(Vol. iv., p. 290.)
The question raised by PEREGRINUS is one of interest, which a comparison
of original and trustworthy writers enables us soon to settle. It is no
vulgar calumny which implicates Ussher in the advice which induced
Charles I. to consent to the murder of Lord Strafford; and though it
seems not unlikely that from timidity Ussher avoided giving any advice,
but allowed it to be inferred that he coincided in the counsel of
Williams; after weighing the evidence on this subject it is, to say the
least, impossible for us to believe for an instant that he acted in the
same noble manner as Bishop Juxon. Thus far is clear, that Bishop Juxon,
knowing that the king was satisfied of the innocence of Lord Strafford,
besought him to refuse to allow of the execution, and to "trust God with
the rest." Neither is it denied that Bishops Williams, Potter, and
Morton advised the king to assent to the bill of attainder, on the
ground that he was only assenting to the deeds of others, and was not
himself acting responsibly. And assuredly the same evidence which
carries us thus far, will not allow of our supposing that Ussher joined
with Juxon, though, as I have said before, he may, when summoned, have
avoided giving any advice. The facts seem simply these: when it was
known that the king, satisfied of the innocence of Lord Strafford,
hesitated about affixing his signature to the bill, or granting a
commission to others to do so, the London rabble, lord mayor, and
prentice lads were next called up, and the safety of the royal family
menaced. This led to the queen's solicitation, that Charles would regard
the lives of his family and sacrifice Strafford. Still the king could
not be moved. He had scruples of conscience, as well he might. This the
peers knowing, they _selected_ four bishops who should satisfy these
scruples: the four thus selected were Ussher, Williams, Morton, and
Potter. On Sunday morning, the 9th of May, the _four_ should have
proceeded to Whitehall: the _three_ latter did so; but Ussher preferred
the safer course of going and preaching at St. Paul's, Covent Garden,
leaving to his brother bishops the task of distinguishing between the
king's private conscience and his corporate one. The king, not satisfied
to leave the matter in the hands of those specially selected to urge his
consent, summoned the Privy Council. Juxon was present as Lord
Treasurer, and gave that noble and truly Christian advice: "Sir, you
know the judgment of your own conscience; I beseech you follow that, and
trust God with the rest." Moved by this, and by his own conviction of
Strafford's innocence, the king still refused assent; and it was needful
to hold another meeting, which was done in the evening of the same day.
As evening service had not been introduced into churches, Ussher was
present at the palace, and by his silence acquiesced in the advice
tendered by Bishop Williams. After the bill was signed, he broke silence
in useless regrets. But it was then too late to benefit Strafford, and
quite safe to utter his own opinions. In opposition to this, which rests
upon indisputable evidence, and with which Ussher's own statement
entirely accords, PEREGRINUS adduces the fact that Ussher attended
Strafford on the scaffold. But what does this prove? Merely that the
faction which would not tolerate that Laud or Juxon should minister the
last offices of the Church to their dying friend, did not object to
Ussher's presence; and that Strafford, who could have known nothing of
what had passed on Sunday in the interior of Whitehall, gladly accepted
the consolations of religion from the hands of the timid Primate of all
Ireland.
The substance of what appears in Elrington's _Life of Ussher_ had been
long before stated by Dr. Thomas Smith in his _Vita Jacobi Usserii_,
apud _Vitae quorundam Erudit. et Illust. Virorum_; but if, in addition,
PEREGRINUS would consult May's _History of the Long Parliament_;
Echard's _History of England_, bk. ii. ch. i.; Whitelocke's _Memorials_,
p. 45.; Rushworth; Collier's _Ecclesiastical History_, t. ii. p. 801.;
Dr. Knowler, in Preface to _The Earl of Strafford's Letters and
Dispatches_; Dr. South, in _Sermon on Rom_. xi. 33.; and Sir George
Radcliffe's Essay in Appendix to _Letters, &c. of Lord Strafford_, t.
ii. p. 432., I doubt not but that he will come to the conclusion that
the above sketch is only consistent with stern fact.