In Lord Campbell's account of the conduct of Archbishop Williams, and
the advice which that prelate gave to Charles I. with respect to the
attainder of Lord Strafford, is a sentence which seems to require a
"Note." Having observed that "Williams's conduct with respect to
Strafford cannot be defended," and having referred particularly to his
speech in parliament, he proceeds in these words:--
"The Bill of Attainder being passed, although he professed to
disapprove of it, he agreed to go with three other prelates to try
to induce the king to assent to it, and thus he stated the
question:--'Since his Majesty refers his own judgment to his
judges, and they are to answer it, if an innocent person
suffers,--why may he not satisfy his conscience in the present
matter, since competent judges in the law have awarded that they
find the Earl guilty of treason, by suffering the judgment to
stand, though in his own mind he is satisfied that the party
convicted was not criminous?' The other three bishops, trusting to
his learning and experience, joined with him in sanctioning this
distinction, in laying all the blame on the judges, and in saying
that the king, with a good conscience, might agree to Strafford's
death. Clarendon mainly imputes Strafford's death to Williams's
conduct on this occasion, saying that 'he acted his part with
prodigious boldness and impiety.' It is stated as matter of
palliation by others, that Ussher, the celebrated Archbishop of
Armagh, was one of this deputation, and that Strafford, although
aware of the advice he had given, was attended by him on the
scaffold, and received from him the last consolations of
religion."--_Lives of the Chancellors_, vol. ii. p. 494., second
edition.
The account which Lord Campbell has here given is the same in substance
as that given by Bishop Hackett in his _Life of Williams_ (Part II. p.
161.), and in several particulars is calculated to mislead the reader.
The whole story has been very carefully examined by the late Dr.
Elrington in his _Life of Archbishop Ussher_. Hackett's account is very
incorrect. There were five prelates consulted by the king, Ussher,
Williams, Juxon, Morton (Durham) and Potter (Carlisle). The bishops had
two interviews with the king, one in the morning, and the other in the
evening of the same day. At the morning meeting Ussher was not present.
It was Sunday, and he was engaged at the time preaching at Covent
Garden. In the evening, he was in attendance, but so far from giving the
advice suggested by Williams, much less approving his pernicious
distinction between a public and private conscience, Ussher plainly
advised the king, that if he was not satisfied of Strafford being guilty
of treason, he "ought not in conscience to assent to his condemnation."
Such is the account given by Dr. Parr, Ussher's chaplain, who declares,
that, when the primate was supposed to be dying, he asked his Grace--
"Whether he had advised the king to pass the bill against the Earl
of Strafford? To which the Primate answered: 'I know there is such
a thing most wrongfully laid to my charge; for I neither gave nor
approved of any such advice as that the king should assent to the
bill against the Earl; but, on the contrary, told his Majesty,
that if he was satisfied by what he heard at his trial, that the
Earl was not guilty of treason, his Majesty ought not in
conscience to consent to his condemnation. And this the king knows
well enough, and can clear me if he pleases.' The hope of the
Primate was fulfilled, for, when a report reached Oxford that the
Primate was dead, the king expressed in very strong terms, to
Colonel William Legg and Mr. Kirk, who were then in waiting, his
regret at the event, speaking in high terms of his piety and
learning. Some one present said, 'he believed he might be so, were
it not for his persuading your Majesty to consent to the Earl of
Strafford's execution;' to which the king in a great passion
replied, 'that it was false, for after the bill was passed, the
Archbishop came to me, saying with tears in his eyes, Oh Sir, what
have you done? I fear that this act may prove a great trouble to
your conscience, and pray God that your Majesty may never suffer
by the signing of this bill.'"--Elrington's _Life of Ussher_, p.
214.
This account Dr. Elrington has taken from the narrative given by Dr.
Parr, who adds, that he had received this account of the testimony borne
by the king from Colonel Legg and Mr. Kirk themselves:--
"This is the substance of two certificates, taken divers times
under the hands of these two gentlemen of unquestionable credit;
both which, since they agree in substance, I thought fit to
contract into one testimony, which I have inserted here, having
the originals by me, to produce if occasion be."--Parr's _Life of
Ussher_, p. 61.
Indeed, considering the great and uninterrupted friendship which
subsisted between Ussher and Strafford, considering that the primate was
his chosen friend during his trial and imprisonment, and attended him to
the scaffold, nothing could be more improbable than that he should have
advised the king to consent to his death. At all events, the story is
contradicted by those most competent to speak to its truth, by the
archbishop and by the king; and therefore, in a work so deservedly
popular as Lord Campbell's, one cannot but regret that any currency
should be given to a calumny so injurious to a prelate whose character
is as deserving of our esteem, as his learning is of our veneration.