Chapter XXXI: Appendix: No. I.--See Vol. I., p. 60 (4)

Roman Catholics, i. 19, 78, 363, 404, 460; ii. 113, 117
Their Concurrence in Act of Uniformity, i. 251
Their Prospects brighten, 298
Bills against them, 304, 361
How affected by Test Act, 425, 429
Their Hopes in the Royal Family, 450
Their Zeal in making Converts, 453
Proclamations concerning them, 456
Popish Books Seized, 459
Bills against Popery, 303, 463–465
Titus Oates’ Popish Plot, ii. 1-9
Suspected Persons Apprehended, 6
Exclusion Bill, 10
At Court, 104
Their Numbers increase, 115
Their Satisfaction with James II.’s Declaration, 119
Their Promotion, 131
Their Numbers, 209

Rosewell, Thomas, ii. 72, 123

Roughed, Josias, i. 409

Rous, Lady, i. 318

Rous, ii. 457

Royalists, i. 43, 66, 151

Rupert, Prince, i. 142

Rushworth, ii. 195

Russel, Lord William, i. 418; ii. 20, 41, 153
Joins in an Attempt to resist the Despotism of Government, 64
His Trial and Execution, 65–67

Rustat, Tobias, ii. 245

Rutherford, Lord, i. 293

Rye House Plot, ii. 64

Rymer, Ralph, i. 313

Ryves, Dr. Bruno, i. 91

Sabran, ii. 117

Salisbury, Earl of, i. 462; ii. 115

Salkeld, ii. 206

Saltmarsh, John, his _Sparkles of Glory_, ii. 380–383

Samwayes, Dr., i. 213

Sancroft, i. 93, 132, 221, 225; ii. 90, 192, 330
Assists Pell to Revise the Calendar, i. 221
Created Archbishop of Canterbury, ii. 14
His Interview with the Duke of York, 15
His Opposition to Popery, 17
Sanctions the Publication of King’s Declaration, 35
His Inconsistency with regard to Declaration, 145
One of the Seven Bishops who signed the Petition, 140, 146, 150
His Trial, 153
His Acquittal, 155
His Interest in Rebuilding of St. Paul’s, 181

Sanderson, Bishop of Lincoln, i. 156, 187, 231, 248; ii. 283, 406,
438
His Death, i. 306
His Manner of Preaching, ii. 209
His Approval of Sabbath Pastimes, 235
His Doctrinal Opinions, 305
His Intimacy with Hammond, 306
And with Isaak Walton, 469

Saville, Sir George, i. 366

Savoy Conference, i. 155, 163–167, 170–173, 179–188

Savoy Palace, i. 162

Sawyer, ii. 153

Scargill, Daniel, ii. 368

Scattergood, i. 225

Sclater, Edward, ii. 109

Scotch, their Anxiety for an Exclusive Presbyterian Establishment,
i. 68
Their Religious Rising, 363
Cruelty to them, 364
Their Rebellion, ii. 97

Scott, i. 20, 58

Severne, Thomas, i. 284

Shaftesbury, Earl of, _see_ Sir A. A. Cooper

Shakerley, Sir Geoffry, i. 367; ii. 61

Sharp, Dr., Agent in London of Scotch Presbyterians, i. 63, 68–69,
94

Sharp, Dr., ii. 110, 112

Shaw, Sir John, ii. 502

Shaw, Samuel, i. 342

Sheldon, Dr. Gilbert, i. 99, 122, 170, 221, 231, 248, 285, 296,
330, 331, 334, 348, 397, 415, 502; ii. 145, 188
His Appointment to the Bishopric of London, i. 131
Master of the Savoy, 157
Officiates at Coronation of Charles II., 160
Commissioner at the Savoy, 156, 163
President of Convocation, 174
His Appointment to Archbishopric of Canterbury, 308
His Exertions during the Plague, 337
His Inquiries respecting Conventicles, 392
His Circular on Education, 402
His Death and Character, 470–473
His Expenditure of Large Sums in Charity, ii. 192

Sherlock, Dr., ii. 110, 117, 140

Shorter, Sir John, ii. 125

Sibthorpe, Dr., i. 131

Sidney, Algernon, i. 344
His Trial and Execution, ii. 64, 65

Sidney, Henry, ii. 92

Skinker, Mary, ii. 175

Skinner, Bishop of Oxford, i. 37, 97
Translated to Worcester, 491

Slader, ii. 201

Slatius, Henry, ii. 412

Smalridge, ii. 117

Smith, Dr., ii. 332

Smith, John, ii. 421
His Theological Teaching, 336–338

Smith, Thomas, i. 93

Smyth, Miles, ii. 457

Soame, Bartholomew, ii. 225

Solemn League and Covenant, i. 50, 89, 235–237
Publicly Burnt, 196

Somerset, Duke of, ii. 130

South, ii. 257, 329

Southampton, Earl of, i. 85, 86, 124, 300, 347

Sparrow, Dr., Commissioner at the Savoy i. 156

Spencer, John, ii. 444

Spragg, Sir Edward, i. 416

Sprat, Bishop of Rochester, ii. 111, 139

Spring, Sir William, ii. 206

Sprint, i. 478

Spurstow, Dr., i. 100, 115, 156

Stayley, ii. 6

Stanley, Thomas, i. 342

Stanley, Lady, ii. 219

Stanley, Sir Thomas, ii. 219

Steel, i. 261

Sterne, Richard, Bishop of Carlisle, i. 132
At Savoy Conference, 156, 493
Described by Baxter, 189
Translated to Archbishopric of York, 493, 497
His Imprisonment, 495

Sterry, Peter, ii. 382

Stillingfleet, Edward, i. 117, 385, 410, 439; ii. 2, 114, 140, 370
His Disapproval of Act of Uniformity, i. 292
His Sermon on “The Mischief of Separation,” ii. 26
Entertains Howe, Bates, and Tillotson, 29
His Theological Opinions, 352

Stockton, Owen, i. 340; ii. 500–504

Strode, John, ii. 51

Stubbe, Henry, ii. 355

Suffolk, Earl of, i. 167

Sunderland, ii. 19, 93, 104, 135

Sutcliffe, Dr., ii. 245

Sylvester, his Funeral Sermon for Baxter, ii. 212

Taswell, William, i. 358

Tattersall, Nicholas, i. 412

Taylor, Jeremy, ii. 235, 278, 318, 386, 416, 429, 457
Nominated to Diocese of Down and Connor, i. 133
Preaches Funeral Sermon for Bramhall, 307
His Theology; ii. 289–297
Advocates an Episcopal Church, 298
A brilliant Sermon Writer, 328
His Writings, 445, 446
His Hymns, 460

Temple, Sir William, appointed Secretary of State, ii. 19, 41

Tenison, Archbishop of Canterbury, i. 243; ii. 117
When Vicar of St. Marten’s, ii. 140
Founds the Tenison Library, i. 508

