he, on his part, had any defence to urge. He replied that he would say nothing, except in open trial. The chancellor ordered him to speak on his allegiance. 'His resolute answer was, that for a reply they should not look for it from him.'[1] Possibly he trusted to his friends, possibly to the divisions in the council, possibly to his brother; at all events, he would not answer.
Lord Seymour has not failed to receive from historians the sympathy which is bestowed so generally on political sufferers. He has had the advantage of an indignation which assumes, as a rule admitting of but few exceptions, that all who have inflicted punishment have been tyrants, all who have endured punishment have been martyrs. There are many writers whose 'virtue' it is
To make him worthy whose offence subdues him,
And curse that justice did it.
Where there has been a trial, they set it aside as of no authority; where there has been an attainder, they exclaim against the want of a trial; as if the unscrupulous abuse of power which could carry an Act of Parliament by intimidation, would not equally have infected a court of justice.
The Admiral, refusing to answer or explain 'when peradventure there might have been hopes for him either to be found guiltless, or to receive pardon,'[2] the question arose next, 'whether he should be proceeded against by order of justice and custom of the realm; or, specially, since Parliament was sitting, whether
