consumed a fortnight: and every day in The longer the impeachment lasted, the Westminster Hall revealed more clearly more this popularity increased: the odithe disposition of the Lords to protract ousness of ransacking a man's life to the proceedings. On the fourth sitting find cause to put him to death, was enof the impeachmant, D'Ewes was "as-hanced by Strafford's heroic power both tonished at the many delays of this day," of endurance and resistance. To use and urged that Strafford should be com- Denham's words, the trial was a scene pelled to "avoid impertinences"; indig- where nation, also, was expressed at the readiness the Lords showed to discuss every point of order he raised, adjourning for that purpose, from the hall to their own chamber.* And as the trial began, so it went on: an article expected to take half an hour, occupied the whole day; another sitting was cut short by one of those unseasonable adjournments; another appeal for delay, though negatived, consumed an hour and a half; and Strafford came late,† and then, evidently a pre-arranged step, he did not come at all, sending only his foot-boy" to give notice that his master was sick in bed.‡ Private pity strove with public hate, Reason with rage, and eloquence with fate; and to all appearance pity, reason, and eloquence were victorious. It was also thought, at that moment, that confidence might be placed in the King, and even in the Queen. On two occasions, thanks from the House of Commons were proposed to her for "furthering the call of the Parliament, and the passing the Triennial Bill;" proposals that signify much to those acquainted with the English mind of 1641. And this altered state of public opinion affected the position of parties in Parliament to a degree that must have troubled Pym and his associates. The continuance of the Treaty with Scotland was -- The day of this occurrence, Friday, April 9, is a turning point in the story of Strafford's death. The "inflexible party that afternoon reviewed their position; their mainstay that abruptly closed, and it looked most hopeless. All the evi- and the trial would be closed also-yet dence they dared to use was exhausted; on that very day, Friday, April 9, defeat they had prosecuted or abandoned all on that vital question was but narrowly their charges: every possible method had avoided. Appeals to national and pecubeen sought to exhibit Strafford as an niary interests must have influenced the oppressor, and as the man who worked debate: the "cessation of arms" was the ruin of his fellow-countrymen by the held up as both dishonourable to the dissolution of Parliaments, by inciting Commons, and costly to the Nation, and the King to war, and by his evil advice. the prolongation of the truce, so naturally But all in vain. Strafford's insolent non-"disliked and opposed by many," was appearance in Westminster Hall proved his strong reliance on friendship from the House of Lords and on public favour: reliance justly placed. The majority of the Peers, his judges, were on his side: § so was the outside world: the general opinion of the criminal by "art and time " was converted from hostility to pity, even to admiration. Curses attended Strafford through Palace Yard in February; in March he received respectful salutations; and the "Black Tom Tyrant" of Ireland, the "grand apostate," was "cried up as an accomplished instrument of State."|| March 25, 1641. D'Ewes, Harleian MSS. (162), 359. D'Ewes, Harleian MSS. (162), 362, 368; Hus band's Diurnal, April 8, p. 74; Baillie, i. 319, 328. April 9, 1641. D'Ewes, Harleian MSS. (162), 416. § "Sir B. Rudyard: that he thinketh the Lords, by the notes they have taken, will not judge it treason in my Lord of Strafford." April 12, 1641; Gaudy's notes, Add. MSS. 14,827, Brit. Mus.; Clarendon, ed. 1839, 96; Heylin's Land, 449. Strafford Characterized; Somers' Tracts, iv. 231; May's History, 62; Clarendon, ed. 1839, 96. only carried by a majority of thirty-nine. The inflexibility of Strafford's opponents was now tested. Ill-will and odium fell, not on him, but on them: they were held responsible for the cost of the trial, 600,000l.—according to the popular estimate for the precious time it had wasted, and for the discontent aroused against Parliament; and, after all, they had not brought high treason home to the criminal; they had not proved "the hinge upon which that charge was principally to hang: "§ namely Strafford's suggestion to the King in Council that England might be brought to obedience by the Irish army. advice" for long had been in their posOne proof, however, of that " passionate February 17, March 15, 1641; D'Ewes, Harleian MSS. (162), 230; (164), 939. N. Tompkins to Sir J. Lambe, April 12, 1641, Rolls Office; Com. Fourn. ii. 118. Fairfax Correspon.lence, ii. 105. § Clarendon, ed. 1839, 95. session, the transcript of the notes which Vane took down of the deliberations of the Council meeting, when that suggestion was made. That "fatal scrip of paper" proved Strafford's very words, that "loose and absolved from all rules of Government," the King might "employ here" that army in Ireland to "reduce this Kingdom." It also proved the time, place, and manner of these "wicked counsels," that they had provoked discussion, and that the politic forgetfulness of Vane's fellow-councillors must be near akin to perjury.