lander baser thieves, greater ingratitude, and more lies and vile perjuries, than among those fanatical spirits he should meet withal." Such is the testimony which Heylin, the vindicator of the high church party, quotes with approbation.*

Whilst at Westminster we cannot forget an event which in its day shook all Europe, and went deep into the hearts and memories of puritans, the gunpowder plot. Those who know not how, in royal hunts, game is planted within the reach of royal huntsmen, that they may have the credit of superior skill, may give to James, and not to Cecil, the credit of really discovering the bloody conspiracy.† It was evident that the plot was not undertaken from any deep dislike, on the part of the catholics engaged in it, of James himself. So to believe would be too great a compliment to the monarch; and it would be at variance with his repeated declarations, and with his conduct in the matter of Spain and the Palatinate, to regard him as bearing any decided hostility to popery. In a curious volume, entitled " King James, his Apopthegmes, or Tabletalk as they were by him delivered occasionally, and by the publisher his quondam servant - carefully received, by B. A., Gent., London, 1643," we have several proofs of the royal sentiments on this subject. He declares that he himself would not condemn anything for heresy that had been anciently confirmed by a universal consent. He says, moreover, that if there were no quarrel between papists and protestants but the number of sacraments, he would himself be a papist; and then tells a story of two persons, a papist and a protestant, who fought together fatally to them both and adds, " Before I would have lost my life in this quarrel, I would have divided the seven into three and a half." But, though James was in the eyes of catholic conspirators scarcely regarded as an enemy, or at all events a dangerous one, the plot stood out portentously before thinking religious men of that day, and inexpressibly deepened their detestation of and their panic at

*Heylin's Aerius Redivivus, lib. x.

† It is not certain if it belong to either. A passage in Lodge's Portraits may seem to destroy the claims of both. See Mackintosh's England, vol. IV., p. 187.

the errors of popery. They saw in Romanism a system of huge ecclesiastical domination, which claimed the homage of the body, and would fain extinguish the soul. They saw that in proportion as their own rulers advanced towards it they became insolent, imperious and persecuting, and they suspected that all this arose, as in some degree it did, from the essential nature and genius of catholicism itself. But they overlooked the fact that whenever any system of religion holds the civil sword, it becomes an oppressor, and in its measure a tyrant. Yet the crisis was certainly a fearful one, and puritans might well fear that their whole reformation was at stake.

The plot might have read men a higher lesson. It might have told them that physical force, as a means of maintaining religion, was an implement which could be wielded by enemies, as well as by friends. But men's eyes were as yet only half open, and they derived from this monstrous combination only a small fraction of the lessons it really conveyed. When, five years after, Henry IV. of France was assassinated in the streets of Paris by the Jesuits, the dire result led to a sad confirmation to the worst fears of good men; especially when James, released by that event from all protestant leagues, approximated to Romanism as closely as he could without actual contact.

In the mean time, but less vigorously after the death of Bancroft, the severities against the puritans continued. Heylin declares that if James had done his duty he might have extirpated the system altogether: a thing easier to speak of now than to execute at that time. Certainly, Bancroft, though a right man for that purpose, could not accomplish this villany; and Abbot, his semi-puritan successor, would not. Lacking the power to exterminate, which alone could have been successful, the court took to tormenting, to which it was more competent; and no inquisitor showed more alacrity for the task. Touched by a feeling of sympathy for the sufferings of the puritans, a lady of piety had bequeathed five thousand pounds to be distributed among the sufferers. The money was seized and distributed among conform

ists. Bartholomew Leggatt was cited for denying the divinity of Christ. The king held a conference with him till his royal patience was exhausted. Then, rising from his chair and dealing a kick to the heretic, he said, "Away, base fellow! it shall never be said that one stayeth in my presence that hath never prayed to our Saviour for seven years." He was burnt at Smithfield. Another, named Whiteman, convicted of "unheard-of opinions," was similarly executed; and a third, ordered to the fire, to which he was not brought, because of the sympathy feared from the spectators, died miserably in Newgate.

a

Before we leave the Star Chamber we must make room for " sermon " preached by James in that court. He took his text from Psalm 72: 1, "Give the king thy judgments, O God." After dividing and subdividing, and giving the literal and mystical sense of the text, he applied it to the judges and courts of judicature, telling them "that the king sitting in the throne of God, all judgments centre in him; and therefore, for inferior courts to determine difficult questions without consulting him, is to encroach upon his prerogative, and to limit his power; which it is not lawful for the tongue of a lawyer nor any subject to dispute. As it is atheism and blasphemy to dispute what God can do, so it is presumption and high contempt to dispute what kings can do or say; it is to take away that mystical reverence that belongs to them who sit in the throne of God."*

Well might some of the courtiers speak of King Elizabeth and Queen James!

But there were materials in the adjacency of the king's state which were festering already into a mortal gangrene. A proof of this was soon afforded. Roused by James' supineness in defending the protestant interests of his son-in-law, the elector palatine, and also by his desire that Prince Charles should contract a Spanish, and, therefore, catholic alliance, the commons prepared a remonstrance. His majesty threatened; they drew up another paper, which they sent to the king, then at Newmarket, by a

*Neal's Puritans.

committee of twelve. The king ordered twelve chairs to be brought, "for there were so many kings a coming." He browbeat. They resisted; and passed the spirited resolution, "that the liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of parliament, are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England." The king tore the protest from the book, dissolved the houses, and committed several leading members of the commons to prison. Among these were Sir Edward Coke, Selden, and Prynne. Prince Charles learnt from his father's example,

and practised the trick once too often!

The last considerable act of James' reign was the publication of "The Book of Sports.". The purport of this enactment may be learned from the following extract :

66

That, for his good people's recreation, his majesty's pleasure was, that they should not be disturbed, letted or discouraged, from any such harmless recreations on the Lord's-day, such as dancing, either of men or women, archery for men, leaping or vaulting, or any such harmless recreations; nor having of Maypoles, or other sports therewith, so as the same may be had in due and convenient time, without impediment or let of divine service." * * But " no recusant (papist) was to have the benefit of this declaration; nor such as were not present at the whole divine service; nor such as did not keep their own parish churches." This was designed as a blow for the puritans; but its effects reached far beyond them, and prepared the way in no inconsiderable degree for the tumults and disasters of the following reign. "The Book of Sports" was ordered to be read in churches, and refusal exposed the offender to all the penalties of the high commission. Yet, said the king, in 1620, "I mean not to compel any man's conscience: for I ever protested against it." Under this enactment, many were imprisoned, or ruined by heavy costs. Fresh gloom and terror gathered on good men's minds. But the death of James suspended operations for a moment, though only for a moment.

Of Whitehall, as it appeared a century ago, and much nearer to the time of James, the following engraving is a representation:

Nothing could be more heterogeneous and confused than the mass of buildings which, under the general name of Whitehall, met the eye at this period. They were all in great ruin, and extremely ill-assorted. The only nucleus of order was in the banqueting-house, designed by Inigo Jones, and still remaining, as a proof of the graceful conceptions and exquisite taste which that great architect could exhibit in erections of the Grecian order. The palace planned by him, of which this is the only executed portion, was of the most extensive and magnificent description, intended to look out on St. James' Park, and the banquetinghouse was meant to be the ornament of its principal court. By the side of this great design most modern palaces look extremely contracted. But other things, in addition to an appropriate design, are requisite for the construction of a splendid palace; and it so happened that in these other things in cash, for instance — James