him in another way. The power of Cecil had hitherto been checked by the power of Essex. Now Cecil became absolute, and could exert, without division, his influence and intrigues against his only remaining and less powerful rival.

Such was Raleigh's own view of it in his later years. In his speech on the morning of his execution, he said, referring to the death of Essex, "After his fall I got the hatred of those who wished me well before; and those who set me against him, set themselves afterward against me, and were my greatest enemies."

Sir Walter sat in Elizabeth's last Parliament, which met October 27, 1601, as one of the knights of the shire for the county of Cornwall, and was distinguished by his abilities as a debater. Of several speeches which have been briefly reported, the one in opposition to the act for sowing hemp shows more liberal views than then prevailed touching the protective policy of government. "For my part," said he, "I do not like this constraining of men to manure or use their grounds at our wills, but rather let every man use his ground to that which it is most fit for, and therein use his own discretion."

VOT T

The queen died in March, 1603, and with her the honours and hopes, but not the fame, of Sir Walter. Her successor, James I., ascended the throne with strong prejudices against him, which had been originated by the hatred of Essex, and fomented by the crafty insinuations of Cecil. It must be added that Raleigh was generally very unpopular. We may suppose him to have been little less haughty to his equals and inferiors. than he was submissive and subservient to the queen. His ambition, which was never concealed, was commonly believed to be grasping and unscrupulous, and his credit for veracity and truth seems not to have been of the highest order. Sir Robert Naunton says, "We are not to doubt how such a man would comply to progression ;" and his preface to the account of his first, and his apology for his last voyage to Guiana fully show the distrust with which his representations were received. How far this prevailing unpopularity of Sir Walter may have influenced the conduct of James, we do not know. An es sential difference of character and views between that monarch and Raleigh may have contributed to perfect a dislike which was early expressed and hardly ever concealed.

James was timid and pacific, Raleigh brave and adventurous, "addicted to foreign affairs and great actions."* The favourite policy of James was to conciliate the court of Spain; Raleigh had fought against and spoiled the Spaniards, and cordially disliked them for their power at sea. Raleigh was a scholar and a poet, James was a theologian and a pedant. James could hardly appreciate the character of Raleigh, and Raleigh could not sympathize with the character of James.

The poison began speedily to work. Raleigh at first received such favourable notice from the king as to encourage his hopes of royal favour; but, one after another, his of fices and privileges were taken away, and in less than three months after the king entered England he was arrested on a charge of high treason. He was charged with a design to take away the king's life and bring the Lady Arabella Stuart to the throne; with having negotiated with the Spanish ambassador for the means of carrying on the plot, and having received a pension for his aid and services. The whole pretended plot is at war with the known habits, feelings, and opinions of Ra

* [A brief Relation of Sir Walter Raleigh's Troubles.-Har leian Miscellany, vol. iv., p. 58, 4to, 1745.-H.]

leigh, and sustained by evidence too feeble and slight not only to prove legal, but even moral guiltiness. The only fact established. was an offer from Count Aremberg of a pension, or the sum of 8000 crowns, for what purpose does not appear, and which was not accepted. The only witness, Lord Cobham, a vain, weak man, who was never confronted even with the prisoner, made his accusation in a fit of passion, and retracted it again and again, pronouncing Raleigh utterly and entirely innocent. The whole case was too weak to have convicted any one of the pettiest larceny. Yet Raleigh was found guilty by the verdict of the jury, and, it would seem, with the full consent of the court,* which

* [An analysis of the evidence on which this most extraordinary conviction was grounded, such as would satisfy the reader, would be too long, and require too much detail to be inserted here. It may be found very fully given in Cayley's Life of Raleigh, in Jardine's Criminal Trials, vol. i., the State Trials, vol. i. and ii., and in Tytler's Life of Raleigh. The last-named writer attempts (Appendix F.) very plausibly to prove that the whole plot was a device of Sir Robert Cecil and Sir Henry Howard by which to get rid of Raleigh. The whole case shows that there was a determination in some powerful quarter that he should be put out of the way.

Cobham was examined ten times touching the conspiracy, and varied his story almost as many times, and yet in the most of them he exculpated Raleigh. No one who knows the feeble, cowardly character of this nobleman, can doubt that his confession

was made up of cold friends and secret enemies.

The demeanour of Raleigh on his trial was such as became him. With the firmness of innocence and with manly spirit he bore the . coarse and brutal invective of Coke, and the hardly less rude taunts of Popham, and the studied insincerity of Cecil; claiming his rights with Saxon boldness, yet patiently submissive to the authority which tried him. Sir Dudley Carleton, who was an eyewitness of the trial, in a letter to John Chamberlain, dated Nov. 27th, 1603, describing it, testifies that "he answered with that temper, wit, learning, courage, and judgment, that, save it went with the hazard of his life, it was the happiest day that he ever spent. And so well he shifted all advantages that were ta ken against him, that, were not an ill name

on the scaffold was made under the promise that his life should be spared, and was the meanest part in this solemn farce.

It has always seemed to me a curious feature of this pretended plot, that none but Raleigh and Cobham were imagined to be privy to it. Their own means and influence were certainly inadequate, and yet there was no suspicion that any other person had any connexion with it.-H.]

* [Preserved in the Hardwicke Papers, vol. i., p. 378, seqy. Compare the account of the conspiracy by Sir Robert Cecil, in a letter of December 1st, 1603, to Sir Thomas Parry.-Cayley, ii., 59.-H.]