Page images
[ocr errors]

laws of peace or war enacted; enmities would prove immortal, slaughterings, perfidiousness; deceit and combustions would be every where. This so necessary and profitable a ministry was justly called, Santo officio y ministerio de los Angelos, the holy office and ministry of angels; and the persons of those, who did exercise it, were held for sacred in all men's opinions. Sancti habebantur legati, eorumq; corpora sancta sunt. Ambassadors were held holy, and their bodies holy, saith Marcus Varro; therefore they should be protected from all human injury. Cicero also saith, Sentio jus legatorum tum hominum præsidio munitum esse, tum etiam divino jure vallatum:' I hold the right of ambassadors not only to be fortified with human safe-guard, but intrenched with divine safety; I could muster up a whole squadron of authors, both modern and ancient, upon this subject, especially King Don Alonso, who makes this security of ambassadors his own, and defends it so; and this security is due to any ambassador, though he be suspected and false, as friar Don Goncalez resolves the point in his History of China; and Besoldus also; and although the said ambassador come to deceive and collude, or that he be an enemy, yet having a safe conduct, he is to be protected, as the Count de la Roca saith, Fides enim, quando promittitur, etiam hosti servanda est contra quem bellum geritur, quanto magis amico pro quo pugnatur.' And if this security be due to an ambassador, that comes to intrap, yea, to an enemy, how much more to an English friend, in whose country the ambassador of Spain hath, and always hath had the pre-eminence of the ambassadors of all other princes?

[ocr errors]

Now that England should still be our friend, in statu quo nunc, and that peace should be continued with her, proceeds from right; for peace is not only made with the King, but with the kingdom also, and, although the first expires, the last remains. For, put the case that a peace be concluded with a country, without including the King, either by carelessness, or some other accident, yet the peace stands good; for so the Polish magistrates answered the Emperor Ferdinand the Second, Faltando el Rey, se conservan con el reyno: the King failing, yet peace is to be conserved with the kingdom. So Bodin holds, and urgeth a pregnant example to this purpose, Lib. de Repub. cap. iv. fol. 63. where he alledgeth the answer which the ambassadors of France made to Edward the Fourth, King of England, desiring aid from France against some rising subjects of his, by virtue of the league between them; which answer was, 'That the King of France could not help him: for confederations betwixt France and England were made betwixt the Kings and Kingdoms; so that, though King Edward was dispossessed thereof, yet the league and amity remained still with the kingdom, and with the king regnant. Just so the peace betwixt the Kings and kingdoms of Spain with England, though Charles Stuart, the King, be wanting, yet it may be kept intire with the kingdom: and his Majesty himself insinuates so much unto us, continuing still his ambassador in England; for, when a peace is established betwixt Kings and kingdom, people, persons, and vassals, though the King fail, and the kingdom receive a differing form of government, yet the peace holds good still, because it aimed principally at the people and persons of both nations;

and upon these terms the peace was renewed betwixt Spain and England, 1630, as the French Mercury relates.

Therefore these delinquents failed much in the foresaid reverence due to the sacred persons of ambassadors, as also to the safe conduct of his Majesty, by laying violent hands upon his person, much more by murdering him. Joab did treacherously kill Abner, who came with David's safe conduct; whereupon David said to all the people that were with him, Scindite vestimenta vestra, and, reinforcing his sorrow, Levavit David vocem suam, et flevit super tumulum Abner, flevit autem et omnis populus; David lifted up his voice upon Abner's tomb, and wept, yea, all the people wept: moreover, David erected a tomb for Abner, being so treacherously killed, notwithstanding that he had his safe conduct, and the privilege of an ambassador. The Romans raised statues to ambassadors that were killed. Interfecto legato statua debetur, saith Besoldus, through all his Chapter of Legations.

Moreover, it is observable that David did not only weep, but he burst out into this deprecation, Si ante occasum solis gustavero panem vel aliud quidquam; If, before the setting of the sun, I taste bread, or any thing else, &c. Now, this sorrow of David did much please the people, Populus audivit, et placuerunt iis cuncta quæ fecerat rex in conspectu totius populi; as the holy text hath it, The people heard, and were pleased with every thing that David did.

Here it is to be observed, that the people were to be satisfied herein; nor was a bare sorrow only satisfactory for this murder, but a due punishment must expiate the offence, which, in regard that David himself could not do it in his life-time, he left it in his charge to his son Solomon, in these words: Facies ergo juxta sapientiam tuam, et effudit sanguinem belli in pace; Thou shalt do according to thy own wisdom (exaggerating his speech with a reason) and he shed the blood of war in peace.

