A.D. 1584. Trial of William Parry for treason. The next state criminal was William Parry, indicted before special commissioners for a plot to murder Queen Elizabeth. He had confessed being concerned in the plot, and had given a detailed account of it, but, having been employed as a spy, both by Burleigh and by the Court of Rome, it is doubtful whether, in this instance, he did not accuse himself falsely. Upon his arraignment he pleaded Guilty, trusting to a pardon; but, the plea being recorded, he became frightened, and wished to retract it. This indulgence the Court refused, and he was asked why judgment of death should not be awarded against him: Parry: "I see I must die, because I am not settled." Sir Christopher Hatton (one of the commissioners): “What meanest thou by that?" Parry: "Look into your study and into your new books, and you shall see what I mean." Sir Christopher: "Thou doest not well to use such dark speeches, unless thou wouldst plainly utter what thou meanest thereby." Parry: “I care not for death; I will lay my blood among you." Lord Chief Justice Wray was then called upon to pronounce the sentence, and spoke as follows: 6 Parry, you have been much heard, and what you mean by being settled' I know not; but I see that you are so settled in popery, that you cannot settle yourself to be a good subject. Thou hast committed horrible and hateful treason against thy most gracious Sovereign and thy native country. The matter most detestable-the manner most subtle and dangerous. The matter was the destruction of a most sacred and an anointed Queen, thy sovereign and mistress; yea, the overthrow of thy country in which thou wast born, and of a most happy commonwealth whereof thou art a member. The manner was most subtle and dangerous beyond all that before thee have committed any wickedness against her Majesty. For thou, making show as if thou wouldst simply have uttered for her safety the evil that others had contrived, didst but seek thereby credit and access, that thou mightest take the after opportunity for her destruction. And for the occasions and means which drove thee on, they were most ungodly and villainous, as the persuasions of the Pope, of papists, and of popish books." His Lordship, having indulged in a very lengthened tirade against the Pope, papists, and popish books, pronounced the usual sentence in high treason, which was executed a few days after, although the unhappy man declared that he was in truth innocent, and had only acted by orders of the Government to entrap others. He died unpitied. "neque enim lex æquior ulla Quam necis artifices arte perire suâ." * A.D. 1586. Lord Chief Justice Wray was named in the commission for the trial of Anthony Babington, and in that for the trial of the Queen of Scots herself; but he did not take a leading part in either of them, being superseded by the zeal of Sir Thomas Bromley, who then held the Great Seal, and of Sir Christopher Hatton, who was eager to hold it.† of Wray pre- sides in the ber on the trial of secreson. tary Davi He presided in the Star Chamber, however, when the scandalous mockery was exhibited which A.D. 1587. arose out of the feigned resentment of Elizabeth on account of the execution Mary. He then, for some temporary convenience, held the office of Lord Privy Seal as well as of Chief Justice, and so had precedence over several peers of high rank who attended. He must have been well aware that Secretary Davison, in sending off the warrant for the bloody deed to be done at Fotheringay, acted with the full concurrence of his colleagues, and in compliance with the wishes of his royal mistress; but he conducted the proceeding with all solemnity, as if a public functionary had acted in disobedience of orders, and had thereby brought obloquy upon the sovereign and calamity upon the state. * 1 St. Tr. 1095-1112. +1 St. Tr. 1127. 1167; Lives of Chancellors, vol. ii. chaps. xliv. xlv. After the invectives of the Attorney General and the other counsel for the Crown, Davison mildly observed "that the warrant having passed the great seal by the Queen's express orders, it was to be executed as a matter of course, without further making her privy to the execution." Lord Chief Justice Wray exclaimed, “Mr. Davison, to call the warrant irrevocable you are deceived, for her Majesty might have revoked it at her pleasure." He then required all the councillors present to express their opinion, beginning with the junior, Sir Walter Mildmay, who, after enlarging upon the enormity of the offence, proposed for punishment a fine of 10,000 marks and perpetual imprisonment. The other councillors, up to the Archbishop of Canterbury, having made similar speeches, and approved of the proposed sentence, Wray, Chief Justice, likewise spoke in aggravation, contending that the Queen's express authority for executing the warrant ought to have been obtained, and that the secretary was alone answerable for Mary's death. Thus he concluded: "Surely I think you meant well, and it was bonum, but not bene. Finally, I agree that the punishment shall be as it was first of all assessed. But further I must tell you, that, for so much as the fault is yours, this prosecution declares her Majesty's sincerity, and that she had no privity in your act, and that she was offended therewithal. Further, my Lords, I am directed to signify to you from her Majesty, that forasmuch as the Lords of the Council who concurred in that act were abused by Mr. Davison's relation in telling them that she was pleased, and what they did was for her safety, and they be sorrowful because they were abused by him, therefore her Majesty imputeth no fault to any, but only to him, and the rest she doth unburthen of all blame." * This is certainly one of the most discreditable proceedings during the reign of Elizabeth, and reflects 1 St. Tr. 1229-1250. much disgrace on all concerned in it, except the veteran secretary Davison himself, who boldly defended his innocence, and exposed the duplicity and fraud of his persecutors, although he thereby deprived himself of all hope of mercy.* A.D. 159. Trial of the Earl of Arundel. Lord Chief Justice Wray's last appearance at a state trial was when the young Earl of Arundel, son of the Duke of Norfolk, had been reconciled to his own wife after having been once the lover of Elizabeth, and was therefore brought to trial on a frivolous charge of treason for having wished success to the Spanish Armada. All the Judges attended as assessors; and the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, as their Coryphæus, gave the desired answers to the questions put to them, for the purpose of obtaining a conviction; but this caused such scandal, that Lord Burghley and Sir Christopher Hatton advised Elizabeth against staining her reputation with the blood of the son as well as of the father, and his life was spared, although he was detained in the Tower till he died, after an imprisonment of eleven years.† Death of Chief Justice Lord Chief Justice Wray, between the Crown and the subject, by no means showed the independence for which he was celebrated between subject and subject; yet his partiality and subserviency in state trials did not shock his contemporaries, and are rather to be considered His characthe reproach of the age than of the indi- ter. vidual. Till Lord Coke arose in the next generation, England can scarcely be said to have seen a magistrate of constancy, who was willing to surrender his place rather than his integrity. Wray, upon the whole, was hope that it might be rendered unnecessary by a private assassination. +1 St. Tr. 1250. * See his Apologetical Discourse to Walsingham, 1 St. Tr. 1239. In truth, Elizabeth's only hesitation about sending off the warrant arose from a wish and a very much respected, and he held his office with general approbation down to the time of his death. Sir George Croke, the reporter, says, " On the last day of Easter Term, 34 Eliz., died Sir Christopher Wray, Knt., Chief Justice of her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench-a most revered Judge, of profound and judicial knowledge, accompanied with a very ready and singular capacity and admirable patience.”* He left behind him a son, who, in 1612, was made a baronet by James I., and the title was inherited by his descendants till the year 1809, when the male line failing, it became extinct. I congratulate my readers that we have done with the Wrays. *Cro. Eliz. 280. |