Terrill, ii. 177

Thompson, Alderman, i. 148

Thorndike, Herbert, i. 112; ii. 235, 316, 332, 395, 424, 431
His _Epilogue_, i. 34–36; ii. 269
At Savoy Conference, i. 156
Member of Convocation, 170, 222, 227, 248
His _True Principle of Comprehension_, 385
His Theological Learning, ii. 268
His Principles of Christian Truth, 270
His Scheme of Salvation by Grace, 272–277
Laws of the Church, 277–279
His teaching compared with Bull’s, 287
With Taylor’s, 294
With Pearson’s, 309
Barrow’s, 314
His opinion of Nonconformists, 320

Thurloe, Secretary, i. 55

Tillotson, i. 184, 439; ii. 29, 47, 79, 117, 140, 246, 316, 348
His Letter to Baxter, i. 440
His Inconsistency, ii. 27
Reproved by Howe, 28
Attends Russell on the Scaffold, 67

Tilsey, i. 291

Tindal, ii. 115

Tombes, John, i. 317; ii. 283, 285

Tomkyns, i. 378

Tompson, Sir John, i. 430

Tompson, Lady, i. 430

Tongue, ii. 9

Tory, Origin of Term, ii. 32

Trelawny, Bishop of Bristol, ii. 141, 147, 189

Truman, Joseph, ii. 283

Tuckney, Dr., i. 155, 489

Tully, Dr. Thomas, ii. 196, 283, 284

Turbeville, ii. 49

Turner, Bishop of Ely, ii. 140

Turner, Sir Edward, i. 155

Turner, Sir James, i. 363

Tyrconnel, Earl of, ii. 104

Uniformity (_see_ Act)

Universities, their Petitions to Parliament, i. 92
Changes at Oxford and Cambridge, 93
Puritan Power at Cambridge, 93
James II.’s Attack on their Liberties, ii. 132
Proceedings at Cambridge, 132
Proceedings at Oxford, 133–139
Studies and Habits of Members, 250–258

Ussher, Dr. James, i. 100; ii. 278, 406
His Biblical Learning, 354

Vane, Sir Henry, i. 5, 20, 21, 26, 49, 126, 140, 202
Member of Richard’s Parliament, 17
Member of New Council of State, 25
His Trial, 257
His Mysticism, 256; ii. 385
His Execution, i. 258

Vane, Lady, i. 366

Venner, his Insurrection, i. 140–144

Vernon, Alderman, i. 64

Vic, Sir Henry de, i. 124

Vincent, Nathaniel, ii. 54–56

Vincent, Thomas, i. 338, 339; ii. 54

Vincent, William, i. 148

Vines, Richard, ii. 503

Visitation, Articles of, ii. 183–185, 189

Wade, Thomas, ii. 502

Wake, ii. 117

Wakerley, i. 313

Wales, i. 19, 137

Walker, Obadiah, ii. 109

Waller, Edmund, ii. 454

Wallis, Dr. John, i. 115, 156, 170, 288; ii. 198

Walters, Lucy, ii. 60

Walters, ii. 139

Walton, Bryan, Bishop of Chester, i. 131, 156
His Death, 306
His Polyglott, ii. 332, 354

Walton, Isaak, ii. 468–471

Ward, Seth, Bishop of Exeter, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury,
i. 264, 348, 385, 395, 478, 483, 502; ii. 192, 356
His Intolerance, i. 397, 435–437
Account of him, 474–476
Improves Exeter Cathedral, ii. 180
His Hospitality, 229

Warmestry, Dr., i. 157

Warner, Bishop of Rochester, i. 98, 490
Commissioner at the Savoy, 156, 160

Warwick, Countess of, ii. 488, 489

Watson, Richard, ii. 417

Whalley, Edward, Major-General, i. 23, 259, 260

Wharton, Philip, Lord, i. 126, 230, 231, 313, 347; ii. 71
Supports the Duke of Buckingham, i. 461
Committed to the Tower, 462
Released, 462
His House a resort of Nonconformist Divines, ii. 223

Whig, Origin of Term, ii. 32

Whinnel, ii. 176

White, Jeremy, ii. 101, 384

White, Bishop of Peterborough, ii. 141

White, John, ii. 457

Whitehead, George, i. 414

Whitelocke, i. 25, 45

Whitford, John, i. 91

_Whole Duty of Man_, ii. 330

Wilde, i. 120

Wilkins, Dr. John, Bishop of Chester, i. 16, 264, 380, 385, 396,
503; ii. 248, 356
Account of him, i. 483–485
His Theological teaching, ii. 348

Wilkinson, Lady Vere, i. 430

Williams, Dr. Edward, ii. 417, 419

Williams, Solicitor-General, ii. 153

Williamson, Joseph, Esq. (afterwards knighted), i. 365, 367, 410,
432, 442, 456; ii. 182, 193, 253, 255

Wilmot, John, Earl of Rochester; ii. 490

Windsor, Lord, i. 145

Wiquefort, De, Dutch Minister, i. 231, 232, 267

Witchcot, i. 439

Wither, George, ii. 459

Wood, Captain Henry, ii. 190

Wood, Thomas, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, i. 500; ii. 139

Woodbridge, i. 156

Woodford, Dr. Samuel, ii. 457

Woodhead, Abraham, i. 453; ii. 330

Woodward, William, ii. 201

Worcester House, i. 114

Worth, Dr., i. 103

Wren, Bishop of Ely, i. 37, 97, 488, 502

Wren, Sir Christopher, ii. 181

Wright, Chief Justice, ii. 153–155

Wyche, Sir Cyril, i. 243

Wycherley, ii. 115

Wylde, Recorder, i. 148

Yarrington, Captain, i. 212

York, Duke of (_see_ James II.)

Young, ii. 176

Vol. I.

Page 34, line 28, _Henry_, should be _Herbert_.
„ 160, „ 7, _Convocation_ „ _Coronation_.
„ 181, „ 6, _Hammond_ „ _Hamon_.
„ 277, „ 11, _Edward_ „ _Edmund_.

UNWIN BROTHERS, PRINTERS, BUCKLERSBURY, LONDON.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Burnet_, _Rapin_, _Hume_, and _Lingard_, give numerous particulars, but the account I have presented is drawn from _A True Narrative of the Horrid Plot and Conspiracy of the Popish Party against the Life of His Majesty, the Government, and the Protestant Religion_, by Titus Oates himself, published 1679.

In the Dedication there is a sentiment expressed worthy of a better man. “It is a false suggestion,” says Oates, “which such tempters use, that a King that rules by will is more great and glorious than a King that rules by law:--the quality of the retinue best proves the state of the lord; the one being but a king of slaves, while the other, like God, is a king of kings and hearts.”

