скачать книгу бесплатно
The members of Gilles’s household were then interviewed – very probably, under torture – and, five days later, their statements were read to him. All described acts of diabolism and murder in chilling detail, and Gilles declined to challenge any of the evidence – but the court remained unsatisfied. It duly ordered that he be interrogated on the rack ‘in order to shed light on and more thoroughly scrutinize the truth’. Gilles, allowed a night to consider his position, decided that that would not be necessary. On the following afternoon, he made a full confession in his cell to four judges and the prosecutor, and was made to repeat it a day later in a packed courtroom. It was an extraordinary performance.
He began by asking that his words be published not just in Latin but also in French, in order that as many people as possible could learn from his mistakes. He implored his listeners to raise their children with good manners and virtuous habits, because he had been undone by an unbridled childhood. And he then confessed to the abduction and murder of ‘so many children that he could not determine with certitude the number’ in terms that, even six centuries distant, retain their power to appal. Alongside his servants and other companions, he had throttled his victims and hanged them from hooks, sodomized them and ‘ejaculated spermatic seed in the most culpable fashion on [their] bellies…as much after their deaths as during it’. He had stabbed and battered them, decapitating some, and while they were in their last throes, he had often ‘sat on their bellies and…laughed at them’. Once dead, he had ‘embraced them…contemplating those who had the most beautiful heads and members’, and had then torn open their bodies to ‘[delight] at the sight of their internal organs’.
Having dealt with the question of dead children, Gilles turned to diabolism – a subject on which he seems to have spent about four times as long – and admitted that he had often hired magicians to invoke demons. All were evidently con artists, warning him off at crucial moments and sometimes beating themselves up in locked rooms to prove the risks they were running, but although their dishonesty had eluded Gilles, his participation had been far from passive. He had once used blood from his little finger to write to a demon, he recalled. On another occasion, he had given a magician the hand, heart, and eyes of a young boy in a jar.
Gilles concluded with a plea to all fathers present not to tolerate sloth or fine dressing in their children, and a warning that his crimes were born out of an insatiable appetite for delicacies and mulled wine. By now in tears, there was just one other thing that he wanted to share. Temptation had been strewn across the path of his life, he admitted. It was only by virtue of his steadfast affection for the Church that he had lost neither body nor soul to the Devil.
Any confession made after the threat of torture in response to accusations by imprisoned accomplices has to be suspect, but Gilles’s words – oblivious as a psychopath’s and naive as a child’s – ring so true that they are almost impossible to disbelieve. The portrait draws from life rather than the formulaic fantasies of inquisitors. It does not depict an omnipotent diabolist, but a gullible fool. And the clinical descriptions of murder are not the words of someone who imagined what crime might be like. They are the recollections of a man who had watched children die.
Three days later he was convicted, excommunicated again, and – after another tearful display of genuflecting remorse – formally readmitted to the Church for a second time. Later that morning, he went to the secular court in order to receive his death sentence, and delivered a second public confession at the request of Pierre de l’Hôpital, the senior judge. De l’Hôpital advised him that his shame in this world would precisely alleviate the punishment he was owed in the next, and although there is little indication that Gilles was anticipating much divine retribution, de l’Hôpital was impressed by his contrition. So much so, indeed, that he granted him the greatest boon he could have extended. After pronouncing that Gilles was to be hanged and then burned, he specified that his corpse should be merely ‘embraced’ by the flames – in order that it could then be interred in Gilles’s church of choice.
Gilles, given one last night to make his peace with God, offered a final display of atonement, fifteenth-century style, at the gallows the next morning. Barefoot and clad in white, he exhorted the two servants who had helped him to throttle, disembowel, and sodomize unnumbered children to be strong in the face of temptation. He bade them au revoir instead of adieu, assuring them that their souls would be reunited at the moment of death, because no sin was unforgivable ‘so long as the sinner felt profound regret and great contrition of heart’. All were then hanged and the servants’ bodies, in keeping with their humble stations, were reduced to ashes. Gilles’s corpse, lightly singed, was borne away by assorted ecclesiastics and aristocrats for its honourable burial at Nantes Cathedral.
Gilles’s confidence might strike modern readers as bizarre, repulsive, or even blasphemous, but the scribes and judges who heard him were not just satisfied, but touched, by the piety they detected. A conventional explanation nowadays for their attitude would be that, just as the era was typified by a concern that sinners display signs of their shame, the inquisitorial system regarded the utterance of regret rather than inner remorse as the way to expiate guilt. That assertion does not, however, go very far. It was well-established Catholic doctrine by the fifteenth century that confessions were invalid unless accompanied by contrition, and the trial record itself indicates that at least some of Gilles’s judges wanted insights as well as words. While the witness statements were being taken, he was asked twice if he wanted to ‘justify’ his actions, or set out his ‘motives’, and at the time of Gilles’s first admissions in his prison cell, a particularly telling exchange took place. Pierre de l’Hôpital, Nantes’s senior secular judge, asked him at one point to say who had incited and taught him his crimes. Inquisitors routinely asked the question in the hope of identifying accomplices, but de l’Hôpital was after more than names. When Gilles replied that he had been ‘following his own feelings, solely for his pleasure and carnal delight’, the judge did not only express surprise, but also pressed on. He wanted to know ‘from what motives, with what intent, and to what ends’ the murders and sexual abuse had occurred. An explanation, he urged, would allow Gilles ‘to disburden his conscience, which most likely was accusing him’. The remark inspired indignation. ‘Alas!’ snapped the nobleman. ‘You are tormenting yourself, and me as well.’ The judge fired back that he was not tormenting himself, but wanted to know the ‘absolute truth’, whereupon Gilles brought the exchange to an abrupt end with a bare assurance that, ‘Truly, there was no other cause, no other end nor intention.’ Even de l’Hôpital was ultimately sufficiently impressed to grant his prisoner the privilege of a mere toasting, but he seems to have been struggling with ideas that are now as common as they were then inchoate: that defendants can reliably reveal their motivations, and that guilt should be measured by their willingness to do so.
The exchange also exemplifies another feature of the modern trial: the way in which it attempts to reconcile those being judged with those doing the judging, and the extent to which that attempt is so often doomed. No matter how much a criminal may want to explain, a court long to understand, and a grieving relative hope for resolution, the gap in most serious cases is all but unbridgeable. The most obvious reason is that no crime can be undone, but another is that no explanation can ever adequately pin down why one person breaks the rules and another does not. The excuses most commonly heard today – whether social deprivation, mental retardation, or pre-menstrual tension – are inherently no more plausible than Gilles’s claim that his murders were the fault of Satan, a wild childhood, and a predilection for mulled wine. Making the leap of imagination to empathize with a criminal is of course easy if one sympathizes with the crime concerned, but the mentality of someone who, say, dedicated a chapel to martyred children while slaughtering real ones is, for most people, about as unreachable as another mind can be. In such cases, the assessment that resonates truest to modern ears is one that Gilles gave long before his trial. He told a servant that he had been born under a star such that ‘nobody could know or understand the anomalies or illicit acts of which [I am] guilty’. And it explains nothing at all.
The concern to hear confessions was not the only feature of the Church’s battle against heresy that found permanent expression in the secular legal system of France. The country’s courts also became increasingly secret, just as the tribunals of the papal inquisitors had in the early thirteenth century. Inquisitorial judges opened their doors only when they were ready to present to the public the spectacle of a confessing defendant or, as happened rather more rarely, the mercy of the sovereign. By the close of the fifteenth century, they were interviewing witnesses in the absence of everyone but their clerks. Defendants meanwhile languished in custody except when it became necessary to confront them with their accusers or torture them; and defence lawyers, always rare, were formally excluded in 1539 from most stages of a trial, and absolutely barred in all capital cases after 1670.
Excluding the unlettered and the unwashed undoubtedly appealed to many lawyers then for the same reasons that secrecy still does to many people with power; but there was one notable critic. A judge from Angers called Pierre Ayrault, whose writings would influence generations of French lawyers, wrote a long work specifically on the topic in 1588, in which he complained that French justice had become like ‘a sacred mystery that is communicated only to the priest’. Its secrecy, which had been adopted out of ‘fear of the uproar, shouting and cheering that people ordinarily indulge in’, was a recipe for incompetence and error. Statements obtained during closed interrogations reflected the preconceptions of the legal official taking them rather than the meaning of the person being interviewed. Public trials, on the other hand, would serve to display the law at its most majestic. They would also make it more likely that a judge’s rulings were honest and reasoned.
The critique, developed at a time when political concepts like freedom of information and checks and balances still lay some distance in the future, was a perceptive one. The inquisitorial process, by concealing its officials from scrutiny, was inherently prone to corruption. The pernicious nature of the secrecy was, however, greater than Ayrault himself knew, for it could cloud the vision of even its greatest critic.
In August 1598, he was called upon to try a dishevelled and longhaired beggar in his mid-thirties called Jacques Roulet. Roulet had been handed into custody by one Symphorien Damon, whose statement set out how he had come to be arrested. Damon’s suspicions had been aroused when he saw the man lying on his stomach in a field for, upon being challenged, Roulet had stared at him malevolently and run away. He had seen him again shortly thereafter, alongside the mutilated body of a young boy and in the custody of four villagers. Everything else that Damon reported came from those four men; and if they ever testified, their evidence has been lost. He recounted how the peasants (one of whom was the dead child’s father) claimed to have chanced upon the body as it was being eaten by two wolves, and then to have spotted Roulet as they were chasing the beasts away. The coincidence had struck them as sinister, and their hunch was soon confirmed. Asked what he was doing, the beggar had said, ‘Not much’, but when they demanded that he reveal who had eaten the child, he had apparently confessed that he, his father, and his cousin had all been responsible. They had been wolves at the time. According to Damon, Roulet had even had long nails and bloody hands when arrested.
Attitudes towards lycanthropy in the late 1590s were in a state of flux. Although Christian scholars had insisted for centuries that werewolves were no more than an optical illusion – essentially because only God could turn humans into ravenous beasts and He had better things to do – the orthodoxy was under pressure. Lawyers, as usual, were at the forefront of the debate. The most eminent jurist in all France, Jean Bodin, had just written a witchcraft manual in which he argued that Satan did in fact enjoy the power to transform people into wolves. There is little reason to think that Ayrault subscribed to Bodin’s views, which were controversial even among his fellow demonologists, but the judge from Angers had a belief in the value of self-condemnation that was profound. In words that would be cited by French lawyers for the next two centuries, he wrote – in the same work that attacked his country’s legal secrecy – that the ultimate goal of criminal law was to ‘instil and engrave its fundamental principles on people’s hearts’. It was ‘not enough that wrongdoers be justly punished’ he insisted. ‘They must if possible judge and condemn themselves.’ And although he elsewhere warned that confessions could be false, he now put that credo into practice.
Ayrault began by asking Roulet to tell him what he had been accused of – a traditional if sneaky opening gambit among inquisitors – and Roulet replied that people thought him to be a villain. Ayrault specified that he wanted to know what he had been accused of at the time of his arrest, whereupon the beggar told him that he had committed an offence against God and that his parents had given him an ointment. When Ayrault hopefully asked if the potion turned him into a wolf Roulet denied it, but further prodding inspired him to admit that he had killed and eaten a child. He then confessed that he had, after all, been a wolf. Questioned in detail about his appearance at the time, he stated that his face and hands had been bloody, that he had had a wolf’s paws but a human head, and that he had attacked the boy with his teeth. Ayrault had heard enough. Whatever his attitude towards lycanthropy might have been, he certainly believed in murder. And having heard Roulet’s admissions, he now condemned him to death.
Records of the case give no indication why the sentence was not immediately carried out, but they show that the Paris court of appeal quashed the sentence of death three months later. Roulet was more foolish than evil, declared the parlement, and the best way to deal with him was to give him compulsory religious instruction in an asylum for two years. The basis for its decision is not set down, but any sixteenth-century court would have been even less likely than its modern counterpart to reprieve a self-confessed murderous cannibal unless absolutely sure of his innocence. Whether the beggar had been framed or simply fell victim to superstition, Ayrault had evidently got it wrong. He saw the risks of secrecy and untested evidence more clearly than anyone else in early modern France, but alone in his court, away from public scrutiny, his belief that prisoners should ‘judge and condemn themselves’ had led him to encourage a man’s delusions – and then to conclude that they were true.
The progress of inquisitorial procedures through German-speaking central Europe was more uneven than in France, but they would become just as dominant. The execution of the heir to the Hohenstaufen dynasty in 1268
(#litres_trial_promo) saw the region dissolve into a collection of several hundred more or less independent towns and principalities however, and older rituals lingered in many areas long after they had disappeared in others. Some jurisdictions required, for example, that a murder victim’s corpse be borne into court by chanting relatives and assume formal responsibility for prosecuting its killers. A variation on the same theme saw the deceased’s hand severed and given to the defendant who, clad in a loincloth, would have to hold it and assert innocence three times. If the judge detected sufficient signs of discomfort, in either the defendant or the hand, guilt would be established.
Judgment in Germany also retained some notably eccentric features. Judges took their seats clutching unsheathed swords and, after proceedings had been called to order three times by a bailiff, the defendant would recite a confession or request an acquittal. It made no difference which. The judges were formally required to have already decided their verdict, and they would follow up the plea by unfurling and reciting a previously prepared decision. If they had elected to convict, the senior of them would snap his wand of office, toss it to his feet, and pronounce the condemned person’s doom. ‘Your life is over,’ he would roar, as a muffled church-bell tolled. ‘There is no place on this earth for you any more, and in breaking this wand I also break the tie between you and the human race. Only with God may you still find mercy. Woe upon you here! Woe! Woe!’ The clerk would add three more woes. So too would the bailiff. And when the woeing was over, the prisoner’s theoretical expulsion was made practical, as he or she was staked through the heart, burned on a stake, pulped with the rim of a large cartwheel, or strangled from a gallows.
The decentralization meant that German courts would be typified by a relatively freewheeling attitude towards legal technicalities. Far from mitigating the harshness of inquisitorial procedure, however, the flexibility generally made it even more deadly. German judges often enjoyed a particularly broad discretion to pursue obsessions, whether their own or those of their political masters, and all manner of blameless defendants would feel their wrath over the years. Some of the worst injustices came from one particularly dark corner of German jurisprudence: the Jewish ritual murder trial.
The myth that Jews were in the habit of slaughtering young Christians was not born in Germany. The allegation was first recorded in Norwich in 1144, and similar accusations sparked off bloody pogroms in England and France throughout the 1200s. It was only the wholesale expulsion of Jews from both countries (in 1290 and 1306 respectively) that pushed the epicentres of hatred towards Spain and central Europe. But fear and resentment spiralled as the refugees moved and, at a time when the courtroom was becoming the sharp end of political power, Germany’s inquisitors were soon ensuring that both lodged deep within the German body politic.
Their modus operandi is exemplified by a 1476 case that arose out of the Bishop of Regensburg’s discovery that a tortured Jew in Trent had confessed to murdering a Christian child in his diocese. He turned immediately to the local magistrates and in cahoots with the region’s duke, they swiftly itemized the property of the city’s richest Jews. Seventeen were arrested. Although the supposed victim was identified in only the vaguest terms, the judges then drew up a list of twenty-five questions that included the following:
Which Jews brought and purchased the child? Who tortured him? How much money did each Jew give to participate? What was the blood used for? How were the needles used? How were the pincers used? Why was a handkerchief tied around the child’s throat? How was the foreskin on the penis cut off and which Jews cut off the penis and what was done with it? Which Jewesses knew about this and what had they said?
The men, weighed down with stones, were raised and dropped by the rope of a strappado as each question was asked. Within two weeks, six had confessed to the imaginary murder.
The inquisitorial system could also create not just crimes, but entire superstitions. One of the most chilling cases of all, which is also the earliest to be fully recorded, illustrates the process with graphic clarity. In March 1470, workers restoring the charnel house of the small Black Forest town of Endingen reported the discovery of four skeletons, two of which were missing their skulls. It was just a month before Easter, never a high point for Judaeo–Christian harmony in the Middle Ages, and the presence of stray bones in the ossuary sparked panic. Someone recalled that, eight years before, Elias the Jew had sheltered a destitute family, and he and his two brothers were swiftly arrested and subjected to repeated sessions on the strappado. Within days, all had accepted not only that they had murdered the beggars, but also that they had beheaded two children and bathed in their blood.
The interrogations were recorded as they took place, and it is that of Mercklin, questioned after both his brothers had given in, which is the most haunting. He began defiantly, asking why he had to say anything at all if his interrogators already knew him to be guilty. They explained that they wanted to hear the truth from his mouth. Torture soon broke him, but after he confessed he was asked why he and his brothers had drained their victims’ blood. It was a question too far. He had no idea what his tormentors wanted him to say, and the desperation in his voice, as he trawled through their prejudices while the strappado was hoisted and released, echoes down the centuries.
To that he answered in many words, saying at first that Jews need Christian blood because it has great healing power. We would not be satisfied with this answer and told him that he was lying, that we knew why they need it because his brother Eberlin had told us already. To this Mercklin said that Jews need Christian blood for curing epilepsy. But we…would not be satisfied with the answer. Mercklin then said further that Jews need Christian blood for its taste because they themselves stink. But we would not be satisfied with the answer and told him that he was lying, and must tell us the truth, because his brother Eberlin told us a different story; now he must also tell us the truth. To this he answered badly that he wanted to tell us the truth, that he saw it cannot be otherwise…but that Jews need Christian blood [as a holy oil] for circumcision.
It was, at last, the answer that the magistrates wanted and, as was routine for capital offenders in early modern Germany, the brothers were stripped, wrapped in cowhides, dragged to the stake by their ankles, and burned alive.
The punishment was – in extremely relative terms – a mild one. A magistrate elsewhere in Germany might have compounded the humiliation by binding them in pigskin. If they had been thieves, they might have been made to wear hats filled with hot pitch before being hanged. One of the most unpleasant penalties was the one recorded in the adjoining woodcut – involving suspension by the heels between two hungry dogs. But even if the inquisitors of Endingen were not quite as brutal as they might have been, the process that had preceded the penalty was certainly inventive. For it did not so much reaffirm an existing superstition as conjure one into existence. Mercklin’s first answers had regurgitated myths that were common by the 1470s. The notion that human blood could cure epilepsy was so widely held that Germans, regardless of religious belief, would line up to drink thimblefuls of it at public beheadings – until well into the 1800s. The foetor judaicus had been troubling Christian nostrils for centuries, and Freiburg’s councillors had cited Jews’ murderous personal hygiene problems as a reason to expel them as far back as 1401. Mercklin’s final explanation seems, however, to have appeared in writing for the very first time at Endingen.
Quite where it came from is unknown. The focus on foreskins might conceivably have been inspired by Catherine of Siena, recently canonized on the strength of a dream that Christ had given her one, by way of a ring of flesh to wear on her finger.
(#litres_trial_promo) Psychohistorians have, as might be imagined, come up with considerably more involved theories. But whatever the myth’s source, it would endure. The brothers’ confessions were quickly transmitted to other towns along the Rhine, and a link between circumcision and bloodlust very soon became part of the canon of German Judaeophobia. Within a month, four Jewish men in nearby Pforzheim were executed after confessing that they too had killed for the sake of their penises, and similar admissions were obtained six years later by inquisitors in Baden. An unknown writer then re-scripted the narratives into the Endinger Judenspiel, arguably the first trial dramatization of modern European history, which became wildly popular during the seventeenth century and would pack German auditoriums well into the nineteenth. Endingen, meanwhile, celebrated its victory over the eternal Jew by encasing the headless children in a glass cabinet in the town church, until one of its priests decided that their display was a source of shame rather than pride. He reached his conclusion in 1967.
The confidence in rationality that had swept across Europe during the eleventh and twelfth centuries had taken continental jurisprudence a long way. Reason had proved capable of bolstering the most visceral fears and building the most bloodthirsty conclusions. Inspired by a belief that justice was a matter of extracting answers to the right questions, lawyers had developed rules capable of condemning beggars as werewolves. In order to protect Christian children, Jewish prisoners had been identified as vampires. The law’s sturdiest logic could produce the purest fantasy – as was never more apparent than in the context of inquisitorial rules of proof.
The first systematic works on the question of evidence, written by lawyers from northern Italy during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, had warned judges that torture was permissible only if circumstantial evidence reached a certain threshold, characterized as a ‘half-proof’ or a ‘proximate indication’. The safeguard, always optimistic, very soon became illusory – because judges, rather than dispense with torture, simply expanded the range of half-proofs. By the 1590s, for example, a suspected thief could be tortured in most parts of Europe if he or she had been spending more than usual. Suspected witches could be tortured in early-seventeenth-century France if they avoided the gaze of their judge. And the rules about half-proofs were complemented by the notion of the ‘perfect proof’, whereby circumstantial evidence, when topped up by a confession, positively required a judge to convict. The logic was elaborate, but the effect was simple: arrest virtually guaranteed torture, which virtually guaranteed conviction.
The diversity of German law meant that its procedures became particularly convoluted. The region’s princes notionally owed loyalty to a ruler whom they elected, and during the sixteenth century a law was enacted by Emperor Charles V that sought to minimize arbitrariness by establishing ground rules that would apply in every German state. The 1532 code, known as the Carolina, permitted each one to maintain its customary laws however, and it aimed only at ensuring that there were ‘legally sufficient’ grounds for torture – with the consequence that it spread inquisitorial lunacies as much as it suppressed them. It advised judges, for example, that torture was permissible if a suspect was ‘insolent and wanton’, or in possession of an item similar to something found at the crime scene. Inquisitors soon got the point, and began developing rules of their own. By the seventeenth century, an unnatural pallor was sufficient to justify torture for several crimes in Frankfurt-am-Main. Suspected adulterers were imperilled simply by being found in an attractive woman’s house – unless the culprit was a cleric, in which case he could be caught in a clinch and the court would presume that he had been ministering to her spiritual needs.
The code also advised inquisitors to seek confessions even where eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence were already overwhelming. Prisoners who withdrew admissions on the scaffold might therefore be rushed back to the rack, on the theory that a miscarriage of justice would otherwise ensue. And although the Carolina had been based on a Bamberg statute that pronounced it ‘better to acquit a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one to death’, at least some lawyers took a very different view. Fynes Moryson, an Englishman touring Europe in the late sixteenth century, reported that he had met several who justified deaths through torture with ‘a strange, yet good, saying…namely that it is better one innocent man should dye by triall, then many [guilty] persons should escape for want of [it]’.
It was in eighteenth-century France – a society in which many began to believe that human wisdom was not just improvable but perfectible – that the faith in reason reached its apogee. The spirit of the age was well expressed by the work of an influential jurist called Pierre François Muyart de Vouglans, whose textbooks portrayed French criminal procedure as an almost mathematically precise tool for the discovery of truth. Since crimes were effectively puzzles waiting to be solved, it was positively unjust to hold back when detaining a suspect. ‘The welfare of humanity demands that crime should not remain unpunished,’ he explained. ‘It is for that reason that, in the absence of other means of arriving at [a] complete proof, we are obliged to torture the body of the accused.’ That said, the absence of such proof was no bar to punishment. It had been established in 1670 that anyone who refused to confess was liable to any penalty short of death, and Muyart de Vouglans now explained why: anyone liable for torture was already more than ‘half-convicted’ and deserved a suitably proportioned punishment. If someone’s refusal to confess made a death sentence inappropriate, a judge might, for example, send him to the galleys for life instead. The flexibility of such a system, adjusting the penalty to fit the amount of evidence, represented for Muyart de Vouglans the acme of judicial sophistication. ‘By means of these augmentations and moderations of Penalties,’ he declared, ‘our Jurisprudence has reached a degree of perfection which distinguishes it among civilized Nations.’
Enlightenment rationalism did, however, have a more benign aspect. Previous assumptions about punishment and crime were called into question, and in an age when political philosophers were arguing for the first time that the exercise of power demanded public scrutiny, systematic criticism of the inquisitorial system also began to be heard. The greatest single impetus came in 1764, when an Italian called Cesare Beccaria published a powerful attack on the cruel, arbitrary, and brutal nature of European criminal justice – including a damning critique of the continental reliance on torture – that would define the terms of debate in Europe and America for decades.
Muyart de Vouglans was moved to publish a refutation, but many others were persuaded by Beccaria’s argument – among them, a judge called François Serpillon whose own textbook, published at Lyons three years later, contained another condemnation of torture – all the more persuasive because Serpillon had inflicted it. He reported that the custom in his hometown of Autun was to strip suspects, bind them to a table, and then question them for two hours while their legs were crushed between boards and slowly scalded with twelve pints of boiling oil. He had been present at interrogations twice – once only as a witness, but once (‘compelled’ by the evidence) as the torturer – and neither occasion had ended happily. The good news for the men being questioned was that both had been released following their refusals to confess. The bad news was that the legs of the first suspect had caught fire, necessitating amputation, while the second defendant had been so badly burned that the bones of his toes had had to be removed with pincers.
Another critic of the inquisitorial system, equally vociferous but considerably less compromised by its operation than Serpillon, was Voltaire, who campaigned against its inhumanity for a lifetime, but eloquently damned it with just a few lines in a 1766 commentary on Beccaria’s work. He reported that the inquisitors of Toulouse used not only half-proofs but also quarters and eighths, and came to their decisions by adding them up. A piece of hearsay amounted to a quarter-proof, while an even vaguer rumour might count for an eighth. The result was that eight doubts could constitute a perfect proof and send a man to his death.
