Page images

against Elizabeth, are exceedingly interesting. His letter to his wife before he suffered, is given from the Harleian MSS. as well as his address to the populace, which is in a style of touching eloquence characteristic of the times---the Shakspearian era !

· Countrymen and my dear friends, you expect I should speak something; I am a bad orator, and my text is worse : It were in vain to enter into the discourse of the whole matter for which I am brought hither, for that it hath been revealed heretofore : let me be a warning to all young gentlemen, especially generosis adolescentulis. I had a friend, and a dear friend, of whom I made no small account, whose friendship hath brought me to this. He told me the matter, I can. not deny, as they laid it down to be done ; but I always thought it impious, and denied to be a dealer in it; but the regard of my friend caused me to be a man in whom the old proverb is verified; I was silent and so consented.'

The following verses are given from the same MS. as the composition of this accomplished youth : they have been printed in one of the old editions of Sir Walter Raleigh's Poems, but Mr. D’Israeli asserts that they could never have been written

by him. We cannot resist the pleasure of transcribing them

into our pages.

• Verses made by Chediock Ticheborne of himselfe in the Tower, the night before he suffered death, who was executed in Lincolns Inn Fields for Treason. 1586.

• My prime of youth is but a frost of cares,

My feast of joy is but a dish of pain,
My crop of corn is but a field of tares,

And all my goodes is but vain hope of gain,
The day is Aed, and yet I saw no sun,
And now I live, and now my life is done !
• My spring is past, and yet it hath not sprung;

The fruit is dead, and yet the leaves are green,
My youth is past, and yet I am but young,

I saw the world,' and yet I was not seen ;
My thread is cut, and yet it is not spun,
And now I live, and now my life is done!
• I sought for death, and found it in the wombe ;

I lookt for life, and yet it was a shade,
I trade the ground, and knew it was my tombe,

And now I dye and nowe I am but made.
The glass is full, and yet my glass is run ;

And now I live, and now my life is done! The Stuarts are all of them great favourites with our Anec. dotist. He was at the pains of composing a small 8vo. volume, which was published last year, for the purpose of proving that the profane, the lascivious, and feeble-minded James, was in reality one of the best of kings, Great Britain's Solomon. ' It is well known,' he says, in narrating an anecdote of Prince Henry,' that James I. had a habit of swearing, --- innocent

expletives in conversation, which, in trutb, only expressed the warmth of bis feelings; but in that age, when Puritanism had alreaily possessed half the nation, an oath was consi.

dered as nothing short of blasphemy.' Doubtless, this apology for swearing still holds good with those who take special care not to be mistaken for persons so possessed in the present day.

Our Author takes every occasion to vent his anger against those ultra-moralists, the Puritans. He devotes twenty pages to' the history of the Theatre during its suppression by the fanatics, which was the result, he telis us, of an ancient quar' rel between the Puritanic party and the whole corps drama

tique,' in the reign of Elizabeth. These anti-dramatists were indeed, he admits, the instruments of purifying the stage; 'we

owe them this good ;' but then, they wanted,' says this gentleman,' the taste to feel that it was also a popular school of

morality; that the stage is a supplement to the pulpit!' Jo this school of morality, the use of innocent expletives' as expressions of warmth of feeling, is among the many things which the Author, perhaps, thinks are to be learned to advantage. He is far, however, froin being singular in his opinion of its moral efficiency, as a supplement to the pulpit. There have been, and still are, clergymen of bis way of thinking, who have deemed patronizing the theatre, the best mode of opposition to the meeting-house, the head-quarters of the common enemy. Mr. D’Israeli quotes some lines from Alexander Brome, which illustrate this strange association.

< 'Tis worth our note,
Bishops and players both suffered in one vote :
And reason good, for they had cause to fear them ;

One did suppress their schisms, and t'other jeer them.' The actors were, of course, as our Author and Mr. Gifford assert, with one wretched' exception, malignants' (that is to say, royalists) to a man. Of these men, who had lived in • the sunshine of a court, and amidst taste and criticism, many

perished in the field, from their affection to their royal inaster'!! This touch of sentiment ventures rather too near the ludicrous. However, the actors of those days were doubtless very excellent and elevated characters, and the nation suffered much in its morals, while the stage was silenced; but all was set to rights when that merry fellow Charles II. was brought in.

Charles I., Mr. D'Israeli says, had a mind moulded by the



6 Graces; and he dwells with enthusiasm on his character, which,

grave and king-like as it was, bad its softening feature in his passion for the Arts. He was himself a painter and a poet, as well as a patron of artists, though history has not recorded the circumstance, and, as is well known, a great admirer of Shakspeare. For this he was censured, says our Author, even

by Milion,' alluding, we presume, to the blundering misconstruction oi a passage in Milton's Iconoclastes, which has been made, by successive commentators, the ground of so much silly invective against Puritanical bigotry. Charles I censored by Milton for 'baving " those native poets' as his • closet companions.'

The secret history of Charles I, and his Queen Henrietta, receives some illustration by the anecdotes adduced for the purpose of shewing that Henrietta had not the share in the transactions of the reign, which Hume and almost every other historiau ascribe to her influence over her uxorious husband. The dis missing of her French attendants, which Hume imagines to have originated with Buckingham, appears to have been the determined act of the King himself, in opposition to his favourite, and at the risk of a war with France, his motive being to quell the Catholic faction which was ' ruling the Queen.' proof of this staten ent, reference is made to two letters from Charles I. to Buckingham, contained in the Hardwicke State Papers, Henrietta, says our Author,

after all, was nothing more than a volatile woman ; one who had never studied, never reflected, and whom nature had formed to be charmiog and hanghty, but whose vivacity could not retain even a state secret for an hour, and whose talents were quite opposite to those of deep political intrigue. No female was ever more deeply tainted with Catholic bigotry ; and haughty as she was, the Princess suffered the most insulting superstitions, inflicted as penances by her priests, for this very marriage with a Protestant prince.'

