gled all our service-books and books of Common Prayer, bestrewing the whole pavement with the

leaves thereof, a miserable spectacle to all good eyes; but as if all this had been too little to satisfy the fury of some indiscreet zealots among them (for many did abhor what was done already), they further exercised their malice upon the arras-hanging in the choir, representing the whole story of our Saviour, wherein observing divers figures of Christ tremble to express their blasphemies), one said, Here is Christ, and swore that he would stab Him; another said, Here is Christ, and swore that he would rip up His bowels; which they did accordingly, so far as the figures were capable thereof, beade many other villanies: and not content there with, finding another statue of Christ in the frontis: piece of the south gate, they discharged against it forty shots at least, triumphing much when they did hit it in the head or face, as if they were resolved to crucify Him again in His figure whom they could not hurt in truth: nor had their fury been thus stopped, threatening the ruin of the whole fabric, had not the Colonel, with some others, come to the relief and rescue: the tumult appeased, they presently departed for Dover, from whence we expect them this day."

These citations may give a faint idea of the wanton damage done to the noblest edifices of the country, and we may be thankful that it was not even worse; for we learn from Whitelock that the propriety of pulling down the whole of the cathedrals was discussed, while he was a member of the Council of State, and it is not clear what secondary cause prevented such an irreparable loss to the country.

Though belonging to a later period, it may be here noticed that the Journals of the House of Lords in Ireland bear witness that similar or even greater profanations of churches were practised in that country. On June 3, 1662, one Constantine Neale, a merchant of Wexford, was by the House ordered to restore the bell of Arklow church, then in his possession; and under the date of Sept. 26, 1662, we read,

"The churchwardens of Tallaght, in the county of Dublin, exhibited their petition unto the Right Hon. the House of Peers, setting forth that the church of Tallaght, in the year 1651, was in good repair and decently ordained, with convenient pews, with a pulpit, font, and other necessaries, and also paved with hewed stone, all which cost the parishioners £300 sterling; and that about the same time Capt. Henry Alland, coming to quarter there with his troops, pulled down or caused to be pulled down the roof of the said church, and converted the timber thereof for the building a house to dwell in, in the county of Kildare, and converted the

slates of the said church to his own use, and caused the paving-stones thereof to be carried to Dublin, to pave his kitchen entry, and other rooms in his house; fed his horses in the font, and converted the same, with the seats and pews of said church, to his own use, to the great dishonour of God, the shame of religion, and the petitioners' damage of L300 sterling."

In his work entitled An Attempt towards Recovering an Account of the Numbers and Sufferings of the Clergy of the Church of England, Heads of Colleges, Fellows, Scholars, &c., who were Se

The House pronounced the offender guilty of sacrilege, and ordered him to pay 100 toward the reparation of the church.

III. SUFFERINGS OF THE ROYALISTS MORE PARTICULARLY OF THE CLERGY.

The nobility and gentry who supported the king were, when conquered, treated with the extremity of rigour. By an ordinance passed early in the war, (March 31, 1643,) the estates of all such were declared confiscated, and though this was not, for various reasons, fully carried out, the compositions that they were allowed to make for their "delinquency" were ruinously heavy, and beside, did not protect them from farther arbitrary impositions whenever the finances of their opponents required replenishing. The woods of the Cavaliers were felled whenever a supply of ship-timber was required; their houses were wantonly ruined; their titles were prohibited; but perhaps the most signal proof of the barbarity of their opponents is to be found in a vote of the Commons, after the surrender of the royal garrisons, and when the king was in the hands of the Scots: it bears date Dec. 8, 1646, and declares, "That all who shall raise forces against the Parliament or either House hereafter shall die without mercy, and have their estates confiscated." Yet this avowed government by the sword did not daunt the spirits of some brave men. They took up arms again and again, and a member of a peaceable profession is recorded by Whitelock to have told them unpalatable truths to their faces. He says, under date Feb. 21, 1647-8,—

"Judge Jenkins, brought to the bar of the House, refused to kneel, denied their authority, told them that they wronged the king, willing that law without a king, and used high expressions the laws might be protected, that there could be no against the parliament and their authority. The House fined him 1,000 for his contempt.

