To this the LAUD, submit to the order and decrees of their courts." The earl makes a to the bishops in Ireland by former deputies; that, however, being not fully satisfied with the convenience of this way of proceeding, he seldom granted any such warrants; but receiving information that several in the diocese of Down were somewhat refractory, he assisted that bishop in this manner; hearing, however, of some disorders in the execution he recalled his warrants." In the nineteenth article the earl is charged with framing a new and unusual oath in favour of arbitrary government: that this oath was pressed upon the Scotch planters in Ireland; that those who took it were bound not only to acknowledge his majesty's supremacy, but to own the lawfulness of the ceremonies and government of the Irish Church. To this the earl replied, "that the oath was not compulsively significant put upon the Irish Scots, but drawn up in compliance with defence. their own express petition; that this petition is mentioned in the proclamation as the leading motive; that the same oath was enjoined not long after by the English privy-council; and that he had a letter under his majesty's hand for making it a test of loyalty." Lastly, it was urged against the earl of Strafford, that he had preferred popish and infamous persons as the bishop of Waterford, and others, to the highest places in the Church of Ireland. To this the earl's answer was, “that he never preferred any but those he believed honest and conscientious persons; that he could not insure people's manners, nor prophesy upon their future behaviour: and as for the bishop of L'Estrange's Waterford, he had already satisfied the law." Hist. of The article which lay hardest upon the earl was his advising p. 221. 245. the king, as it was pretended, to bring over the Irish army to reduce this kingdom to obedience: these words were said to be spoken at the council-board when the dissolution of the last parliament was resolved: sir Henry Vane was the evidence, who being secretary of state, had taken some imperfect notes of what passed upon that occasion: for disabling this testimony, I shall wave the earl's defence, and only report part of the lord Digby's speech in the house of commons. This lord, when the bill of attainder was debating, declared that secretary Vane was thrice examined upon oath by the preparatory committee. That at his first and second examinations, made at I. some distance of time, when the article concerning the Irish CHARLES army was put to him, he gave this positive answer, “I cannot charge him with that, I can say nothing to that." The lord Digby goes on, and observes, that the juncto, that is, the cabinet, denying they heard the lord Strafford say any such thing, it was thought fit, after several weeks' interval, to examine the secretary once more. And now he recollected himself to purpose, and deposed that Strafford suggested the king might " employ the Irish army to reduce this kingdom," or words to that effect. But this is but a single evidence, contradicted by the rest of the cabinet; and which is more, by this secretary himself, who had twice deposed upon oath he knew nothing of the matter. The lord Digby, though one of the committee for preparing matter, and managing the trial against the earl, was so affected with the disproof of this grand article, that he solemnly washed his hands of Strafford's blood, and refused to concur with the bill. Rushworth, part 3. P. 226. Nalson, Whitlock's Memorials, ceeded As to the whole charge, the earl made a very handsome defence, and behaved himself to all imaginable advantage. vol. 2. To give this part of his character in Whitlock's words, who p. 158, 159. was one of the managers against him. "Certainly," (says this gentleman) "never any man acted such a part on such a theatre with more wisdom, constancy, and eloquence, with greater reason, judgment and temper, and with a better grace in all his words and gestures, than this great and excellent person did." In short, the commons distrusting the force of their evidence, p. 43. and being apprehensive the earl would be acquitted by his He is propeers, changed their battery, and proceeded by way of attain- against by der; it was thought none of the crimes marked for treason by tuinder. the law could be proved upon him. However, the famous statute upon which the prosecutions for treason are grounded, has this clause, "that because some species of treason might then be forgotten, the justices, before they proceeded to give judgment, should bring doubtful and supposed treasons before the king and his parliament, where the matter was to be decided, whether the crime was treason or not." This clause was thought serviceable to the present purpose, and might give a colour to the bill of attainder. And now, amongst other bill of al 25 Edw. 3. cap. 2. 801. move to be excused trial. LAUD, things, it was debated whether the bishops were to vote upon Abp. Cant. the bill. This gave occasion to a great many bitter invectives and personal reflections upon that order; not without the intermixture of threatening in case the spiritual lords should insist on their right of being an essential part of the legislature. However, the temporal peers were saved the trouble of declaring themselves further upon the point, for bishop Williams stood up, and moved in behalf of himself and his brethThe bishops ren, "that they might be excused being present at the trial; and that since they were ecclesiastical persons, they might not voting at his be concerned in matters of blood." These, and such other resembling reasons, were suggested by Williams; which, as the lord Clarendon judiciously observes, are of no great weight. This prelate, finding the commons very desirous of being disencumbered from the bishops' votes, applied strongly to their fears, endeavoured to terrify them with what they might suffer for making the late canons, and never left soliciting till he had prevailed with them to remove the disfavour of the parliament, by requesting to be excused before an order was passed for their absence at the trial. The bishops waving their right thus unseasonably, and abandoning the earl, who had deserved so well of the Church, was looked on as an excess of caution; and probably made some of the temporal lords less solicitous in appearing for them, when their own privileges were further quesLord Cla- tioned, and themselves stood in need