PARLIAMENTARY AND POPULAR AGITATION. EXECUTION OF STRAFFORD.
The King was still very far from giving up his own or
Stafford’s cause. On Saturday, May 1, he declared that
he would never again endure Strafford in his council or
his presence, but that he thought him not deserving of
death; and the Lords seemed of the same opinion. Equally
little did it seem necessary to give way to the proposals
against the bishops. On Sunday, May 2, the wedding of
the young Prince of Orange with the Princess Mary of
England, who however was but ten years old and was to stay
longer in England, was celebrated at Whitehall. Charles
himself presided with address and good-humour over the
wedding festivities, and seemed to be well pleased with
his new son-in-law. Once more a numerous court crowded
with the usual zeal around the highest personages in the
country. Yet at that very hour the pulpits of the city
were ringing with fiery addresses on the necessity of
bringing the arch-offender to justice: disquieting rumours
were in the air and kept every one in suspense. The next
morning, Monday, May 3, Westminster presented a disorderly
spectacle. In order to throw into the scale the expression
of their will on impending questions, which already had
been so effective once, thousands of petitioners repaired
to the Houses of Parliament: the members of the Lower
House who had not voted for the Bill of Attainder, and
the unpopular lords, were received on their arrival with
insults and abusive cries. At the hour when the sitting of
the Lower House ought to have begun--prayers were already
over--all the members remained in profound silence. There [A.D. 1641.]
was a presentiment of what was coming: the attempt of the
clerk to bring on some unimportant matter was greeted with
laughter. After some time the doors were closed, and John
Pym rose to make a serious communication. He said that
desperate plots against the Parliament and the peace of
the realm were at work within and without the country, for
bringing the army against Parliament, seizing the Tower,
and releasing Strafford; that there was an understanding
with France on the subject, and that sundry persons in
immediate attendance on the Queen were deep in the plot.
Pym might and did know that the French government was
in no way inclined to take part with the Queen; and
the Parliamentary leaders had already sent their joint
thanks to Cardinal Richelieu for preventing the Queen’s
journey[249]. We must leave it in doubt whether Pym was
notwithstanding led by the appearance of things and by
rumour to believe in the possibility of an alliance between
the French government and the Queen, or whether he merely
thought it advisable to arouse the apprehension in others.
His speech conveyed the idea that a plot was at work for
the overthrow of Parliament and the Protestant religion,
which must be resisted with the whole strength of the
nation. The mob assembled outside the doors, where vague
reports of Pym’s exordium reached them, certainly received
this impression. A conspiracy had been detected, as bad as
the Gunpowder Plot, or worse, for massacring the members
of Parliament, and even all Strafford’s opponents among
the inhabitants. The fact that the Tower, which commanded
the city, was reckoned on for this purpose, caused an
indescribable agitation. At times the cry ‘To Whitehall!’
was heard: at others it seemed as if the mob would go to
the Tower in order to storm it[250].
With these tumultuous proceedings were connected a [A.D. 1641.]
consistent and systematic series of decisive measures
taken by Parliament. The strongest motive for agitation in
England as well as in Scotland was the danger to religion:
and a similar attempt was made to obtain security on this
point. A kind of covenant was devised in England also, a
Parliamentary and national oath, by which every man pledged
himself to defend with body and life the true Protestant
religion against all Popish devices, as well as the
privileges of Parliament, and the liberties of the subject.
Since in this oath the doctrines, if not the constitution,
of the English Church were maintained, and the allegiance
due to the King was mentioned, no great trouble was found
in obtaining its acceptance by Parliament and the nation.
Its importance lies in the connexion it established between
Protestantism and the interests of Parliament: whoever took
it pledged himself to defend the privileges of Parliament.
Amid the general agreement it was not forgotten that an
eye must be kept on the immediate sources of danger.
The undeniable needs of the army were provided for, and
precautions taken against any possible movement in that
quarter.
For several days the rumour of impending danger grew: the
French ambassador was warned at that time, as if he or his
government had a share in the matter, and it might still at
any moment be carried out. But in truth the disclosure of
the scheme was equivalent to its defeat. Jermyn and Percy
fled; other persons suspected or implicated were arrested:
the Queen herself one day prepared to quit London. But she
had nowhere to go to: she could not but be aware that the
Governor of Portsmouth, with whom she intended to take
refuge, had caused the discovery of the scheme[251].