So his Catholick Majesty (God guard him) hath done out of a resentment he had of this treacherous murder, by recommending the business to so great a tribunal: Facietis ergo juxta sapientiam vestram, effudit sanguinem belli in pace; proceed according to your own high prudence, by punishing these delinquents, who have murdered the ambassador of the parliament of England, though he came with a royal passport, and so shed the blood of war in time of peace.

Moreover, this death of the ambassador, by hindering the procedure of his ambassy, is no single offence, but it reflects upon many. As the great civilian saith, Si quis autem legationem impedit, non unius, sed multorum profectum avertit, et sicut multis nocet, à multis arguendus est. Whosoever shall impede an ambassy, he averts not the benefit of one man, but of many, and, as he hurts many, so he is to be argued by many. Now, many are the accusers of these men; many are interested in the business, and most especially the King, our liege lord, who gave a passport, and allowed of the ambassador, and of the parliament of England that sent him: therefore these men had need to have many lives to lose, for to satisfy so many whom the business concerns; so Magalotti hath it, that the punishment is to be double, in regard of the persons concerned.


But hence may result a question, whether the punishment be to be inflicted where the delict was perpetrated, and the King's security violated, or whether the murderers be to be sent to the ambassador's master, whom he represents? This was an old difference betwixt Romulus and Tacius, who reigned together, as Pedro Ærodo relates the business briefly, yet elegantly. Romulus was of opinion, that the offenders were to be sent to the ambassador's master. But this transfering of the offender to the party offended was always held to proceed rather from urbanity than justice, as it appears in the case of Rincon and Fregoso, which is amply related in the annals of the Emperor Charles the Fifth; it was a loud clamorous business, whereof all the corners of Christendom do ring, and every chronicler hath it, therefore I will not molest you with so trite a thing.

Tacius was of a differing sentiment; for he would have the delict to be punished where it was perpetrated; and the reasons, which the doctors give, are, because the lord of the territory is the more interested, and obliged to punish the offence on the party, to vindicate his own wrongs, as in this cause his Catholick Majesty is most injured, because his royal passport is violated; and why should he have recourse to a foreign power to desire justice, when, by the law of nations, he may avenge the affront at home by his own? And, it is most fitting, they should receive punishment in this court rather than any where else, where, in regard of the greatness of our King, there are continually so many ambassadors residing, whose security may be much confirmed by the exemplary punishment of these delinquents, and, in particular, the very ambassadors of England themselves, who are sojourning here now, though opposites to the dead ambassador, in regard of the dissensions now in England; all which must be done by a just infliction of punish


But the delinquents think to escape, by the immunities of the church where they fled, and sheltered themselves from so grievous and atrocious a crime, aggravated by so many circumstances, by so many accusers and interested persons; nor, according to their defence, do they confess to have committed any offence or sin at all, but they vaunt to have performed an heroick act. Now, it is a rule, that Jactantia aggravat peccatum; boasting of mischief makes the sin the worse. St. Augustin, in defining sin, saith, that it is Dictum, factum, vel coucupitum contra legem æternam; a thing spoken, done, or wished against the eternal law. Him followed Thomas Aquinas; and, citing Gregorio de Valentia, Father Granados pursueth the opinion, and Vasquez. Sin also is defined Transgressio legis, a transgression of the law: now the delict of murder is opposite to all laws, both divine and human; as also to violate the security of an ambassador, much more to murder, is condemned by all laws of heaven and earth; therefore this can be no other than a delict, and much more precisely a sin, and a sin non nominandum, an infandous sin, much less an heroick action, or exploit of gallantry.

The second article.

That these delinquents cannot make themselves capable of the protection of any sanctuary, will be justified by two mediums, in form of a syllogising argument.

He who commits Crimen læse majestatis, a crime of high treason, cannot have the protection of the church.

But these delinquents have committed a crime of high treason.
Ergò, They cannot have the protection of the church.

The second argument is of no less force.

He who commits a treacherous murder, cannot have the protection of the church.

But these delinquents have committed a treacherous murder.
Ergò, They cannot have the benefit of the church.

