GEORGE DIGBY, EARL OF BRISTOL 1612-1676 George Digby was born in Madrid in the year 1612, when his father resided in that city as English Ambassador to the Court of Spain. He received his education at Magdalen College, Oxford, and entered political life at the age of twenty-eight, being elected member for the county of Dorset in 1640. Lord Digby soon came forward as a determined enemy of the Court. Among the Speeches on Grievances," his own stands forth as the most bold and impassioned. His argument in favor of triennial Parliament is remarkable for a still higher order of eloquence; in the course of it he made a bitter attack on Strafford, showing the necessity of frequent Parliaments as a control on ministers. In consequence of the zeal displayed in these matters and as an ardent advocate of the people's rights, Lord Digby was appointed one of the managers of the impeachment of Strafford. In this undertaking he at first displayed great zeal. Clarendon describes Digby as a man of uncommon activity of mind and fertility of invention, bold and impetuous in whatever designs he undertook; but deficient in judgment, inordinately vain and ambitious, of a volatile and unquiet spirit, disposed to separate councils, and governed more by impulse than by fixed principles. Such being the characteristics of the man it is idle to seek for the motives that determined him in his change of attitude during the trial of Strafford. Much of the celebrity attached to this speech is owing, no doubt, to the circumstances under which it was delivered. The House of Commons must have presented an exciting scene when, at the last moment, one of the managers of the impeachment came forward to abandon his ground; to disclose the proceedings of the Committee in secret session; and to denounce the condemnation of Strafford by a bill of attainder, as an act of murder. But, whatever may be thought of the man, the speech is one of great manliness and force. It is plausible in its statements, just in its distinctions, and weighty in its reasonings. Its diction is worthy to be studied in one respect, at least. It abounds in those direct and pointed forms of speech which sink at once into the heart; and by their very plainness give an air of perfect sincerity to the speaker. These qualities are most important to a speaker who is contending against the force of popular prejudice. SPEECH ON THE BILL OF ATTAINDER AGAINST LORD STRAFFORD Delivered in the House of Commons, April 21, 1641 WE TE are now upon the point of giving, as much as in us lies, the final sentence unto death or life, on a great minister of state and peer of this kingdom, Thomas, Earl of Strafford, a name of hatred in the present age for his practices, and fit to be made a terror to future ages by his punishment. I have had the honor to be employed by the House in this great business, from the first hour it was taken into consideration. It was a matter of great trust; and I will say with confidence that I have served the House in it, not only with industry, according to my ability, but with most exact faithfulness and justice. And as I have hitherto discharged my duty to this House and to my country in the progress of this great cause, so I trust I shall do now, in the last period of it, to God and to a good conscience. I do wish the peace of that to myself, and the blessing of Almighty God to me and my posterity, according as my judgment on the life of this man shall be consonant with my heart, and the best of my understanding in all integrity. I know well that by some things I have said of late, while this bill was in agitation, I have raised some prejudices against me in the cause. Yea, some (I thank them for their plain dealing) have been so free to tell me, that I have suffered much by the backwardness I have shown in the bill of attainder of the Earl of Strafford, against whom I have formerly been so keen, so active. I beg of you, Mr. Speaker, and the rest, but a suspension of judgment concerning me, till I have opened my heart to you, clearly and freely, in this business. Truly, sir, I am still the same in my opinion and affections as to the Earl of Strafford. I confidently believe him to be the most dangerous minister, the most insupportable to free subjects, that can be charactered. I believe his practices in themselves to have been as high and tyrannical as any subject ever ventured on; and the malignity of them greatly aggravated by those rare abilities of his, whereof God hath given him the use, but the devil the application. In a word, I believe him to be still that grand apostate to the Commonwealth, who must not expect to be pardoned in this world till he be despatched to the other. And yet let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, my hand must not be to that despatch. I protest, as my conscience stands informed, I had rather it were off. Let me unfold to you the mystery, Mr. Speaker: I will not dwell much upon justifying to you my seeming variance at this time from what I was formerly, by putting you in mind of the difference between prosecutors and judges-how misbecoming that fervor would be in a judge which, perhaps, was commendable in a prosecutor. Judges we are now, and must, therefore, put on another personage. It is honest and noble to be earnest in order to the discovery of truth; but when that hath been brought so far as it can be to light, our judgment thereupon ought to be calm and cautious. In prosecution upon probable grounds, we are accountable only for our industry or remissness; but in judgment, we are deeply responsible to Almighty God for its rectitude or obliquity. In cases of life, the judge is God's steward of the party's blood, and must give a strict account for every drop. But, as I told you, Mr. Speaker, I will not insist long upon this ground of difference in me now from what I was formerly. The truth of it is, sir, the same ground whereupon I with the rest of the few to whom you first committed the consideration of my Lord Strafford, brought down our opinion that it was fit he should be accused of treason-upon the same ground, I was engaged with earnestness in his prosecution; and had the same ground remained in that force of belief in me, which till very lately it did, I should not have been tender in his condemnation. But truly, sir, to deal plainly with you, that ground of our accusation-that which should be the basis of our judgment of the Earl of Strafford as to treason—is, to my understanding, quite vanished away. This it was, Mr. Speaker-his advising the King to employ the army in Ireland to reduce England. This I was assured would be proved, before I gave my consent to his accusation. I was confirmed in the same belief during the prosecution, and fortified most of all in it, after Sir Henry Vane's preparatory examination, by assurances which that worthy member, Mr. Pym, gave me, that his testimony would be made convincing by some notes of what passed in the Junto (Privy Council) concurrent with it. This I ever understood would be of some other counsellor; but you see now, it proves only to be a copy of the same secretary's notes, discovered and produced in the manner you have heard; and those such disjointed fragments of the venomous part of discourses-no results, no conclusions of councils, which are the only things that secretaries should register, there being no use of the other but to accuse and bring men into danger. But, sir, this is not that which overthrows the evidence with me concerning the army in Ireland, nor yet that all the rest of the Junto remember nothing of it; but this, sir, which I shall tell you, is that which works with me, under favor, to an utter overthrow of his evidence as touching the army of Ireland. Before, while I was prosecutor, and under tie of secrecy, I might not discover (disclose) any weakness of the cause, which now, as judge, I must. Mr. Secretary Vane was examined thrice upon oath at the preparatory committee. The first time he was questioned as to all the interrogatories; and to that part of the seventh which concerns the army in Ireland, he said positively these words: "I cannot charge him with that;" but for the rest, he desired time to recollect himself, which was granted him. Some days after, he was examined a second time, and then deposed these words concerning the King's being absolved from rules of government, and so forth, very clearly. But being pressed as to that part of the Irish army, again he said he could say “nothing to that." Here we thought we had done with him, till divers weeks after, my Lord of Northumberland, and all others of the Junto, denying to have heard anything concerning those words of reducing England by the Irish army, it was thought fit to examine the secretary once more; and then he deposed these words to have been spoken by the Earl of Strafford to |