1810.) Condemnation and Krecution of Sir Walter Raleigh. 328 
lessened and disgraced, his name, Attach- 
ed to his country, he seemed but to live in 
its defence ; and danger, or hardship, or 
toil, in his ardour for glory, i the grati- 
Bcation of-his curiosity, or in the pursuit 
of knowledge, was, to his heroic and ar- 
dent mind, an inducenrent to acquire the 
object he desired. But this desire of 
glory was attended with a ferocious jea- 
lousy, which seemed incapable of being 
assuaved tll it had gratified itself with 
the ruin or with the death of its rival; 
This curiosity often procceded from aluve 
of the marvellous, which shews his mind 
to have been romantic, or concealed un- 
der it a desire of wealth or plunder, the 
favourite object of all his voyages: and 
his knowledge was debased by vanity 
which was mixed. with it, and which 
Jost sight of the- preper object of all 
speculation—truth. We delighted in 
whatever was wonderful; and stretched 
every effort of imagination, to be ac- 
counted the discoverer of what was never 
before beard of. The pride of soul too 
was often forgot, and with surprise and re- 
gret we behold this hervic man counter- 
feiting madness, sickuess, and every other 
thought of disease, to attain the object 
which he had in view by it. 
Mixed indeed and reprehensible is the 
character of the man: but because we 
are dissatisfied, to charge him with every 
crime, would be joining ourselves to the 
vulgar, who pronounce every one Ww yak 18 
the object of their indignation, to be 
gulity ‘uF every trespass which occurs. 
W hen we charge with a crime, we must 
establish the euilt; dismissing from our 
recollection every antecedent act, low- 
ever criminal, unless it shall bear upon 
the matter we are to try: and when more 
than one are concerned, each is to be 
condemned by his own individual guilt. 
The sentence which we pronounce, un- 
less supported by such proof, must be 
held as arbitrary and iniquitous. 
Now, to apply. these ee to the 
condemnation of si Walter Raleiwh, 
{which is the first head of this enquiry, ) 
we shali find that there is no procvf of his 
guilt. Ile had been indeed the compa- 
nion of the guilty, and was charged \by 
One as accessary to the crime: But this 
was by one whose character gives it” no 
aveight; who in revenge and in pas- 
sion declared him an accompli ce; who 
detailed uo circumstances to prove if. 
-who retracted his charge, and af ters 
ards, to quote the words of Hume, 
“retracted his retraction.”” No other 
evidence or evencharge of ‘guilt appears; 
which, had it been certain, must have 
transpired in the declarations of those 
concerned, or, as above remarked, in 
other circumstances attending the plot. 
To comment upon Unis would only be 
dispiaying how little familiar to us are 
those first and obvious principles of ju- 
risprudence, which a very limited ime 
provement or civilization of society 
should teach and eutorce. The life of 
every individual is not only dear to hin. 
self, but valuable to the society to which 
he belongs : and if upon the solitary — 
charge of another, uncorroborated by 
any other testimony, or supported by 
facts, he is to be condemned, the obj act 
of suciety 1S vain, since personal security | 
is denied, and it affords the individual 
no refuge from the caprice or resent- 
ment of those who aim at his rain. 
In answer, however, to this, and jn vine 
dication of the court, we shall perhaps 
be referred to the species of trial and 
existed about the time, ‘The iniquity of 
the star-chamber, and the tyranny of 
martial law, had so filled the cup, that 
the present monarch was beginniny to 
taste of the draught which bis predeces- 
sors had prepared, and which it was des- 
tined that his more unfortunate son 
should drink to the dregs. But to this 
must be replied, that in this reign and the 
preceding, we know of no noted abuse in 
these odious courts. Essex hada fair and 
impartial trial, and died sensible of his 
guilt; and, as fur as we know, the same 
form of rial was granted to Raleigh. 
Admitting, fierer, that he was not 
tried at common law, as was Essex, but 
that the star- ehanval was renewed for 
his trial, (for it is here only, in that evenr, 
we call suppose him to have been tried,) 
his condemnation 1s the more odious and 
unjust. 
‘As far as we now understand the nature 
of this court, it was solely composed. of 
wept counciland judzes ; men who, as 
has been justly remarked, enjoyed their 
fice during the pleasure of the king, 
ile, when he chose, might be present, 
and sit as judge of the cause which was. 
prosecuted in his name ; or, if absent, 
communicate those instructions which 
they were ready to obey. His situation 
therefore was the more delicate ; and it 
required the clearer evidence of § giuit, to 
sanction “a sentence which otherwise 
would be imputed to the gratification of his 
will. Inthe confusions of the civil wars, 
as appeared in the contests of York and 
Lancaster 
