1842.] The Earl of Strafford, his confidential Friend. 279 one of his ears cut off, one side of his nose slit, and be branded in the face with a double S. S. for a sower of sedition; that then he should be carried back to prison, and after a few days be pilloried a second time in Cheapside, and be then likewise whipped, and have the other side of his nose slit, and his other ear cut off, and then be shut up in close prison for the remainder of his life." Mr. Le Bas endeavors to exculpate Laud, on the ground that he was not chargeable with all the odium of these things. He was, it is true, but one of a court, all the members of which, however, as we see in the case of Leighton, concurred in the sentence. He gave, too, his opinion against them, or as it is expressed, "spoke his conscience." And who can believe that, with his power and influence over the king, his lightest word would not have freed them from their sentence. Such was the opinion of his cotemporary, Bishop Burnet, who, speaking of Laud's defence, says, "in most particulars he excuses himself by this, that he was but one of many, who either in council, star chamber, or high commission, voted illegal things. Now, though this was true, yet a chief minister, and one high in favor, determines the rest so much, that they are generally little better than mere machines acted by him." He certainly took the matter very coolly, simply recording in his diary the fact of their punishment, without a word of disapprobation, thus -"June 14. This day, Jo. Bastwick, Doctor of Physic, Henry Burton, Bachelor of Divinity, and William Prynne, Barrister at Law, were censured for their libels against the hierarchy of the Church."‡ Gorton says, "On the delivery of the merciless sentence against that enthusiast, (Leighton,) Bishop Laud pulled off his cap and gave thanks for it; an action which is recorded in all the histories of the time, and which was very punctually remembered on his own downfall." However this may have been, we think that in every point of view, he must be held answerable for the sufferings of those men. And during these years, who was Laud's confidential friend and adviser? None other than Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, a nobleman whose cold-blooded cruelty and heartless profligacy well merited the title which Prynne bestowed -"the wicked Earl." He caused Lord Mountnorris, for Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. ii., p. 235. + Burnet's History of his own Times, p. 30. * Laud's Autobiography, p. 220. $ Biographical Dictionary, Art. Laud. #Clarendon, vol. I, p. 331. words lightly spoken at a dinner table, and which he thought not sufficiently respectful to himself, to be degraded from the army, deprived of his office of vice-treasurer, committed to prison, and sentenced to lose his head. "He was discharged," says Clarendon," with his life; all other parts of the sentence being fully executed."* After seducing the daughterin-law of the Lord Chancellor Ely, he degraded that nobleman from office, and committed him to prison, upon a petition preferred to him by the lady, because he would not settle upon her husband "more of his land, and in another manner than he had a mind to, and than he could legally be compelled to do." And yet, Mr. Le Bas says, "In the archbishop, Strafford found a spirit exactly congenial with his own. The result of this similarity was, an inviolable friendship." What an array of patrons for a Christian bishop! Devonshire, Buckingham, and Strafford, each one branded with the deepest sins of licentiousness. Neither was Wentworth's public life better than his private. At first a leading member of the Puritan party, he had apostatized on the bribe of a peerage, and from henceforth he persecuted the faith which once he professed. As usual in such cases, his bitterness burned against the party he had abandoned, with an ever increasing violence. The unfortunate Puritans who fell into his power, realized that he was an illustration of the truth of that line They ne'er pardon who have done the wrong." His efforts were all directed to the establishment of a despotism. He had declared that "the little finger of the prerogative should lie heavier upon the people than the loins of the law," and all that he could do through life to effect this end was tried. He advised the king, (and the advice certainly was most judicious!) to procure a recognition of his right to keep a standing army, because this would "for ever vindicate the monarchy at home from under the conditions. and restraints of subjects." Most amply, therefore, was the charge sustained against him, when he was put on trial for his life, for an endeavor to overthrow the fundamental government of the kingdom, and to introduce an arbitrary power."§ 66 * Clarendon, vol. i., p. 334. Le Bas's Life, p. 294. + Ibid., p. 336. 1842.] Articles of Impeachment. 281 And yet, if there is one individual in this revolution, whose fate has enlisted the sympathy of posterity, it is the Earl of Strafford. His splendid abilities win our admiration, as they did that of the court which doomed him to death. The firmness with which he received his sentence, and the generosity with which he wrote to the king, releasing him from his promise to see him uninjured, and advising him to pass the bill for his condemnation, "that so his death might free the kingdom from the many troubles it apprehended," all unite in rendering us forgetful of the crimes which brought him to his end. Charles, however, was incapable of the same generosity, and was glad to attempt to save himself by surrendering up to justice his accomplice in the conspiracy. Strafford, therefore, died, flung away by the ungrateful monarch whose faithful tool he had ever been. Yet in every light in which we can regard him, through life, and particularly at this eventful crisis, his great abilities rendered him England's worst, most dangerous enemy. But, even after his execution was over, it was evident that the party now beginning to taste the sweets of power, and to be conscious