"At another time, when his charge was read against him at the bar, for giving judgment of death against men for assisting the parliament, and for being himself in arms against the parliament, and persuading others to do the like, and for deny ing the power of the parliament, &c., and asked what he had to say thereunto, he told them, that they had no power to try him, and he would give

no other answer."

It is, however, of the sufferings of the clergy that we are best enabled to speak, as they have been collected, mainly from their immediate descendants, by the industry of the Rev. John Walker", and they

questered, Harassed, &c., in the late Times of the Grand Rebellion," folio, published in 1714, in reply to Calamy's "Account of the Ministers, Lecturers, &c., ejected or silenced after the Restoration in

As a preliminary to their systematic persecution, the most atrocious calumnies were circulated against the whole body, both high and low, and they were thus exposed to the violence of mobs, which not unfrequently terminated in death. Many, justly alarmed, fled from their homes, when they were charged with deserting their cures, and, if taken, were treated as the worst of criminals. Hundreds thus perished in gaols, others were imprisoned in ships, and alarmed with threats of selling them as slaves either to the Barbary pirates or the American planters; yet the only matters that could be truly charged against the majority of them were, that they retained their loyalty to the king, and ventured to use the services of the Church, contrary to the commandment of their new rulers.

From the very beginning of the troubles the parliament had shewn an implacable hostility to the episcopal order, and the sufferings of the whole body were most severe. Of the two archbishops, one was put to death, and the other, as well as sixteen bishops, died in poverty, and nine only lived to see the Church and the monarchy restored. As proof of the hardships to which they were subjected, it will be sufficient to cite the testimony of Bishop Hall (from his "Hard Measure"), for, agreeing as he did in theology with the Puritans, it is hardly to be supposed that he fared worse than his brethren; indeed, we know that he was, after being plundered, allowed to live in com

1660. An epitome of Walker's book, styled "The Sufferings of the Clergy during the Great Rebellion" was published in May, 1862, in anticipation of the proposed Bicentenary Commemoration of the "Bartholomew confessors" in that year.

b Many of these calumnies are collected in a book printed by authority of the Parliament in 1643; it is entitled, "The First Century of Scandalous Malignant Priests," and was drawn up by John White, a lawyer, who was chairman of the Grand Committee. Some of the charges are too odious to be credited, particularly as no steps were taken to punish the alleged criminals, except expulsion, which was also the lot of others against whom nothing worse was alleged than "following Bishop Wren's fancies;" yet all are indiscriminately styled "scandalous."

The language which the presbyterian preachers held regarding the clergy may be judged from the following passage from a discourse delivered by Thomas Case, in Milk-street, in 1643:-"Idol, idle shepherds, dumb dogs that cannot bark, unless it were at the flock of Christ; and so they learned of their masters both to bark and bite too; greedy dogs, that could never have enough, that did tear out the loins and bowels of their own people for gain; swearing, drunken, unclean priests, that taught nothing but rebellion in Israel, and caused people to abhor the sacrifice of the Lord; Arminian, popish, idolatrous, vile wretches, such as, had Job been alive, he would not have set with the dogs

long imprisoned, and Bishops Pierce and Prideaux were so rigorously used by the sequestrators as to be reduced to absolute want.

"In the April following [1643]," he says, "there that by virtue of an ordinance of parliament, they came the sequestrators to the palace, and told me must seize upon the palace, and all the estate I had, both real and personal, and accordingly sent certain burned in the hand for the mark of his truth,) to men appointed by them (whereof one had been appraise all the goods that were in the house; which they executed with all diligent severity, not leaving so much as a dozen of trenchers, or my children's pictures, out of their curious inventory; yea, they would have appraised our wearing clothes, had not Alderman Tooley and Sheriff Rawley (to whom I sent to require their judgment concerning the ordinance in this point) declared their opinion to the contrary. These goods, both library and household stuff of all kinds, were appointed to be exposed to public sale."

