Page images
PDF
EPUB

strike the first blow, and to impeach the leaders of the popular party, as the surest means to avert the coming storm, he was himself impeached by the House of Commons, stripped of all his dignities, and thrown into the Tower. The 22d of March, 1641, was fixed upon for his trial. The great object of his accusers was to establish against him the charge of "attempting to subvert the fundamental laws of the realm." In doing so, they brought forward many offenses of inferior magnitude, as an index of his intentions; and they never pretended that more than two or three of the articles contained charges which amounted strictly to high treason.

son.

In conducting the impeachment, they had great difficulties to encounter. They could find precedents in abundance to justify the doctrine of constructive treason. Still, it was a doctrine which came with an ill grace from the friends of civil liberty; and it gave wide scope to the eloquence of Strafford, in some of the most pow erful and touching appeals of his masterly defense. In addition to this, the time had not yet arrived when treason against the state, as distinguished from an assault upon the life or personal authority of the king, was distinctly recognized in England. Strafford had undoubtedly, as a sworn counselor of Charles, given him unconstitutional advice; had told him that he was absolved from the established rules of government; that he might use his simple prerogative for the purpose of raising money, above or against the decisions of Parliament. Such an attempt to subvert the fundamental laws of the kingdom, if connected with any overt act, would now be treaBut the doctrine was a new one. The idea of considering the sovereign as only the representative of the state; of treating an encroachment on the established rights of the people as a crime of equal magnitude with a violation of the King's person and authority, had not yet become familiar to the English mind. We owe it to the men who commenced this impeachment; and it is not wonderful that Strafford, with his views, and those of most men at that day, could declare with perfect sincerity that he was utterly unconscious of the crime of treason. The trial lasted from the 22d of March to the 13th of April, 1641, during which time the Earl appeared daily before the court, clothed in black, and wearing no badge or ornament but his George. "The stern and simple character of his features accorded with the occasion; his countenance manly black,' as Whitlocke describes it, and his thick hair cut short from his ample forehead." He was tall in person, but through early disease had contracted a stoop of the shoulders, which would have detracted from his appearance on any other occasion; but being now ascribed to intense suffering from the stone and the gout, which he was known to have endured during the progress of the trial, it operated in his favor, and excited much sympathy in his behalf. During eighteen days he thus stood alone against his numerous accusers, answering in succession the twenty-eight articles of the impeachment, which of themselves filled two hundred sheets of paper, examining the witnesses, commenting on their evidence, explaining, defending, palliating his conduct on every point with an adroitness and force, a dignity and self-possession, which awakened the admiration even of his enemies. On the last day of the trial, he summed up his various defenses in a speech of which the report given below is only an imperfect outline. It enables us, however, to form some conception of the eloquence and pathos of this extraordinary man. There is in it a union of dignity, simplicity, and force-a felicity in the selection of topics—a dexterity of appeal to the interests and feelings of his judges-a justness and elevation in every sentiment he utters a vividness of illustration, a freshness of imagery, an elasticity and airiness of diction-an appearance of perfect sincerity, and a pervading depth of passion breaking forth at times in passages of startling power or tenderness, which belongs only to the highest class of oratory. The pathos of the conclusion has been much admired; and if we go back in imagination to the scene as presented in Westmin

ster Hall-the once proud Earl standing amid the wreck of his fortunes, with that splendid court around him which so lately bowed submissive to his will; with his humbled monarch looking on from behind the screen that concealed his person, unable to interpose or arrest the proceedings; with that burst of tenderness at the thought of earlier days and of his wife, the Lady Arabella Hollis, "that saint in heaven," to whose memory he had always clung amid the power and splendor of later life; with his body bowed down under the pressure of intense physical suffering, and his strong spirit utterly subdued and poured out like water in that startling cry, “My Lords, my Lords, my LORDS, Something more I had intended to say, but my voice and my spirit fail me"-we can not but feel that there are few passages of equal tenderness and power in the whole range of English eloquence. We are strongly reminded of Shakspeare's delineation of Wolsey under similar circumstances, in some of the most pathetic scenes which poetry has ever depicted. We feel that Strafford, too, with his "heart new opened," might have added his testimony to the folly of ambition, and the bitter fruits of seeking the favor of a king, at the expense of the people's rights, and the claims of justice and truth.

Cromwell, I charge thee, fling away ambition!

By that sin fell the angels; how can man, then,

The image of his Maker hope to win by't?

Love thyself last! Cherish those hearts that hate thee!

Corruption wins not more than honesty!

Still in thy right hand carry gentle peace,

To silence envious tongues! Be just and fear not!

