In dealing with the evidence against him, the Archbishop maintained that personal resentment influenced the witnesses in the statements which they made; and in that opinion probably he was to a considerable extent correct. Certain of their allegations had, no doubt, a spiteful appearance; but then it is impossible to forget how this merciless man had provoked such conduct towards himself by his own inexcusable demeanour towards others; and that by a law of Providence, righteous in itself, though executed by instruments not free from blame, such delinquents as Laud, after having sown the wind, are sure, sooner or later, to reap the whirlwind. Prynne, of course, tried to make everything tell against his enemy; yet even he could not help allowing that the prisoner at the bar "made as full, as gallant, and pithy a defence, and spake as much for himself as was possible for the wit of man to invent." This special pleader proceeds however to say, the very moment after making this admission, that Laud spoke "with so much art, sophistry, vivacity, oratory, audacity, and confidence, without the least blush, or acknowledgment of guilt in anything, as argued him rather obstinate than innocent, impudent than penitent, and a far better orator and sophister than Protestant or Christian."[497] Prynne attributed the Primate's boldness to the King's pardon which he carried in his pocket.
When the whole evidence had been presented, a question arose whether the facts which had been adduced legally proved him to be guilty of the crime of treason. The Peers were not satisfied that such was the case; and in the present day, there are few, if any, constitutional lawyers who would admit that the proofs alleged brought the Archbishop within the scope of the Statute of Treasons. Owing to legal difficulties, the prosecution, in its original form, was dropped, and a Bill of Attainder was brought in. The Bill, after having been read a third time in the House of Commons, was sent up to the House of Lords. They admitted, as they had done before, that the accused was guilty of endeavouring to subvert the law, to destroy the rights of Parliament, and to overthrow the Protestant religion; but still, they asked, can all this prove him to be traitor to the King?[498] The old points were debated over and over again. But what did that avail? Popular feeling against him had become intense; the London citizens were now more earnest than ever in petitioning for speedy justice against all delinquents; and some individuals went so far as to shut up their shops, declaring they would not open them until righteous vengeance fell upon the head of this arch-enemy of the people of God.[499] Influenced by such clamour, if not convinced by the arguments of the Commons, the Lords present in the House on the 4th of January, 1645, passed the fatal Bill;[500] and afterwards it was in vain that the condemned produced a pardon, under the great seal, in arrest of execution.