For proof of the first, Ambrosinus's, Bosius's, and Julius Clarus's opinions are clear; Gambacarta, Diana, and others concur with them; among other high-treasons, they instance in killing the King's eldest son, his brother, or any of the race royal; or the King's wife (because she is the one half of him) or a privy-counsellor of his, &c. as also, he who violates the King's salvo conducto, whereon they insist much. Now, touching that large bull of Gregory the Fourteenth, touching the immunities of the church, it is the opinion of all the civil doctors on this side the Alps, that it is not available in all provinces; nay, it hath been petitioned against by divers; and to this day is not put generally in practice. They are the words of Evia de Bolanos in his Curia Filippica. It was petitioned against in Portugal; nor could this bull take footing in Spain, which never had such exorbitant privileges, but observed the common canonical right, which makes more for the reverence of the church. And whereas it may be alledged, that the said safe conduct was not to be observed by the said delinquents, because it was not published, and that it binds only from that time; whereas it may be alledged also, that the King's safe conduct is only by royal letters, or some publick instrument, all this is of little or no validity at all; for the delinquents voluntarily confess, that they had notice, by letters from England, that this resident was come to treat of peace, and correspond with Spain. The delinquents, besides, may aver, that the observation of this salvo conducto did not aim at them, being no vassals here: But this argument is of little vigour likewise; for all people, whether vassals, or not vassals, are obliged to observe the laws, in the territories of that prince where they sojourn; and, if this law takes hold on the natural vassals of any country, much more on strangers, who must not be encouraged, by any immunity, to come and offend in another country, without incurring the same severity of law.

Nor will it serve their turn to say, That all treasons are either in odium, or contemptum regis; neither whereof could induce them to that act, because they were militant in his Majesty's army, and served him with all exact fidelity; for all this concurred in Joab; for he was ever faithful, and a confident of King David's, and son to his sister Serviah.

For proof of the second argument of our discourse, viz. that he, who commits a treacherous or proditorious murder, connot have the protection of the church, the determination of his holiness Clement the Eighth shall serve; who saith, that not only he who kills one proditoriously, but he who kills a reconciled enemy, is deprived of the benefit of sanctuary. Now, these delinquents destroyed this publick minister of state per insidias, appensatè, animo deliberato, et prodotoriè, fraudu

lently by forecast, with a deliberate mind, and proditoriously; therefore they are far from deserving the shelter of the church.

The sacred scripture takes us out of all doubt, by the act of holy and religious Solomon, when, in execution of the just commandment of David his father, he consulted how to punish Joab for having slain Abner, who had David's safe conduct, for which he fled to the church and to the altar: Fugit ergo Joab in tabernaculum Domini, et apprehendit cornu altaris: And Benaias, who had the charge of executing him, returning with this news to Solomon, he answered, Vade, interfice eum, go and kill him. Benaias, going again to Joab, told him the King's command, and bid him come out: Joab replied, I will not come out, but I will die here. Thereupon, Benaias going back to Solomon to inform him what Joab had said, the King rejoined, Fac sicut locutus est, et interfice eum; do as he hath said, and kill him. So Benaias, the son of Jehoiada, went up to the altar, and, assaulting Joab, he killed him. Now, it is a great question among the theologues, whether Solomon sinned in doing this? Abulensis excuseth him, giving this reason: Quia non illi profecit tenuisse aram, quia nullum homicida insidiator habet præsidium: because the altar could not profit him, in regard that no treacherous man-slayer hath any protection. Add hereunto what Gaspar Sanchez and Ruperto alledge touching the same fact: Nihil debet illi fides altaris, qui per dolum occidendo proximum omnem fidem perdidit: the faith of the altar oweth him nothing, who lost all faith in slaying his neighbour feloniously. But Cajetan, with others, find no way how to excuse Solomon touching this business, in regard that he might, by his pretorian troops and veteran soldiers, have taken him both from the altar and the tabernacle; and so, without any note of violating religion, he might have dispatched him in some profane place, as the priest Jehoijada commanded Athaliah to be taken out of the temple, and killed without. This is a great and precise lesson for the Lords Alcaldes, for they need not fear to put these men to death, in regard they are not now materially in the church.

To prove the minor of the second syllogism, viz. that these men did voluntarily, of set purpose, with a deliberate mind, and proditoriously murder the ambassador of the parliament of England, shall be thus proved:

Certain men espied the said ambassador lighting at his lodging the same night he came; the next day, William Spark and Henry Progers (who is fled) spoke with John Baptista Riva, the ambassador's servant, and Henry, going down, said to William, Let us go here below (where the other three delinquents were) and said, Let us kill the resident for a destroyer of our nation: So they swore among themselves, that, if one died, all would die with him in so heroick an act: Whence this circumstance may be drawn, that this murder was committed by former consultation and with a deliberate mind. What is formerly related is confessed by the delinquents themselves, and that they came to perform this exploit two by two; for, being come to the lodging, two remained at the foot of the stairs, two on the top, and two entered. William Spark went in first; seeing two sitting at the table, he pulled off his hat, and said, I kiss your hands: Which is the resident? And, when they

« PreviousContinue »