Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 3.djvu/220

206 all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places during their office."

In these seven clauses lay all the law of high treason at that day, and against none of these most assuredly had Strafford offended. He was working with the king and his officers; his acts and intentions pointed in a totally different direction. His object was to strengthen the king's government beyond all precedent; to make him, as we now have it under his own hand, the most absolute and independent monarch that ever lived. True, from the reign of Henry IV. to that of queen Mary, many other species of high treason had been created by the crown, and especially by Henry VIII., such as clipping money; burning houses to extort money; stealing cattle by Welshmen; wilful poisoning; execrating the king; allowing the king to marry a woman that was not a maid, and not telling that piece of unpleasant news; refusing to abjure the pope; believing Henry VIII. to have been lawfully married to Anne of Cleves; impugning his supremacy; or not dispersing when assembled to the number of twelve upon proclamation. But in none of these reigns, when almost every imaginable or unimaginable thing affecting kingship was made treason, it had ever entered the royal or legal head to conceive a treason against the people. Therefore, had all these descriptions of treason been yet existent, none of them would have availed against Strafford, who was most loyal to the king and his government, but an arrant traitor to the people. All these kinds of treason, however, had been abrogated by the statute 1 Mary c. 1, leaving only, as before, the seven kinds of Edward III, and which statute yet remains the great statute of treason, with the addition since, of another clause for the defence of the protestant succession of the house of Hanover.

On this ground, therefore, Strafford stood strong; and his lawyer, a Mr. Lane, argued thus upon the famous statute of Edward III., declaring that nothing was treason that was not comprehended in that statute. That the foundation on which the impeachment was laid, that of "endeavouring to overthrow the fundamental laws of the kingdom, and to introduce an arbitrary power," was wholly erroneous and untenable; and this was held to be good law by the most celebrated lawyers of the time. "With regard to this crime," they said, "an endeavour to subvert the fundamental laws, the statute of treasons is totally silent." Strafford, therefore, boldly told them that he did not deny but that he might have committed misdemeanours, nor, were they proved, would he complain of being punished for them; but he denied that their cumulative evidence could any more make one treason, than twenty non-entities could make one entity. "There is no treason in this; and when one thousand misdemeanours will not make one felony, shall twenty-eight misdemeanours heighten it to a treason?"

The matter was too palpable to be denied, but at this crisis an event occurred which gave fresh hope to the accusers. The younger Sir Henry Vane communicated to Pym a paper which he had discovered in the cabinet of his father, the secretary of state. The account which he gave of the occurrence, according to Whitelock, was this;—That his father being out of town, sent him the key of his study, desiring him to search for some papers which he wanted. That in this search he came upon one paper of such extraordinary contents, that tie held himself bound in duty to secure them. The paper was a minute of what had passed in the privy council on the morning of the day on which the last parliament had been dissolved. The question before the council was offensive or defensive war with the Scots. The king said, "How can I undertake a war without money?"

And Strafford was made to reply, "Borrow one hundred thousand pounds of the city. Go rigorously on to levy ship-money. Your majesty having tried the affections of your people, you are absolved and loosed from all rules of government, and may do what power will admit. Having tried all ways, you shall be acquitted before God and man. You have an army in Ireland, which you may employ to reduce this kingdom to obedience, for I am confident the Scots cannot hold out five mouths." Laud and Cottington declared with equal violence that the king was absolved from all law.

Pym, having obtained from young Vane a copy of this paper, on the 10th of April informed' the commons of the fact. After hearing it read. Vane the younger rose and confirmed the relation, excusing himself on the ground that it had appeared his bounden duty to make the matter known, and that Mr Pym had confirmed him in this opinion. After giving Mr Pym the copy, he had returned the original paper to its proper place in the cabinet. Sir Henry Vane, the father, here rose, and remarked, with much sign of resentment against his son, that he now saw whence all this mischief came, and that he could give no particulars of this farther, but found himself in an ill condition from its testimony.

On the 12th, charge was made against Strafford in court, who replied that old Vane was his most inveterate enemy, I and that, as was most probable, if he had delivered this paper to his son, he had been guilty of a most unpardonable breach of his oath as a privy councillor, to preserve the king's secrets; and was, therefore, totally unworthy of credit. That he had been strictly examined on what passed at that council, and at first denied all memory of any such words spoken by him, Strafford, on that occasion; and even on his third examination, after having been shown this paper, he had only recollected he had spoken these words, or some like them. That such words and such council were not likely to be soon forgotten; yet, of eight privy councillors then present, none of those whose evidence could be obtained could remember any such words, except the earl of Northumberland, who thought he recollected such words as those—of being absolved from all rules of government. The archbishop of Canterbury and Windebank were not present to give their evidence; but the marquis of Hamilton, the bishop Juxton, and lord Cottington, could remember no such words. Even had he used the words, it depended much on whether the phrase "this kingdom" meant England or Scotland; that the country under debate was Scotland, and he had demanded of Vane, whether the word used was really "this" or "that." And further, could the authority of this paper be established, it would not establish a charge of treason, for the law demanded the evidence of two witnesses, and this was but the evidence of one.