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 the ascendant, and they exercised their sway with similar severity on the orthodox clergy of the establishment, and on all who dared to arraign before the public the new reformation of religion.  Surely the consciousness of the like intolerance might have taught them to look with a more indulgent eye on the past errors of their fallen adversary, and to spare the life of a feeble old man bending under the weight of seventy-two years, and disabled by his misfortunes from offering opposition to their will, or affording aid to their enemies.[1]

[Footnote 1:  I have not noticed the charge of endeavouring to introduce popery, because it appears to me fully disproved by the whole tenor of his conduct and writings, as long as he was in authority.  There is, however, some reason to believe that, in the solitude of his cell, and with the prospect of the block before his eyes, he began to think more favourably of the Catholic church.  At least, I find Rosetti inquiring of Cardinal Barberini whether, if Laud should escape from the Tower, the pope would afford him an asylum and a pension in Rome.  He would be content with one thousand crowns—­“il quale, quando avesse potuto liberarsi dalle carceri, sarebbe ito volontieri a vivere e morire in Roma, contendandosi di mille scudi annui.”—­Barberini answered, that Laud was in such bad repute in Rome, being looked upon as the cause of all the troubles in England, that it would previously be necessary that he should give good proof of his repentance; in which case he should receive assistance, though such assistance would give a colour to the imputation that there had always been an understanding between him and Rome.  “Era si cattivo il concetto, che di lui avevasi in Roma, cioe che fosse stato autore di tutte le torbolenze d’Inghilterra, che era necessario dasse primo segni ben grandi del suo pentimento.  Ed in tal caso sarebbe stato ajutato; sebene saria paruto che nelle sue passate resoluzioni se la fosse sempre intesa con Roma.”—­From the Ms. abstract of the Barberini papers made by the canon Nicoletti soon after the death of the cardinal.]

CHAPTER II.

Treaty At Uxbridge—­Victories Of Montrose In Scotland—­Defeat Of The King
At Naseby—­Surrender Of Bristol—­Charles Shut Up Within Oxford—­Mission Of
Glamorgan To Ireland—­He Is Disavowed By Charles, But Concludes A Peace
With The Irish—­The King Intrigues With The Parliament, The Scots, And The
Independents—­He Escapes To The Scottish Army—­Refuses The Concessions
Required—­Is Delivered Up By The Scots.