Little as her attempt to cause a reaction may have been
matured, it had nevertheless the effect of doubling the
violence of the previous movement. The royal power itself
immediately felt the force of the shock. The King had
sanctioned the proposal to strengthen his hold on the Tower
with trustworthy troops: the number of men that he desired [A.D. 1641.]
to introduce was not more than a hundred, but even this now
appeared a dangerous innovation. The commandant Balfour
hesitated to admit the troops: the tumultuous mob directed
against it a more urgent petition than ever. The Lords
were induced to make representations on the subject to the
King, who justified the arrangement on the score of his
duty to provide for the safety of the ammunition stored
in the Tower, but, in view of the popular agitation, did
not insist on its being carried out. The Lords further
empowered the Constable and Lord Mayor, if necessary,
to introduce a body of militia into the Tower: and thus
the control of the fortress which might keep the city in
check began to slip out of the King’s hands. The measures
taken for the security of Portsmouth, for the arming of
the militia in several inland counties for this purpose,
and for the defence of Jersey and Guernsey, those islands
seeming to be in danger from France, were in effect so many
usurpations of the military authority of the crown, however
well justified they may have been under the circumstances.
Out of the necessity for satisfying the English army arose
an idea involving the most serious consequences. As the
Scottish army must be paid, and the Irish disbanded, which
was impossible without discharging the arrears due to it,
new and extensive loans were needed. Yet who was likely
to lend money to the Parliament, so long as its existence
depended on the resolve and arbitrary will of the King
with whom it had engaged in violent strife? As the only
security for the capitalists, a provision was desired
that Parliament should not be dissolved at the simple
will of the King[252]. On May 5 a motion was made to this
effect: on the 6th the special committee brought the bill
before the assembled House: on the 7th it passed the third
reading, and went to the Upper House, where it was agreed
to after a few objections of trifling importance.
The fate of Strafford formed the central point of all
these movements in the nation and in Parliament, of the
tumultuous agitation in the one, and the far-seeing
resolutions of the other. For new loans and for the payment [A.D. 1641.]
of taxes one condition was on all sides insisted on, that
the Viceroy of Ireland should first expiate his crimes by
death[253].
The Lords had alleged the troubles as the reason why they
could not immediately deal with the Bill of Attainder: but
the continued terror at length made all further opposition
impossible. The sittings were now attended chiefly by those
in whom government by prerogative, such as Strafford aimed
at, had awakened from the first a spirit of aristocratic
resistance. And when an opinion of the Court of King’s
Bench was given, to the effect that on the points which
had been taken as proved by the Lords, Strafford certainly
merited the punishment for high treason, all opposition was
at length silenced: the Bill of Attainder passed the Upper
House by a majority of 7 votes, 26 against 19.
A deputation of the Lords went immediately to the King,
to recommend him to assent to the bill on account of the
danger which would attend a refusal. It was Saturday, May
8/18: in the afternoon the bill, together with the one for
not dissolving Parliament, was laid before him by the two
Houses, with a prayer for his immediate assent to both.
Two or three thousand men had assembled at Whitehall to
receive his answer[254]. To their great indignation the
King deferred his decision until Monday.
The following Sunday was to him a day for the most painful
determination--for what an admission it was, to recognise
as a capital crime the having executed his own will and
purposes. The political tendency, if fully carried out,
obviously was to separate the crown from its advisers,
and make them dependent on another authority than that
of the King; to make the King’s power inferior to that
of the Parliament. Charles I had solemnly declared that
he found the accused not guilty of high treason: he had
given him his word to let no evil befal him, not to let
a hair of his head be harmed. Could he nevertheless [A.D. 1641.]
sanction his execution? Verily it was a great moment for
the King: what glory would attend his memory had he lived
up to his convictions, and opposed to the pressure put upon
him an immovable moral strength! To this end was he King,
and possessed the right of sanctioning or of rejecting
the resolutions of Parliament: that was the theory of the
constitution. But among the five bishops whom the King
called to his side in this great case of conscience, only
one advised him to follow his own convictions. The others
represented that it was not the King’s business to form
a personal opinion on the legality of a sentence; that
the acts which Strafford himself admitted had now been
pronounced to be treasonable; and that he might allow the
judgment without being convinced of its accuracy, as he
would a judgment of the King’s Bench or at the assizes.
This may be the meaning of the doctrine, attributed to
Bishop Williams, that the King has a double conscience, a
public and a private one, and that he may lawfully do as
King what he would not do as a private man[255]. But the
constitutional principle essentially was that personal
convictions in this high office should possess a negative
influence. The distinction must be regarded as an insult
to the theory of the crown, implying its annihilation as a
free power in the State. King Charles felt this fully: all
the days of his life he regretted as one of his greatest
faults, that in this case he had not followed the dictates
of his conscience. But he was told that he must not ruin
himself, his future, and his house for the sake of a single
man: the question was not whether he would save Strafford,
but whether he would perish with him. The movement begun in
the city was spreading throughout the country; from every
county men were coming up to join the city populace[256]. [A.D. 1641.]