A remarkable and hitherto unnoticed document is referred to, (contained in the “ Ambassades du Mareschal de Bassom:

pierre,” vol. iii.) as throwing further light upon the secret history of this period.

• It is nothing less than a most solemn obligation contracted with the Pope, and her brother the King of France, to educate her children as Catholics, and only to choose Catholics to attend them. Had this been known either to Charles, or to the English nation, Henrietta could never have been permitted to ascend the English throne. The fate of both her sons shows how faithfully she performed this treasonable contract. This piece of secret history opens the concealed cause of these deep impressions of that faith, which both monarchs sucked in with their milk; that triumph of the cradle over the grave which most men experience. Charles II. died a Catholic, James II. lived as one.'

The conduct of Charles, when he discovered the intrigues of her French household, certainly displayed a firmness the very reverse of the spirit attributed to biin by those who represent hiin as a slave to bis queen. This establishment was daily growing in expense and number.

"A manuscript letter of the times states that it cost the King 2401. a day, and had increased from threescore persons to four hundred and forty, besides children.

• It was one evening that the King suddenly appeared, and, summoning the French household, commanded them to take their instant departure-the carriages were prepared for their removal. In doing this, Charles had to resist the warmest intreaties, and even the vehement anger of the Queen, who is said in her rage to have broken several panes of the window of the apartment, to which the King had dragged her, and confined her from them. When the French Marshal Bassompierre was sent over to awe the King, Charles sternly offered the alternative of war, rather than permit a French faction to trouble an English court. The Marshal has also preserved the same distinctive feature of the nation, as well as of the monarch, who, surely to his honour as King of England, felt and acted on this occasion as a true Briton. “ I have found,” says the Gaul, “ humility among Spaniards, civility and courtesy among the Swiss, in the embassies I had the honour to perform for the King; but the English would not in the least abate of their natural pride and arrogance. The King is so resolute not to re-establish any French about the Queen his consort, and was so stern (rude) in speaking to me, that it is impossible to have been more so.

The character of the Duke of Buckingham, the favourite equally of James I. and of Charles I., furnished our Author with a topic of illustrative anecdote in one of the former volumes, and he there speaks of his audacity and abandoned profligacy, in much the same terms as all honest historians have spoken of them. From some eccentric motive, which we care not to divine, he secms, however, in the present volume, solicitous to efface as much as possible this unfavourable pression. Hume is now accused of throwing into the shade the fascinating qualities of the Duke's better nature. His 'errors air) infirmities' were those, it seems, of ' a man of sensation, acting from impulse,' and sprung from a sanguine, but generous spirit. Buckingham was the decided enemy of the Puritan party : this, in our Author's estimation, would be a palliative of the lowest vices ; and he tells us a story, from the Lansdowne MSS., which was told " by Thomas Baker to Mr. Wotton as coming from one well 'versed in the secret history of that time,' about a Dr. Preston's being the most servile adulator of the Duke, at the very time that


he was speaking of him to his Puritan correspondents, as 'a vile • and profiigate fellow,' of whom, nevertheless, it was necessary for the glory of God to make use as an instrument. Some of ficious hand, it is said, conveyed this letter to Buckingham, who, after exposing it to Dr Preston, on his denying the charge, turned from bim, and from that moment abandoned the Puritan party!! A very good story, if it did but bear the marks of veracity, but not quite sutricient even then, to prove all that our Author intends it should imply.

Felton the assassin, is the subject of a distinct disquisition, evidently for the purpose of bringing in the Republicans and Puritans as sanctioning the act of the conscientious' assassin. Felton's min I had passei, he says, through an evangelical process : four theological propositions struck the knife into the heart of the Ministe. Never was a man wurdered with inore Gospel than the Duke.' The curious document' which our Author introduces in order to substantiate this malicious misre. presentation, gives at once the lie to his assertion. It is remarkable that it does not contain one proposition strictly theological, and is wholly free froin wbat would in those times have been deemeil an evangelical character. It is completely the reasoning of a disorler d mind, and corresponds well enough to his ingenuous confession, on his argments being overturned by the King's attorney, that he hud been in a mistake.

• Propositions found in Felton's trunk, at the time he slew the Duke.

•1. There is no alliance nearer to any one than his country. • 2. The safety of the people is the chiefest law.

• 3. No law is more sacred, than the safety and welfare of the Commonwealth.

• 4. God himself hath enacted this law, that all things that are for the good profit and benefit of the Commonwealth, shall be lawful.'

That Felton' had imbibed the religious enthusiasm of the times, is an assertion purely gratuitous. He was one of those • thousand officers, who had incurred disappointments, both in

promotion and in arrears of pay from the careless Duke.' His imwediate motive was inconceivable even to bis contemporaries, but it is evideni that there was more of the Roman than of the Puritan in him. Buckinghain, on being advised to wear some secret defensive armour, had slightingly replied, “ It needs

not, there are no Roman spirits left.” He did not calculate upon meeting with a Brutus in a lupatic.

Rushworth's account of Felton's manly behaviour before the council, is corrected in some particulars, on the authority of the Harleian M$s. It was to my Lord Dorset, not to Laud, that, when threatened with the torture if he did not confess his accomplices, be replied with admirable presence of mind : VOL. X. N.S.

3 B

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »