The jt.ûiaaJ History of Individual Liberty. which had nothing to do with the question before the court. Copies of letters which it was claimed that she had written were used against her. Not one of the original letters, which were in cipher, was produced; no evi dence was produced to show that the copies used were true copies or correctly deciphered,
103
The trial of Essex in 1600 (i St. Tr. 1333) was one of the fairest under Elizabeth. Yet it was still iniquitous according to any decent standard. The constitution of the court was decidedly unfavorable to Essex. The material evidence was not given riva voce, and such witnesses as were examined
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE WRAY.
nor was it shown whether Mary had actuallysent or received the letters. Selected parts of various confessions were used against her. Upon the evidence produced when Mary was present no case was made against her. She was really condemned on the evidence of two persons, given at an adjourned meeting of the court, behind her back, and before a tribunal composed of her bitterest enemies.
in open court merely stated that their prior examinations, whirl] had been reduced to writing, were true. Sir Walter Raleigh was the only real witness in the case, and he tes tified only as to a conversation held with a third person, which was certainly no evidence against the prisoner. Bacon's conduct in vol untarily coming forward to testify against his old friend and benefactor is a repulsive