Of the sufferings of another dignified clergyman, Dr. Richard Sterne, master of Jesus College, Cambridge, and afterwards archbishop of York, we have the following account in a letter of his from his prison in Ely House, Oct. 9, 1643 :

"This is now the fourteenth month of my imprisonment : nineteen weeks in the Tower, thirty weeks in the Lord Petre's house, ten days in the ships, and seven weeks here in Ely House. The amounted to above £100, beside diet and all other very fees and rents of these several prisons have charges, which have been various and excessive, as in prisons is usual. For the better enabling me home, they have seized upon all my means which to maintain myself in prison and my family at they can lay their hands on..... And all this while I have never been so much as spoken withal, I am here. Nor is anything laid to my charge or called either to give or receive an account why (not so much as the general crime of my being a

of his flock; a generation of men they were, that had never a vote for Jesus Christ." Of the bishops he says,-"Look into their families, and they were for the most part the vilest of the diocese, a very nest of unclean birds. In their courts and consistories, you would have thought you had been in Caiaphas's hall, where no trade was driven but the crucifying Christ in His members." This Case is also known by a profane parody of the offertory sentences, which he employed to solicit supplies for the Parliament. He was connected with Love, in his intrigues, but escaped punishment by making a most abject submission, was one of the "Bartholomew confessors" ejected in 1662, and lived twenty years after.

e For some details on this subject, see Appendix, No. V.

An anecdote of Bishop Prideaux, preserved by Walker, shews that he bore his poverty with Christian cheerfulness. "Towards the latter end of his life, a friend coming to see him, and saluting him in the common form of 'How doth your lordship do? Never better in my life,' said he, 'only have too great a stomach; for I have eaten that little plate which the sequestrators left me, I have eaten a great library of excellent books, I have eaten a great deal of linen, much of my brass, some of my pewter, and now I am come to eat iron, and what will come next I know not."

• That is, had been branded in court as a felon. See A.D. 1529.

Henderson and Love, and Marshall and Peters, which had been so greatly instrumental in bringing about the unhappy civil war.

"

Of Dr. Layfield, the nephew of Archbishop Laud, and archdeacon of Essex, a friend relates, apparently from his own statement, that

"he had at one time or other been confined in most of the gaols about London; the longest time a prisoner in Ely House, and at last, in the company of others, clapt on shipboard under hatches, and not suffered to have the benefit of the air upon the decks without paying a certain price for it. They were threatened to be sold slaves to the Algerines, or to some of our own plantations; but whether this was pretence or real design, their liberty was offered them for £1,500 a man; but such a sum being above their poor fortunes, it was brought down at last to £5 each; which the doctor, with some others, whether not willing or not able to comply with, refused; and so, as no purchase could be got of them, after a year's confinement, and the worst indignities offered them, they were turned ashore for nothing."

Such was the condition of those who refused to sacrifice their consciences to preserve their benefices. Others did make this sacrifice, but, as might have been foreseen, it availed them little. The payment of their tithes was very generally refused, as an "old Jewish institution" unfitted for the children of "the new light," and thus they were deprived of the principal part of their maintenance. They were also perpetually harassed and exposed to danger from the wild fanaticism of the soldiers in particular, who often thrust them from their pulpits, and occupied them themselves; the Covenant was next imposed, which hundreds who had hitherto complied refused, and so were expelled. After the lapse of some years, the Engagement (acknowledging the Commonwealth) followed, which drove out almost to a man what yet remained of the episcopally ordained ministers, and being also refused by the great body of Presbyterians, nearly every pulpit in the land was at length delivered over to sectaries whose wild blasphemies threw into the shade even

The names and conditions of some of the men intruded into the benefices vacated are recorded in Walker. We find among them, soldiers, tinkers, cobblers, weavers, (one of whom appeared in the pulpit with a sword at his side,) staymakers, glovers, nailors, saddlers; a ballad-singer, a lawyer's clerk, an apothecary's apprentice, a butler, two coachmen, and a ship-carpenter, who, when ejected, left behind him at the rectory of Sampford Peverell, a table of his own making. Most of them were as illiterate as might be expected, and "the mark of Arthur Okely, rector of West Mersea," testifies that one at least of them could not write his name.

