made, and that the omission is not owing to the neglect of the reporter, is quite clear from one of the letters † which will be found at the end of the trial, and in which a remark is made on the subject.

The Lady Arabella Stuart, whose name was so much used in these transactions, and of whom it was intended to make a queen against her inclinations, and almost without her knowledge, appears from her letters, several of which have been published, to have been a person of good sense and elegant accomplishments. She was the daughter of Charles Stuart, Earl of Lennox, who was uncle to James I, and great + Post p. 463.

* Cayley's Life of Raleigh.

grandson to Henry VII; she was born in 1575 or 1576,* and was brought up in England, at first under the care of her mother, the Countess of Lennox, and after her death by the Earl and Countess of Shrewsbury. Her royal blood was her great misfortune through life, as it made her an object of constant suspicion to Elizabeth, and also to her successor, James I. By Elizabeth she was imprisoned for entertaining overtures of marriage from the son of the Earl of Northumberland; and in 1609 a connexion which she had formed with William Seymour, a grandson of the Earl of Hertford, being discovered, the King caused Seymour and herself to be summoned before the Privy Council, and severely reprimanded. This interference drove the parties to a secret marriage, upon the discovery of which the Lady Arabella was committed to close custody in the house of Sir Thomas Parry, and her husband was imprisoned in the Tower. They contrived means, however, for an escape, which they carried into effect on the same day. Mr Seymour arrived safely in Flanders; the Lady Arabella was not so fortunate, being overtaken in Calais Roads, brought back to England, and committed to the Tower. Distress of mind, with the horror of an unlimited imprisonment, and a keen sense of her wrongs, produced a derangement of intellect, which continued until the latter end of the year 1615, when death put an end to her singular and unmerited sufferings.†

* Ellis's Letters (Second Series,) vol. iii, p. 64.
+ Lodge's Illustrations, vol. iii, p. 178, note.

Trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, Knight, for High Treason, by a Special Commission of Oyer and Termin er, at Winchester,† 17th November, 1603. 2 James I.

THE Commissioners were Henry Howard, Earl of Suffolk, Lord Chamberlain; Charles Blunt, Earl of Devonshire; Lord Henry Howard, afterwards Earl of Northampton; Robert Lord Cecil; Edward Lord Wotton, of Morley; Sir John Stanhope, Vice-Chamberlain; the Lord Chief Justice (Popham ;) the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas (Anderson;) Mr Justice Gawdie, and Mr Justice Warburton.

The Indictment was taken at Staines, in Middlesex, on the 21st of August. The trial took place at Winchester, by a Jury of Middlesex, consisting of Sir John Fowler, Sir Ralph Coningsby, Sir William Rowe, Sir Edward Peacock, and eight others.

This Trial is compiled from several distinct reports, evidently taken by different reporters; the first, and by far the most accurate and complete, is amongst the Harleian MSS (No. 39,) and, it is believed, has never before been published; the second is the report published in the State Trials,' and at the end of Oldys's Life of Raleigh,' which is very incorrect, but furnishes some authentic particulars; the third is entitled The Trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, copied by Sir Thomas Overbury, and was printed not long after the trial took place. This last report was written by one who was present at the trial, and is tolerably accurate, explaining several passages which were unintelligible in the two first. There are some other manuscript accounts of the trial which have been examined, but, in general, they are copies of one or other of the above reports. Some of the examinations have been taken from the State Paper Office; but it happens most unfortunately that the statement of Lord Cobham, which forms the main feature in the trial, is neither to be found there nor in any depository or published collection of State Papers. It is much to be lamented, that no sufficient materials exist for forming a more complete representation of a case so particularly attractive, in consequence of the romantic interest which attaches to the character of Sir Walter Raleigh.

'The Court was at this time at Winchester, on account of the plague, which had been raging with great violence in London and other parts of England during the autumn of 1603.

The general points of treason laid in the Indictment were these; that Sir W. Raleigh, with other persons, had conspired to kill the King,—to raise a rebellion, with intent to change religión and subvert the government, and, for that purpose, to encourage and incite the King's enemies to invade the realm. The overt acts charged were, that, on the 9th of June, Sir Walter Raleigh had conferred with Lord Cobham about advancing Arabella Stuart to the Crown of England, and dispossessing the King; that it was then arranged that Lord Cobham should go to the King of Spain and the Archduke of Austria to obtain from them 600,000 crowns, for the purpose of supporting Arabella Stuart's title; that Arabella Stuart should write letters to the King of Spain, the Duke of Savoy, and the Archduke, and undertake these three things; peace with Spain, toleration of the Popish religion in England, and to be governed by the King of Spain in contracting marriage. The Indictment further charged, that it was also agreed that Cobham should return by the Isle of Jersey, and there meet Sir W. Raleigh, to consult further of the plot and the distribution of the 600,000 crowns; that, on the 9th of June, Lord Cobham communicated this agreement to George Brooke, who assented to it; that, on the 12th of June, Cobham and Brooke said that 'there never would be a good world in England till the King and his cubs were taken away;' that, in furtherance of the above confederacy, Raleigh delivered to Cobham a book written against the King's title to the Crown, which Cobham afterwards delivered to Brooke for the purpose of confirming him in his treasons; that Cobham, on the 16th of June, by the instigation of Raleigh, persuaded Brooke to urge Arabella Stuart to write the letters aforesaid, which he undertook to do; that, on the 19th of June, Cobham wrote letters to Count Aremberg for the advance of 600,000 crowns, and sent the letters by one Matthew de la Rensy; that, by letter received by Lord Cobham on the 18th of June, Count Aremberg promised the money; that then Cobham promised Raleigh, that on the receipt of the money he would give him 8000 crowns, and Brooke 1000 crowns, to which they both assented. 34*

VOL. XVI.

« VorigeDoorgaan »