no man who is not perfectly bigoted can admire them. The following sentence may afford some idea of the style of the author of the Icon: "Generally whoever had most mind to bring forth confusion and ruin on church and state, used the midwifery of those tumults; whose riot and impatience was such, that they would not stay the ripening and season of counsels, or fair production of acts, in the order, gravity, and deliberateness befitting a parliament; but ript up with barbourous cruelty, and forcibly cut out abortive votes, such as their inviters and encouragers most fancied." Icon, p. 11. edit. 1662.

t

It is amusing to observe the comfortable ignorance of editors. The gentleman who published Evelyn's Memoirs, goes on dully to prove what, he says, requires no proof, the genuineness of the Icon-by referring to a letter as affording internal evidence; but it is a species of evidence utterly beyond my powers to comprehend.

The following is a very singular passage in Mr. Hume's work. After stating the violent return of duty and affection which was occasioned by Charles's death, he proceeds thus: "On weaker minds, the effect of these complicated passions was prodigious. Women are said to have cast forth the untimely fruit of their womb; others fell into convulsions, or sunk into such a melancholy as attended them to their graves; nay some, unmindful of themselves, as though they could not, or would not survive their beloved prince, it is reported, suddenly fell down dead. The very pulpits were bedewed with unsuborned tears; those pulpits which had formerly thundered out the most violent imprecations and anathemas against him. And all men united in the detestation of those hypocritical parricides who, by sanctified pretences, had so long disguised their treasons, and in this act of iniquity had thrown an indelible stain on the nation." Now, as Mr. Hume quotes no authority for this statement, the reader naturally imagines that he had at least seen facts resting on something deserying the name of authority. Alas! it is no such thing. He has given almost the very words of Perinchief, whom yet he durst not quote; and his pencil-marks are still at the place in the copy belonging to the Advocates' Library. "When the news of his death were divulged, women with child for grief cast forth the untimely fruit of their womb, like her that fell in travell, when the glory was departed from Israel. Others, both men and women, fell into convulsions and swounding fits, and contracted so deep a melancholy as attended them to the grave. Some, unmindful of themselves, as though they could not or would not live when their beloved prince was slaughtered, (it

is reported,) suddenly fell down dead. The pulpits were likewise bedewed with unsuborned tears; and some of those to whom the living king was, for episcopacie's sake, less acceptable, yet now bewailed the loss of him when dead. Children, (who usually seem unconcerned in public calamities,) were also affected with the news, and became so prodigal of their tears, that, for some time, they refused comfort; even some of those who sat as judges, could not forbear to mingle some tears with his blood when it was spilt." P. 95.-When Hume could embody such stuff as this, why did not he boldly give a miracle at once as the following? "A miracle of miracles, wrought by the blood of king Charles of happy memory, upon a mayd at Detford, foure miles from London, who, by the violence of the disease called the king's evil, was blinde one whole yeere, but by makeing use of a piece of handkerchief dipped in the king's blood, is recovered of her sight, to the comfort of the king's friends, and astonishment of his enemies, the truth whereof many thousands can testify." Lond. printed 1649. The author says, "the like was never known since our Saviour Christ and his blessed apostles lived in the earth. She was the most loathsome spectacle, besides being blind; had been given up by her physicians, forsaken by her acquaintance, yet recovered her sight, and became lusty and strong as before, and capable of doing every thing befitting her age," which was about fourteen or fifteen. The names of her parents, and her abode, &c. are also given, and people invited to satisfy themselves. It is said that "hundreds flock daily to see her, and that all who saw her before, do confesse that it is a work the Lord hath done, whereby his name might be glorified, and the king's death thought upon," &c. It would not be difficult to give similar instances from the royalist pamphlets of that time.