I have before me a narrative of “the horrid Popish plot,” by Capt. W. Bedloe, 1679; another by Miles Prance, 1679; and a collection of letters relating to it published by order of the House of Commons, 1681. Oates’ narrative, which, though dated the 27th of September, 1678, was not published until the following April, contains a digested statement, in eighty-one items, of all the particulars which he had alleged.

[2] The letters are published in the collection just named. Some are in _Rapin_, iii. 171.

[3] _History of his Own Time_, i. 434.

[4] _Life of Calamy_, i. 83.

[5] Defoe quoted in _Knight’s Hist. of England_, iv. 335.

[6] Stayley was executed November 26th, Coleman December 3rd.

[7] In the _Moneys for Secret Services_, published by the Camden Society, are numerous entries of sums paid to Oates and others. Curious references to Oates’ character as an impostor, may be found in _Reresby’s Memoirs_, 239, and _North’s Lives_, i. 325.

[8] _State Papers, Dom. Charles II._, 1678, November 1, December (without further date), and December 28. It would divert attention from the main current of this history to go fully into Oates’ plot. The historical student will find a bundle of papers bearing on the subject under date 1678, and further papers on the same subject under 1679, January to June.

[9] Lord Keeper North “was of opinion that the fiction of the Popish Plot did not arise from the accident of Tongue’s and Oates’ informations, but from a preconcerted design.” The reasons are given in a MS. of North’s, printed in _Dalrymple’s Memoirs_, ii. app. 320. That the plot was _invented_ by Shaftesbury there seems no sufficient ground for believing. See _Campbell’s Lives of Lord Chancellors_, iv. 197.

[10] _Rapin_, iii. 172. Evelyn says, “For my part I look on Oates as a vain insolent man, puffed up with the favour of the Commons, for having discovered something really true, more especially as detecting the dangerous intrigue of Coleman, proved out of his own letters, and of a general design which the Jesuited party of the Papists ever had and still have, to ruin the Church of England.”--_Diary_, ii. 140.

[11] _Commons’ Journals_, October 28. “The Oath of Supremacy was already taken by the Commons, though not by the Lords; and it is a great mistake to imagine that Catholics were legally capable of sitting in the Lower House before the Act of 1679” (1678).--_Hallam’s Const. Hist._, ii. 121.

[12] _Burnet_, _Hist. of his Own Times_, i. 436.

[13] _Journals_, Nov. 21 and 30; _Lingard_, xii. 151, 152. Reresby says, (_Memoirs_, 230), “In April, 1680, I went to London to solicit some business at Court, but the application of all men being to the Duke, who quite engrossed the King to himself, His Highness had but little leisure to give ear to, or assist his friends.”

[14] _North’s Lives_, i. 340.

[15] _Sir Thomas Browne’s Works_, i. 241. This relates to a second election for Norwich in the month of May, the first having been set aside. It illustrates both the excitement and the custom of the times. The general election took place in February.

[16] _Evelyn’s Diary_, ii. 136.

[17] Quoted in _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 165–176.

[18] _Life of James II._, i. 539.

[19] _Wilkins_, iv. 606.

[20] _Ibid._, iv. 600.

[21] _Wilkins_, iv. 605; _Sancroft’s Life by D’Oyley_, i. 186.

[22] _Wilkins_, iv. 607.

[23] _Tanner MSS._, 32, 208; _Life of Sancroft_, i. 204. D’Oyley conjecturally assigns this document to the reign of Charles, but he is not sure it may not belong to the reign of James.

[24] Sir W. Temple, in his _Memoirs_, part iii., gives an account of the plan and working of this Council. His object was to enable the Crown to manage the Commons, by making the Crown, as far as possible, independent of the Commons. After noticing the wealth of the Council in revenues of land or offices as amounting to £300,000 per annum, whilst that of the House of Commons seldom exceeded £400,000, he adds, “And authority is observed much to follow land, and, at the worst, such a Council might, out of their own stock, and upon a pinch, furnish the King so far as to relieve some great necessity of the Crown.”--_Temple’s Works_, vol. i. 414. He says (436) he told the Duke of York, “he might always reckon upon me as a legal man, and one that would always follow the Crown as became me.” These passages seem to be overlooked by some historians, in estimating the nature and objects of Temple’s scheme.

[25] April 30, 1679.--_Parl. Hist._ iv. 1128.

[26] The Habeas Corpus Act was passed during the spring of 1679.

[27] _Burnet’s Hist. of his Own Time_, i. 475.

[28] “The information of Dangerfield, delivered at the bar of the Commons, the 26th of October, 1680.” _Lords’ Journals_, Nov. 15, 1680. _State Trials._ _Burnet_, i. 475 and 637. _Lingard_, xii. 227, _et seq._ Dangerfield died from a blow, struck whilst he was being whipped.

[29] Dated August 25. Received September 1.--_State Papers._

[30] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1162, _et seq._ Again let me refer the reader to Fox, _Hist. of James_ ii., p. 311, for some admirable remarks on this whole question, politically considered.

[31] _Sommers’ Tracts_ i. 97.

[32] _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1197, _et seq._; _Rapin_, iii. 198, _et seq._

[33] _Reresby’s Memoirs_, 234. He says that the speech of Halifax, “so all confessed, influenced the House, and persuaded them to throw out the Bill.” The debate took place on the 15th of November.

[34] _Rogers’ Life of Howe_, 181.

[35] _Calamy’s Life of Baxter_, 354.

[36] _Rogers’ Life of Howe_, 183.

[37] _Ibid._, 187.

[38] “Tillotson’s conduct on this occasion places his amiable character in the fairest light. One can hardly regret that he committed a fault for which he so nobly atoned, and which has furnished us with so impressive an example of ingenuousness, candour, and humility.”--_Rogers’ Life of Howe_, 190.

[39] There were two Bishop Lloyds at the time; one of Norwich, the other of St. Asaph, consecrated October 3, 1680. It was most likely the latter. We shall meet with him as one of the seven Bishops committed to the Tower in 1688.

[40] _Life of Howe_, 191, 192.

[41] _Kennet_ quoted in _Neal_, iv. 496.

[42] Dec. 30, 1680. “The Commons have before them a Bill of comprehension and a Bill for indulgence. The latter is proposed very full and clear, requiring nothing but subscription to Thirty-six Articles, and taking a test against Popery. This hath been read twice, and is before the Committee. The former moreover requires the use of Common Prayer, and, I think, as proposed even relapses almost all other things that almost anybody scruples. This has been read twice and passed the Committee. Opinions about these Bills are various. All that I have heard of, who desire comprehension, desire indulgence also for others, though multitudes desire indulgence that most fervently oppose comprehension. This begets great misunderstandings.”--_Entring Book, Morice MSS._, Dr. Williams’ Library.

