The Lords had alleged the troubles as the reason why they could not immediately deal with the Bill of Attainder: but the continued terror at length made all further opposition impossible. The sittings were now attended chiefly by those in whom government by prerogative, such as Strafford aimed at, had awakened from the first a spirit of aristocratic resistance. And when an opinion of the Court of King’s Bench was given, to the effect that on the points which had been taken as proved by the Lords, Strafford certainly merited the punishment for high treason, all opposition was at length silenced: the Bill of Attainder passed the Upper House by a majority of 7 votes, 26 against 19.
A deputation of the Lords went immediately to the King, to recommend him to assent to the bill on account of the danger which would attend a refusal. It was Saturday, May 8/18: in the afternoon the bill, together with the one for not dissolving Parliament, was laid before him by the two Houses, with a prayer for his immediate assent to both. Two or three thousand men had assembled at Whitehall to receive his answer[254]. To their great indignation the King deferred his decision until Monday.
The following Sunday was to him a day for the most painful determination—for what an admission it was, to recognise as a capital crime the having executed his own will and purposes. The political tendency, if fully carried out, obviously was to separate the crown from its advisers, and make them dependent on another authority than that of the King; to make the King’s power inferior to that of the Parliament. Charles I had solemnly declared that he found the accused not guilty of high treason: he had given him his word to let no evil befal him, not to let a hair of his head be harmed. Could he nevertheless sanction his A.D. 1641. execution? Verily it was a great moment for the King: what glory would attend his memory had he lived up to his convictions, and opposed to the pressure put upon him an immovable moral strength! To this end was he King, and possessed the right of sanctioning or of rejecting the resolutions of Parliament: that was the theory of the constitution. But among the five bishops whom the King called to his side in this great case of conscience, only one advised him to follow his own convictions. The others represented that it was not the King’s business to form a personal opinion on the legality of a sentence; that the acts which Strafford himself admitted had now been pronounced to be treasonable; and that he might allow the judgment without being convinced of its accuracy, as he would a judgment of the King’s Bench or at the assizes. This may be the meaning of the doctrine, attributed to Bishop Williams, that the King has a double conscience, a public and a private one, and that he may lawfully do as King what he would not do as a private man[255]. But the constitutional principle essentially was that personal convictions in this high office should possess a negative influence. The distinction must be regarded as an insult to the theory of the crown, implying its annihilation as a free power in the State. King Charles felt this fully: all the days of his life he regretted as one of his greatest faults, that in this case he had not followed the dictates of his conscience. But he was told that he must not ruin himself, his future, and his house for the sake of a single man: the question was not whether he would save Strafford, but whether he would perish with him. The movement begun in the city was spreading throughout the country; from every county men were coming up to join the city populace[256]. From a letter of one of the best informed and A.D. 1641. most intelligent eye-witnesses we gather that the idea of appealing to the commons of the country against the King’s refusal was mooted in the Lower House[257]. And so far as the assurances given to the Viceroy of Ireland were concerned, a letter from Strafford was laid before the King, in which he released him from his promise, and entreated him to avoid the disasters which would result from the rejection of the bill, and to sacrifice him, the writer, as he stood in the way of a reconciliation between the King and his people.
So it came to pass that on May 10 the King commissioned Lord Arundel and the Lord Keeper to signify his royal assent to the Bill of Attainder. The next day he made another attempt to return from the path of justice to that of mercy. Would it not be better to consign Strafford to prison for life, with the provision that for any participation in public affairs, or attempt at flight, his life would certainly and finally be forfeited. He asked the Lords whether this was possible: they replied that it would endanger himself and his wife and children. For no relaxation was to be obtained from the universal disposition both in Parliament and in the city. Unless the King gave way it would be scarcely possible to maintain his government any longer.
At the news of the King’s submission Strafford exclaimed, ‘That no one should trust in princes, who are but men.’ The genuineness of his letter has been denied, it being supposed that others wrote it, in order to remove the King’s personal scruples: but a thorough examination of the fact removes every doubt[258]. Though Strafford confirmed in his own person the experience expressed in the words of Scripture, he himself with his last words gave, with highminded forbearance, the opinion that it was necessary to sacrifice him, in consideration of the general circumstances and of the possible consequences.
Strafford went to the scaffold in an exalted frame of mind. On his way he saw Laud, who at his request appeared at A.D. 1641. the window of his prison. The Archbishop was unable to speak. Strafford bade him farewell, and prayed that God might protect his innocence; for he had no doubt that he was in the right in fulfilling his King’s will, and establishing his prerogative. He persisted that he had never intended either to destroy the parliamentary constitution, or to endanger the Protestant Church. He did not appeal to the judgment of posterity, as if he had been conscious that great antagonisms are transmitted from generation to generation: he looked for a righteous judgment in the other world.
Such moments must come, in order to bring to light the absolute independence of success and of the world’s judgment which strong characters possess.
His guilt was of a nature entirely political; he had done his best to guide the King in these complications, undoubtedly in the belief that he was right in so doing, but still with indiscreet zeal. So also his execution was a political act: it was the expression of the defeat which he had suffered and occasioned, of the triumph of the ideas against which he had contended to the death.
The King, some weeks earlier, had been unable to assent to a violent attempt to rescue the man who had most strongly maintained the privilege of his crown: he would henceforth do nothing outside the law. When the forms of the parliamentary state brought about the condemnation to death of this champion of his prerogative, he had not the strength to set his word against it. In order not immediately to endanger his crown, himself, and his family, he signed the bill which the two Houses presented to him.