torney in the matter of a great pearl and
diamond given him by Cobham in order to arrange the business of the fee
farm Cobham was purchasing from the Crown. He had added that he 'had
cleared him,' which was, he asserted, true, as he had remarked to Cecil
that he believed Cobham had no concern with the plot of the priests.
Cecil's statement disagrees both as to Ralegh's examination, and as to
the message to Cobham. According to Cecil, Ralegh was not examined at
Windsor on any matter concerning Cobham. Yet, though Cobham was not then
suspected, and though Ralegh had been examined about himself alone, he
immediately, it is alleged, sent Keymis to tell Cobham that he had been
examined concerning him, and that he had cleared him of all to the
Lords. Keymis is stated, though not by Cecil, to have added verbally, as
if from Ralegh, an exhortation to Cobham to be 'of good comfort, for one
witness could not condemn a man for treason.' Ralegh denied positively
that any such message came from him. Mr. S.R. Gardiner, in his _History
of England from the Accession of James I to the Disgrace of Chief
Justice Coke_, condemns this as 'an unlucky falsehood.' His reason for
the violent charge is that he does not suppose so loyal a friend as
Keymis would have invented a damaging calumny. Keymis would not have
invented it to injure; he may, in the hope that the effect would be
beneficial, have repeated to Cobham casual expressions he had heard from
Ralegh; or Cobham may have himself imagined the message was from Ralegh
without any authority to that purport from Keymis. The former hypothesis
is not inconsistent with the character of the messenger. Keymis could
endure much for his leader. Without flinching he bore imprisonment in
the Tower and Fleet, from which he was not released till December 31,
1603. He was a brave and loyal follower, but not very prudent, as
after-events evinced. If the prosecution thought it could prove that he
really used the words as from Ralegh, it is strange that it did not
venture to produce him in court to testify to it.

Cobham could not have escaped suspicion. Ralegh's allusion to his
dealings with Arenberg was not needed to direct it against him. He was
notoriously reckless in his language. It had been remarked by Beaumont,
the French Ambassador, in the previous May that he could scarcely
mention Cecil without abusing him as a traitor. He was not likely to
have been reticent on his relations with the Archduke's