tle 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.]

them and their victim. Both were equally obstinate, equally infallible,
equally intolerant. As long as Laud ruled in the zenith of his power,
deprivation awaited the non-conforming minister, and imprisonment, fine,
and the pillory were the certain lot of the writer who dared to lash the
real or imaginary vices of the prelacy. His opponents were now lords of