On the 24th of December a clergyman was charged before the House of Commons with saying that the Presbyterians were such as the very devil blushed at, and were as bad as Jesuits, and otherwise denying the Popish plot, throwing the same on Protestants. It was resolved that he should be impeached.--_Journals._

[43] Both read the first time Dec. 16.--_Journals._ The Bill for toleration was read a second time Dec. 24.

[44] The Lords desired the concurrence of the Commons in the amendments which they had made to this relief Bill Jan. 3. See _Journals_ of both Houses.

[45] _Burnet_ (i. 495) says the Clerk of the Crown withdrew it from the table by the King’s particular order.

[46] _Journals_, Jan. 10, 1681. Eachard, Rapin, Burnet, and Calamy quote or mention two resolutions on this subject, as passed at the same time by the Commons--the first, that the Act of Elizabeth and James against Popish recusants ought not to be extended against Protestant Dissenters--the second, that which has just been noticed. It is the only one respecting toleration, recorded in the Journals for that day.

[47] I have, in the history of this whole affair, followed the Journals; and they show the inaccuracy, more or less of _Burnet_, _Eachard_, and _Neal_. Even what Sir William Jones says in his _Vindication_ (_Parl. Hist._ iv. _Appendix_) is scarcely consistent with the records of the Houses.

[48] “The Court was at Christ Church, and the Commons sat in the schools, but were very much straitened for room, there being a very great concourse of members.” “Many of the discontented members, of both Houses, came armed, and more than usually attended; and it was affirmed there was a design to have seized the King, and to have restrained him till he had granted their petitions.”--_Reresby’s Memoirs_, 243, 245.

[49] March 24, _Parl. Hist._ iv. 1308.

[50] _Lords’ Journals_, March 26.

[51] _Reresby’s Memoirs_, 290.

[52] _Lingard_, xii. 281.

[53] _Burnet_, i. 500; _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 252. The King’s letter to Sancroft is dated April 11, 1681.

[54] Address from the University of Cambridge. _Wilkins_, iv. 607; _State Papers, Charles II. Dom._ 1681, May 16. I have pretty closely adhered to the words used in the addresses.

[55] _Bishop of Winchester’s Vindication_, 394, 410. This work was published in 1683, but the author says that it was written a year before. Probably the above passage may belong to 1681.

[56] Preface to _The Happy Future State of England_, published 1688.

[57] _The Conformist’s Plea for Nonconformists_, 7.

[58] _The Conformist’s Plea for the Nonconformists_, 34. _The Life of Julian the Apostate_ also made a great noise at that time.

[59] _State Papers, Dom. Charles II._, 1677.

[60] There is a remarkable absence of information in Sir Joseph Williamson’s papers of this date, preserved in the Record Office. Several letters, written at this time by the informer Bowen, of Yarmouth, upon local matters, contain no allusion to the Nonconformists there. The Histories of Nonconformists silently bear witness to this fact. Neal, Crosby, and Sewel, under these years, say little or nothing of persecution. It must not, however, be inferred that it was then unknown, for it is stated in the Church Book of Guildhall-street Chapel, Canterbury, that Mr. Durant, the pastor, and some of his congregation, in 1679, “fled for refuge to Holland, and some forsook the Church and fell off--_Timpson’s Church Hist. of Kent_, 307.

[61] _Rogers’ Life of Howe_, 180.

[62] _Burnet’s Hist. of his Own Times_, i. 267, 268, 476.

[63] _Earl Russell’s Life of Lord William Russell_, 159.

[64] Macaulay describes the manner in which Halifax endeavoured to vindicate his trimming. _Hist._, i. 254. The following quotation from Halifax is characteristic:--

“Why,” he asks, “after we have played the fool with throwing _Whig_ and _Tory_ at one another, as boys do snowballs, should we grow angry at a new name, which by its signification might do as much to put us into our wits, as the other has done to put us out of them. This innocent word _Trimmer_ signifies no more than this, that if men are together in a boat, and one part of the company would weigh it down on one side, another would make it lean as much the contrary; it happens that there is a third opinion of those who conceive it would do as well if the boat went even, without endangering the passengers. Now ’tis hard to imagine by what figure in language, or by what rule in sense, this comes to be a fault, and it is much more a wonder it should be thought a heresy.” By a common fallacy, Halifax applies what is true of one thing to another thing very different. Too many miserably act respecting religion on the same principle as Halifax adopted in relation to politics.

[65] _Burnet_, i. 266.

[66] _Memoirs of Count de Grammont_, vol. ii. 112; _Clarendon_, 503.

[67] _Lives_, ii. 57.

[68] _Burnet_, i. 482.

[69] Printed document. _State Papers, Dom._, 1681, Sept. 2.

[70] _State Papers, Dom. Charles II._, 1681, Aug. 25, Sept. 2. There are several very curious papers relative to Oates, which I have copied, but have not space to insert.

The Prevaricator at Cambridge at the commencement of 1680, referred to the plot. The reference seems to have been very brief and unimportant, but it gave concern in high quarters. A letter was written to the Vice-Chancellor, by direction of the Bishop of London, complaining of the Prevaricator turning the plot into ridicule, that it would be brought before Parliament “to the reproach of the government of the Universities, if not to strike at the Universities themselves, unless it be timely prevented by a severe animadversion.”--_Cambridge Portfolio_, 242.

[71] _Life of Baxter_, 349. The book is dated 1680, and the author, Lewis du Moulin, recanted his reflections on the Divines of the Church of England, the same year.

[72] _Burnet_, i. 461.

[73] There is a letter from the Lieutenant of the Tower in the Record Office, _Dom. Charles II._, August 5, 1681, in which the writer describes how the prisoner was to be conveyed to Oxford “in a coach with ten or twelve of the warders on horseback, with carabines.”

[74] _Burnet_, i. 505. Colledge was tried on the 17th and 18th of August. The trial is reported at full length in a folio pamphlet of 102 pages published by authority, 1681. Colledge defended himself, examined witnesses and made speeches. It is plain that under the circumstances, with such judges, the poor fellow stood no chance.

[75] September 1, 1681, Oxon. Letter from Thomas Hyde states that just before the execution of Colledge, he had denied having written certain letters, but that when he heard these letters had been intercepted, he acknowledged them.

There are several letters respecting Colledge; amongst other papers is the following:--September 30, 1681. “Deposition of Benjamin Wyche of the parish of Saint Andrew’s, Holborn, London, Apothecary. This deponent saith that being in Richards’ coffee-house near Temple Bar, soon after His Majesty had dissolved the Parliament sitting at Westminster, amongst other company in the room, Mr. Colledge was one whom (upon discourse of the Parliament being then dissolved) he this deponent, heard uttering these words, ‘_Well I see what it will come to, we must e’en draw our swords, and fight it out again_,’ or words to that effect.--_Ben Wyche._”

“_Jurat coram me.--L. Jenkins._”

[76] The first letter is dated Sept. 21. In the second letter, in the same bundle, the day of the month is not given. The letter is numbered 164. Another paper in the Record Office, dated August 20, 1681, reports that the Countess of Rochester said “Colledge was a Papist to her knowledge, and had been so for a long time.” There are other statements to the same effect. Thomas Hyde (September 1, 1681) writing from Oxford, says that Colledge would not acknowledge what religion he was of, but that “he was of the Anabaptists.”