Let all the ends thou aim'st at be thy country's,

Thy God's, and Truth's! Then if thou fallest, O Cromwell,
Thou fallest a blessed martyr."

SPEECH

OF THE EARL OF STRAFFORD WHEN IMPEACHED FOR HIGH TREASON BEFORE THE HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 13, 1641.1

MY LORDS,This day I stand before you charged with high treason. The burden of the charge is heavy, yet far the more so because it hath borrowed the authority of the House of Commons. If they were not interested, I might expect a no less easy, than I do a safe, issue. But let neither my weakness plead my innocence, nor their power my guilt. If your Lordships will conceive of my defenses, as they are in themselves, without reference to either party -and I shall endeavor so to present them-I hope to go hence as clearly justified by you, as I now am in the testimony of a good conscience by myself.

My Lords, I have all along, during this charge, watched to see that poisoned arrow of Treason, which some men would fain have feathered in my heart; but, in truth, it hath not been my quickness to discoyer any such evil yet within my breast, though now, perhaps, by sinister information, sticking to my clothes.

They tell me of a two-fold treason, one against the statute, another by the common law; this direct, that consecutive; this individual, that accumulative; this in itself, that by way of con

struction.

I shall now proceed in repeating my defenses as they are reducible to the two main points of treason. And,

I. For treason against the statute, which is the only treason in effect, there is nothing alleged for that but the fifteenth, twenty-second, and twenty-seventh articles.

[Here the Earl brought forward the replies which he had previously made to these articles, which contained all the charges of individual acts of treason. The fifteenth article affirmed that he had "inverted the ordinary course of justice in Ireland, and given immediate sentence upon the lands and goods of the King's subjects, under pretense of disobedience; had used a military way for redressing the contempt, and laid soldiers upon the lands and goods of the King's subjects, to their utter ruin.' There was a deficiency of proofs as to the facts alleged. The Earl declared that "the customs of England differed exceedingly from those of Ireland; and therefore, though cessing of men might seem strange here, it was not so there ;" and that "nothing was more common there than for the governors to appoint soldiers to put all manner of sentences into execution," as he proved by the testimony of Lord Dillon, Sir Adam Loftus, and Sir Arthur Teringham.

The twenty-seventh article charged him with having, as lieutenant general, charged on the county of York eight pence a day for supporting the train-bands of said county during one month, when called out; and having issued his warrants without legal authority for the collection of the same. The Earl replied that "this money was freely and voluntarily offered by them of York

As to this charge of treason, I must and do acknowledge, that if I had the least suspicion of my own guilt, I would save your Lordships the pains. I would cast the first stone. I would pass the first sentence of condemnation against myself. And whether it be so or not, I now refer to your Lordships' judgment and deliberation. You, and you only, under the care and protection of my gracious master, are my judges. Under favor, none of the Commons are my peers, nor can they be my judges. I shall ever cele-shire, in a petition; and that he had done nothing brate the providence and wisdom of your noble ancestors, who have put the keys of life and death, so far as concerns you and your posterity, into your own hands. None but your own selves, my Lords, know the rate of your noble blood none but yourselves must hold the balance in disposing of the same.

As

There are in the Parliamentary History two reports of this speech, one by Whitlocke, and the other by some unknown friend of Strafford. each has important passages which are not contained in the other, they are here combined by a slight modification of language, in order to give more completeness to this masterly defense.

* Strafford had no chance of acquittal except by inducing the Lords, from a regard to their dignity and safety, to rise above the influence of the Commons as his prosecutors, and of the populace who surrounded Westminster Hall by thousands, demanding his condemnation. In this view, his exor

but on the petition of the county, the King's special command, and the connivance, at least, of the Great Council, and upon a present necessity for thè defense and safety of the county, when about to be invaded from Scotland."

The twenty-second and twenty-third articles were the most pressing. Under these he was charged with saying in the Privy Council that "the Parliament had forsaken the King; that the King ought not to suffer himself to be overmastered by the stubbornness of the people; and that, if his Majesty pleased to employ forces, he had some in Ireland that might serve to reduce dium has admirable dexterity and force. He reverts to the same topic in his peroration, assuring them, with the deepest earnestness and solemnity (and, as the event showed, with perfect truth), that if they gave him up, they must expect to perish with him in the general ruin of the peerage.