of its strength, was not to be propitiated by this one offering. They demanded another victim, and the archbishop, even if possible more odious than Strafford himself, was the one towards whom all eyes were turned. Those measures had already commenced, which ultimately were to be his ruin. Laud's career, indeed, although he struggled against the tide for four years longer, was evidently drawing to its close. In the beautifully expressive language of Scripture -" with him, the day was passing away, and the shadows of the evening were stretching out." At length, in 1641, the burst of indignation became so loud from all parts of the kingdom, even the Scots sending in their charges. against him, of being the cause of all the disturbances in their land, that parliament prepared articles of impeachment, and he was placed in confinement in the tower. The justice of these articles, which were at first fourteen in number, (ten being afterwards added,) it is impossible for us to discuss. They include a mixture of political and religious offences. Take, for example, the first three as a specimen : 1. That the archbishop had traitorously endeavored to subvert the fundamental laws of the realm, and to persuade the king that he might levy money without the consent of parliament. 2. That he had encouraged sermons and publications tending to the establishment of arbitrary power. 3. That he had interrupted and perverted the course of justice at Westminster Hall, etc., etc. We cannot believe that these specific charges could ever have been proved against Laud, and yet his whole course furnished ample grounds for an impeachment. He had possessed the private ear of the king, and been for years the great enemy of liberty in the kingdom, and for this he deserved punishment. Yet, although every intelligent man, woman, and child in England, must have been convinced of this fact, it was difficult to fix on any overt act which could be called treason. The archbishop had been always acting quietly behind the scenes. Parliament was thus driven to the necessity of framing charges, some of which it would have been hard to substantiate, though the spirit of all of them was undoubtedly true. The matter, therefore, was put somewhat on a false issue. Could he have been tried on the general charge of "attempting to establish arbitrary power," the justice of his conviction would have been evident. "He was," says Bishop Warburton, "for an arbitrary king and an intolerant Church." Yet, when they came down to particulars, the matter was not so tangible. But the manner of his punishment was most unjustifiable and cruel. There was no reason for dooming to death an old man approaching his seventieth year. It would have answered all the desired ends, to have rendered him harmless by removal from the king, on whose mind his violent counsels had exerted a pernicious influence. Stripped of his civil offices, and sent back to attend to the spiritual interests of his diocese, he might well have been permitted to linger out the few wasting fragments of his life, while the storm of war should roll around, yet touch him not in his retirement. As it was, for four years he was kept a prisoner, before the time came for his violent release from this world, which must surely have appeared to him, what Hooker calls it, "a world of perturbations." And, during this interval, ingenuity appears to have been exhausted in heaping upon him miserable and petty vexations to break down his spirit. Given over to the custody of his personal enemies, "an old weak man for vengeance thrown aside," his treatment seems rather to have been dictated by private revenge than by a desire to pursue calmly the ends of justice. His venerable 1842.] Not a Martyr. 283 age, which surely should have pleaded in his behalf, and the dignified stations he had held, were both forgotten. Lambeth palace was changed into Lambeth prison, and Leighton, whom he had formerly punished with such severity, and who was now half-crazed by his sufferings, was appointed his jailor. The most miserable bigots of the Puritan partymen who have always been its disgrace and shame- were let loose upon him, and it seems to have been with them almost the breath of life, to trample on the fallen prelate. To use his own words, "he drunk the cup of the scornings of the people to the very bottom." At last, the preparations for his death were complete, and the sentence was passed, that he should be beheaded. It was on the tenth of January, 1645, that this sentence was executed, and a single blow delivered Laud for ever from his persecutors. He met his fate with a firmness well becoming the Christian bishop, meekly replying on the scaffold to the harassing questions of the fanatics who disturbed his last moments-" cupio dissolvi, et esse cum Christo." But while our sympathies are enlisted in behalf of the archbishop, by the fiery trials through which he passed, and the nature of his death, the question must be asked, — was this martyrdom? So say the present Oxford divines, who quote him as LAUD, ARCHBISHOP AND MARTYR, and place him before the world as a finished specimen of ecclesiastical excellence. So churchmen have generally been accustomed to think. "He died," says Mr. Hatherell, "a martyr to the cause of truth, being persecuted even unto the death by bloodthirsty and remorseless Calvinists of that gloomy period."* We feel, however, obliged honestly to dissent somewhat from this opinion. Martyrdom is rightly defined to be "the suffering of death on account of one's adherence to the faith of the gospel." Now had Laud been offered to renounce the Church or die, and adopted the latter alternative, we should readily have admitted his claim to a place in "the noble army of martyrs." But it was far different. He did not choose to die, but he was forced to die. He could not help himself. He had tyrannized over the land for years, and now, when the parliament held the power, they were resolved to pay off old scores. *Life of Laud by Rev. J. W. Hatherell, prefixed to Laud's sermons. Oxford, 1829. |