[77] It is added “this fanatic’s name was formerly Bishop, but being a hater of bishops changed his name into Marten; and because he is by that name known for a notorious villain he hath changed it again.”--_Dom. Charles II._

[78] _Ibid._, August 27, 24.

[79] The confession, of which a portion is missing, bears date August 24, 1681. _State Papers, Dom. Charles II._ The dying speech is in MS. in the same collection dated August 31. It was published as a distinct tract, 1681; also it is printed in _The Dying Speeches and Behaviour of several State Prisoners_. Ed. 1720. The reason for his being called the Protestant Joiner he thus describes:--“The Duke of Monmouth called me to him, and told me he had heard a good report of me, and that I was an honest man, and one that may be trusted: and they did not know but their enemies, the Papists, might have some design to serve them as they did in King James’s time by gunpowder, or any other way; and the Duke with several Lords and Commons did desire me to use my utmost skill in searching all places suspected by them, which I did perform: and from thence I had as I think, the popular name of _The Protestant Joiner_, because they had entrusted me, before any man in England to do that office.”--_Dying Speeches_, 387.

[80] There is amongst the _State Papers_, one dated November 26, 1681, _Dom. Charles II._, by George Evans, who complains that there was a bonfire on Cornhill, and that gentlemen were stopped in their coaches and required to drink Lord Shaftesbury’s health. This was on the occasion of the Grand Jury ignoring the bill against him. There are a number of documents relating to Shaftesbury under the year 1681.

[81] _Campbell’s Lives of the Chancellors_, iv. 229. Lord Campbell has not done justice to Shaftesbury. It should be remarked to Shaftesbury’s honour, Earl Russell says, “that though in the secret of every party, he never betrayed any one: and that the purity of his administration of justice is allowed even by his enemies.”--_Life of Lord William Russell_, 61.

[82] From a mass of illustrations I select the following in reference to the last point:--

_Dom. Charles II._, 1681, Sept. 9. “I was interrupted,” says the Archdeacon of Durham, “in the execution of my office, as I was officiating in my own church, by a very bold and insolent fanatic, who though indicted at our last assizes, escaped punishment--to the great contempt, I hear, of God’s house and service--I am sure to the great trouble of the clergy, who fear it may go very hard with them, in the execution of their offices, when so great a violence offered to the Archdeacon should go unpunished. Since a Churchman can expect to meet with no more favour from a lay judicatory, I am forced to fly to the ecclesiastical courts, where this person stands presented, for disturbing the minister in time of Divine service, and I think no ecclesiastical judge can be of the same mind with the jury, that what was done between the Nicene Creed and the sermon, was not done in time of Divine service, upon which point he was found not guilty, to the admiration [wonder] of those that understood the rubric.”

John Strode, of Rye, writes, September 13, “that the new Mayor chosen by the fanatics refused to grant warrants according to the Act of Parliament, pretending some frivolous thing.”

[83] November 7, 1681.

[84] _Dom. Charles II._, 1681, November 15. I find, dated November 25, “The names of such Nonconformists who being presented in the Attorney-General’s name, are actually served with subpœnas returnable on Monday last:--

“John Collins, D.D.
“John Owen, D.D.
“Samuel Annesley, D.D.
“Thomas Jacomb, D.D.
“Thomas Watson.
“Matthew Meade.
“Robert Fergusson.
“Edmund Calamy.
“Thomas Doolittle.
“Samuel Slater.
“Nicholas Blackley.

“Sir,

“There are two informations filed against every one of the above-named Nonconformist ministers, _i.e._, one on the Statute for not repairing to Church, upon which they forfeit £20 per mensem. This information is laid for twenty months. The other is on the Oxford Act, prohibiting Nonconformist ministers, &c., to reside within five miles of any corporation, upon the penalty of £40. So that the penalties against the persons above-named, if recovered, and not remitted, will amount to the sum of £4,840.

“Yours,

“WM. SHERMAR”

[85] The Minutes of Council show that the Mayors of Plymouth and Reading were directed to put the Oxford Act in execution against the preachers in Conventicles.--December 2. The constables of the East Riding of Yorkshire refused to disturb meetings.--_State Papers_, bundle 260, No. 474. The magistrates at Hickes’ Hall complain that the laws respecting Conventicles had been long silent.--December 10.

[86] _Echard_, _Neal_, iv. 507.

[87] _Calamy’s Continuation_, 137.

[88] _State Papers_, Dec. 19.

[89] _State Papers_, 1682, February 15.

[90] _Calamy’s Continuation_, 139.

[91] I copied these extracts many years ago from the old Church books, now unfortunately lost. In the State Paper Office, under date of the 2nd February, 1682, there is a long report of the political sentiments of people in different parts of Norfolk, in which report,--besides mention of the Anabaptists and the Quakers worshipping under one roof, and of a clergyman in the Commission of the Peace, an itinerant Justice, “who rides all the circuit, and makes disturbances wherever he comes by his pragmaticalness and unskilfulness in the laws”--a reference is made to Dr. Collinges, a very respectable Presbyterian minister at Norwich, and it is suggested, “were he removed, it is probable many of that sect would fall off.”

[92] _Morice MSS., Entring Book_, i., 1682, November 21.

[93] December 30.

[94] December 14.

[95] November 30, December 7.

[96] December 14, February 6, 1682–3. “On Monday, in the Common Pleas, some citizens were cited, because they did not receive the sacrament at Easter by their minister, the Churchwardens saying they believed that they did not receive it then. But because the process saith not what Easter it was, and because there was no sacrament at their church the last Easter; and further, because the Churchwardens do but believe they did not receive it, therefore a prohibition was granted unless cause be shown to the contrary.”

The Countess of Aylesbury was informed against for being at a Conventicle.--March 15, 1684.

[97] December 14, 1682; March, 1683.

[98] Much trouble and suffering arose from fear; and many congregations, after apprehending disturbance, were allowed to worship in peace. This I learn from the _Entring Book_, 1683, January, in the _Morice MSS._ (in Dr. Williams’ Library,) from which the passage in the text is taken.

[99] _State Papers, Dom. Charles II._, February 21, 1682.

[100] The Presbyterians are reckoned altogether at 5,420; the Baptists, &c., at 4,250.

[101] _State Papers, Dom. Charles II._, 1682, June 2, 16, 20. On the 9th of December, the following queries were submitted to Secretary Jenkins:--

“Whether, at a time when the Dissenters in shoals transport themselves beyond sea, to the apparent throwing up of many farms throughout England, and a dearth of servants, it may not be thought reasonable to prohibit such a transportation occasioned by a sullen humour?

