Court.' He
could calculate on no benevolence from the old courtiers. His claims of
equality had always been an offence to the ancient nobility, which held
itself entitled to precedence in glory as in its rewards. One from whom
better things were to have been expected, the Lord Admiral, though he
did not actively join in the prosecution, had his personal reasons for
rejoicing in the downfall of a sharp censor of his naval administration.
Between him and the Howard interest in general there had been frequent
feuds, and they were opposed on many important questions. Lord Henry was
not the only Howard who bore him ill-will, though the rest were not
equally malignant.

[Sidenote: _Cecil's Coldness._]

Henry Howard's confederate in the Scottish intrigues, Robert Cecil, had
no family grievances to avenge. If he once feared Ralegh's rivalry, he
could fear it no more. It is very difficult now, as before, to believe
that he entertained sentiments of positive animosity or vindictiveness
against Ralegh. Canon Kingsley's description of him as one of the most
'accomplished villains in history,' as the archplotter, who had managed
the whole conspiracy against Ralegh, though Ralegh knew nothing of it
till after the trial, is extravagant. Even Hallam's reference to 'the
hostility of Cecil, so insidious and implacable,' seems exaggerated and
unjust. The Minister was conscious of no malice. He took no pleasure in
the present prosecution. But moral cowardice and incapacity to dispense
with power now, as formerly, explain an attitude, which, it must be
admitted, is hardly to be distinguished from that of an inveterate
enemy. He could not afford, having, after a struggle, clambered on board
the new ship of State, to identify himself with wrecked comrades known
to be distasteful to his present master. It was convenient for him to
assume an air of reluctant conviction that his friend was guilty, and
that the only question was whether sufficient evidence could be
collected to prove it judicially. On October 3 he wrote that Cobham's
original accusation was 'so well fortified with other demonstrative
circumstances, and the retractation so blemished by the discovery of the
intelligence which they had, as few men can conceive Sir Walter Ralegh's
denial comes from a clear heart.' He who knew well the habits of judges
and juries in trials for treason, affected to think Ralegh could desire
no fairer opportunity. 'Always,' he wrote in October to Winwo