was foremost in the battle of Poictiers, and entertained John, King of France, when brought over to England a prisoner. By marriage with the daughter of this noble, created by Edward III. Duke of

LANCASTER CASTLE. THE PRISON OF GEORGE FOX.

Lancaster, John of Gaunt became possessed of the castle and the title. He built the entrance towers, which rise up in such majestic grandeur before the eye. His son, Henry of Bolingbroke, was one of the most remarkable of England's constitutional kings. From that day Lancaster became an appanage of the crown. Edward IV. escaped hither from York. During the civil wars Lancaster was a strong refuge of the royalists. Cromwell, in person, besieged it. Bradshaw, at the time when he sat as judge upon Charles I., was sheriff of Lancashire. The pretender was proclaimed in the market-place of the town, when the Earl of Derwentwater headed his rebel army. Charles Edward passed hither on his way to England, and visited it again on his disastrous retreat. What spot has such an associated series of historical incidents? Familiar in its day with a state only second to that of royalty itself; mixed up with the successive crises of history, whether for evil or for

good; the fortress of liberty, the home of chivalry, the highway of armies, the scene of the most gorgeous hospitalities, who could have augured that its destiny would end in being what it now is, a debtor's prison?

Amidst the many purposes to which this fastness of "time-honored Lancaster "—if we may transfer the epithet from John of Gaunt to the place whence he derived his title-has been applied, during the vicissitudes of its singular history, none, at the present moment, interests us more than its having been the prison of some of the martyrs of religious liberty. The founder of the castle in its present form, John of Gaunt, has been already mentioned as a temporary patron of England's first reformer, though he obeyed in this connection the promptings of ambition, rather than those of conscience. Our present reference to Lancaster is associated with a later period.

Among the sects which sprang up in England during the time of the great civil wars, scarcely any was more frequently mentioned than that of the "quakers." The term was one of reproach, said to have been first given to the body by some of the independents; but it covered with its contemptuous designation many men of large hearts, earnest zeal, and unquestionable integrity. Our object, in these pages, is not to advocate any definite form of religious opinion, but to endeavor to do some justice to all; and none but a prejudiced observer, looking on the personal and social virtues which the system called "quakerism" carries in its train, can fail to distinguish many points worthy of an emphatic commend

ation.

He would be a bold man who should assert that, in the early days of their history, the leaders of that body now called quakers never overran the bounds of prudence, or even of constitutional liberty. That they were men of the deepest religious sincerity must be apparent to the most superficial observer. It is also most evident that many of the convictions they strongly entertained were forced upon them by the irreligion, inconsistency and heartless formalism, of their times. The early Friends were as magnan

imous in avowing these convictions as they were earnest in adopting them. They were under the influence of an energy for truth so powerful as to out-run ordinary calculations. But, unless we were prepared to assert, not only that conscience is above all law, but that law has nothing to do with any form in which that conscience may assert itself, even when it interferes with the liberties of others, we must demur to some of their manifestations; nor, probably, will any modern follower of the tenets of the earlier Friends greatly differ from us in doing so. When, invading the quietude of churches, they debated before the assembled congregations the doctrines which the preacher had just delivered; or when they attacked, before his flock, the personal qualifications of their minister himself, they exceeded the bounds which the largest definition of religious liberty will allow. It was not, however, against such offences as these, considered in the light of misdemeanors, and justly noticeable as such, that the civil powers of that day exclusively or even mainly proceeded, but against the right they claimed to hold opinions not recognized by any existing system. Their refusal of oaths and tithes, their preaching in markets and other public places, their declining to take off their hats before magistrates, were their main offences, and for these they suffered severely. When they had increased so much as to hold assemblies of their own, one of them being in a house known in after years by the name of the Bull and Mouth, Aldersgate-street, they were often violently molested, under pretence of their being engaged in treasonable conspiracies, and an order against unlawful assemblies was especially directed against them. They justly accused the government of Cromwell of great inconsistency, in thus dealing with them, especially after his professions of liberty of conscience; and many were the appeals they addressed to him on the subject. There was justice in the complaint that, "although Archbishop Laud was beheaded, yet it could not be proved that the episcopalians had persecuted so severely as these pretended assertors of liberty of conscience had done, who, being got into possession of

power, did oppress more than those they had driven out."* George Fox, especially, seems to have become acquainted with most of the prisons in the kingdom. The truth was, that, during Cromwell's protectorate, most of the inferior magistrates were continued in office; and Cromwell was fearful of offending the dominant religious sects, by preventing, as he ought to have done, the injurious proceedings of those who acted in his name. So dangerous is it to commit the maintenance of religion to those who have other interests to serve.

These proceedings constitute a blot upon the administration of the protectorate. Many laws, and, among others, one for the suppression of vagrants, were put in force against them. Men and women were imprisoned merely because they were found on the road, some of them to visit their friends, or to transact their necessary business. Others were whipped and sent with a pass from tything to tything; one, a female, was stopped about ten miles from her home, and robbed of her horse, which was sold to pay the expenses of her incarceration. As this body held different views of the Sabbath from other Christians, they were often tormented under the pretext that they abused it; and when found travelling to their own houses of worship, were frequently punished by distresses, impoundings, fines, imprisonment, whippings and confinement in the stocks. Sometimes, when preaching, they were violently assaulted; sometimes wounded with stones and sharp instruments. The popular feeling against them was certainly extremely strong; but no decisive measures were adopted to reform it, or to check its excesses. Scarcely a quaker was known to escape the violence of this general persecution.

Severe as these sufferings were, they were greatly increased by the inhumanity of those who kept custody of these poor victims of an established religion. Three quakers, imprisoned in Norwich, were compelled to lie on the floor for eight weeks in a most severe

* Sewall's History of the Quakers, vol. 1., p. 151.

The case of John Lilburn must be regarded in a light rather political than religious.

winter. Others were kept among felons, and exposed to abuse from their fellow-prisoners, who said that "if such were killed there would be no hanging for it." Others were treated in prison in a manner not only injurious, but execrable; we spare the reader the offensive details. Women were kept in the stocks in a way most indelicate and severe, and then turned abroad in the freezing night. James Parnel, a young man of tender constitution, but a powerful preacher and vigorous disputant, was imprisoned for several months, till he died under the severity of his treatment.

Besides this, great injuries were done by depredations committed on their property in the processes of distraint for tithes. In one case, where fifty-four pounds only were demanded, the sum actually seized was one hundred and thirty-eight pounds.

The patience of these sufferers was such as to cause wonder that it did not disarm their enemies. They conducted themselves under persecution with a meekness truly exemplary. When they lifted up their public testimony, they were not always sparing of severe denunciation. Indeed, this was sometimes carried not only to an injudicious, but even to an unwarrantable extent. But, when they suffered, there was usually a total absence of passion, or of revenge. Whitelock relates two anecdotes, which may be regarded as striking illustrations of this most Christian temper. When some of the body were assaulted and ill-treated by the populace, “the quakers fell on their knees, and prayed to God to forgive the people, as those who knew not what they did; and remonstrated with them, so as to convince them of the evil of their conduct, on which they ceased from their violence, and began to reproach each other with being the occasions of it; and beat one another more than they had before done the quakers."*

The spirit of intolerance which oppressed the quakers was stronger among the presbyterian party of that day than any other. The independents were by no means altogether free. But they

* Memorials, pp. 564, 599.