With an affectation of humanity, the parliament by an ordinance of Aug. 19, 1643, gave power to its sequestrating committees to allow one-fifth of the profits of the livings to the families of the ejected clergy, but this it appears remained a dead letter, though re-enacted Jan. 22, 1644, and Nov. 11, 1647; for it was clogged with so many conditions, that few ever received benefit from it. In the first place, the incumbent must peaceably deliver up possession, and an angry word even from his wife or children was held contrary to this, and fatal to their claim; next, he must remove out of the parish, and, if required, take an oath to obey all the orders of the committee as to his residence and conduct; then, the claim must be made by the wife in person, so that widowers, and men with sick wives, however large their families, were excluded. means of evasion in the ordinances themselves, it is easy to see how hopeless the case of the clergy was. Add to this, that the committees, composed as they were of furious "anti-prelatists," seldom chose to exert their power, and when they did, the intruders usually refused to pay the pittance, often treating the applicants with scorn as well as cruelty. One of them refused the fifths on the plea that the incumbent was dead, and maintained the same to his face, telling him he was "dead in trespasses and sins." Another answered a child sent to supplicate him, and who told him that her parents would starve without he paid the pittance, that starying was as near a way to heaven as any;" and Vavasour Powell, the chief sequestrating commissioner in Wales, replied to

With so many

an application for relief for clergymen's children, that "they were Babylonish brats, whose heads should be dashed against the stones, and so should they have their fifths."

An anecdote which Walker has preserved may serve to shew what an utter mockery these fifths were allowed to be, even by the Puritans themselves. By a long course of violent usage, the Rev. William Hales, of Glaston, Rutlandshire, was at last forced to leave his cure, and retire with his wife and six children, and

"his books and household goods being seized on by several parties of horse, were again three times bought by his wife and friends. The last party of horse entered in their inventory the pot hanging over the fire, upon which the good gentlewoman asked them whether they intended to enter the beef and pudding boiling in it for the children's dinner? they said, No; for they intended to eat that themselves when their business was over. Then she said, 'Pray, gentlemen, be pleased to enter my children among the rest of the goods;' No,' said they, we intend to leave them to you in lieu of your fifths;' and they were as good as their words."

Of men thus driven from their churches and their homes, plundered of their property, exposed to every other imaginable hardship and cruelty, and their lives per

petually endangered, it is not wonderful to find that very many forsook their sacred office, and either joined the king's forces even as soldiers, or endeavoured to gain a living by the most servile occupations. Several are mentioned as small farmers, one as a lime-burner, another as a hedger and ditcher, and another as a hawker of tobacco. Others felt themselves happy in obtaining less unsuitable employment. Many became physicians, and more schoolmasters; but even this last resource was barbarously denied to them under the Protectorate, and it seems certain that several then perished from absolute starvation. A case very nearly approaching it is related by the son of Dr. Higgins, archdeacon of Derby, who writes, that after his father's school was prohibited,

"had it not been for the benevolence of good people, who filled our hungry bellies when we knew not where to have a morsel of bread, I think we had been famished and starved: I myself, not having tasted a bit of bread two or three days, have been glad to satisfy my hunger by eating crabs and feeding on the fruits of the hedges, which I did as savourily as if they had been dainties, so extreme was my hunger; we distributing smaller children, they being not so well able to that little we had betwixt my father and the endure the sharp bitings of famine as we were."

To the firm and orderly, though illegal government of the Parliament, the king could only oppose divided, and in some cases certainly dishonest counsels. His courtiers, his generals, even his sons and nephews, made parties for themselves, and thwarted the most prudent measures by their mutual jealousies; and the various classes of his supporters were actuated by very different motives. Though many of the House of Peers and some of the House of Commons repaired to him, he was unable to keep long on foot the semblance of a parliament; his own solemn declarations prevented his attempting to levy taxes without this, and thus he was obliged to depend on the voluntary gifts of his adherents; they, however, answered to his call, and fought at their own cost, while the

Some (as Sir Edward Verney, his standardbearer, killed at Edgehill) supported him from a feeling of loyal duty, though not approving of his measures. Others (as many Romanists) joined him for protection from the violence of the Parliament. A third party adhered to him but feebly, fearing that a decided overthrow of their adversaries would bring back all the oppressions of former years.

His parliament at Oxford held two sessions,

Universities contributed their plate', and the crown jewels were sold.

