But a manuscript sermon, neither preached nor designed for the public, was hardly evidence enough of treason even for such Judges--so purchased, for such an Attorney--so greedy of preferment, with such a Cabinet and such a King. For all those, like the Pharisees of old, "feared the People." So their victim was tortured on the rack, and twelve leading questions prepared by the Government officials, were put to him there. I quote Secretary Winwood's record--still extant in his own handwriting--"He was this day examined before torture, in torture, between torture, and after torture; notwithstanding nothing could be drawn from him, he still persisting in his obstinate and insensible denials and former answers." Bacon was present at the torture, which took place in the Tower, Jan. 19, 1614, O.S. (30th Jan. 1615, N.S.). In August he was tried for high treason--"compassing and imagining the King's death"--before a packed jury; against law, and without legal evidence. He was of course found guilty under the ruling of the Court! But public opinion, even then making tyrants "tremble in their capitals," was so indignant at the outrage that the execution was not ventured on, and he was left to languish in Jail, till on the 27th of March, 1616, a King more merciful took the old minister where the wicked cease from troubling.[25] [Footnote 25: 2 St. Tr. 869; 16 Montagu's Bacon, clxvi.; 2 Campbell, 291.] In this case, Gentlemen of the Jury, you will notice three violations of the law. (1.) The opinion of the Judges before the trial was extrajudicial and illegal. (2.) The application of torture was contrary to law. (3.) The statute of Treason was wrested to apply to this case--and a crime was constructed by the servants of the court. It is curious to read the opinion of James himself. "The British Solomon" thus wrote:-- "So the only thing the Judges can doubt of is of the delinquent's intention, on his bare denial to clear him [himself], since nature teaches every man to defend his life as he may; and whether in case there was a doubt herein, the Judges should not rather incline to that side [namely, the side of the Government,] wherein all probability lies: but if Judges will needs trust rather the bare negative of an _infamous delinquent_--then all the probabilities, or rather infallible consequences upon the other part, caring more for the safety of _such a monster_ than the preservation of a crown in all ages following, whereupon depend the lives of many millions, happy then are all _desperate and seditious knaves_, but the fortune of this crown is more than miserable. Which God forefend."[26] [Footnote 26: 2 St. Tr. 879.]