clusion from
premisses, 'as by this may appear to your Lordships, he hath been the
original cause of my ruin. For, but by his instigation, I had never
dealt with Count Arenberg. And so hath he been the only cause of my
discontentment; I never coming from the Count, or Court, but still he
filled and possessed me with new causes of discontentments.' The reading
of the statement was set in a more than usually decorated framework of
Coke's amenities. Ralegh throughout the trial had been for the King's
Attorney an 'odious fellow;' the 'most vile and execrable traitor.' He
had been stigmatized as 'hateful to all the realm for his pride,' to
which Ralegh had retorted: 'It will go near to prove a measuring cast,
Mr. Attorney, between you and me.' With Cobham's deposition in his hand,
Coke cried: 'I will lay thee on thy back for the confidentest traitor
that ever came to a bar.' When Cecil prayed him not to be so impatient,
Coke flew out: 'If I may not be patiently heard, you will encourage
traitors.' Sulkily down he sat, and would speak no more till the
Commissioners entreated him to go on. Resuming, he criticized Ralegh's
letter to Cobham in the Tower, which was next read: 'O damnable Atheist!
He hath learned some text of Scripture to serve his own purpose. Essex
died the child of God. Thou wast by.

Et lupus et turpes instant morientibus ursae.'

Being asked what he said of Cobham's statement to the Lords, 'I say,'
answered Ralegh, 'that Cobham is a base, dishonourable, poor soul!' 'Is
he base?' retorted Coke. 'I return it into thy throat on his behalf. But
for thee he had been a good subject.'

[Sidenote: _Exaggeration of its Importance._]

The document did not amount to a confession by Cobham even of his own
treason. At highest it was evidence against him of negotiations with
Count Arenberg which might have been 'warrantable,' and of discontent
which need not have been in the least criminal. If such secondary
testimony had been legal when its author was available as a witness, and
if its statements had been incontrovertible, it ought to have been held
worthless against Ralegh. Nothing, so far as appears even from the
paper, was ever done towards the gratification of the desire for a
foreign pension imputed to him. Within limits, Cobham's allegation that
Ralegh had fomented his anger against the new state of things is
plausible enough. It would be strange if the two disgraced favourites
did not at their frequent mee