* Such a disclosure, affecting both king and council, obviously was a last resource, not to be used save upon “a case of necessity." That case now they "conceived was clear":† "Vane's notes" must be exhibited in Westminster Hall. Accordingly the managers of the trial, when the next day (Saturday, April 10) brought the tribunal again together, claimed liberty to examine one or two witnesses respecting "the main article of their charge touching the Earl of Strafford's advices to his Majesty after the dissolution of the last Parliament." He, of course, resisted the proposal, and urged, if it were granted, "that the Lords would also show so much favour to him, being a Peer of the realm," as to allow him to adduce evidence on some articles which he had omitted. And a claim, urged on grounds so offensive to the Lower House, in itself most objectionable, was granted. Naturally enough "this the Commons stormed at;" the proceedings closed in tumult; "the King laughed," and Strafford was "so well pleased that he could not hide his joy." § Good cause he had for joy. If the trial proceeded, though that seemed most unlikely, delay almost to any extent was by that decision placed in his power: the growing ill-will between the two Houses was now at a head; and every expression of that ill-will drove the Lords more and more to adopt Strafford's cause as their cause. This "feeding storm" of discord spread over the Commons; his friends there could trust to assured support from the other House; his opponents also became divided: anyhow the publication of that "fatal scrip of paper" was prevented. The Peers remained firm: the power they had given Strafford to re This document is among the Archives of the House of Lords, Hist. MSS. Commission, 3rd Report. † Baillie, i. 345. D'Ewes, Harleian MSS. (163), 420-422. 8 Mr. Tomkins' Letter, April 12, 1641. Rolls Office. open the impeachment rendered public use of that document impossible. So Pym turned “Vane's notes" to the best account he could: on the afternoon of that Saturday he read them aloud to the Commons, then they were sent to the Lords "for their consideration." * Such evidence naturally produced a strong impression; but the result was not a unanimity of feeling about Strafford's guilt, but the division of the "inflexible party" and an aggravation of the quarrel between the two Houses by the introduction of the Attainder Bill. For the chief object of that measure apparently was to retort upon the Lords for their adoption of Strafford's cause, and to assert that though he was a Peer the Commons might be his judges. Even to make it clear that Parliament was "severed " upon the question whether or no a Peer was guilty of high treason, it was intended, if the Bill was rejected, to make public protestation against the House of Lords for their denial of justice. It was for this very reason that Pym so earnestly resisted the step. And the wording of the Bill reveals that this was its object; it is not based on the inherent right of Parliament to pass an Act of Attainder, but is framed as a statutory conclusion to the impeachment. It begins with a recital of the proceedings at the trial, then follows a declaration that Strafford's crimes were proved by the evidence, and an enactment that he is therefore guilty of High Treason. The Bill thus, from its very form, was an intrusion into the province solely reserved to the Peers, of sitting in judgment on an impeachment, and especially on the trial of one of their own order. The measure also amounted to a declaration, that as they had, whilst they sat as judges, indirectly protected Strafford, the Commons took upon themselves to give their verdict. This course had its strong points: but if on the 27th of February, when it was open to the Commons to select their method of procedure, “we all declined a bill," it was far more imperative on them to do the like in April, when they had so fully committed themselves to an impeachment. And as might be expected, the progress of the measure and the con *Com. Fourn., ii. 118, 119. Earl of Strafford Characterized; Somers' Tracts, iv. 232; Baillie, 1. 346; Sanford's Great Rebellion, 337. Though this is the only reference to this work, a warm acknowledgment must be made of its great value. D'Ewes, Harl. MSS. (162), 268. clusion of the trial came into constant are often demanded, "because morning The Attainder Bill at last committed, fresh difficulty sprang up; it was the first contested piece of legislation ever referred to a committee of the whole House; and so novel was this mode of procedure, that questions arose, whether during this stage, "a man might speak against the body of the Bill, or no?" or whether the committee could add to, take from, or "destroy" the Bill; † and such was their uncertainty, that it was deemed expedient to re-vote in the House, before the final report, one of the leading clauses of the Bill. How zealously a member now-adays, anxious to effect delay, would have improved so fair an occasion: nor were his predecessors in the Long Parliment by any means remiss. A talk out," however, cannot be esteemed a "witty.invention;" and though the debates between the 12th and the 21st of April, 1641, are curious as the first example of the kind, they reveal traces of the same dull absurdity too often exhibited in the present parliament. Then, as now, from pretended zealots for rapid progress, came the suggestion of impossibilities, such as the report of the Attainder Bill piece-meal to the House; the ingenuous seeker after truth meets a proposal to vote that Strafford sought the overthrow of our "ancient and fundamental laws," by the question, "what is a fundamental law?"