From a letter of one of the best informed and most
intelligent eye-witnesses we gather that the idea of
appealing to the commons of the country against the
King’s refusal was mooted in the Lower House[257]. And
so far as the assurances given to the Viceroy of Ireland
were concerned, a letter from Strafford was laid before
the King, in which he released him from his promise, and
entreated him to avoid the disasters which would result
from the rejection of the bill, and to sacrifice him, the
writer, as he stood in the way of a reconciliation between
the King and his people.
So it came to pass that on May 10 the King commissioned
Lord Arundel and the Lord Keeper to signify his royal
assent to the Bill of Attainder. The next day he made
another attempt to return from the path of justice to that
of mercy. Would it not be better to consign Strafford
to prison for life, with the provision that for any
participation in public affairs, or attempt at flight,
his life would certainly and finally be forfeited. He
asked the Lords whether this was possible: they replied
that it would endanger himself and his wife and children.
For no relaxation was to be obtained from the universal
disposition both in Parliament and in the city. Unless the
King gave way it would be scarcely possible to maintain his
government any longer.
At the news of the King’s submission Strafford exclaimed,
‘That no one should trust in princes, who are but men.’
The genuineness of his letter has been denied, it being
supposed that others wrote it, in order to remove the
King’s personal scruples: but a thorough examination
of the fact removes every doubt[258]. Though Strafford
confirmed in his own person the experience expressed in
the words of Scripture, he himself with his last words
gave, with highminded forbearance, the opinion that it was
necessary to sacrifice him, in consideration of the general
circumstances and of the possible consequences.
Strafford went to the scaffold in an exalted frame of
mind. On his way he saw Laud, who at his request appeared [A.D. 1641.]
at the window of his prison. The Archbishop was unable
to speak. Strafford bade him farewell, and prayed that
God might protect his innocence; for he had no doubt
that he was in the right in fulfilling his King’s will,
and establishing his prerogative. He persisted that he
had never intended either to destroy the parliamentary
constitution, or to endanger the Protestant Church. He
did not appeal to the judgment of posterity, as if he had
been conscious that great antagonisms are transmitted
from generation to generation: he looked for a righteous
judgment in the other world.
Such moments must come, in order to bring to light the
absolute independence of success and of the world’s
judgment which strong characters possess.
His guilt was of a nature entirely political; he had
done his best to guide the King in these complications,
undoubtedly in the belief that he was right in so doing,
but still with indiscreet zeal. So also his execution was
a political act: it was the expression of the defeat which
he had suffered and occasioned, of the triumph of the ideas
against which he had contended to the death.
The King, some weeks earlier, had been unable to assent
to a violent attempt to rescue the man who had most
strongly maintained the privilege of his crown: he would
henceforth do nothing outside the law. When the forms of
the parliamentary state brought about the condemnation
to death of this champion of his prerogative, he had not
the strength to set his word against it. In order not
immediately to endanger his crown, himself, and his family,
he signed the bill which the two Houses presented to him.
FOOTNOTES:
[249] Montereuil, March 14, says of Richelieu’s answer:
‘Le comte d’Hollande les à trouvés conforme aux désirs de
tous ceux, qui sont bien intentionnés--et qui souhaitent de
conserver l’union des deux couronnes.’
[250] Aerssen, 5/15 May. ‘Le déssein semble aller sur la
tour.’ 7/17 May. ‘Le parlement est persuadé, qu’il a en
dessein de les faire tous tuer avec tous les habitans
de cette ville, qui n’estoient maiqués du caractère du
Lieutenant.’ Arch. de la Maison d’Orange-Nassau ii. iii.
459.
[251] Montereuil asserts that the Queen’s departure
was prevented by his representations to her clerical
attendants. Cf. the letter of Montereuil of May 13/23,
printed in Mazure’s Hist. de la Revolution iii. 424.
[252] To assume the continuance of this present parliament
from adjourning, proroguing, or dissolving, without the
consent of both houses.
[253] Giustiniano, 3 Maggio. ‘Risoluti mostrandosi i
sudditi, di non contribuire prima che ottenghino questa
soddisfattione (che con la vita questo ministro paghi li
falli).’
[254] Montereuil, 13/23 May. ‘Ce qui ne contenta parfois
4 ou 5 m. h. qui estoient venus avec armes la plus grande
partie.’
[255] Hacket’s Life of Williams ii. 161. ‘Since competent
judges in law had awarded that they found guilt of treason
in the Earl, that he (the King) may suffer this judgment to
stand, though in his private mind he was not satisfied that
the Lord Strafford was criminous.’
[256] Giustiniano. ‘Gli parlamentarii espedirono lettere
in paese con ordine da per tutto di celeremente qui
incaminare gente ad oggetto di unirle a queste di Londra e
d’intraprendere ogni piu temerario tentativo.’
[257] Letter of Johnston, in Napier, Montrose i. 353.
‘If it sticks at the King’s refusal, they are to make a
declaration of all to the commons of England.’
[258] Hume, Hist. of England, vol. vi. note aa, p. 580.