New-York tribune., 1889-11-05
STRAFFORD.
"a TORY PICTURE.

In a special way for the bodness with which the
conventional estimate of that statesman ana ao-
ministrator is challenged. 1t cannot indced DC
said that the bographer is an apologlst Tor aoso-
lutism but he certainly refuses to ADMIT as ueno-
strated indisputably the ultimate wisdom Oh 'he
policy which triumphed in Straford's faH; ana
he denies peremptorily the righteousness OF the
means whereby that fall was brought about lhat
be is an admirer of the Earps administrative
carac;tv and strength of will and mind is clear
enough but he docs not therefore gloss over his
faults and when he finds himself in conflict with
historians like Professor Gardiner he marshals his
reasons carefully and fully and enables the reader
10 examine every aspect of the question. falr
example of his method is the analysis of Strai-
ford's abandonment of the Parliament faction. All
the theories of this step set down in ORDER ana
the probabilities in each case cautiously examined
Mr.. Trails own conclusion is that Strahord did
not change his opinions, yield to court brlbe;
but that he was always an absolutst from con-
viction, and that he had joined the opposition
merely to show the Court which had neglected
him that he was safer as friend than as an
enemy. This resort in politics has unfortunately
too many precedents and there are plenty Oh con-
temporary politicians in whose mouths it would
not lie to find fault with Strafford for such
stratagem. Bad as the trick must be CONSIDERED
in ethics, it has been played by too many men OF
distinction both before and since the hme OF
Charles the First to be treated as special evi-
dence of duplicity and bad faith and Mr. Trail Is
therefore justified in his contention that OF all the
theories of his motive exant this one is the least
discreditable to him.
The fact that the whole of his life from that
change to the end was devoted to the royal cause,
and that he sacrificed everything, even life ltsef,
to the maintenance of that cause. certainly war
rants the assumption that he was in reality
kings man from the beginning. Unfortunately
for himself, he served a master who of all princes
was the most false, feeble, vacilatng and un-
grateful; prince void of honor and manliness
that for the sake of a subsidy TO spend upon his
gross vices he did not hesitate to sell the honor
of his country, and who basely deserted and gave
up TO a shameful death the one powerful servant
he possessed, at the most fatal crisis of his own
fortunes. Mr.. Trail is inclined TO believe that
If Strafford had been supported and saved by
Charles, the result of the struggle between King
and Parliament would have been different.
Questions of this kind are none the less interesting
because they are in the nature Of things unproht-
able. One cannot but consider what would have
happened if the great Earl with his policy OF
thorough" had escaped his enemies and been en-
ebled 10 meet them on equal terms IL cannot De
doubted that he would have brought all his ener-
gies to bear TO crush the rebellious party In the
Commons, and had he disposed of Sir Henry Vane,
Prynne Hampden, PIN and the rest of the little
band of leaders, it is certainly not unthlnKaple
that the democratic movement might have been
crippled For as Mr.. Traill Justly observes, IN all
these struggles the final decision rests not with the
small minority of active agents at the front, Dut
with the great mass of the people, who as rule
md yhn
concern themselves greatly for either side until one
of the warning elements clearly preponderates
Now there is no evidence that the English Nation
was with the Paramen mt at this stage, and had the
Parliament been strongly resisted it might have
collapsed.
This. however was not to be. With Charles on
the throne Strafford's career was futility and
wasting of energy. 1t moreover career
which from year to year accumulated enmltles
and hatreds Whether as President of York or as
Lord Deputy and, later, Lord Lieutenant, OF
Ireland Wentworth cOntrived TO make himse1
widely and heartily dslilIed There is no mystery
about this. His positions on every leading issue
were necessarily unpopular. He stood with the
King for absolutsm in the State lie stood Win
Laud for the supremacy of Church suspected oil
strong Papistcal leanngs and arrogatlng to ltSelt
q monopoly of faith and worship. In Ireland he
associated his name with the Connaught settle
ment. measure which, whatever may be said for
the legal aspect of the royal cause can never be
re garded otherwise than as a hsh-handed ana IN
equitable act of conquest, in the dong OF whlch
the only considerations held important were The
complete subjugation of the Irish and the wrlnS
ing of as much revenue as possible from recall
citrants. 1t would have been impossible to carry
ont an inherently cruel and offensive measure in
fiprr xsynN- m
over. Strafford demanded that his victims should
sign their own condemnation, and such re fused
were ruined all the same, and heavily punished
,besides Nevertheless il must not be forgotten
that the men of the seventeenth century viewed
the world with other eyes than ours, and that
MANY things in Straford's career which shock
us must have appeared quite reasonable and Just
TO his contemporaries.
The strongest proof Of this is the fact that when
at last the Commons impeached him, they could
not make single of their charges stick.
They had accused him Of high treason, and they
had taken the estimate of his malignant enemy,
Sir Henry Vane, TO base their indictment upon.
Still they could not convict him of anything, and
eventually, being ierociously determined that he
should not escape they impudently threw all law
aside and passed an eX post facto law upon the
provisions of which he was found guilty. 1t was an
open defiance Of justice and equity alike, and il
Charles had not been the weakling he was. this
desperate move of his Minister'S enemies would
have opened his eyes TO the true significance of
the situation. The Commons realized that every
thing was at stake in the war against Strafiord.
1t was their heads against his, in short; and more
than that they perceived that in destroying
Strafford they tearing away the last bulwarl
of the throne. When Charles signed the commits
sion for Strafford's death he really signed away
his crown and life. He was a bad kins
and false friend, and his removal doubtless bene
flied his country. But he so bad OF
so false as at this moment, for of all men in hi:
kingdom he owed most TO this one, and from none