§-a truly conscientious soul cannot rest till the depositions used at the trial are read aloud to the House; and, of course, adjournments *Gaudy's Notes, April 12, 1641. Add. MSS. 14,827. nal. The Attainder Bill was not then received by the House of Commons with "wonderful alacrity," and indeed it seems surprising that it passed at all. A majority of 39 on the last critical vote showed that the popular party had no surplus strength; and the long continuance of a Parliamentary contest unmarked by a division, is a sure sign that opposing parties are very even. This was the case with the Attainder Bill; though in length only about a couple of pages, ten sitting days elapsed between the first and the third readings. And then, at last, the Speaker's decision was challenged, and the Bill passed, on April 21, by a majority of 143 votes. But this was no triumphant majority; only 263 were mustered to the division, out of a House composed nominally of 510 members. The success of Strafford's enemies resulted from the defection of his friends. The probable cause of that defection will be hereafter explained.§ The delay and difficulty caused by the Attainder Bill have been exhibited; even as a question of policy it was open to serious objection. The Bill of necessity. assumed the aspect of a retrospective law, an aspect naturally revolting; and as it had been the ill-luck of the "inflexible party" to offend the instincts of human nature by their attempt to ensnare a man by the review of his whole life, so now an odious character was again stamped upon their efforts. And if regarded from a technical point of view, supposing, as was urged during the progress of the measure, the Lords gave immediate judgment on the impeachment, which was quite in their power, what then would be the position of the Bill? Or if they chose the safer course of amending, not rejecting it altogether; Strafford's punishment, short of death, would have been accept able to many. What, then, would be the effect of that threatened appeal to the country against the Upper House? The Bishops also might vote upon the Bill; here was another risk. cause united with the existence of the nobility, and his opponents weakened by a "great defection of their party," * disunited, and committed to a line of action beset with danger, not only from the very Above all, it was dangerous to widen nature of the Attainder Bill, but from the the breach between Lords and Commons, delay it caused. And this delay added and to convert the question of Strafford's "fear upon fear; " the world outside Parguilt into a class question between rival liament was perplexed, the Commons were branches of the Legislature. And this "misrepresented,' † mistrusted even by took place. A Bill offered by the Com- the Londoners. This soon was proved; mons as the conclusion of an impeach- a formidable deputation came to their ment, instead of a demand for judgment, House door, crowds of citizens bearing a enabled the Lords to challenge their petition signed "by many thousands," right to pass sentence on a Peer. They demanding instant justice upon Strafcould also argue that as the verdict of the ford. Even "that worthy man Mr. Pym" Lower House was "guilty of high trea- fell into disgrace. Heated by fierce anxson," the Lords being precluded from iety, provoked by the state of the unpaid considering what lesser crime had been armies, he threatened in most Straffordian committed, must reject the Bill, on the language, that "Parliament might compel technical point that Strafford, though per- the Londoners to lend money," much to haps an offen der, was not a traitor against the offence and "marveil" of his hearthe State; and to the end the Peers were ers.§ Even his honesty of purpose be"resolute, because they find that they came open to suspicion, and Lord Digby have no authority to declare a treason in could venture to hint, that the transmisa fact already past."* The presumption, sion of documents affecting Strafford also, of the Lower House deeply moved into the hands of his partisans, was the the whole House of Lords. Strafford act of "some unworthy man who had his knew well when he addressed them for eye upon place and preferments, wherein the last time, the force of these words, he was supposed to allude to Mr. Pym "You, and you only, are my judges; himself. "|| under favour, none of the Commons are my Peers, nor can they be my judges."† The Lords, thus tempted to link the life of Strafford with the life of their order, "some went so high in ther heat as to tell the Commons, that it was an unnatural motion for the head to be governed by the tail ;" and they declared on another occasion, "that they themselves, as competent judges, would by themselves only give sentence " upon Strafford. ‡ During moments the most tranquil, open collision between the estates of the realm is a disquieting event: how deeply so when all were distracted by every species of anxiety. And the alarm this civil war in Parliament then provoked, is best illustrated by words then used. It is stated in a news-letter, that at a conference Mr. Hollis addressed to the Lords "a terrible speech, wishing the curse of God might light upon all those which sought to divide the Houses."