The Judicial History of Individual Liberty. To further his savage plans and annul the last safeguard of liberty, Cromwell had ob tained an opinion from the judges that an act of attainder would hold good even though the accused had not been heard. Under such an act, unheard, Cromwell himself died. The murder of the brilliant soldier and poet, the Earl of Surrey (i St. Tr. 451), was peculiarly atrocious. The chief proof of Sur rey's treason was his assuming the arms of
exceedingly enjoyed and rejoiced of, inso much as there was in the hall at these words 'not guilty' the greatest shout and cry of joy that the like no man living may remember that ever he heard." In the short teign of Edward VI., the pro tector, the Duke of Somerset, after putting down Seymour's pretensions, himself suc cumbed. The Duke was condemned on the evidence of two servants, who were held in
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE BROMLEY.
Edward the Confessor in the wrong quarter of his shield. His sister testified against him to the effect that he had bade her gain in fluence at court by flirting, like Anne Boleyn, with the king. His father, the Duke of Norfolk, himself a prisoner, also testified against him. The remarkable thing about Lord Dacre's case is that it is an instance of an acquittal in a treason trial under Henry VIII. "The re sult," says an old chronicle, "the Commons
the Tower, and an informer who had to swear enough to save his own life. He had no opportunity of cross-examining the wit nesses or of explaining their testimony. (See Coke's Inst., iii., 13.) The frightful excesses of Mary's reign have justly associated the word bloody with her name. Law had, of course, nothing to do with the martyrdom of Cranmer, Latimer, Hooper and Ridley (i St. Tr. 767). A matter of more legal interest is the trial
