had been presented at the very opening of the Houses, the
Parliament remained hostile to any change in the constitution of the
Church. The Committee of Religion reported in favour of the reforms
proposed by Falkland and Pym; and on the tenth of March 1641 a bill for
the removal of bishops from the House of Peers passed the Commons almost
unanimously.

[Sidenote: Trial of Strafford.]

As yet all had gone well. The king made no sign of opposition. He was
known to be resolute against the abolition of Episcopacy; but he
announced no purpose of resisting the removal of the bishops from the
House of Peers. Strafford's life he was determined to save; but he
threw no obstacle in the way of his impeachment. The trial of the Earl
opened on the twenty-second of March. The whole of the House of Commons
appeared in Westminster Hall to support it, and the passion which the
cause excited was seen in the loud cries of sympathy or hatred which
burst from the crowded benches on either side as Strafford for fifteen
days struggled with a remarkable courage and ingenuity against the list
of charges, and melted his audience to tears by the pathos of his
defence. But the trial was suddenly interrupted. Though tyranny and
misgovernment had been conclusively proved against the Earl, the
technical proof of treason was weak. "The law of England," to use
Hallam's words, "is silent as to conspiracies against itself," and
treason by the Statute of Edward the Third was restricted to a levying
of war against the king or a compassing of his death. The Commons
endeavoured to strengthen their case by bringing forward the notes of a
meeting of the Council in which Strafford had urged the use of his Irish
troops "to reduce that kingdom to obedience"; but the Lords would only
admit the evidence on condition of wholly reopening the case. Pym and
Hampden remained convinced of the sufficiency of the impeachment; but
the House broke loose from their control. Under the guidance of St. John
and Lord Falkland the Commons resolved to abandon these judicial
proceedings, and fall back on the resource of a Bill of Attainder. The
bill passed the Lower House on the 21st of April by a majority of 204 to
59; and on the 29th it received the assent of the Lords. The course
which the Parliament took has been bitterly censured by some whose
opinion in such a matter is entitled to respect. But the crime of
Strafford was none the less a crime that it did not fall within the
s