Notwithstanding the pride of lawyers like Muyart de Vouglans, the entire edifice of inquisitorial procedure was already tottering by the time that Voltaire wrote his critique. Several European governments abolished torture during the late eighteenth century, and after 1780 even French courts permitted its use only to identify accomplices after conviction. The revolution that began at the Paris Bastille nine years later then saw the system collapse. Within two years, France’s trials had become public and adversarial, defendants had won guarantees against not just torture but oaths, and the power to investigate crimes was at last detached from the duty to judge them.
Enduring reform then came under Napoleon, who enacted a law code in 1808 that would be adopted across Europe and continues to underpin criminal justice systems on the continent today. Although judges can still conduct pre-trial investigations in secret, and dominate courts to an extent that echoes their former role, the malignity of the inquisition is now very much a thing of the past. Later chapters will show that the dangers of unaccountability and torture live on, but those risks are not the relics of any particular legal culture. Abolition of the inquisitorial system did, however, owe much to a very specific rival tradition. For the progressives who campaigned to bring it down modelled their proposals for reform on a criminal process that actually existed on the other side of the English Channel – the jury trial.
3 The Jury Trial (1) (#ulink_bfd3bba7-2375-5a74-b8f0-ce7f2d64fb6b)
He considered what he should say to win over the whole audience once and for all, or if that were not possible, at least to win over most of them for the time being.
FRANZ KAFKA, The Trial
Innocent III’s decision in 1215 to abandon ordeals threw England as much into the lurch as it did the rest of Christendom. For time out of mind, the country’s kings had been subcontracting criminal justice to the clergy, who had been happy to to scald and drown suspected sinners for a small fee. Many ordinary folk had even come to trust trials by fire and water, if only because the primary alternative, trial by combat, seemed suspiciously favourable to whichever litigant was able to afford the better weapons and champion. The country’s response to the abolition of ordeals would, however, be very different from that adopted on the continent.
Whereas continental rulers would turn to the techniques of the papal Inquisition and the rules of canonical law to fill the legal vacuum, the Church would never gain an equivalent degree of influence over royal justice in England. Its legal pretensions had already taken a heavy blow when knights loyal to Henry II had rid their king of turbulent Thomas Becket by braining him in Canterbury Cathedral in 1170. The assassination was followed by important concessions to clerical independence from a penitent Henry, and the English Church of the early thirteenth century was in no mood to rock the boat. While Catholicism’s legal traditions spawned across Europe, nurtured by the demands of its war on heresy, representatives of the English Church positively avoided their country’s royal courts. Clerics would long retain peculiar privileges: they were, for example, granted an automatic immunity from punishment if they read Psalm 51 of the Bible aloud from the dock, a provision that would mutate into ridiculousness over the years as convicts memorized the ‘neck verse’ and merciful judges treated them as monks. Bishops would, for another five centuries, retain the right to try religious crimes such as heresy and moral misdemeanours such as adultery. Canonical law would never get to supersede custom and statute, however. The irrationalities of England’s royal courts would come from sources other than the Good Book.
The authorities initially had little idea what should replace trial by ordeal. Royal judges customarily took the king’s justice to jails around the realm every few years, and their coaches had already left London for the provinces in late 1218, when a rather perplexed note from the guardians of 11-year-old Henry III caught up with them. Proof by fire and water was no longer an option, it reminded them, and they might want to deal with minor cases by exacting promises of good behaviour. Exile would often be appropriate for those suspected of slightly more serious crimes. But all that the note could tentatively suggest for offences of violence or dishonesty was imprisonment – and in an era when judges toured dungeons to empty them rather than fill them up, the proposal was a stopgap rather than a solution. And yet, the king’s advisors had nothing else to offer. ‘For the present,’ they concluded forlornly, ‘we must rely very much on your discretion to act wisely according to the special circumstances of each case.’
England’s judges would rise to the challenge. Their solution was seen for the first time at a trial in Westminster in 1220, when a self-confessed murderer called Alice snitched on five other accused men in the hope of saving her own skin. The charges could not be resolved by battle, because she was a woman, but those she named then agreed to submit ‘for good or ill’ to the judgment of twelve of their property-owning neighbours. Said neighbours promptly swore that one was a law-abiding man but that four were thieves, whereupon the unlucky quartet was hanged. By the following summer, when seven of the king’s judges set out on another circuit of England’s prisons, they had begun to use the new system regularly. Trial by twelve good men and true had been born.
The jury trial would generate countless myths over the following centuries, and those claiming to describe its origins have been among the most tenacious. Athens, Rome, and the Magna Carta – an abortive truce signed in 1215 between King John and rebellious barons – have all, in their time, been credited with inventing the institution. In fact, it owed nothing to any of them. Athenians had judged in groups of several hundred at a time, the mythological Oresteia notwithstanding, and their civilization was one of which few people in thirteenth-century England would even have heard. The Roman Republic had seen the establishment of courts known as the iudicia publica, at which wealthy officers and senators had judged certain offences, but the precedent had no impact at all on English law. The Magna Carta, for its part, asserted that monarchs had to obey their own laws, and used language that would later support arguments for speedy and fair trials, but although it acknowledged pre-existing methods of trial, it did not prescribe any new ones.
No innovation built on tradition has a single source, but some of the rituals from which Westminster’s judges were drawing in 1220 can be identified. England’s rulers had been assembling groups of sworn men to furnish them with information for several centuries, and a link between twelve men on oath and criminal justice had been seen as far back as AD 879, when King Alfred the Great signed a peace treaty with King Guthrum of Denmark. Their agreement, which partitioned England as the price for ending decades of Viking raids, established that a killer in either ruler’s realm could cleanse himself of blood-guilt by producing twelve sworn men (‘if he dares’). Quite where the idea of a dozen judges came from would always excite speculation, with later jurists crediting the Apostles, the tribes of Israel, and so on; but although that mystery remains obscure, it is very clear that in 1220 the number had become conventional. And only a short imaginative step would have been required to transform such compurgation rituals into the jury trial. Even in the early eleventh century, defendants in some cases had been required to choose co-swearers from an independent panel of locals rather than their friends, and the only change required was to turn that exception into the norm. Instead of being allowed to produce their own jurors, defendants would challenge those of their neighbours whom they did not trust to judge them fairly.
Just as there was institutional continuity, the extension of the jury’s role into the field of criminal justice was not a sudden leap from ritual to reason. A society that in 1215 had been committed to the belief that God healed blisters and zapped perjurers for love of justice did not in the space of five years decide that He had lost interest. The new system still relied squarely on the oath, and witnesses played no more than an occasional role in trials until well into the fifteenth century. The earliest jurors were the witnesses and their veredictum – or ‘spoken truth’ – was the only testimony required. God remained the guarantor of justice, and His wisdom was discovered by rituals that treated jurors as ciphers to be cracked rather than as agents of rational inquiry. They were deprived of food, drink, and fire while they deliberated, individually imprisoned if they held out against the majority for longer than a day and a night, and collectively carted from court to court if they swore a verdict that the judge considered perjurious. The crowning absurdity was that, at the same time that jurors were effectively robbed of a right to silence, defendants were formally prohibited from swearing to their innocence – for fear that the guilty among them would otherwise lose their souls.
No thirteenth-century thinker could have been entirely sure that fallible human beings were even capable of stepping into God’s shoes. The risk that a juror might break his oath would have been as keenly perceived as the hope that he would abide by it, while the few people who pondered such matters would have had little confidence in the ability of jurors to assess evidence. As elsewhere in Europe, the unseen deed, like the hidden motive, was widely perceived as a phenomenon beyond mortal ken, unknowable to all but God. England’s first legal writer, Henry Bracton, thus explained in the 1220s or 1230s that it made no sense for jurors to judge a poisoning – the quintessentially secret crime, always associated with sorcery in the pre-modern world – because ‘[they] can know nothing of the deed’. And whereas continental inquisitors would overcome such riddles by subjecting defendants to the rack and strappado, English law would require anyone suspected of particularly mysterious crimes to undergo trial by combat for at least another century.
To the limited extent that the new system did represent a move away from earlier superstitions, it seems to have inspired feelings ranging from trepidation to terror. At one of the first sets of trials, held in Gloucester in June 1221, almost half of the twenty-seven indicted defendants refused to enter a plea. Matilda, accused of murder, declined because she felt that too many people hated her. John explained that he had done far too much evil to want to put his fate in his neighbours’ hands. William, suspected of sheep stealing, backed out after seeing a jury send the defendants immediately ahead of him to the gallows. All the concerns sound eminently sensible, but rationality was certainly not the only force at work. For the judges were almost as unsure about their innovation as the defendants. They did not insist that anyone submit to it, and Matilda, John, and William – along with all the other holdouts – escaped execution. Two of the trio were immediately released.
