might not feel as indignantly, as the modern Whig historian,
that 'no technical reasoning could overcome the moral sense which
revolted at carrying the original sentence into execution.'
Consequently, an alternative method, to which the Commissioners 'rather
inclined,' was suggested in Coke's paper; one 'nearest to a legal
procedure.' There was a precedent in certain proceedings against Lady
Shrewsbury. According to it, Ralegh might be called before the whole
body of the Council of State, with the addition of the principal Judges,
some noblemen and gentlemen of quality being invited to act as
audience. He should be told he was brought before the Council rather
than a Court of Justice, because he was already civilly dead. Then he
should be charged in regular form by counsel with his acts of hostility,
depredation and abuse. He should be heard in his defence; and adverse
witnesses should be confronted with him, as Cobham had not been. With
that which concerned the Frenchmen the Commissioners thought he should
not be charged. Therein he had been passive rather than active; and
without it the case appeared to the Commissioners to be complete.
Moreover, they doubtless suspected Ralegh could show that in the French
negotiations he had not acted alone. Finally, said the memorial, the
Council and the Judges assisting would advise whether his Majesty might
not with justice and honour give warrant for Ralegh's execution upon his
attainder, in respect of his subsequent offences.

[Sidenote: _Objections to an open Inquiry._]

[Sidenote: _Sir Julius Caesar._]

James dictated a reply to the Commissioners, which is extant in the
writing of the secretary of Villiers. He objected to the second proposal
in its original form for two main reasons. The procedure, though proper
against a Countess, would be too great honour against one of Ralegh's
state. It would not be 'fit, because it would make him too popular, as
was found by experiment at the arraignment at Winchester, where by his
wit he turned the hatred of men into compassion.' Consequently, the King
modified the arrangement by an omission of the Judges, and of the
element of partial publicity through the presence of a selected
audience. The members of the Council who had conducted the previous
examinations were directed to sit as a quasi-criminal Court. But they
sat with closed doors, and their sitting was kept strictly private. From
a letter at Simancas, written on November 6 by a