illustration of his servility. From this case rebellion and attempts upon the king's life were held to be synonymous, and it was trea son to compel the king by force to change his policy. The trial of Sir Walter Raleigh (2 St. Tr i) and his Subsequent treatment by James I. exemplifies the worst traditions of Tudor tyrannv. Raleigh was accused of having conspired with Lord Cobham to place Ara-
which Raleigh- was sought to be implicated by obscure allusions and implications. Cnhham, it must be remembered, was an alleged accomplice, himself facing death; he had re tracted his first statement; and what he is alleged to have said at first, even if true, would hardly have supported a charge of treason. Most of the evidence was hearsav of the worst kind. The conduct of Coke, who prosecuted for
LORD COKK. bella Stuart on the throne. Through the in fluence of his enemy Cecil he was arraigned and convicted on the worthless testimony of a treacherous knave, after a trial which ex ceeded the usual brutality of the times. There was not a syllable of credible evidence against him. The prosecution relied upon a "confession" or examination of Lord Cnhham before the Privy Council and a letter which Cobham afterwards wrote, in both of
the Crown, was infamous. He constantly interrupted Raleigh in order to break the force of the prisoner's argument. Presently even Cecil, who, notwithstand ing his open enmity toward Raleigh, was one of the court, interposed. "Be not so im patient, good Mr. Attorney; give him leave to speak." At this Coke flew into a rage, and would speak no more for some time. Soon afterwards, when Coke was speaking,
