[Footnote 1:  Baillie, i. 408, 413, 440; ii. 27, 31, 33, 36, 73, 74, 75.  Rush. v. 785.  Journals, Sept. 24, Nov. 26, Jan. 1, 4, March 5.  Journals of Lords, 119, 121.  See “Confessions of Faith, &c. in the Church of Scotland,” 159-194.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1643 Feb. 3.] lapsed to the crown; but the Lords made a peremptory order, and when he attempted to excuse his disobedience, sent a message[a] to the Commons to expedite his trial.  Perhaps they meant only to intimidate; but his enemies seized the opportunity; a committee was appointed; and the task of collecting and preparing evidence was committed to Prynne, whose tiger-like revenge still thirsted for the blood of his former persecutor.[1] He carried off[b] from the cell of the prisoner his papers, his diary, and even his written defence; he sought in every quarter for those who had formerly been prosecuted or punished at the instance of the archbishop, and he called on all men to discharge their duty to God and their country, by deposing to the crimes of him who was the common enemy of both.

At the termination of six months[c] the committee had been able to add ten new articles of impeachment to the fourteen already presented; four months later,[d] both parties were ready to proceed to trial, and on the 12th of March, 1644, more than three years after his commitment, the archbishop confronted his prosecutors at the bar of the House of Lords.

I shall not attempt to conduct the reader through, the mazes of this long and wearisome process, which occupied twenty-one days in the course of six months.  The many articles presented by the Commons might be reduced to three,—­that Laud had endeavoured to subvert the rights of parliament, the laws and the religion of the nation.  In support of these, every instance that could be raked together by the industry and ingenuity of Prynne, was brought forward.  The familiar discourse, and the secret writings of the

[Footnote 1:  Laud’s History written by himself in the Tower, 200-206.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1643.  April 21.] [Sidenote b:  A.D. 1643.  May 31.] [Sidenote c:  A.D. 1643.  Oct. 23.] [Sidenote d:  A.D. 1644.  March 4.]

prelate, had been scrutinized; and his conduct both private and public, as a bishop and a counsellor, in the Star-chamber and the High Commission court, had been subjected to the most severe investigation.  Under every disadvantage, he defended himself with spirit, and often with success.  He showed that many of the witnesses were his personal enemies, or undeserving of credit; that his words and writings would bear a less offensive and more probable interpretation; and that most of the facts objected to him were either the acts of his officers, who alone ought to be responsible, or the common decision of those boards of which he was only a single member.[1] Thus far[a] he had conducted his defence without legal aid.  To speak to matters of law, he was allowed the aid of counsel, who contended