this kingdom," thus counseling to his Majesty to put down Parliament, and subvert the fundamental laws of the kingdom by force and arms. To this the Earl replied, (1.) That there was only one witness adduced to prove these words, viz., Sir Henry Vane, secretary of the Council, but that two or more witnesses are necessary by statute to prove a charge of treason. (2.) That the others who were present, viz., the Duke of Northumberland, the Marquess of Hamilton, Lord Cottington, and Sir Thomas Lucas, did not, as they deposed under oath, remember these words. (3.) That Sir Henry Vane had given his testimony as if he was in doubt on the subject, saying as I do remember," and "such or such like words," which admitted the words might be "that kingdom," meaning Scotland.] II. As to the other kind, viz., constructive treason, or treason by way of accumulation; to make this out, many articles have been brought against me, as if in a heap of mere felonies or misdemeanors (for they reach no higher) there could lurk some prolific seed to produce what is treasonable! But, my Lords, when a thousand misdemeanors will not make one felony, shall twenty-eight misdemeanors be heightened into treason?

I pass, however, to consider these charges, which affirm that I have designed the overthrow both of religion and of the state.

1. The first charge seemeth to be used rather to make me odious than guilty; for there is not the least proof alleged-nor could there be any concerning my confederacy with the popish faction. Never was a servant in authority under my lord and master more hated and maligned by these men than myself, and that for an impartial and strict execution of the laws against them; for observe, my Lords, that the greater number of the witnesses against me, whether from Ireland or from Yorkshire, were of that religion. But for my own resolution, I thank God I am ready every hour of the day to seal my dissatisfaction to the Church of Rome with my dearest blood.

Give me leave, my Lords, here to pour forth the grief of my soul before you. These proceedings against me seem to be exceeding rigorous, and to have more of prejudice than equity -that upon a supposed charge of hypocrisy or errors in religion, I should be made so odious to three kingdoms. A great many thousand eyes have seen my accusations, whose ears will never hear that when it came to the upshot, those very things were not alleged against me! Is this fair dealing among Christians? But I have lost nothing by that. Popular applause was ever nothing in my conceit. The uprightness and integrity of a good conscience ever was, and ever shall be, my continual feast; and if I can be justified in your Lordships' judgments from this great imputation—as I hope I am, seeing these gentlemen have thrown down the bucklers -I shall account myself justified by the whole kingdom, because absolved by you, who are the better part, the very soul and life of the kingdom.

2. As for my designs against the state, I dare plead as much innocency as in the matter of religion. I have ever admired the wisdom of our ancestors, who have so fixed the pillars of this monarchy that each of them keeps a due propor tion and measure with the others-have so ad. mirably bound together the nerves and sinews of the state, that the straining of any one may bring danger and sorrow to the whole economy. The Prerogative of the Crown and the Propriety of the Subject have such natural relations, that this takes nourishment from that, and that foundation and nourishment from this. And so, as in the lute, if any one string be wound up too high or too low, you have lost the whole harmony; so here the excess of prerogative is oppression, of pretended liberty in the subject is disorder and anarchy. The prerogative must be used as God doth his omnipotence, upon extraordinary occasions; the laws must have place at all other times. As there must be prerogative because there must be extraordinary occasions, so the propriety of the subject is ever to be maintained, if it go in equal pace with the other. They are fellows and companions that are, and ever must be, inseparable in a well-ordered kingdom; and no way is so fitting, so natural to nourish and entertain both, as the frequent use of Parliaments, by which a commerce and acquaintance is kept up between the King and his subjects.3

These thoughts have gone along with me these fourteen years of my public employments, and shall, God willing, go with me to the grave! God, his Majesty, and my own conscience, yea, and all of those who have been most accessary to my inward thoughts, can bear me witness that I ever did inculcate this, that the happiness of a kingdom doth consist in a just poise of the King's prerogative and the subject's liberty, and that things could never go well till these went hand in hand together. I thank God for it, by my master's favor, and the providence of my ancestors, I have an estate which so interests me in the commonwealth, that I have no great mind to be a slave, but a subject. Nor could I wish the cards to be shuffled over again, in hopes to fall upon a better set; nor did I ever nourish such base and mercenary thoughts as to become a pander to the tyranny and ambition of the greatest man living. No! I have, and ever shall, aim at a fair but bounded liberty; remembering always that I am a freeman, yet a subject-that I have rights, but under a monarch. It hath been my misfortune, now when I am gray-headed, to be charged by the mistakers of the times, who are so highly bent that all appears to them to be in the extreme for monarchy which is not for themselves. Hence it is that designs, words, yea, intentions, are brought out as demonstrations of my misdemeanors. Such a multiplying-glass is a prejudicate opinion!

3 Strafford was generally regarded as the secret author of the King's aversion to Parliaments, which had led him to dispense with their use for many years. Hence the above declaration, designed to relieve him from the effects of this prejudice.

