between man and man, yet he had been deprived on a 'paper petition' of a manor in Ireland after eighteen years' quiet possession, and turned out by Strafford's own warrant, and he was deprived of his legal remedy in other cases.[228] The witnesses to the words about revenge were Lord Moore and Sir Robert Loftus, who were present, but were not the original reporters of the expression. It is particularly stated that the sentence was unanimous, and that there was a breach of the 41st and 13th articles of war--sentence for the first, imprisonment, public disarming, and banishment from the Army, and for ever disabled to bear arms; and for the 13th death. The articles of war were printed and published on March 13, 1633, and are the same as those used by Falkland, Wilmot, and others. [Sidenote: Case of Lord Chancellor Loftus.] [Sidenote: The Chancellor is suspended, and placed under arrest, April, 1638.] Wentworth had probably distrusted Mountnorris from the first. The Lord Chancellor, on the contrary, had frequently earned his praise, and as late as the summer of 1636 a special grant of 3000_l._ was made to him on his recommendation. A few months afterwards the two men were engaged in an acrimonious correspondence about the appointment of a lawyer to do temporary duty on circuit. The explanation of this charge is to be found in certain legal proceedings which had taken place in the meantime. In the year 1621 the Chancellor's eldest son, Robert, had married Eleanor, daughter of Sir Francis Rushe, whose sister long afterwards became the wife of Wentworth's brother, Sir George. It was alleged that the Chancellor had promised to settle Monasterevan and 1500_l._ a year in land upon the young couple, and that the bride had paid over her dowry of 1750_l._ on this consideration. It was now sought after all these years to enforce specific performance of the Chancellor's verbal promise. The proceedings were taken by Eleanor's half-brother, Sir John Gifford, as her next friend, her husband refusing to be a party, though he had a solicitor to watch the case. It is not clear that ordinary courts of law had no jurisdiction in the case, but it was assumed to be matter of equity, and a King's letter was obtained remitting it to the Council on the ground that the Lord Chancellor was chief equity judge and that he could not adjudicate in his own cause. Sir William Colley swore in a hesitating and inconsistent way at the trial in 1638 to what the Chancellor had said in 1621, who upon this ground was ordered to settle all the lands to the value of 1200_l._ a year upon Sir Robert Loftus and his heirs general, to the exclusion of the second son, Edward, who was to have an annual rent-charge of 200_l._ The King professed himself anxious for the maintenance of the peerage, but the judgment, had it been finally confirmed, would have had the contrary effect, for Sir Robert's only son died shortly afterwards, and the property would have gone to his