Aug. 23, 1628, gave the queen an opportunity of exerting an influence over his the most part, very unjustifiable actions, must be acknowledged; but where the principles, on which such assassinations are founded, appear plausible, and the assassinators appear to have acted out of views to the public good, however mistaken, and not out of selfinterest or private revenge; I say, where this is the case, as it seems here to have been, we cannot help pitying the criminals, though we condemn the crime. But to proceed in the history. Felton, after having been confined in prison at London, "was called before the council, where he confessed his inducement above mentioned to the murder. The council much pressed him to confess who set him on work to do such a bloody act, and if the puritans had no hand therein: he denied they had; and so he did to the last, that no person whatsoever knew any thing of his intentions or purpose to kill the duke, that he revealed it to none living. Dr. Laud, bishop of London, being then at the council-table, told him, if he would not confess he must go to the rack. Felton replied, if it must be so, he could not tell whom he might nominate in the extremity of torture; and if what he should say then must go for truth, he could not tell whether his lordship (meaning Laud) or which of their lordships, he might name; for torture might draw unexpected things from him. After this he was asked no more questions, but sent back to prison. The council then fell into debate, whether, by the law of the land, they could justify the putting him to the rack; which, by order of the king, being propounded to all the judges, they unanimously agreed, that he ought not, by the law, to be tortured by the rack; for no such punishment is known or allowed majesty, which she retained to the last mo by our law." Whereupon, being convicted on his own confession, he was hung up in chains. We see here the true spirit of an ecclesiastic (armed with power) in Laud! Cruelty is the distinguishing character. Racks present themselves presently to the imagination of a superstitious tyrannical priest, as the fittest punishments for offenders. Power in such hands, therefore, should never be lodged, because it will degenerate into tyranny, and render unhappy such as are under itLet the fate of Buckingham also be a warning to all ministers not to pursue wicked measures; for destruction, in all probability, will come upon them. Public justice may make them examples: a Felton may arise to dispatch them; or if neither of these should occasion their fall, but they should brave justice and escape its stroke, yet their names shall be branded with infamy and reproach in the annals of the times in which they lived, though pimps and parasites have ever so loudly sounded their praises. The following account of Felton may be looked on as no improper supplement to this note." He was of a religious and quiet conversation, given to no open vice nor whimsical opinions, being a frequent hearer of those preachers as were never found to give encouragement to such practices, but rather the contrary.Nor was honest Jack, a title always given him, (though rendered after more diffusive by the duke's enemies, than so ill a consequence might merit) agitated by revenge, or any privater spirit than what he was persuaded did regard the commonweal; as I heard William earl of Pembroke protest, who could not but be the best informed, hsving assisted at his examinations : Rushworth, vol. I. p. 638. ment of his life. For" he was remarkably who did withal aver, he never saw piety and valour better or more temperately mixed in one person; nor was he found, as the same lord attested, in any untruth." I think I had reason to give Felton the epithet of well-meaning. II He was remarkably uxorious, &c.] Sir Philip Warwick tells us, that "king Charles was always more chairy of the queen's person, than of his business." -Burnet observes, "that he was unreasonably feeble to those whom he trusted, chiefly to the queen “.? And if we turn to his letters, taken at Naseby, we shall find the strongest proofs of the regard he paid to her advice, and her, influence over him. I will transcribe a few passages from among many. In a letter, dated Oxford, 13 Feb. 1643, we have the following expressions: "I think it not the least of my misfortunes, that, for my sake, thou hast run so much hazard; in which thou hast expressed so much love to me, that I confess it is impossible to repay, by any thing I can do, much less, by words: but my heart being full of affection for thee, admiration of thee, and impatient. passion of gratitude to thee, I could not but say something, leaving the rest to be read by thee out of thine, own noble heart. Some finds fault as too much kindness to thee; but, I, assure such, that. I want expression, not will, to do it ten times more to thee, on all occa sions. Others press me as being brought upon the stage; but I answer,, that, having profest to have thy, advice, it were a wrong to thee to do any thing before I had it." Nor were these, mere expressions; for, in b Memoirs, p. 204 Osborn's Works, p. 224. 8vo. Lond. 1673. Cabinet Opened, p. 38. uxorious, consulted his wife in all his affairs, fact, he cared not to do any thing without first consulting her majesty, and obtaining her approbation. "Now," says he, in a letter to the queen, dated May 14, 1645, "I must make a complaint to thee of my son Charles; which troubles me the more, that thou mayest suspect I seek by equivocating to hide the breach of my word, which I hate above all things, especially to thee. It is this: he hath sent to desire me, that Sir John Greenfield may be sworn gentleman of his bedchamber; but already so publickly engaged in it, that the refusal would be a great disgrace both to my son and the young gentleman, to whom it is not fit to give a just distaste, especially now, considering his father's merits, his own hopefulness, besides the great power that family has in the West; yet I have refused the admitting of him until I shall hear from thee. Wherefore I desire thee, first, to chide my son for engaging himself without one of our consents; then not to refuse thy own consent; and lastly, to believe, that, directly or indirectly, I never knew of this while yesterday, at the delivery of my son's letter. So farewel, sweet heart, and God send me good news from thee." And in a letter, dated 9 June 1645, speaking of the good state of his affairs to her, he adds, "Yet I must tell thee, that it is thy letter by Fitz-Williams, assuring me of thy perfect recovery, with thy wonted kindness, which makes me capable of taking contentment in these good successes; for as divers men proposes several recompences to themselves for their pains and hazard in this rebellion, so thy company is the only reward I expect and wish for b." From these and, many like passages, it appears how uxorious Charles 2 King's Cabinet Opened, p. 10, Id. p. 14. was influenced by her, and, in a manner, was, how much governed by a woman! And consequently, in the opinion of some brave spirits, in a state most ignominious. "An ille mihi liber, cui mulier imperat? cui leges imponit, præscribit, jubet, vetat quod videtur? qui nihil imperanti negare potest, nihil recusare audet? poscit? dandum est: vocat ? veniendum: ejicit? abeundum : minatur? extimescendum. Ego verò istum non modo servum, sed nequissimum servum, etiam si in amplissima familia natus sit, appellandum puto." i. e. "Shall I esteem the man to be free who is the slave of a woman, who imposes laws on him, commands, forbids, and regulates his conduct at pleasure; who neither can refuse what she requests, nor dares disobey her orders? If she asks any thing, it must be given; does she call? he must answer; when shut out he must quietly be gone in a word, if she threatens him, he must of course be filled with terror. Such a man, let his birth and family be ever so illustrious, deserves, in my opinion, not simply the appellation of slave, but that of the most servile of all slaves." -God's universal law Gave to the man despotic power Over his female in due awe, Nor from that right to part an hour, Smile she or lour: So shall he least confusion draw On his whole life, not sway'd By female usurpation, or dismay'd. MILTON. These things are boldly said! but possibly they who uttered them, might not themselves have been able wholly to make them good; for women, in all ages, have had great sway. Beauty has triumphed over the * Cic. Paradoxa, vol. II. |