The articles against me refer to expressions and actions-my expressions either in Ireland or in England, my actions either before or after these late stirs.

(1.) Some of the expressions referred to were uttered in private, and I do protest against their being drawn to my injury in this place. If, my Lords, words spoken to friends in familiar discourse, spoken at one's table, spoken in one's chamber, spoken in one's sick-bed, spoken, perhaps, to gain better reason, to gain one's self more clear light and judgment by reasoning-if these things shall be brought against a man as treason, this (under favor) takes away the comfort of all human society. By this means we shall be debarred from speaking-the principal joy and comfort of life-with wise and good men, to become wiser and better ourselves. If these things be strained to take away life, and honor, and all that is desirable, this will be a silent world! A city will become a hermitage, and sheep will be found among a crowd and press of people! No man will dare to impart his solitary thoughts or opinions to his friend and neighbor!

on me, that my misfortune may not bring an inconvenience to yourselves. And though my words were not so advised and discreet, or so well weighed as they ought to have been, yet I trust your Lordships are too honorable and just to lay them to my charge as High Treason. Opinions may make a heretic, but that they make a traitor I have never heard till now.

(2.) I am come next to speak of the actions which have been charged upon me.

[Here the Earl went through with the various overt acts alleged, and repeated the sum and heads of what had been spoken by him before. In respect to the twenty-eighth article, which charged him with “ a malicious design to engage the kingdoms of England and Scotland in a national and bloody war," but which the managers had not urged in the trial, he added more at large, as follows:]

If that one article had been proved against me, it contained more weighty matter than all the charges besides. It would not only have been treason, but villainy, to have betrayed the trust of his Majesty's army. But as the managers have been sparing, by reason of the times, as to insisting on that article, I have resolved to keep the same method, and not utter the least

ment intended between the two kingdoms. I only admire how I, being an incendiary against the Scots in the twenty-third article, am become a confederate with them in the twenty-eighth article! how I could be charged for betraying Newcastle, and also for fighting with the Scots at Newburne, since fighting against them was no possible means of betraying the town into their hands, but rather to hinder their passage thither! I never advised war any further than, in my poor judgment, it concerned the very life of the King's authority, and the safety and honor of his kingdom. Nor did I ever see that any advantage could be made by a war in Scotland, where nothing could be gained but hard blows. For my part, I honor that nation, but I wish they may ever be under their own climate. I have no desire that they should be too well acquainted

Other expressions have been urged against me, which were used in giving counsel to the King. My Lords, these words were not wanton-expression which might disturb the happy agreely or unnecessarily spoken, or whispered in a corner; they were spoken in full council, when, by the duty of my oath, I was obliged to speak according to my heart and conscience in all things concerning the King's service. If I had forborne to speak what I conceived to be for the benefit of the King and the people, I had been perjured toward Almighty God. And for delivering my mind openly and freely, shall I be in danger of my life as a traitor? If that necessity be put upon me, I thank God, by his blessing, I have learned not to stand in fear of him who can only kill the body. If the question be whether I must be traitor to man or perjured to God, I will be faithful to my Creator. And whatsoever shall befall me from popular rage or my own weakness, I must leave it to that almighty Being, and to the justice and honor of my judges. My Lords, I conjure you not to make your-with the better soil of England. selves so unhappy as to disable your Lordships and your children, from undertaking the great charge and trust of this Commonwealth. You inherit that trust from your fathers. You are born to great thoughts. You are nursed for the weighty employments of the kingdom. But if it be once admitted that a counselor, for delivering his opinion with others at the council board, candide et caste, with candor and purity of motive,ble which is not so in itself? Not of law, since under an oath of secrecy and faithfulness, shall be brought into question, upon some misapprehension or ignorance of law-if every word that he shall speak from sincere and noble intentions shall be drawn against him for the attainting of him, his children and posterity-I know not (under favor I speak it) any wise or noble person of fortune who will, upon such perilous and unsafe terms, adventure to be counselor to the King. Therefore I beseech your Lordships so to look

My Lords, you see what has been alleged for this constructive, or, rather, destructive treason. For my part, I have not the judgment to conceive, that such treason is agreeable to the fundamental grounds either of reason or of law. Not of reason, for how can that be treason in the lump or mass, which is not so in any of its parts? or how can that make a thing treasona

neither statute, common law, nor practice hath from the beginning of the government ever mentioned such a thing.

It is hard, my Lords, to be questioned upon a law which can not be shown! Where hath this fire lain hid for so many hundred years, without smoke to discover it, till it thus bursts forth to consume me and my children? My Lords, do we not live under laws? and must we be punished by laws before they are made? Far bet

« PreviousContinue »