The judges would soon overcome their compunctions, and by the time they reached Warwick, three months after the Gloucester debacle, they were putting their collective foot down. A murderer and a thief who refused to plead to a jury were unceremoniously hanged, and judges were soon requiring that defendants state – on their knees with right hand raised – that they consented to jury trial ‘for good or ill’. If they refused to do so they would be spread-eagled under stones or lead and given only bread and water until they submitted or died. The suspicions attaching to the novel system were nevertheless such that resistance was widespread for decades, and sporadic for far longer. As late as the mid eighteenth century there would be people who would refuse trial by jury, and England’s authorities retained the right to extract pleas using thumbscrews and millstones until 1772.
Not much is known about the trials that ensued over the next two centuries, but they were certainly very different from their modern counterparts. Although the law’s concern for the fate of defendants’ souls meant that an accused was denied the opportunity to give sworn testimony, few asserted a right to silence – for in the absence of any right to a lawyer, suspects who knew what was good for them argued for their lives. Their opponent was the accuser: prosecuting lawyers appeared only in major cases before the seventeenth century, and independent testimony was all but unheard of until the early 1500s. An English lawyer writing in the 1470s, Sir John Fortescue, found the very notion of witnesses downright sinister. In a lengthy explanation of how English trials were the best in the world, he explained that continental inquisitors not only used unpleasantly belly-bursting, tendon-snapping techniques of torture, but brought people to court to say what they knew. They could, he pointed out, be bribed to say anything. Far more sensible, he argued, to have a system under which no one was liable to conviction except on the sworn evidence of twelve unbiased men.
A gulf had begun to yawn between Europe’s two systems; and notwithstanding Fortescue’s pride, there is little doubt that the courts of the continent had the stronger credentials. Structured around Roman law and inspired by the belief that justice was a matter of clever men applying their minds to a case, they had both tradition and reason on their side. Those of England, on the other hand, rested on a hotchpotch of superstition. Reliance on the ability of unlettered jurors to administer justice was, quite literally, a relic of barbarism.
And yet, for all its irrationality, England was already producing a method of trial considerably more benign. The notion that some matters were simply unknowable was helping to restrain the temptation to torture: against the bloody record of continental Europe, kings and royal officials would issue no more than eighty-one torture warrants over the entire course of England’s history. English judges were also in a better position – at least potentially – to appreciate human frailty. Denied the right to seek the truth through force and required to sit alongside ordinary jurors, they could say, as Chief Justice Brian did in the late 1400s, that, ‘The thought of man shall not be tried, for the devil himself knoweth not the thought of man.’ And whereas continental justice was becoming a secret process, controlled by adepts who kept a lid on its mysteries until the moment of judgment, English trials were already virtually defined by their openness. The need to assemble jurors made it impossible to exclude the public, and although sheriffs and jailers would extort admission fees until the 1700s, large crowds invariably entered in their wake.
The characteristics of English courtrooms were, like all customs, as accidental as they were determined. They would, however, collectively define a notion of justice that would be of lasting significance – in England first, and then far beyond. And the most important accident of all was publicity, which would now turn the trial from an oath-taking ritual into a dynamic contest of fundamental political and social significance.
The background to the transformation was the crisis that tore England apart in the aftermath of Henry VIII’s break from the Roman Church in the 1530s. Henry, anxious to secure spiritual approval for sexual relations with Anne Boleyn, spent the late 1520s unsuccessfully lobbying the pope for a divorce, eventually growing so irritable that in 1534 he established his own national Church. It was enough, very temporarily, to resolve his marital difficulties, but it also marked the beginning of a very troubled era in English history. Over the next decade, Henry beheaded and divorced his way through another three marriages, decimating English Catholicism in the process. As traditional bonds of religious and national fidelity snapped, his government sidelined regular legal procedures in favour of the rudiments of a police state. Tribunals such as the Privy Council and Star Chamber assumed the power to punish without trial, and the torture chamber of the Tower of London was replenished and used to a greater extent than ever before. Henry simultaneously redefined treason to force his subjects to recognize his new authority or make their opposition apparent. The crime had never been the most tightly defined of offences – capable of penalizing acts ranging from fornication with the royal consort to forgery of a sixpence – but remaining outside its parameters now became an almost acrobatic act. The laws that attempted to keep up with Henry’s marital shenanigans are a case in point. The 1534 Act of Succession suddenly rendered it treacherous to deny the legitimacy of Elizabeth, his daughter by Anne Boleyn, or to assert that of his firstborn Mary. Two years later, another statute granted free pardon to anyone who had asserted the whoredom of Anne or the bastardy of her child. In 1543, with Henry planning an invasion of France, fears of familial oblivion generated a final burst of paternal pride, and he pronounced that anyone who refused to confirm the birthright of either daughter would be hanged, drawn, and quartered.
The oscillations only intensified after Henry’s death in 1547. Edward VI had barely hit puberty when he himself died, aged 15, in 1553, and Mary Tudor then threw the ship of state into reverse by restoring English Catholicism and burning some three hundred Protestants to prove it. Her half-sister, Elizabeth, gave the wheel another turn in 1558. Although conciliatory by temperament, she restored Protestantism as the national religion and soon found herself caught between a regrouping papacy, ambitious monarchs in Spain and France, and a realm on the verge of civil war. In pursuit of peace she flirted politically and socially with almost every eligible Catholic on the continent, but her legitimacy, in every sense, depended on the men of Rome – and they were not to be charmed. Pius V excommunicated her in 1570. Ten years later, Gregory XIII’s Secretary of State let it be known that an assassin could expect not just forgiveness from God, but positive gratitude.
In reaction to the papal fatwas, Elizabeth’s government mounted an increasingly ferocious assault on the Catholic enemy within. The authoritarian machinery that had taken shape under her father swung into action against religious insurgents real and imagined, while an equally threatening surge of ordinary crime inspired the construction in 1571 of a triple-beamed gallows that would soon become a byword for legal cruelty in England – Tyburn. By the 1590s a visiting Duke of Wirtemberg was able to count more than thirty grinning heads as he strolled across the towers and twenty arches of old London Bridge. Punishments did not just increase in number. Since the reign of Henry VIII, their variety had also been propagating,
(#litres_trial_promo) and they now flowered into a pattern of dizzying complexity. Minor criminals might be dunked or made to wear a placard carrying the name of their crime. Felons often had the initials of their offence inscribed in their flesh, while those who devalued the royal coin were made to pay with the loss of their ears and nostrils. The symbolic amputation once imposed on libellous printers by Mary Tudor was also revived – claiming, among its first victims, the appropriately named John Stubbes, who exuberantly raised his hat and yelled ‘God save the Queen’ as a mallet was hammered through his right wrist. One case from 1594 can stand as memorial to all the thousands of other butcheries. It concerned five men convicted of a string of felonies ranging from counterfeiting to blackmail: four were sentenced to ‘stand on the pillory and lose their ears if they have any’ before being branded on the forehead with the letter ‘F’. Elizabeth’s most trusted judge, Lord Burghley, complained that such burns healed too quickly and proposed to ten of his fellow Privy Councillors that the Fs should instead be carved into the convicts’ cheeks and have coloured powder rubbed into them. It seems, thankfully, to have been a proposal too far. According to the lawyer who reported the case, ‘the others made no reply to this’.
The spread of corporal punishment was not unusual. Rulers across Europe were relying on the appearance of power to magnify its reality, and in Elizabeth’s realm – riddled by spies, convulsed by rebellions and consumed by crime – the need to show subjects who was in control was a pressing one. But English criminal justice underwent a second, unique, transformation – for it did not use just human bodies as billboards for government authority. At the very same time that the rulers of France and Germany were ending the last vestiges of courtroom publicity, the English government embarked on a deliberate policy of using not just punishments but trials to show where power lay.
Henry VIII had sown the seeds with condemnations of, for example, Thomas More and Anne Boleyn, but it was during the reign of Elizabeth that the strategy reached fruition. Under the hammerbeam roofs and stone vaults of England’s palaces, traitors stood behind solemn pikemen to hear their crimes described and their protestations of innocence ridiculed by some of the finest advocates of Renaissance England. Vast crowds were permitted to attend, and although witnesses were still forbidden to defendants, they increasingly appeared on behalf of the Crown – often very suddenly. At the trial of the Earl of Essex, for example, the Lord Chief Justice stepped down from the benches to testify at the behest of the Attorney-General while a Privy Councillor emerged at one point from a secret listening post to interrupt and contradict the defendant. And when it was all over, convocations of robed judges invited the jurors to consider the question of innocence or guilt. The verdicts rarely surprised. Records of the proceedings, transcribed by squads of stenographers, were then turned into anti-Catholic propaganda and published in English and Latin for the benefit of audiences domestic and European.
