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. [Sidenote: 1645, January.] The fatal proceedings against Laud are easily accounted for. The causes are found in the growing power of the anti-Episcopal party; the ascendancy of the Presbyterians, who for a long time had felt the deepest horror at Laud's career; the influence of the Scotch, who had a special hatred to the Primate for his designs on their country; and the activity of Prynne, who certainly had sufficient cause for detesting the mutilator of his ears. But the sentence of death executed upon him cannot be justified. Lord Campbell pronounces it "illegal, barbarous, and unprovoked," "as little to be palliated as defended." Hallam speaks of the whole business as "most unjustifiable," and "one of the greatest reproaches of the Long Parliament." Even Godwin admits that the prelate "fell a victim to the Scots, to the Presbyterians, and to the resentment of an individual who had formerly been the subject of his barbarity."[501] We may add that the same legal objections apply to the Bill of Attainder against him which are urged in the case of Strafford; and further, that in one respect the treatment of the prelate was worse than the treatment of the statesman; inasmuch as, whilst some persons may defend the putting of the Earl to death as a political necessity, no one can regard in the same light the execution of the Archbishop. [Sidenote: _Laud's Execution._] [Sidenote: 1645, January.]