“2. Whether, at this time, when the Dissenters calumniate the Government with a connivance at debaucheries, while themselves are vigorously prosecuted about matters of religion, it may not be thought reasonable to revive His Majesty’s proclamation against profane cursing and swearing and other debaucheries?

“3. Whether the prosecution against Dissenters ought not to be prosecuted to excommunication, for not coming to church and receiving the Sacrament, in Corporations especially,--thereby to incapacitate them from being elected, or electors of, members of Parliament?”

[102] There are many documents connected with this subject amongst the _State Papers_, 1680, January to June.

[103] _State Papers, Dom._, 1682, September 11, 13, 16. There is also a letter describing the Duke’s visit to Chichester, and the insults offered to the Bishop’s chaplain. February 24, 1683.

[104] It is said (Sept. 18) the Duke had not the encouragement which Dissenters expected.

[105] L’Estrange was a censor of the press. In the Record Office, _Dom. Charles II._, may be found Williamson’s authority to “Roger L’Estrange, surveyor of the press, to act as one of his deputies in the licensing of books,” dated Whitehall, February 5, 1674–5.

In 1684 L’Estrange commenced a periodical entitled _The Observator_, which he carried on until 1687. He there upholds the Royal dispensing power, and ridicules Protestant excitements, the right to liberty of conscience, the Long Parliament, and Nonconformists of all kinds, pronouncing Dissent a political schism. He published the paper irregularly, sometimes twice, sometimes thrice a week. It is written after the manner of a dialogue between _The Observator_ and its opponents. I have met with three or four large volumes of the publication, in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge. They justify the strong language I have used.

[106] _State Trials_, 1683. The judgment was that the franchise and liberty of the City of London should be taken and seized into the King’s hands.

[107] The Act for annulling Russell’s attainder, in the first year of William and Mary, justly declared that “he was, by undue and illegal return of jurors, having been refused his lawful challenge to the said jurors, for want of freehold, and by partial and unjust constructions of law, wrongfully convicted, attainted, and executed for high treason.”

[108] The charges against Russell and Sidney, of being engaged in negotiations with the French Court, and of the latter receiving pay from that quarter, belong to the political history of England. I must refer the reader to _Hallam_, _Mackintosh_, and especially to _Earl Russell’s Life of Lord William Russell_. Supposing that Sidney accepted money from France, I am not at all disposed to regard his conduct so leniently as do the first two of the above-named writers; but, after pondering what Earl Russell says, I feel some doubt respecting the truth of Barillon’s reports, and the accuracy of his accounts. As to Lord William Russell’s conduct, his biographer says it “was not criminal, but it would be difficult to acquit him of the charge of imprudence.”--p. 107.

[109] “Much discourse hath been about the apparition of Lord William Russell’s ghost in Southampton square, July 27 (1683), about twelve o’clock at night.”--_Entring Book, Morice MSS._, Dr. Williams’ Library. The above notice of Russell’s execution is almost entirely drawn up from Earl Russell’s life of this illustrious person, 337, _et seq._

[110] _Tillotson’s Life_, 109.

[111] _Collier_, ii. 903. Filmer’s writings were most in vogue with the partisans of despotism. See _Hallam’s Const. Hist._, ii. 156, on the subject.

[112] _Orme’s Life of Owen._

[113] _Howe’s Case of Protestant Dissenters; Life_, 247. In a letter which Howe wrote in the year 1685 from the Continent, when he was travelling with Philip Lord Wharton, to escape the persecution of the times, he uses the following words, which indicate, more than any laboured description, the reign of terror he had left behind him in England:--“The anger and jealousies of such as I never had a disposition to offend, have of later times _occasioned persons of my circumstances_ very seldom to walk the streets.”--_Life by Rogers_, 225.

[114] The trial is published in a volume edited by Samuel Rosewell, 1718. The trial took place in the months of October and November, 1684. In the _Memoir_ there is an account of his apprehension and first appearance before Jeffreys at his house in Aldermanbury. Rosewell, lest he should commit himself before witnesses, answered Jeffreys in Latin. The Judge flew into a passion, and told him, he supposed he could not utter another sentence in the same language to save his neck. Rosewell did not give him the lie, but thought it better to give his next answer in Greek. “The Judge seemed to be thunderstruck upon this.”--p. 47.

[115] _Trial of Rosewell_, p. 52, _et seq._ Speaking of the latter part of the reign of Charles II. Mrs. Mary Churchman says, “Persecution now came on apace, the Dissenters could have no meetings but in woods and corners. I, myself, have seen our companies often alarmed with drums and soldiers; every one was fined five pounds a month for being in their company.”--_Abstract of the Gracious Dealings of God, &c._, by Samuel James, 74.

[116] I have gathered this account entirely from Delaune’s pamphlets on the subject, which were collected and published in a volume in the year 1704. The controversy had been mixed up with a reference to Calamy’s invitation to private Christians, to consult their pastors in their religious difficulties; and to Nonconformists also to hear both sides; which--by a wide stretch of interpretation--Delaune construed into a public challenge to an answer in print. It had been further complicated with reproaches, because Calamy did not intercede for the sufferer, or visit him in prison. Defoe says, “It was very hard such a man, such a Christian, and such a scholar, and on such an occasion should starve in a dungeon; and the whole body of Dissenters in England, whose cause he died for defending, should not raise him £66 13s. 4d. to save his life.” A modern Baptist historian justly says, “We would not mitigate this crime an atom; but it is right to suggest that Mr. Delaune may have interdicted the payment of the fine.”--_Evans’ English Baptists_, ii. 337. Delaune, I suspect, was one of those men who, in the judgment of an opposite class, are said to court martyrdom.

[117] _Neal_, iv. 521.

[118] _De Felice_, _Hist. of the Protestants of France_, 261.

[119] “The King of France uses the Huguenots with inexpressible severity, takes away very many of their children by force, and puts them into Popish convents, and has published an edict for taking away one half of their churches that remain throughout all the provinces, and has actually begun to execute it in Normandy.”--_Morice’s Diary_, December 2, 1679. For a minute record of proceedings against the French Protestants, see _Histoire Chronologique de L’Eglise Protestante de France, par C. Drion_, ii.

[120] _Elie Benoit Hist. de L’Edit de Nantes_, iv. 479.

[121] _Hist. des Réfugiés Protestants, par Weiss_, i. 265–267.

[122] _Hist. des Réfugiés Protestants, par Weiss_, i. 268.

[123] _Coxe’s House of Austria_, ii. 352.

[124] _State Papers_, 1682, quoted in _Smiles’ Huguenots_. I have found several other documents on the same subject in the Record Office. The Mayor and Aldermen of Bristol, on the 2nd of January 1682, oddly enough, proposed that fines levied on Dissenters should be applied to the relief of French Protestants.--_State Papers, Dom. Charles II._

[125] _Life of Tillotson, by Birch_, 131.

