The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part E.: From Charles I. to Cromwell
David Hume · en
Application was made to the king, that he would allow this committee
to examine privy counsellors with regard to opinions delivered at the
board: a concession which Charles unwarily made, and which thenceforth
banished all mutual confidence from the deliberations of council; where
every man is supposed to have entire freedom, without fear of future
punishment or inquiry, of proposing any expedient, questioning any
opinion, or supporting any argument.[***]
Sir George Ratcliffe, the earl's intimate friend and confidant, was
accused of high treason, sent for from Ireland, and committed to close
custody. As no charge ever appeared or was prosecuted against him, it
is impossible to give a more charitable interpretation to this measure,
than that the commons thereby intended to deprive Strafford, in his
present distress, of the assistance of his best friend, who was most
enabled, by his testimony, to justify the innocence of his patron's
conduct and behavior.[****]
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 192.
** Whitlocke, p. 37.
*** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 193.
**** Clarendon, vol. i. p 214.
When intelligence arrived in Ireland of the plans laid for Stafford's
ruin, the Irish house of commons, though they had very lately bestowed
ample praises on his administration, entered into all the violent
counsels against him, and prepared a representation of the miserable
state into which, by his misconduct, they supposed the kingdom to
be fallen. They sent over a committee to London, to assist in the
prosecution of their unfortunate governor; and by intimations from this
committee, who entered into close confederacy with the popular leaders
in England, was every measure of the Irish parliament governed and
directed. Impeachments, which were never prosecuted, were carried up
against Sir Richard Bolton, the chancellor, Sir Gerard Louther, chief
justice, and Bramhall, bishop of Derry.[*] This step, which was an
exact counterpart to the proceedings in England, served also the same
purposes: it deprived the king of the ministers whom he most trusted; it
discouraged and terrified all the other ministers and it prevented those
persons who were best acquainted with Strafford's counsels from giving
evidence in his favor before the English parliament.
{1641.} The bishops, being forbidden by the ancient canons to assist in
trials for life, and being unwilling by any opposition to irritate the
commons, who were already much prejudiced against them, thought
proper of themselves to withdraw.[**] The commons also voted, that the
new-created peers ought to have no voice in this trial; because the
accusation being agreed to while they were commoners, their consent to
it was implied with that of all the commons of England. Notwithstanding
this decision, which was meant only to deprive Strafford of so many
friends, Lord Seymour and some others still continued to keep their
seat; nor was their right to it any further questioned.[***]