The hearings were rituals of condemnation rather than inquiry, and only a handful of acquittals ever occurred – but the insistence on public articulation meant that even the most careful preparations could suddenly go awry. When William Parry appeared at Westminster Hall in 1585 to answer charges of attempting to assassinate Elizabeth, he wearily entered a guilty plea and declared that, ‘I desire not life, but desire to die’. But the court was packed with Londoners anxious to see Parry get his comeuppance, and instead of moving directly to sentence his judges ordered that his confession be read aloud, ‘that everyone may see that the matter is as bad as the Indictment purporteth’. As Parry heard his words repeated, steel returned to his broken frame. ‘Your Honours know…how my confession was extorted,’ he declared. They fired back that torture had not been used. It had been threatened, he retorted. Charge and counter-charge spiralled, until Parry was denying any intention to kill the queen at all and promising to ‘lay his blood’ amongst the judges if they condemned him to death. The rattled men of the bench, warning him against such ‘dark speeches’, ordered that he be hanged, drawn, and quartered. A process that would have remained behind closed doors on the continent ended with the defendant being pulled down the riverside steps past a hooting mob, demanding ‘in his rage and passion’ that Elizabeth be summonsed ‘to answer for my blood before God’.
No trial better illustrated the unpredictable force of publicity than one that occurred under the reign of Elizabeth’s successor, King James I, in November 1603: the prosecution for treason of Sir Walter Raleigh. Drama was virtually guaranteed from the outset. Until Elizabeth’s death in March 1603, Raleigh had enjoyed a charmed existence. Tall and elegant, he had shimmered like a peacock in a court where looks had mattered. After sponsoring England’s first American colony at Roanoke in 1585, he had introduced Elizabeth’s entourage to the pleasures of tobacco, and done more than any man alive to popularize the potato. Most heroic of all were his exploits against Spain, whose fleet he had taken on in battle three times. As England had flexed its maritime muscles he had trespassed even further into the heart of Spanish darkness, returning from one voyage in 1595 with tales of a land called Guyana where the natives’ heads grew beneath their shoulders and precious metals veined every rock. El Dorado, he had reported, was just a return trip away.
All the derring-do came with an arrogance that lost friends as easily as it won them, however. Even Elizabeth sent Raleigh to the doghouse for several years when he breached palace protocol by impregnating one of her maids of honour, and the fastidious James took against him almost instantly. Though unequivocally Protestant, the king was always more concerned to steady his wobbly throne than to fight the old religion, and was as underwhelmed by Raleigh’s anti-Spanish credentials as he was unimpressed by his fondness for tobacco. Within months of James assuming the throne, the monopolies, patents, and privileges dispensed by Elizabeth were suspended and Raleigh had lost his grace-and-favour mansion. Although inconvenient, it seemed no more than a routine shake-up – until in the summer, one of Raleigh’s closest friends, Lord Henry Cobham, was implicated in a Catholic plot to overthrow the king. No evidence linked Raleigh to the conspiracy, but he too found himself under arrest in mid July on suspicion of treason. The rogue of the old dispensation was about to turn into the whipping boy of the new.
In November 1603, with a plague epidemic claiming two thousand lives a week in London, the entire court decamped to the ancient city of Winchester for the trials. The city traced its history back to Rome and its mythology back to Camelot, but this was the grandest show that it had seen in a long while. Scholars were thrown out of their cathedral lodgings to accommodate the jurists, James set up field headquarters at a nearby mansion, and carriages laden with judges, jurors, lawyers, and defendants were soon streaming through its gates. Raleigh took up residence at the castle dungeon on 15 November, and arrived to the news that several of the Catholics charged with conspiring against James had just been tried, and that all but one had been sentenced to death. Although Raleigh’s own interrogators had never sought to link him to a broader plot, it was not a good sign.
Early in the morning of 17 November Raleigh was escorted by pikewielding guards down to the Bishop’s Palace, and led into its sepulchral courtroom. His plummeting fortunes had been entertaining the country for months, and popular interest in his anticipated destruction was immense. On the five-day journey from London, his carriage had been received with abuse, rocks and showers of clay pipes throughout (inspiring Raleigh laconically to observe that ‘dogs do always bark at those they know not’), and the pillars, bays, and benches were now filled. Aristocrats and commoners sat cheek to cheek, exhaling large clouds of tobacco smoke if other trials of the time are a guide, as they waited for the show to begin. Almost all would have been hoping to see the final act of an epic life.
All seemed set fair to sink Raleigh. A phalanx of eleven royal commissioners, all of whom had helped investigate the plot against James, sat at the front of the court, four wearing the scarlet robes and black cornercaps of high judicial office. Local legend tells that the king himself was concealed in a cubbyhole, his ear to a listening hole, and although unlikely (because James had specifically sent reporters to court) it would not have been out of character; he secretly eavesdropped at many other major trials that occured during his reign. And at the prosecution benches, flanked by his fellow lawyers, was the most feared advocate of the day: Attorney-General Sir Edward Coke.
The lawyer, in his early fifties like Raleigh, was in many ways the mirror image of his adversary. Equally imposing physically and no less confident personally, he epitomized just as Raleigh did a social type that was emerging for the first time in England: the self-made man. Each was born into a comfortable but non-aristocratic family; and although they had frequented different types of court, both had clambered up the hierarchy with a judicious combination of back-stabbing, fawning, and charm. Like many Elizabethans on the make, both were also masterful rhetoricians. In a fluid society where a commoner could no longer become a monk but could be appointed Attorney-General or mount a search for El Dorado if he sounded convincing enough, the ability to persuade was becoming an essential skill. Raleigh was a talented poet and writer while Coke, though always more likely to censor England’s theatres than to attend them, had an eloquence renowned even among contemporaries who were rarely tongue-tied. Elizabethan schoolboys were taught adoxography, the art of eruditely praising worthless things.
(#litres_trial_promo) Coke mastered a converse skill – and with his words, he sent scores of men careening to their deaths.
The power was one that he exercised with pleasure. When the Earl of Essex told his treason jury in 1600 that Coke was ‘play[ing] the orator’ and displaying ‘the trade and talent of those who value themselves upon their skill in pleading innocent men out of their lives’, the remarks contained the soupçon of an aristocratic sneer. But the trade and talent of the commoner from Norwich Grammar School was enough to persuade twelve peers to despatch Essex to the chopping block, and Coke would only have taken the complaint as a compliment. For he prosecuted with a passion that went beyond the call of professional duty. It was a quality exemplified in his verbal duel with Raleigh, which has good claim to be the most abusive courtroom battle in England’s history.
As was usual, Raleigh had not seen the indictment before coming into court, and he now heard for the first time that he had supposedly agreed with Cobham to raise rebellion on behalf of Spain’s king and hand James’s crown to a Catholic pretender. That came as little surprise, but Coke then continued, apropos of nothing very much, with lurid accounts of the conspiracies of which the other plotters had been convicted two days before. Raleigh listened in silence for several minutes, before pointing out that their crimes had nothing to do with him. Coke did not deign to reply directly. ‘Like Sampson’s foxes, [the treasons] were joined in the tails though their heads were severed,’ he pronounced, before stitching together several non sequiturs of his own. Treason, he explained to the jury, had its root, bud, blossom, and fruit, and this was treachery so radical that it had not even been put into effect. The others had already been convicted of plotting against ‘the [king] and his cubs’, he pointed out, before swivelling towards Raleigh. ‘But to whom, Sir Walter, did you bear malice? To the royal children?’ As though accosted by a drunkard with a knife, Raleigh’s reply was nervous courtesy itself. ‘Mr. Attorney, I pray you to whom, or to what end speak you all this?…What is the treason of [the others] to me?’
Oozing a vitriol that still hisses from the page, Coke finally homed in on his quarry. ‘I will then come close to you. I will prove you to be the most notorious traitor that ever came to the bar.’ Raleigh replied that if the lawyer could prove anything at all, he would admit not just that he was a traitor but that he was ‘worthy to be crucified with a thousand torments’. ‘Nay, I will prove all,’ growled Coke. ‘Thou art a monster; thou hast an English face, but a Spanish heart.’ He continued with another sustained attack on various betrayals supposedly committed by Lord Cobham, who was awaiting his own trial in a dungeon below the court. ‘What is that to me?’ Raleigh demanded. ‘If my Lord Cobham be a traitor, what is that to me?’ Coke erupted with anger. ‘All that he did was by thy instigation thou viper, for I thou thee, thou traitor!’ All the thouing, a form of address conventionally used for children, servants, and animals, threatened to turn the exchange into a slanging match, but Raleigh’s retaliation remained restrained. ‘You may call me a traitor at your pleasure, yet it becomes not a man of quality and virtue to do so,’ he replied, ‘but I take comfort in it, it is all that you can do.’ Lord Chief Justice Sir John Popham – a massive presence in a blood-red gown – stepped in to separate the men. ‘Mr. Attorney speaks out of the zeal of his duty for the service of the King; and you for your life,’ he told Raleigh, ‘be patient on both sides.’