of a defence. rendon's Hist. of the Rebellion, p. 216, 217. ment and court in rabble. In short, the bill passed with the commons, but found more opposition in the upper house: however, the mob being countenanced by the earl of Strafford's enemies, came down to the The parlia- parliament-house in formidable numbers, insulted the lords, by crying "Justice! Justice !" and thus either frighted them from sulted by the the house, or overawed the majority into a compliance: the king continuing firm against passing the bill, the rabble came down to Whitehall, repeated their insolent clamour, and meL'Estrange. naced higher than before. The privy-council and judges being called to suggest an expedient for suppressing this treasonable riot, seemed low in their spirits, and gave very mysterious advice; they told the king there was no other way for preSee 13, 14 serving himself and family but by passing the attainder: that the necessity of the case ought to overrule all other considerations that his majesty was obliged to be more tender of the public safety than of any one person, how innocent soever. Charles 2. cap. 29. where this attainder is repealed I. satisfied with the case to the bishops. Hacket's The king replied, that the compliance proposed was directly CHARLES contrary to his conscience, and therefore, to make his majesty easy, they desired him to consult the bishops. The bishops of London, Durham, and Carlisle, Williams, archbishop of York, and Usher, primate of Ireland, were sent for upon this occasion. In order to resolve the case, they state the question to the king in these words: "whether, as his majesty refers his own judgment to his judges (in whose person they act) in courts of oyer and terminer, king's-bench, assize, and in causes of life and death, and it lies on them if an innocent man suffer; so why may not his majesty satisfy his conscience in the present matter, that since competent judges in law had awarded that they found guilt of treason in the earl, that he may suffer that judgment to stand, though in his private mind he was not satisfied the earl of Strafford was so deeply criminal, and let the blame lie upon them who were the earl's judges." Four of these bishops, Usher, Williams, Morton, and Pot- The king, not ter, declared for the affirmative side of the question, as bishop the bill, puts Hacket reports from the mouth of three of them. Another considerable historian relates, that the question Bishop being put to the bishops whether the king might lawfully pass Life of the bill, they answered, "that his majesty was to distinguish Willi between matter of fact and law:" as to the first, his majesty part 2. being present at the whole trial might qualify him to pronounce whether the articles of impeachment were proved home or not and in case he believed the evidence came short, he would be obliged in conscience not to sign the bill. As to matter of law, whether any of the articles amounted to treason or not; the judges, they said, were obliged by their oaths to inform his majesty. There was a writing, indeed, as this historian continues, K. Charles, put into the king's hand by archbishop Williams, but with the P. 265. contents of this paper the other bishops were not acquainted: but that this paper related to a foreign subject, and was charged with no unfriendly advice against the earl of Strafford, Bishop is affirmed by an historian who had it from archbishop Wil- Life of liams himself. To mention the contents, the paper Williams Archbishop put into the king's hand was a dissuasive against passing the part 2. bill for continuing the session during the pleasure of both Lord Clahouses this was admirable advice, and had it been taken, rendon's might probably have prevented the rebellion, VOL. VIII. P Archbishop Williams, P. 161. L'Estrange, Hacket's Williams, 162. Hist. of the LAUD, The lord Clarendon, who, one would think, could not be Abp. Cant. better informed than the historian last-mentioned, makes a lamentable casuist of archbishop Williams: he reports this prelate told the king, "there was a private and a public conscience; that his public conscience, as a king, might not only dispense with, but oblige him to do that which was against his private conscience as a man; and that the question was not whether he should save the earl of Strafford, but whether he should perish with him? That the conscience of a king to preserve his kingdom, the conscience of a husband to preserve his wife, the conscience of a father to preserve his children (all which were now in danger), weighed down abundantly all the considerations the conscience of a master or a friend could suggest to him for the preservation of a friend or a servant." L'Estrange. Parr's Life of Archbishop king. But to leave this matter with the reader, the bishops' opinion, as far as it appears, was founded upon the resolution of the judges; who, being consulted by the king, had declared the earl of Strafford guilty of high treason upon the whole matter: but being pressed to justify their opinion by statutes Whitlock. and authorities of law, they declined producing their proof. Notwithstanding these motives the king could not prevail with himself to pass this bill: to set his majesty's conscience Usher, p. 45. at liberty, the earl very generously wrote him a letter to perStrafford's suade his compliance, and, amongst other things, declares himletter to the self willing to resign his life rather than keep up a misunderstanding between the king and his subjects. Upon this the king gives a commission to the lord privy seal, the lord chamberlain, and several others, to pass the attainder; and at the same time the king signed another destructive act for continuing the session as long as the two houses should think fit : and thus the parliament had some colour, though not any law, to push things to an extremity, and levy men and money against the government. Had not this act been passed, the king might have scattered them at discretion; and in case they had been so hardy as to have sat after a dissolution, they would have wanted a varnish to cover their coarse complexion, and the revolt would have been more legible and uncontested1. The earl of Strafford being to suffer the next day, desired to speak with the archbishop of Canterbury: the lieutenant of 1 This remark of Collier respecting the long parliament is confirmed by the testimonies of our best political writers. 802. |