History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin, Vol. 5 (of 8)Merle d'Aubigné, J. H. (Jean Henri)
History
History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin, Vol. 5 (of 8)
Merle d'Aubigné, J. H. (Jean Henri)
Reformation
Everything was preparing for the unjust judgment which was to have so
cruel a termination. Justice is bound to watch that the laws are
observed, and to punish the guilty; but if law is to be just law, the
judges must listen fairly to the accused, diligently discharge all the
duties to which their office calls them, and not permit themselves to be
influenced either by the presents or the solicitations, the threats or
the favors, or the rank (even should it be royal) of the prosecutor.
Their decisions should be inspired only by such motives as they can give
an account of to the Supreme Judge; their sentences must be arrived at
through attentive consideration and serious reflection. For them there
are no other guides than impartiality, conscience, and law. But the
queen was not to appear before such judges: those who were about to
dispose of her life set themselves in opposition to these imperious
conditions.
Henry's agents redoubled their exertions to obtain, either from the
ladies of the court or from the accused men, some deposition against
Anne; but it was in vain. Even the women whom her elevation had eclipsed
could allege nothing against her. Henry Norris, William Brereton, and
Sir Francis Weston were carefully interrogated, one after the other: the
examiners tried to make them confess their adultery, but they stoutly
denied it; whereupon the king's agents, who were determined to get at
something, began a fresh inquiry, and cross-examined the prisoners. It
is believed that the gentlemen of the court were exempted from torture,
but that the rack was applied to Mark Smeton, who was thus made to
confess all they wanted.[313] It is more probable that the vile
musician, a man of weak head and extreme vanity, being offended that his
sovereign had not condescended even to look at him, yielded to the
vengeance of irritated self-esteem. The queen had not been willing to
give him the honor of a look—he boasted of adultery. The three gentlemen
persevered in their declaration touching the queen's innocence: Lord
Rocheford did the same.[314] The disheartened prosecutor wrote to the
Lord-Treasurer: 'This is to inform you that no one, except Mark, will
confess anything against her; wherefore I imagine, if there be no other
evidence, the business will be injurious to the king's honor.'[315] The
lawyers knew the value to be given to the musician's words. If the
verdict was left to the equitable interpretation of the law—if the king
did not bring his sovereign influence to bear upon the decisions of the
judges, there could be no doubt as to the issue of the hateful trial.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account