Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 10.djvu/67

 1572.] THE DUKE OF NORFOLK 47 spoke with such a grace and cheerfulness of heart and voice as if he had been ready to be one at the doing of it, like a hearty true Englishman, a good Christian, a good subject, a man enough for his religion, prince, and country.' ' The Duke/ the Attorney continued, with less rhe- toric but more point ' the Duke said that the witnesses had spoken falsely, but their evidence had been taken separately in a great variety of complicated details, and it was all entirely consistent. Of what value, on the other side, was the Duke's assertion ? He had broken his oath as Commissioner at York, he had broken his promise to the Queen, he had denied in his examinations what he had afterwards admitted to be true ; it was not for the Duke of Norfolk to stand upon discrediting of witnesses and advancing his own credit which he had so much decayed.' The prosecution closed, and Shrewsbury asked the Duke what more he had to say. And what could he say? If indeed the Queen of Scots was an innocent woman and the Duke, if any one, knew the truth about her he might have appealed to the broad prin- ciples of justice ; he might have proclaimed, in the face of England and the Peers, the cowardice which had stained her with crimes of which her accusers themselves were guilty. He might have denounced Cecil, Bacon, Sadler, Knowles, Elizabeth herself, as knaves and hypocrites, and he would have carried with him the sympathies of the world. He was not standing before a Secret Tribunal in the dungeons of the Tower. He