The Tower of London, (Vol. 2 of 2)Gower, Ronald Sutherland, Lord
History
The Tower of London, (Vol. 2 of 2)
Gower, Ronald Sutherland, Lord
Tower of London (London, England)
bundle he was so careful to open, so that he caused each glove to be
looked into. Upon this I tendered him one pair of gloves, which he
refusing, I told him he might take them, and fear no bribe, for he had
already done me all the mischief he could, and I asked no favour of
him, so he thanked me, took the gloves, bound up my papers, left two
centinels at my door, and went his way.”—(From “Troubles and Trials of
Archbishop Laud.”)
Prynne, whose ears Laud had been the means of cutting off some
half-dozen years before, must have enjoyed this visit to his old foe.
On the 10th of March 1643, the Archbishop was brought to his trial in
Westminster Hall, but amongst all the charges brought against him none
could be considered as proving him guilty of high treason. Serjeant
Wild was obliged to admit this, but said that when all the Archbishop’s
transgressions of the law were put together they made “many grand
treasons.” To this Laud’s counsel made answer, “I crave you mercy, good
Mr Serjeant, I never understood before this that two hundred couple of
black rabbits made a black horse.”—(In Archbishop Tennison’s MSS. in
Lambeth Library. Quoted by Bayley.)
Laud’s trial lasted for twenty days, the chief accusation brought
against him being that he had “attempted to subvert religion and the
fundamental laws of the realm.” The outcome of the trial was that Laud
was beheaded on Tower Hill on 10th of January 1644. Laud was a strange
compound of bigotry and intolerance, of courage and of devotion to what
he considered to be the true Church, and of which he seemed to regard
himself as a kind of Anglican Pope. His life and character are enigmas
to those who study them, and his death became him far better than his
life had done.
[Illustration: WILLIAM LAUD
_Aerts Bisschop van Cantelbury, binnen London Onthalft den 10
January, Anno 1645_
_Arnt Pieters Excudit_]
Carlyle, in a delightful passage in his posthumously published
“Historical Studies,” writes: “Future ages, if they do not, as is
likelier, totally forget ‘W. Cant,’ will range him under the category
of Incredibilities. Not again in the dead strata which lie under men’s
feet, will such a fossil be dug up. This wonderful wonder of wonders,
were it not even this, a zealous Chief Priest, at once persecutor and
martyr, who has no discernible religion of his own?” “No one,” said
Laud, when told of the day on which he was to die, “no one can be
more ready to send me out of life than I am to go.” Indeed, no one
could have left life in a calmer or more tranquil manner than did
the Archbishop. It must be a great support to have a sublime opinion
of oneself, and if ever man had a sublime opinion of himself it was
Laud. The comparison he made in his diary, and which I have already
quoted, between his Saviour and himself—between Prynne-Judas and
Laud-Christ—proves the ineffable self-conceit of the prelate.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account