[126] I find an illustration of the number of refugees who arrived in London, in a curious book I have elsewhere cited, _The Happy Future State of England_, published in 1688. It is there noticed (p. 122), that they had lately come, and filled 800 of the empty new-built houses of London.

[127] The letter is dated January 2, 1684.--_Life of Sancroft_, i. 197.

[128] _Reresby’s Memoirs_, 290.

[129] _North’s Lives_, ii. 70.

[130] Abridged from _North’s Lives_, ii. 72.

[131] _Palmer’s Nonconformist Memorial_, i. 100; _Observator_, January 29 and 31, 1685; _Macaulay_, i. 407.

[132] By Ward.

[133] _James’ Memoirs_, by Clarke, i. 747–9. See _Macaulay_, ii. 13, for authorities respecting the death of Charles. In the appendix to this volume will be found a copy of the recently discovered MS., which solves a riddle referred to by Macaulay.

[134] _Gazette_, 2006.

[135] _James’ Memoirs_, by Clarke, ii. 4.

[136] _Ibid._, ii. 6.

[137] _Dalrymple’s Memoirs_, i. 109. I do not find that this circumstance is referred to by D’Oyley in his _Life of Sancroft_.

[138] As to the coronation, it is observed in a _Diary_ amongst the _Morice MSS._ in Dr. Williams’ library, under date April 25, “Far above one-half of the nobility made excuses, for one reason or another, and were absent.” “The noblemen were rather more than the ladies.”

Amongst the _Baker MSS._, Cambridge University Library, marked 40–2, are notes concerning the Coronation Office by Archbishops Laud and Sancroft, with the Coronation Office at large, used by Archbishop Sancroft.

“During the coronation of James, the crown not being properly fitted to his head, tottered. Henry Sidney, Keeper of the Robes, afterwards so famous for the mischiefs he brought upon James, kept it once from falling off, and said, with pleasantry to him, ‘This is not the first time our family has supported the Crown.’ This trifle was much remarked and talked of at the time; a sure mark that the minds of the people were under unusual agitations.”--_Dalrymple’s Memoirs_, i. 112.

[139] _Evelyn._ 1685, May 10, 22.

[140] From a MS. in the University Library, Cambridge. See _Appendix_ to this volume.

[141] It was proposed in Committee that the word _Reformed_ religion should be inserted in the address, for the word _Protestant_ was excepted against. Sir Thomas Meres said, “The word Protestant had been used in a good sense by well-meaning persons, but time and use change the nature of words. As knave formerly was an honourable title, but now signified a very ill man.”--_Entring Book_, June 4.--_Morice MSS._

[142] Compare _Eachard_, _Kennet_, _Reresby_, _Barillon_, and _Fox_.

[143] See _Commons’ Journals_, May 27; _Parl. Hist._, iv. 1358.

“Lest the last words of this resolution should not make sufficient impression on James, the Speaker, when he presented the Revenue Bill, remarked, that the Commons had passed that Bill, without joining any Bill to it for the security of their religion, though _that was dearer to them than their lives_.”--_Dalrymple’s Memoirs_, i. 133.

[144] _Orme’s Life of Baxter_, 359.

[145] The appearance of Sharp and Moore is mentioned in the _Morice MSS._

[146] _Baxter MSS._, Dr. Williams’ Library. Quoted by Orme, _Life of Baxter_, 363–366.

[147] _Burnet’s Hist. of his Own Time_, i. 649. For a report of the proceedings against Alicia Lisle and Elizabeth Gaunt, see _State Trials_, iv. 105, _et esq._

[148] _Hist. of the Revolution_, 31.

[149] _Mackintosh’s Hist. of Revolution_, 159, where authorities are given.

[150] _Ibid._, 160; _Neal_, iv. 552, 554.

[151] The story told about _White’s MS._ in _Neal_, iv. 555, does not appear to me at all probable.

When persecution was at its height, extraordinary cases of escape occurred. Many a wonderful story is told of deliverances vouchsafed to suffering Dissenters, of which the following anecdote is a conspicuous example. Henry Havers, of Catherine Hall, Cambridge, had been ejected from the Rectory of Stambourne in Essex. Receiving friendly warning of an attempt to apprehend him, and finding the pursuers on his track, he sought refuge in a malt-house, and crept into the kiln. Immediately afterwards, he observed a spider fixing the first line of a large and beautiful web, across the narrow entrance. The web being placed directly between him and the light, he was so much struck with the skill of the insect weaver, that, for a while, he forgot his own imminent danger; but, by the time the network had crossed and re-crossed the mouth of the kiln in every direction, the pursuers came to search for their victim. He listened as they approached, and distinctly overheard one of them say, “It’s no use to look in _there_, the old villain can never be there. _Look at that spider’s web, he could never have got in there without breaking it._” Giving up further search, they went to seek him elsewhere, and he escaped out of their hands.

A similar narrative I find related in reference to Du Moulin, the French Protestant. It is impossible, after the lapse of two centuries, to ascertain the exact truth of such accounts. That incidents of the kind occurred I have no doubt; but whether they are attributed to the right persons, and are quite accurate in minute details, may admit of question.

[152] Castlemaine wrote an apology for the Catholics.--_Butler’s English Cath._, iii. 47.

[153] I must refer to the pages of Macaulay and others, for the politics of the period. Of the theological debates in the presence of the King and the Earl of Rochester, there is a curious account in _Patrick’s Autobiography_, 107.

[154] _Entring Book_, 1686, July 17, _Morice MSS._

[155] _Abridgment_, 374.

[156] _Entring Book_, 1686, June 26, _Morice MSS._

[157] _Ibid._, 1687, Jan. 1.

[158] Compare, as to James’ designs, _Fox’s Hist. of James II._, 332; _Hallam’s Const. Hist._ ii. 212; and _Mackintosh’s Hist. of Revolution_, chap. v.

[159] Articles were exhibited against them “too scandalous to be repeated.” _Burnet’s Own Time_, i. 696; _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 237. Sancroft consecrated these two worthless men at Lambeth Palace, the 17th October, 1686, from fear of a _premunire_.

[160] _Clarendon’s Correspondence_, i. 258.

[161] “At Tonbridge Wells, this last summer, some company of condition, dining with Dr. Sherlock, amongst others the Doctor himself, talking of the great changes that had been in men and things these late years, even in his time, who was not old. Saith Mrs. Sherlock, his wife (who is a very brisk, sharp gentlewoman), ‘a greater instance thereof cannot be given, than yourself Doctor, for I have known you set up for a Sectary, a Presbyterian, a Papist, a Church of England man, but you never nickt your time right, nor turned seasonably, but when those respective interests were falling, and what you will turn to next, no man living knows. If ever I become a Papist, call me a knave,’ whereupon the company smiled.”--_Entring Book_, 1686, August 9, _Morice MSS._

[162] Printed in _State Trials_, iv. 243.