The first battle in the civil war (at Edgehill, Oct. 23, 1642) was indecisive, but the king soon after gained signal advantages, and it seemed likely that he would surmount his difficulties, as he repeatedly promised a legal course of government for the future, and many of those who fought against him had no intention of carrying matters to extremity. But they had raised a storm that they could not direct. The extreme party ("the root and branch men") called in the Scots, and after a time Cromwell and a few of his associates thrust themselves to the head of affairs, remodelled the army, totally defeated the royal forces, broke the power of the Parliament, and got the king into their own hands.

and imposed taxes which in general could only be gathered as military contributions.

The plate of the colleges at Oxford (amounting to at least £6,000), was granted by vote of convocation, Jan. 31, 1643, and £2,000 worth more was contributed by individual members of the university. Much of the plate of Cambridge was intercepted by the parliamentarians.

Various attempts had before been made at treaties between the king and the parliament. The latter now renewed them, and, to gain the king's support against their own revolted instruments, were ready to accept terms which they had before declined; the Scots, and the chiefs of the army, also professed to negotiate with him, and he was led to believe that he could act as umpire; it may, however, reasonably be doubted whether either party was sincere, and it is certain that the king became the victim. After a time the negotiations were broken off, and the king fled to the Isle of Wight. Here they were resumed, and promised peace, when the military, confident in their strength, and unhappily not repugnant to any act of violence or cruelty, reduced the parliament to a mere assembly of their own creatures, terrified the peers from interfering, and then brought their king before a new-created tribunal, called a High Court of Justice, condemned, and executed him; he being beheaded in front of his own palace at Whitehall, on Tuesday, Jan. 30', 1649. His body was carried to Windsor, and there buried in St. George's chapel, Feb. 8".

Very shortly after his accession, Charles married the princess Henrietta Maria of France, a woman of beauty and spirit, but unfortunately the cause of many of the troubles of his reign. The marriage treaty had stipulated for such lenity towards the English Romanists as greatly offended the Puritans; the queen's gay disposition also was distasteful to them; some of her husband's most unwise steps were supposed to be taken in deference to her; and she became so unpopular that an impeachment was prepared against her by the Commons, and she judged it prudent to leave the

As at Oxford in 1643, and at Uxbridge in 1645. On the Restoration an act was passed [12 Car. II. c. 30,] for the solemn observance of this, as the day of his "martyrdom." A service was accordingly drawn up, and continued in use till the year 1859, in which it is to be regretted there were many expressions that gave just offence to religious persons, who yet heartily abhorred the deed of blood.

The duke of Richmond, the marquis of Hertford, and the earls of Southampton and Lindsay, obtained leave from "those who governed" to attend the funeral of their master. They brought with them Bishop Juxon, who had attended the

|

CHARLES and JAMES, who became kings.

Henry, born July 8, 1640. With his sister Elizabeth he fell into the hands of the Parliament, but was allowed to leave England in 1652, when he repaired to his brother Charles, by whom he was created duke of Gloucester. He returned at the Restoration, but died soon after, Sept. 13, 1660.

Mary, born Nov. 4, 1631, was, when but ten years old, married to Prince William of Nassau; their only child was William, prince of Orange (afterwards William III.) The princess visited England at the Restoration, and, like her brother Henry, died in the same year (Dec. 24, 1660).

Elizabeth, born Dec. 28, 1635, died in confinement at Carisbrooke Castle, Sept. 8, 1650. She was buried at Newport, in the new church of which a monument has been erected to her memory by her present Majesty.

Henrietta Maria, born June 16, 1644, at Exeter, was very shortly after carried abroad by her mother, and was educated as a Romanist. She married Philip, duke of Anjou (brother of Louis XIV.), managed political intrigues between the courts of England and France, and died very suddenly, not without suspicion of poison, shortly after her return from a journey on such business, June 30, 1670.

Charles, born 1629, and Anne, born 1637, died young.

Charles I. used the same arms and

king on the scaffold, but he was not permitted to read the burial service, as he had intended. The king's body was laid in the grave, says Clarendon, without any words or other ceremonies than the tears and sighs of the few beholders." Upon the coffin was a plate of silver fixed, with these words only, "KING CHARLES, 1648." When the coffin was placed in the grave, the black velvet pall that had covered it was thrown over it, and the earth filled in, which the governor stayed to see perfectly done, and then took the keys of the church, which had long ceased to be used for divine

service.