[Footnote 1:  Journals, 125, 126.  Commons, Dec. 26.  Laud’s Troubles, 452, Rushworth, v. 781-785.  Cyprianus Aug. 528.  From the journals it appears that twenty lords were in the house during the day:  but we are told in the “Brief Relation” printed in the second collection of Somers’s Tracts, ii. 287, that the majority consisted of the earls of Kent, Pembroke, Salisbury, and Bolingbroke, and the lords North, Gray de Warke, and Bruce.  Bruce afterwards denied that he had voted.  According to Sabran, the French ambassador, the majority amounted to five out of nine.—­Raumer, ii. 332.]

[Footnote 2:  Several executions had preceded that of the archbishop.  Macmahon, concerned in the design to surprise the castle of Dublin, suffered Nov. 22; Sir Alexander Carew, who had engaged to surrender Plymouth to the king, on Dec. 23, and Sir John Hotham and his son, who, conceiving themselves ill-treated by the parliament, had entered into a treaty for the surrender of Hull, on the 1st and 2nd of January; Lord Macguire followed on Feb. 20.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1645.  Jan. 4.] [Sidenote b:  A.D. 1645.  Jan. 10.]

yet he contrived to draw from it a new source of consolation.  He had sinned equally with his opponents in consenting to the death of Strafford, and had experienced equally with them the just vengeance of heaven.  But he was innocent of the blood of Laud; the whole guilt was exclusively theirs; nor could he doubt that the punishment would speedily follow in the depression of their party, and the exaltation of the throne.[1]

The very enemies of the unfortunate archbishop admitted that he was learned and pious, attentive to his duties, and unexceptionable in his morals; on the other hand, his friends could not deny that he was hasty and vindictive, positive in his opinions, and inexorable in his enmities.  To excuse his participation in the arbitrary measures of the council, and his concurrence in the severe decrees of the Star-chamber, he alleged, that he was only one among many; and that it was cruel to visit on the head of a single victim the common faults of the whole board.  But it was replied, with great appearance of truth, that though only one, he was the chief; that his authority and influence swayed the opinions both of his sovereign and his colleagues; and that he must not expect to escape the just reward of his crimes, because he had possessed the ingenuity to make others his associates in guilt.  Yet I am of opinion that it was religious, and not political rancour, which led him to the block; and that, if the zealots could have forgiven his conduct as archbishop, he might have lingered out the remainder of his life in the Tower.  There was, however, but little difference in that respect between

[Footnote 1:  See his letter to the queen, Jan. 14th, in his Works, 145.]