The Judicial History of Individual Liberty. was not allowed counsel. He was denied the sight of his indictment, and was often igno rant of the charges against him until he w?s arraigned at the bar. He had no power to compel the attendance of witnesses in his be half, and if they appeared voluntarily they could not be sworn. The juries were selected
29
had hitherto stood between the Crown and the people. Over their graves the Tudors erected an absolute monarchy. Under the comparative peace and security which the power of the Tudors insured, the spirit of the nation was complaisant of wrongs which did not touch the masses, and the carnival of
THOMAS CROMWELL, EARL OF ESSEX.
by sheriffs whom the crown had named. With all these odds against him, the prisoner was required to battle for his life with an array of experienced and unprincipled lawyers, and generally against an obsequious and corrupt bench. The wars of the Roses practically exter minated the power of the great barons who
judicial murder which reigned in court circles proceeded without serious public pro test or alarm. The judicial murder of Empson and Dud ley (i St. Tr. 283), with which the reign of Henry VIII. opened, might be palliated by their offenses in the preceding reign; but the death of Suffolk and of Buckingham (i St.
