Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/533

 492

riage. Somerset might have made two defence was devoid of sensational features. answers to this course of reasoning: Over- In fact, it was so weak as to amount to a bury positively declined to go abroad; and, virtual surrender. Somerset was not a strong moreover, had he gone, he could easily have man, in any sense of the term, and it is an communicated by letter in hindrance of the open question whether his failure to make a divorce and proposed alliance. In the Tower! more vigorous defence may not have been no communication with the outside world; due to a feeling of the hopelessness of trying would be possible, and Somerset may well I to fight successfully against trained lawyers. Certainly this case is a good illustration ot have accepted this course as the most prac the absurdity of the reasoning upon which ticable temporary expedient to obviate his the exclusion of counsel for the defence in friend's opposition until his desires had been cases of felony was based. It was said that realized. the case against the prisoner should be so According to the custom of the time the clear that the ablest lawyer could find no different counsel divided the case among fault with it, and the judges, who were, of themselves. In this division of labor Ser course, supposed to be .the equals of the geant Montague was given the most difficult ablest lawyers, were counsel for the defend task. He proved that Somerset had sent ant to the extent of seeing to it that the weak certain powders to Overbury, and tried, points in a prosecution were exposed. As a without much success, to show that Somerset had poisoned the tarts which had been sent matter of fact Somerset received no assist to the Tower. His theory that Somerset ance from the Lord High Steward; on the was constantly administering poison to contrary. Lord Ellesmere would seem to Overbury during a period of three months have assumed the prisoner's guilt from his would seem to prove too much, for the fact repeated efforts to secure a confession. It is 'remained that Overbury did not die until the questionable whether in any event Somerset apothecary's servant administered corrosive would have been acquitted; but if he had sublimate—and there was not the slightest been defended with half the skill which evidence to connect Somerset with that act. characterized the prosecution, he could have Bacon summed up the evidence in an made a strong defence. He seems to have been oppressed by a excellent speech. It was, however, divided consciousness of the bad appearance of his and subdivided in the old-fashioned ana tomical style and was replete with classical participation in Overbury's imprisonment. allusions. "For the matter of proof," he Moreover, he had taken the ill-advised said, "you may consider that impoisonment course of burning letters which could have of all offences is most secret, even so secret done him little harm. It is impossible to get that if in all cases of impoisonment you ai the truth of the defence which he feebly should require testimony you should suggested rather than presented. It would as good proclaim impunity. Who could seem that Weston had not actually adminis have impeached Levia by testimony for tered all, the poison, as instructed. Somerset the poisoning of her figs upon the tree, had in fact sent some tarts and jellies to which her husband was about to gather with Overbury as a means of conveying letters his own hands? Who could have impeached assuring him, in answer to his appeals, that Parasetis for the poisoning of the one side efforts were being made to hasten his de of the knife she carried with her, and keeping livery. Lady Somerset is supposed to have the other side clean so that herself did mixed the poison with these tarts—whether eat of the same piece of meat that they did with or without Somerset's knowledge can never be known. Somerset was also known whom she did impoison?" Contrary to the King's expectations the to have sent certain powders to Overbury.