ine of L5000 and imprisonment for life) was severe, but it
was not actually inflicted, and probably was not intended to be carried
out, the success of the prosecution being all that was desired. St John
remained a short time in prison, and was then released, after making a full
apology and submission. The fine was remitted. It seems incredible that
Bacon's conduct on this occasion should have been censured by his
biographers. The offence was clear; the law was undoubted; no particular
sympathy was excited for the culprit; the sentence was not carried out; and
Bacon did only what any one in his place would naturally and necessarily
have done. The nature of his office involved him in several trials for
treason occurring about the same time, and one of these is of interest
sufficient to require a somewhat longer examination. Edmund Peacham[14] had
been [v.03 p.0140] committed to custody for a libel on his superior, James
Montagu (1568?-1618), bishop of Bath and Wells. In searching his house for
certain papers, the officers came upon some loose sheets stitched together
in the form of a sermon, the contents of which were of such a nature that
it was judged right to lay them before the council. As it was at first
suspected that the writing of this book had been prompted by some
disaffected persons, Peacham was interrogated, and after he had declined to
give any information, was subjected to torture. Bacon, as one of the
learned counsel, was ordered by the council to take part in this
examination, which was undoubtedly warranted by precedent, whatever may now
be thought of it. Nothing, however, was extracted from Peacham in this way,
and it was resolved to proceed against him for treason. Now, in the excited
state of popular feeling at that period, the failure of government to
substantiate an accusation of treason would have been a serious matter. The
king, with whom the council agreed, seems therefore to have thought it
desirable to obtain beforehand the opinions of the four chief judges as to
whether the alleged offence amounted to treason. In this there was nothing
unusual or illegal, and no objection would at that time have been made to
it, but James introduced a certain innovation; he proposed that the
opinions of the four judges should be given separately and in private. It
may be reasonably inferred that his motive for this was the suspicion, or
it may be the knowledge, that Coke did not consider the matter treasonable.
At