Treason! (Fourth and Final Essay)
Bill Long 12/16/04
The March Examination and the King's Statement
We saw in the previous essay that Coke, probably supported by his colleagues, refused to find Peacham guilty of treason. In the language of American law we might say that Coke's handwritten answers were an "advisory opinion" to the King. One wonders that if Coke had concluded that Peacham was guilty of treason this would have obviated the need for a local trial. But why wouldn't Coke's conclusion be sufficient to have the case dismissed? Don't know the answer. In any case, rumors and counterrumors spread--whether King's Bench actually held that there was no treason at all or whether it would have been treason had there been publication.
March 12, 1615 (new calendar)
So, Bacon went to the Tower on March 10, along with the King's examining committee (Helwysse, Crew and Yelverton) to ask Peacham some more questions. His March 12 letter expresses his disgust at Peacham: "this miscreant wretch goeth back from all, and denieth his hand and all. No doubt, being fully of belief that he shall go presently down to his trial, he meant now to repeat his part which he purposed to play inthe country, which was to deny all." Bacon doesn't think that this strategy will work for Peacham.
There follows a brief summary of the questions posed to Peacham at his March 10 interrogation. He was only asked about a meeting in London with various people, and his hosting in Somersetshire of another Puritan divine named Peacham. Our Peacham was quite evasive on the last point, saying that the other Peacham had visited him "some years past" and that indeed some of the potentially scandalous or treasonous things ascribed to him were probably written by the other Peacham. Unfortunately, our Peacham could only remember the other Peacham as "tall in stature" with no other description of him. Now, we see how the noose is tightening around Peacham.
King James Enters
The final document in the Howell's collection is entitled "The true State of the Question, whether Peacham's Case be Treason or not," and it is said to be "In the hand-writing of king James." We know that James considered himself to be a sophisticated political theorist and that he had crossed swords already with Coke over whether he was capable of interpreting the law (in Dr. Bonham's Case--1610), so it is not unusual to see him weighing in on this case.
The King's analysis here is rather remarkable. He sets as his task to analyze whether Peacham is guilty under the law. He begins by quoting the statute of Edward III and asks whether "he compassed and imagined the king's death." He makes two observations. First, the writing of the libel "is an overt act, the judges themselves do confess" (how does this comport with Bowen's conclusions above?). It was made fit for publication and was written at the desire of another man. Peacham meant to preach it, even though he never actually did so.* James own literary pretensions are everywhere evident:
[*There is some confusion here and it centers on the issue of what the statute actually required in order for words to be treasonous. As quoted above, it seemed that the statute only required a "detestable and venomous libel or writing." The statute is silent on whether it must be published--shown to one or more people--or whether there was an 'overt act' requirement and what that entailed. The King seems to interpret Peacham's writing of the (undelivered) sermon as publication because the writing could easily have been available to others and may have been shown to someone. But is this publication? These are all the wonderful questions that lawyers, which Bowen is not a lawyer, ask.]
he says that Peachem meant to remove the "bitterness" of the words before preaching them, but this excuse is altogether absurd,
"for there is no other stuff in, or through it all but bitterness, which being taken out, it must be a quintessence of an alchimy spirit without a body, or popish accidents without a substance..."
James' Second Point
Second, the King then asks if by publishing the sermon (The fact of his writing it and keeping it in a "lidless cask" in the house constituted publishing it, for the King, and perhaps the Justices) Peacham "compassed or imagined" the king's death. The King concludes that it did compass his death. Had Peacham only "bitterly railed" against the king and upbraided him for monstrous vices, it might have been excusable. Had he spewed his poison in a drunken fit or "upon the occasion of any sudden passion or discontentment," it might also be excusable. But, then, arguing like Othello in 4.2.59 ["But there where I have garnered up my heart.....], he says:
"but upon the one part, to heap up all the injuries that the hearts of men, or malice of the devil, can invent against the king, to disable him utterly, not to be a king, not to be a Christian, not to be a man, or a reasonable creature, not worthy of breath here, nor salvation hereafter; and, upon the other part, not to do this hastily or rashly, but after long premeditation, first having made collections in scattered papers, and then reduced it to a method, in a formal treatise, a text chosen for the purpose, a prayer premitted, and applying all his wits to bring out of that text what he could, in malam partem, against the king. This, I say, is a plain proof that he intended to compass or imagine, by this means, the king's destruction."
Conclusion
Thus, under the "specious pretext of conscience" Peacham published his seditious libel. I suppose that when you have the king coming down on you with all his fury and eloquence, that the local court would have been overwhelmed and quickly capitulated to the royal fury. Is it any wonder then, in the final analysis, that Peacham would have been convicted locally and then die rather ignominiously in the Taunton Jail?
Thus we close this interesting tale of how one pastor's unguarded words ended up bringing the entire royal machinery down upon him. It is a study of how power manipulates law for its purpose, how a judicial establishment responds to royal pressure and how words can be used and twisted to defend one's case. No more illuminating window into Coke, James, Puritan preaching and Bacon can be provided than through this splendid miniature of an incident.
Copyright © 2004-2008 William R.Long |