ness, and from whose protection he was to expect his safety. What was the treason they laid to his charge?
A. Many articles were drawn up against him, but the sum of them was contained in these two: first, that he had traitorously endeavoured to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the realm; and in stead thereof to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government against law: secondly, that he had laboured to subvert the rights of Parliaments, and the ancient course of Parliamentary proceedings.
B. Was this done by him without the knowledge of the King?
A. No.
B. Why then, if it were treason, did not the King himself call him in question by his attorney? What had the House of Commons to do, without his command, to accuse him to the Lords? They might have complained to the King, if he had not known it before. I understand not this law.
A. Nor I.
B. Had this been by any former statutes made treason?
A. Not that I ever heard of; nor do I understand how anything can be treason against the King, that the King, hearing and knowing, does not think treason. But it was a piece of that Parliament’s artifice, to put the word traitorously to any article exhibited against any man whose life they meant to take away.
B. Was there no particular instance of action or words, out of which they argued that endeavour of his to subvert the fundamental laws of Parliament, whereof they accused him?
A. Yes; they said he gave the King counsel to reduce the Parliament to their duty by the Irish army, which not long before my Lord of Strafford himself had caused to be levied there for the King’s service. But it was never proved against him, that he advised the King to use it against the Parliament.
B. What are those laws that are called fundamental? For I understand not how one law can be more fundamental
