of the peace; they replied with dignity to an insulting message from the Commons; and, regardless of the clamours of the populace, they spent several days in comparing the proofs of the managers with the defence of the archbishop.  At last,[a] in a house of fourteen members, the majority pronounced him guilty of certain acts, but called upon the judges to determine the quality of the offence; who warily replied, that nothing of which he had been convicted was treason by the statute law; what it might be by the law of parliament, the house alone was the proper judge.  In these circumstances the Lords informed the Commons, that till their consciences were satisfied, they should “scruple” to pass the bill of attainder.[1]

It was the eve of Christmas,[b] and to prove that the nation had thrown off the yoke of superstition, the festival was converted, by ordinance of the two houses, into a day of “fasting and public humiliation."[2] There was much policy in the frequent repetition of these devotional observances.  The ministers having previously received instructions from the leading patriots, adapted their prayers and sermons to the circumstances of the time, and never failed to add a new stimulus to the fanaticism of their hearers.  On the present occasion[c] the crimes of the archbishop offered a tempting theme to their eloquence; and the next morning the Commons, taking into consideration the last message, intrusted[d] to a committee the task of enlightening the ignorance of the Lords.  In a conference

[Footnote 1:  Journals, vii. 76, 100, 111.]

[Footnote 2:  Ibid. 106.  In the preceding year, the Scottish commissioners had “preached stoutly against the superstition of Christmas;” but only succeeded in prevailing on the two houses “to profane that holyday by sitting on it, to their great joy, and some of the assembly’s shame.”—­Baillie, i. 411.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1644 Dec. 17.] [Sidenote b:  A.D. 1644 Dec. 23.] [Sidenote c:  A.D. 1644 Dec. 26.] [Sidenote d:  A.D. 1645 Jan. 2.]

the latter were told that treasons are of two kinds:  treasons against the king, created by statute, and cognizable by the inferior courts; and treasons against the realm, held so at common law, and subject only to the judgment of parliament; there could not be a doubt that the offence of Laud was treason of the second class; nor would the two houses perform their duty, if they did not visit it with the punishment which it deserved.  When the question was resumed, several of the Lords withdrew; most of the others were willing to be persuaded by the reasoning of the Commons; and the ordinance of attainder was passed[a] by the majority, consisting only, if the report be correct, of six members.[1]

The archbishop submitted with resignation to his fate, and appeared[b] on the scaffold with a serenity of countenance and dignity of behaviour, which did honour to the cause for which he suffered.  The cruel punishment of treason had been, after some objections, commuted for decapitation, and the dead body was delivered for interment to his friends.[2] On Charles the melancholy intelligence made a deep impression;