[163] See _Evelyn’s Diary_, December 29, 1686.

[164] The last of these facts comes to light in the _State Papers, Dom._ 1687, August 21.

[165] _Mackintosh’s Hist. of Revolution_, 207.

[166] _Ibid._, 209. Mackintosh cites proofs from letters written by the King, the Queen, the Nuncio, and the French Minister.

In the _Entring Book_, _Morice MSS._, it is remarked, under date 1686, November 7--“The King told the Archbishop of York he depended upon his vote to take off the Test, and other penal laws from the Papists, for he remembered his lordship was against the making of the Test. The Archbishop answered, he hoped His Majesty would excuse him in that, and leave him to give his vote according to his judgment. It was true he _was_ against the imposing of the Test, but the case was altered; for then the Papists’ interest was so little, that he thought it not (as others did) then necessary, but now the Papists’ interest did so preponderate, that he thought it necessary to keep it on.”

[167] _Dalrymple’s Memoirs_, ii. 175.

[168] _Ibid._, i. 166.

[169] _Ibid._, 157.

[170] _Entring Book_, January 9, _Morice MSS._

[171] _Macaulay_, ii. 337, 453; _Secretan’s Life of Nelson_, 24.

[172] _Concilia_, iv. 612.

[173] _Abridgment_, 373.

[174] April 19/29, 1686. Quoted in _Macaulay_, ii. 375.

[175] October 4, 1685. _Dalrymple_, ii. 177.

[176] _Lingard_, xiii. 105. In the _Entring Book, Morice MSS._, under date 1687, January 8, there are allusions to the anti-Jesuitical Papists, as uneasy at present proceedings--fearing lest by an ill-understanding between the King and the Prince of Orange, there should come a revolution, and Roman Catholics should be destroyed. It was still treason to be reconciled to the Church of Rome; and Papists might be convicted now by law, though twenty years after the fact. It was asked, if the King pardoned their past conversion, would not the continuance of their fellowship with the Romish Church be a continuance of treason?

[177] All this information I gather from the _Morice MSS., Entring Book_, 1687, April 30; May 14, 28.

[178] _Transcripts of Digby MSS._, D.d., iii. 64, 57.

[179] _London Gazette_, April 14.

[180] _Ibid._, April 28.

[181] _Ibid._, April 30.

[182] _London Gazette_, June 11.

Lord Macaulay is very severe upon Lobb. He certainly disgraced himself; but Wilson, in his _Dissenting Churches_ (iii. 436), puts the whole case so as to modify the reader’s judgment. What may be said in palliation of Alsop’s conduct may be seen in _Calamy_ (_Account_, ii. 488); but really Alsop’s address to James (see _Somers’ Tracts_, i. 236) is inexcusable. Alsop accepted an Alderman’s gown, and was called Alderman Alsop. His Lordship mentions also Henry Care and Thomas Rosewell amongst the tools of the Court. As to Henry Care, I cannot find that he was a Nonconformist minister; and as to Thomas Rosewell, there is not one word in the _State Trials_, or in his _Life_ by his son, or in _Calamy’s Account_ (the references made in his Lordship’s notes), to justify his statement in the text about Rosewell’s services being “secured.” No doubt much was done to court the Dissenters at this time, but the picture in _Macaulay’s Hist._ (ii. 474), is too highly coloured.

[183] _London Gazette_, July 9.

[184] _Ibid._, August 18.

[185] _Dalrymple_, i. 169.

[186] _Diary_, April 10, 1687.

[187] It appears to me that no impartial person, who reads Macaulay’s defence of his own charges against Penn, in the last edition of the _History of England_, can fail to see how unsatisfactory are the arguments which he employs. The subject has been discussed afresh in the Spring number of the _Quarterly Review_ for 1868.

[188] When the sister of these youths presented a petition on their behalf, while waiting in the ante-chamber for admission to the Royal presence, Lord Churchill, standing near the chimney-piece, said, “Madam, I dare not flatter you with any such hopes, for that marble is as capable of feeling compassion as the King’s heart.”--_Kiffin’s Life_, quoted in _Wilson_.

[189] _Wilson’s Dissenting Churches_, i. 403–31.

[190] _Clarendon’s Correspondence_, ii. 506.

[191] _Autobiography of Sir John Bramston._--_Camden Society_, p. 280.

[192] _Autobiography of Sir John Bramston_, and _A Full and True Relation_ of the Entry, reprinted in _Somers’ Tracts_, 2nd Edition.

[193] _State Trials_, iv. 250.

[194] _State Trials_, 258, _et seq._ “Dr. Fairfax is a very modest, quiet-tempered man, of very few words, loves to be concerned in no public business, and offered great violence to his own temper, to appear now; but he has other apprehensions of the danger the Church and State are in, than formerly he had, and so is far more tender to the Dissenters for these last ten or twelve years than he was before.”--_Entring Book_, June 11. _Morice MSS._

[195] Vol. iv. 265, _et seq._

[196] _State Papers, Dom. James II._ 1867, Sept. 9.

[197] _Life of James II._, ii. 120.

[198] “Penn went the progress with His Majesty, and earnestly pressed the King to let the business of Oxford fall; for, he said, it would prejudice his designs and purposes more than his Declaration had advanced them.”--_Entring Book_, Sept. 3, _Morice MSS._

[199] _Neal_, iv. 588.

[200] _Mackintosh_, 246.

[201] See notice of Fowler’s writings in a subsequent chapter.

[202] Salmon, in his _Lives_, p. 212, states that Lake was useful in the Church in maintaining order and decency, and tells a story of what he did on a Shrove Tuesday, when Archdeacon of Cleveland. He went from his seat in the choir, and pulled off the hats of a noisy mob, who afterwards insulted him, and attacked his house.

[203] _Granger_, iv. 290.

[204] _Life of Ken_, by a Layman, 142. An entry appears in the list of contributors to the rebuilding of St. Paul’s. “January 26, 1684/5. Dr. Thomas Ken, Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells, in lieu of his consecration dinner and gloves, £100.” _Ibid._, 148.

[205] _Diary_, 1687, March 20; 1688, April 1. This sermon for its circumstances, ingenuity, eloquence, and power was one of the most remarkable ever preached.

[206] _Hawkins’ Life of Ken_, 17, 99.

[207] _Life of Ken_, by a Layman, 62, 207.

[208] _Burnet’s Hist. of his Own Time_, i. 424, 429, 434, 446.

[209] See Burnet’s account of Lloyd’s conduct in reference to Turbervill’s evidence against Lord Stafford. _Hist. of his Own Time_, i. 488. Neither Lloyd nor Burnet appear to advantage in this business.