The following passage is given by Mrs. M'Auley from a sermon preached before Charles II. at Breda, on Feb. 4, 1648-9. "The person now murdered was not the Lord of Glory, but a glorious lord, Christ's own vicar, his lieutenant and vicegerent here on earth; and therefore, by all laws, divine and human, he was privileged from any punishment which could be inflicted by men. Albeit, he was an inferior to Christ, as man is to God, yet was his privilege of inviolability far more clear than was Christ's; for Christ was not a temporal prince, his kingdom was not of this world, and, therefore, when he vouchsafed to come into the world, and to become the Son of Man, he did subject himself to the law; but our gracious sovereign was well known to be a temporal prince, a free monarch, and their undoubted sove

reign, to whom they did all owe, and had sworn allegiance. The parliament is the great council, and hath acted all and more against their lord and sovereign than the other did against Christ. The proceedings against our sovereign were more illegal, and in many things more cruel. The true religion delivered unto us in scripture, and professed in the true, ancient, and catholic church, doth teach us to honour and obey the king, as God's minister set over us; and that the injuries of kings, though ever so great, are to be endured by their subjects, who have no other remedy, and are to use no other arms against their king, than to pray unto God for him, who hath the hearts of kings in his hand, and may turn them when he thinks fit." M'Auley, vol. iv. p. 426. Such was the language, not only of a simple minister of the gospel, but of a prelate!! Let us be no longer surprised at the hypocrisy of Charles on the scaffold, and not wonder that Charles II. proved so unconstitutional in his government when he had such ghostly advisers; but Englishmen would not exchange their privileges for the political divinity of prelates, and banished a family that acted upon it. Lord Digby writes thus to Ormonde : "From the creation to the accursed day of this damnable murder, nothing parallel to it was ever heard of. Even crucifying our blessed Saviour, if we consider him only in his human nature, did nothing equal this, his kingdom not being of this world; and he, though unjustly condemned, yet judged at a lawful tribunal.” Carte's Orinonde, vol. iii. p. 667. Harris's Life of Cromwell, p. 211. Comparisons of Charles's sufferings with those of Christ were widely circulated. Milton's Prose Works, Def. Sec. pro Pop. Ang. p. 241, 242.

We have already said a little about the research of Noble, and here we shall give an instance of it: He, in his account of Harrison, Lives of the Regicides, refers to Worsley's History of the Isle of Wight, and says, that the narrative of Charles's sufferings in Hurst castle, as given by Worsley, from an authentic manuscript, would melt any heart but that of a stern republican. Now, in the first place, Worsley relates chiefly what occured at Newport, and breaks off his account of the king when he was carried out of the island. In the second place, the authentic manuscript is no other than Colonel Cooke's Memoirs, which, says Worsley, were published shortly after the restoration, but have since become scarce, and therefore he referred to the manuscript copy in the British Museum. The fact is, however, that they were republished along with Herbert's Memoirs, to which, Worsley particularly refers, and it is inexcusable in No

Cooke

ble not to have been particularly acquainted with them. had been one of Cromwell's officers, but was gained over by Charles, and his narrative is so disingenuous, that it is directly contradicted by the monarch's own correspondence. Worsley is extremely incorrect in his narrative, as may be ascertained by comparing it with Herbert's Memoirs, to which he refers as his authority for great part of his statement.

280

CHAP. XII.

State of

England,

State of England.-Settlement of the Commonwealth.A High Court of Justice constituted for the Trial of the Duke of Hamilton, as Earl of Cambridge, and the Earls of Norwich, &c.-Irish Affairs, and the Exploits of Cromwell there, &c.-State of Scotland.-The Expedition and Death of Montrose.-English Affairs. —Arrival of Charles II. in Scotland, and War between the two Nations.-Fairfax declines the Command of the Army destined against Scotland, and Cromwell appointed General.-Cromwell's Expedition into Scotland.— Battle of Dunbar.—Subsequent Measures of the Covenanters, and their Expedition into England.—Battle of Worcester.—The King's Escape.-Exploits of the Navy; Character of Blake.-The Dutch War.-State of Parties.-Dissolution of the Parliament, and Usurpation of Cromwell.

THE death of Charles produced the greatest sen&c. sation, not only throughout every part of the British empire, but of all Christendom; and the royalist party tried to sound the tocsin amongst all princes, clergy, and privileged orders, as an example of rebellion in subjects which they were