§ What more could Strafford desire? regarded with a favour that spread even to the army, that formerly detested him, his And these were days when offences needs must come; the men who formed the main support of the "inflexible party became discredited; the months they spent in London gave the Scottish Commissioners an opportunity of giving offence, and they offended everybody. First they were suspected "to be so far broken by the King, that they were willing to pass from pursuit " of Strafford and Episcopacy; then they irritated the whole nation by an attack on the English Church then they fell into "a new pickle" by a supposed recantation of that attack. And no diversion could be more happy to enemies of Pym and his fellow workers, than a shake given to Narrative, 1647, 67. † April 16, 1641. D'Ewes, Harl. MSS. (163), 446. April 21, 1641. D'Ewes, Harl. MSS. (164), 985. It suited the chronicler's purpose to pass over examples of popular pressure put on the Lower as well as the Upper House. This turn for omission has kept out of 245. Baillie, i. 305. our social fabric, such as the threatened successful rival, and among the Scots demolition of Episcopacy by the hands of the Scottish Covenanters. Even the London citizens were "troubled" by their anti-prelatic pamphlet.* "our good friend," * was given chief command over the Royal army; and this appointment, made at a time when it was essential for Strafford's sake that King and people should be on good accord, created alarm and distrust both among the Scotch and English.† con Time also revealed the Scotchmen in the light of sturdy beggars. To the never-ending demands for paying their soldiers, to restitution money claimed for Whatever was Strafford's suspicion, ships taken by our cruisers, they added when power was thus bestowed upon his "the pretty sum " of 300,000l. -as a enemies, that suspicion was soon brotherly gift" from England to her verted into certainty. On the 23rd of conquerors. The "discord" the King April he received by letter an explanahoped that "vast proposition" would ex- tion from the King himself. With fercite, did not arise. Although the Com- vent expressions of regret, he forewarned mons were reminded "what a dishonour his minister, that owing to the "strange it was to our ancient and renowned na- mistaking and conjuncture of the times .. tion," and although Speaker Lenthall, the I must lay by the thought of imploying House being in Committee, "spake as you hereafter in my affairs." That letany other member" in opposition to the ter seemed an act of tender care: but the grant, the grant was made. But when true meaning was, that Charles was not the vote had passed, speedy national tran- | able to act with the House of Lords; they quillity was expected: that now seemed were resolute to acquit Strafford: the further off than ever; in April "Gra- King was about to condemn him, though mercy "could hardly be felt towards the not to death. And he did so. Acting on "good Scot," who during that season of the advice of Lord Savile and the Earl of "horrible confusion" urged constant de- Bristol, § he went on Saturday, the 1st of mands for a "brotherly gift" of 300,000l. May, to the throne in the Upper House, Amidst this clash of interests, one summoned before him the House of Comcause alone seemed to prosper, and that mons, and assuming throughout his was Strafford's. The confidence of his speech that the Lords were prepared to friends, strong in March, was in April pass the Attainder Bill, he pleaded guilty still stronger. The news from Yorkshire in behalf of Strafford, not indeed of high ran, that there "they were all hopeful; "treason, but of a misdemeanor. that according to the "general opinion, he will escape the censure of treason." A well-wisher from Paris, wrote, "I am very glad to hear that my Lord of Strafford is like to speed so well;" the Court whisper was, "that the King will not let him go, and that the Parliament is not likely to be long-lived." § That rumour about Parliament contains the secret of Strafford's death. That month of April that seemed to promise to him so well, in truth revealed indications of his fate. Two important appointments were made during that month; in each case his enemies were favoured. Oliver St. John, the ablest, certainly his bitterest legal opponent in Parliament, received from the King the post of Solicitor-General; || and to the Earl of Holland, who for years hated Strafford, and was hated in return, at Court his most Like all acts of double dealing, this speech was capable of most contradictory interpretations, all mysterious. To those who knew that the Bill, coldly received by the Lords, had lain four days untouched upon their table, and therefore expected its rejection, an expectation justified by the practice of that time, and to those who knew "that it was both possible and probable" that the "declaration" of the Upper House would be given in Strafford's favour, || it seemed as if Charles, braving the anger of Parliament, had illegally interfered in its proceedings, to Bring punishment on a criminal the Lords were disposed to acquit. But the Peers were, on the contrary, addressed by the King as if they were all about to vote Strafford guilty of High Treason, though it was notorious that "of the four-score present at the trial, not D'Ewes, Harl. MSS. (164), 993: "Mr. O. St. John, lately made the King's solicitor." April 29, Strafford Letters, ii. 416. § Letter from Father Philips, read to the Commons Pym, June 25, 1641. Rushworth, iv. 257. Narrative, 1647, 82. |