Any hope of a clean fight was, however, doomed from the start – for it very soon emerged that the combatants did not even agree on the contest’s rules. In particular, they had diametrically opposed ideas about what constituted evidence. When Coke responded to Raleigh’s challenge by declaring that he would turn to his proofs, he read aloud an unsigned statement in which Lord Cobham was said to have confessed, four months earlier, that Raleigh had incited him to serve Spain. Raleigh, after reminding the jurors that he had done more than most to subvert Spanish interests, asked that Cobham make the claim to his face. Every defendant, he argued, had the right to confront his accuser. The law of England, like the Book of Deuteronomy, guaranteed that no one could be convicted of treason unless publicly charged by at least two witnesses.
The claim caused consternation among the judges; and although one reason was that Raleigh was simply wrong under the law of the time, the discombobulation reflected more than disagreement over the technicalities of treason. It was still just a few decades since witnesses had first begun to appear in trials – and the judges thought it preposterous to propose that criminal allegations required testimony at all. ‘I marvel, Sir Walter, that you, being of such experience and wit, should stand on this point,’ said Justice Warburton, ‘for many horse-stealers should escape if they may not be condemned without witnesses.’ When Raleigh insisted that the whole purpose of a trial was to allow a jury to weigh up the prosecution’s evidence, Lord Popham hoisted his bulky frame back into the fray. He had already told the jury that he could personally vouch for the truth of Cobham’s confession, having taken it himself, and his intervention was as predictable as it was decisive. No, he declared abruptly, trials did not require witnesses. A person could be convicted on the strength of confessions and statements that had been recorded before the hearing. ‘I know not, my Lord, how you conceive the law,’ responded Raleigh, ‘but if you affirm it, it must be a law to all posterity.’ ‘Nay, we do not conceive the law,’ boomed Popham. ‘We know the law.’
(#litres_trial_promo)
Any doubts that Coke might have had about his case were finally dispelled. He returned to the attack, now reciting from statements made by the men already convicted, in which they repeated rumours, second- and third-hand, about Raleigh’s willingness to betray England. ‘O barbarous!’ exploded Raleigh. ‘Do you bring the words of these hellish spiders against me?…I find not myself touched, scarce named; and the course of proof is strange; if witnesses are to speak by relation to one another, by this means you may have any man’s life in a week; and I may be massacred by mere hearsay.’ He pleaded again for Cobham to be produced in court but Popham held firm, pointing out – plausibly, if unhelpfully – that he might recant and confuse the jury.
As if to taunt Raleigh, Coke then produced a second statement from Cobham in which he apparently claimed that Raleigh had written to tell him that traitors were immune from punishment in the absence of two accusers. When Raleigh vehemently denied writing such a letter, the prosecutor announced that he would, after all, call a live witness. All heads turned – to see an unknown character step forward. The man identified himself as a sailor called Dyer, and told the jurors that someone in Lisbon had once told him that James would never be crowned king of England because Don Raleigh and Don Cobham would slit his throat first. He then drifted away as mysteriously as he had arrived. A flabbergasted Raleigh inquired how the supposed ramblings of an unknown person in Portugal could possibly implicate him. ‘Your treason’, snarled Coke, ‘had wings.’
As the hearing neared its conclusion and Raleigh pleaded with the jury to judge him as they would want to be judged, Coke demanded ‘the last word for the King’. ‘Nay, I will have the last word for my life,’ replied Raleigh. ‘Go to,’ exploded the Attorney-General.’ I will lay thee upon thy back for the confidentest traitor that ever came to the bar!’ Even the judges now sided with Raleigh until Coke sat down and petulantly accused them of encouraging treachery. They relented, like bad parents with a worse child, and begged him to carry on – which he did, at length. His summary of all the statements that everyone had already heard elicited yet another protest, and Coke let loose with one final spray of abuse. Addressing Raleigh to his face, he condemned him as ‘the most vile and execrable traitor that ever lived’, ‘an odious fellow’ whose ‘name is hateful to all the realm of England for thy pride’. As cool as his opponent was incontinent, Raleigh wondered which of them deserved the superlatives. ‘It will go near to prove a measuring cast between you and me, Mr. Attorney.’
The sympathies of the spectators had indeed shifted. One of James’s courtiers later told the king that ‘he would have gone a thousand miles to have seen [Raleigh] hanged’ at the beginning of the trial, but ‘would…have gone a thousand to save his life’ by its end. ‘In half a day’, another observer reported, ‘the mind of all the company was changed from the extremest hate to the greatest pity.’ Coke’s attacks inspired such hostility among bystanders, wrote someone else, that ‘calling hym base trash [they] begann to hyss’ while Coke himself looked ‘to be something daunted’. But the lawyer also had the thick skin of a seasoned showman – and the nous to save the best till last. Like a knife thrower with one final trick, Coke now pulled a scroll from his pocket, and the crowd hushed.
He had in his hand, he announced, a signed letter that Cobham had written just the day before. The prisoner had been so troubled by a guilty conscience that he had been unable to sleep and he had now chosen finally to unburden himself. ‘I have thought it fit’, recited Coke in his powerful voice, ‘to write nothing but what is true; for I am not ignorant of my present condition, and now to dissemble with God is no time.’ Raleigh, the letter continued, had written to him in his jail cell – not just once, but twice – and urged him to withdraw his accusations of treason. But Cobham would not do so. Indeed, ‘craving humble pardon’ for his ‘double dealing’, he now claimed that Raleigh had solicited an annual payment of £1500 from the Spanish government in exchange for his services as a spy.
Raleigh was visibly shaken. He eventually handed up a letter, smuggled out of Cobham’s cell, in which the prisoner said precisely the opposite, protesting Raleigh’s innocence, but it came as a damp squib after Coke’s pyrotechnics. Raleigh admitted also that he had indeed written twice to his old friend, that he had been offered £1500 to be a spy and that he had been wrong to conceal that fact from the court. ‘But for attempting or conspiring any treason against the King or the State,’ he insisted, ‘I still deny it to the death, and it can never be proved against me.’ It was all too late. Even if Cobham was a double-dealer on his own admission, Raleigh’s own words suddenly sounded like those of a man with secrets to hide.
After the jurors were told by one of Coke’s colleagues that the defendant had to prove his innocence, a common view in the seventeenth century, it took them just fifteen minutes to return a guilty verdict. Lord Popham then delivered the standard sentence for traitors, ordering that Raleigh be dragged to the scaffold and half-hanged, before being made to watch while his intestines and penis were tossed onto a fire. He was then to be decapitated and cut into quarters, each flank to be disposed of at the king’s pleasure.
Such a sight would have made a great many people very happy in 1603, but Raleigh’s life had further to run. He was spared by James and spent more than a decade confined to quarters in the Tower of London, conducting chemistry experiments, writing a history of the world and imagining lands and times far away. Then, in 1616, opportunity knocked. James, ruminating on Raleigh’s claims to have stumbled upon the route to El Dorado, had decided that a little unfathomable wealth would be no bad thing. He could, declared the king, set off to find the fabled city – a fifth of all receipts to go to the Crown. Raleigh, presented with one last glimpse of glory, set sail on 12 June 1617. By the time he returned a year later, the dream had turned to dust. Skirmishes and smallpox had devastated his crew. Among the scores of men that he had left buried on the banks of the Orinoco were his lifelong servant and his eldest son. And instead of cargoes of bounty, he trailed in his wake only furious complaints from Spain’s ambassador that he had attacked one of that country’s colonial outposts.
James, deeply unimpressed with his fifth of nothing, now judged it politic to appease the national enemy. The man who had been condemned for serving Spain was about to pay a heavy price for having offended it, for instead of giving Raleigh another trial the king decided simply to enforce the penalty that he had stayed fifteen years before. Sentence was pronounced at a hearing at which Attorney-General Sir Henry Yelverton delivered a Luciferian epitaph for Raleigh. He had lived ‘as a star at which the world hath gazed’, he told the judges, ‘but stars may fall, nay, they must fall when they trouble the sphere wherein they abide’.
The end came on a chilly morning in late October 1618. The crowd’s sympathies were this time squarely with Raleigh. At a time when Elizabethan England was already receding into mythology, his erstwhile arrogance had come to seem fitting to an age of giants, and the doomed quest for El Dorado had tempered its edge with tragedy. The panache with which he now lost his head would propel him into the pantheon of great dead Englishmen. After a long speech that ended with an invitation to the spectators to join him in prayer, the sexagenarian, etched and grey, thumbed the blade of the axe that would kill him. It was ‘a sharp medicine’, he murmured, ‘but it will cure all diseases’. He knelt at the block and, told that he was facing westwards – away from the traditionally presumed direction of the Last Judgment – declined to switch direction. ‘What matter how the head lie, so [long as] the heart be right?’ he asked. His last words, refusing the headsman’s offer of a blindfold, were suitably swashbuckling: ‘Think you I fear the shadow of the axe, when I fear not the axe itself?’ The show was over – and with a final flourish, Raleigh threw his arms above his shoulders to call down the curtain.
