road that he
had betrayed his companions. He was then called upon to meet his
adversaries in a public disputation, which he did with great courage and
skill. After being again tortured, he was tried and convicted of treason
in stirring up sedition. His trial was most unfairly conducted, and it
seems probable that the charge was altogether false. He was executed on
1st December 1581.

[19] 'Take heed of a preacher as Essex did.' Essex admitted his guilt at
the end of his trial. Howell (_State Trials_, vol. i. p. 1358) says: 'On
the 25th of February 1601, which was the day appointed for his
execution, Thomas Mountford and William Barlow, doctors of divinity,
with Ashton, the minister of the Church in the Tower, were sent unto him
early to administer Christian consolation to his soul. In the presence
of these men he gave thanks to Almighty God from the bottom of his
heart, that his designs, which were so dangerous to the state, succeeded
not. He told them he had now looked thoroughly and seriously into his
sin, and was heartily sorry he had so obstinately defended an unjust
cause at the bar.... He acknowledged how worthy he was to be spued out
(these were his words) by the Commonwealth for the wickedness of his
enterprize, which he likened to a leprosy spread far and near, and that
he had infected many.'

CHARLES I

The following report was first published 'by Authority, to prevent false
and impertinent relations.' It was licensed by Gilbert Mabbot, and, so
far as one can judge from internal evidence, is rather the slightly
amplified transcript of a barrister's note, than the work of anybody who
in those days might represent a modern newspaper reporter. The whole is
carelessly put together, as far as form is concerned; the grammar is
often halting, and the sentences are not always finished. But I should
suppose that all the arguments used on either side are fairly indicated,
except in those places where it is suggested in a note that 'authority'
made excisions. If such excisions were made, however, the fact that the
gaps were left in their present state is evidence of the substantial
accuracy and fairness of the rest of the report. Taking a purely legal
view of the matter, which no one will pretend covers the whole, or
indeed the most important part of the case, one does not see why, if
Bradshaw left in as much as he did, he should not have left in
everything. From the point of view of defending counsel, Charles