Whether Raleigh was in fact innocent of the treason charges laid against him in 1603 is as questionable today as it was four centuries ago. He certainly had reason to fear that his influence would decline after Elizabeth’s death, and although his score sheet against Spain was impressive, he lived in an age when allegiances were honoured in the breach as much as in the observance. For what it was worth, Cobham reasserted Raleigh’s guilt at his own trial and maintained the accusation ‘upon the hope of his soul’s resurrection’ as he stood upon his scaffold.
Raleigh’s trial was important, however, for reasons that transcended the truth or falsity of the charges. The sight of him struggling for his life against a phantom accuser, damned by documents that were dealt out like a blackjack hand, was so palpably unfair that it almost immediately became a model for how things ought not to be done. Several of the king’s advisers – including Edward Coke – urged James in 1618 to give him a second trial, with witnesses; and although the monarch remained ruthless as ever, reminding them that Raleigh had ‘by his wit…turned the hatred of men into compassion,’ the proceedings would fall ever deeper into disrepute. Raleigh himself claimed at his condemnation that one of the judges had repented of his role at Winchester from his deathbed. By 1656, an anonymous pamphleteer was swearing that Coke had privately expressed shock at the jury’s verdict, while another writer recorded that the jurors had knelt to beg Raleigh’s forgiveness after convicting him. All the stories were as incredible as they sound, but the speed with which they were recounted and believed is a sign of just how emblematic the trial had become. The myths would in time contribute to ideas even more far-reaching: that courts were there to limit state power as much as to express it; that prosecutions could be unfair even if a defendant was guilty; and that justice was done only if seen to be done. And they did so simply because transparency had made the unfairness of the alternative so manifest.
An ironic postscript is that few people did more to promote the vision of liberty that would accompany the sanctification of Raleigh’s trial than Sir Edward Coke himself. In 1606, King James promoted his Attorney-General to Chief Justice of Common Pleas, at which point the erstwhile lapdog clenched his teeth around the hand that had fed him, and bit – hard. For the two decades that remained of his life, he would not let go. At a time of political turmoil, when thinkers across Europe were pondering the ideal relationship between God, monarch, and subject, James had written a treatise arguing that kings were above human laws and followed them voluntarily, if at all. Coke, by way of several court rulings, case reports and a monumental textbook, begged to differ, insisting that rulers obeyed because they had to. To cut a very long story extremely short, his arguments won. The Puritan rebels who chopped off the head of James’s son, Charles I, cited him as their legal authority in 1649. Towards the end of the next century, his work would enjoy an even more lasting impact – inspiring American revolutionaries from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, when they too concluded that it was time to cut their rulers down to size.
Raleigh’s claim that criminal trials were public arguments over the meaning of testimony would, of course, be vindicated, but a crucial issue remained unresolved. The ancient notion that jurors themselves were somehow witnesses had always made for a certain tension as to their proper role. It was widely agreed that juries decided questions of fact, but those decisions could be regarded as statements so sacrosanct as to be unquestionable. They might alternatively be seen as lies, tantamount to perjury. Which view prevailed depended simply on whether judges would presume to decide that jurors had breached their oaths to God.
The chances that they would do so had built throughout the 1500s, as England’s expanding middle class grew ever more likely to stand up to their social superiors. By the end of the century, it was becoming increasingly common for judges to fine jurors – sometimes for returning a supposedly corrupt verdict, and sometimes simply for breaching the ancient rules requiring that they deliberate without food, drink, and fire. John Mucklow was imprisoned and fined twenty shillings in the mid 1570s after being caught smuggling preserved barberries, sugar candy, and liquorice into the jury room. A decade later, several jurors who were taking too long over their verdicts were searched and again found to be in possession of contraband: two who confessed to eating figs were fined £5 apiece, and three who admitted possession, but not consumption, of apples, had to pay forty shillings. Such disputes turned on fruit, but they reflected an issue that was anything but trifling: the ancient question of who in the community wielded the ultimate power to judge.
The case that brought the conflict to a head – the prosecution of two Quaker activists in 1670 – could hardly have been more perfectly designed to do so. In a country still rolling with the aftershocks of a civil war that had seen a monarch executed, the Church abolished, and each institution revived within a dozen years, deference was in short supply. Nonconformists such as the Puritans had led the revolt against King Charles I, while countless other sects had thrived during the subsequent eclipse of Anglicanism, and few were friendly towards the notion of secular rule. Several had theological objections to tax. Some had a problem with human law in its entirety. All were anathema to the restored forces of royalism.
Almost as soon as it took power, the new government had enacted statutes to reassert the authority of the official Church. The most draconian was the Conventicle Act of 1664, which made it an offence – punishable by death, if repeated – to participate in any act of nonconformist worship involving more than four people. Over the next few years, thousands of prosecutions were launched, and hundreds of dissenters were transported or executed for violating the statute. The Act came up for renewal in 1670, provoking protests across England. One of the demonstrations, staged by Quakers, would give rise to the most significant jury trial in history.
The Quakers were a threatening bunch from the standpoint of the status quo. Founded by a man who claimed a hundred and fifty miracles to his credit and named for their tendency to tremble and yelp while at prayer, adherents rarely met a convention that they did not despise. Some regarded clothes as superfluous and perambulated in the nude. Others went in the opposite direction and kept their hats on in the presence of social superiors – an expression of sartorial independence that sometimes inspired no less distress than the nudity. Several set out to undermine the greatest certainty of all, staging enthusiastic attempts to raise the dead. The eccentricity was accompanied by a dynamism that put them at the front line of resistance during the 1660s, and when word spread in August 1670 that they would be holding a prayer meeting at a hall in London’s Gracechurch Street, the authorities took no chances. Would-be worshippers arrived to find the doors padlocked. Among those worshippers, however, were two men who realized that the closure made a protest easier than ever. Turning to a crowd that was perhaps a hundred times the size permitted by the Conventicle Act, a 25-year-old called William Penn began to speak. Within minutes, he and a 42-year old linen draper by the name of William Mead were under arrest.
Battle was joined two weeks later at the Sessions House of the Old Bailey. The Fire of London had reduced much of the capital to waste four years before and its courthouse had been temporarily relocated into a wooden shack; but the surroundings belied the significance of the moment. The people present, who included five aldermen and a hundred or so spectators, were in for a magnificent show.
Presiding over the court were London’s two most senior judges – its staunchly royalist
(#litres_trial_promo) Lord Mayor, Samuel Starling, and Recorder Thomas Howel – and they were resolved from the outset to make an example of the nonconformist troublemakers. Both defendants were kept waiting in the malodorous holding cell for the sitting’s entire first day, while the court processed assorted ruffians and cutpurses instead, and when it reconvened two days later, the judges were ready with a second surprise. Aware of the Quakers’ touchiness about headgear, Samuel Starling had determined to cite both men for contempt as soon as they entered court – and when an over-eager bailiff accidentally upset his plans, he refused to be denied. ‘Sirrah, who bid you put off their hats?’ he yelled. ‘Put [them] back on again.’ The defendants were duly re-hatted, whereupon Thomas Howel fined them forty marks (a sum that could have paid for another hundred hats) for refusing to take them off again.
The authorities had charged both men with addressing a tumultuous assembly, a violation of common-law custom – doubtless concerned that a charge under the Conventicle Act might turn the trial into a direct assault on the statute. But Penn was not someone who could be so easily wrongfooted. A portrait painted some four years earlier shows an elegant and self-possessed young man, and although a committed religious rebel, he was easily the social and intellectual equal of his judges. The son of an admiralty official acquainted with King Charles II, he had studied at Oxford – before, on his own account, being ‘banisht’ – and the contrariness that then took him into several jails had not stopped him from picking up a legal education at Lincoln’s Inn. And like any eighteenth-century Quaker, he could talk the talk at least as well as he walked the walk. Told the charges against him, he asked that they be put in writing because they were too long to remember and then demanded to know ‘upon what law you ground my indictment’. Thomas Howel replied it was based on ‘the common law’. And where, Penn asked, might that be found? The flustered judge took refuge in Latin, declaring that it was lex non scripta – or unwritten law – and a thing ‘which many have studied thirty or forty years to know’. If it was that hard to understand, countered Penn, it did not sound very common at all.
