stands out, and when I knew him he scorned at arts to take them off (as the phrase at court was of bringing over leading men in the House of Commons to their party), nor will he receive any upon half submissions, and he thinks that all who oppose the king in parliament are rebells. He understands business better than is generally believed, for tho' he is not a man of witt nor fancy, yet he generally judges well when things are laid before him, except when the violence of his spirit gives him a byas, which it does too often.

...

He is a prince of great courage and very serious in action and naturally hates a coward, unless it be to make use of him in the conduct of his amours; he abhorrs drunkenness, he never swears and talks irreligiously; he has pursued many secret pleasures, but never to an open avowing them, and he does condemn himself for it; but yet he is ever going from one intrigue to another, tho' it is generally thought that these have been very fatal to him and that the death of so many of his children is owing to that. He is a zealous and hearty papist, of which he gave me this account: when he was in Flanders, being in a nunnery, a nunn pressed him much about religion. and begged him to use this prayer every day to God, that if he was not on the right way he would guide him to it, which he said sunk deep in his mind and raised scruples in him. . . . The great man with the king was Chancellor Hyde, after- Edward wards made earl of Clarendon. He had been in the beginning Hyde, earl of of the Long Parliament very high against the judges upon the account of the shipmoney and he became then a considerable man. He spoke well, his style had no flow in it, but had a juste mixture of witt and sense, only he spoke too copiously; he had a great pleasantness in his spirit, which carried him some times too farr into raillery, in which he sometimes shewed more witt than discretion. He went over to the court-party, when the war was like to breake out, and was very much in the late king's councills and confidence dureing the warr, tho' he was always of the party that pressed the king to treat, and so was not on good terms with the queen. The late king recommended him to this king as the person on whose advice he wished him to rely most, and he was about the king all the

Clarendon

The earl of

while that he was beyond sea, except a little that he was ambassadour in Spain. He managed all the king's correspondence in England, both in the little designes that the cavaliers were sometimes engaged in, and chiefly in procuring money for the king's subsistance, in which Dr. Shelden was very active. He had nothing so much before his eyes as the king's service and doated on him beyond expression; he had been a sort of gov ernour to him and had given him many lectures on the politicks. He was thought to assume and dictate too much.

He was a man of much witt, and as long as the conversaShaftesbury tion run in generall ramble, he was very entertaining company. He knew England well and all the interests in it, and had a competent skill in law; but as to all matter of knowledge the quickness of his thoughts was such that he never went to the bottom of any thing, but snatched at some hints, which he improved by his fancy, and so he committed vast errours when he talked of matters of learning. As to religion he was a deist and seemed to believe nothing of Christianity but only that it contained good moralls. He was against bringing in religion to the state or imposing it on any; he had odde notions of a future state and thought that our soules went into starrs and animated them. He would have talked pleasantly on those things, but without any strength of reason, for he never spoke closely to any thing but alwaies shifted that and got into a loose ramble. His morals were of a piece with his religion.

He was esteemed a very corrupt man and false to all degrees, and that he had no regard to any thing but his own interest, or rather his vanity, which was the most fulsome thing I ever saw. He turned the discourse allmost allwayes to the magnifying of himself, which he did in so gross and coarse a manner that it shewed his great want of judgment. He told so many incredible things of himself that it often put me out of patience. He was mightily overcome with flattery, and that and his private interests were the only thing that could hold or turn him. He had likewise a great dexterity of engaging plain and well-meaning men, that had no depth of understanding, to admire him and to depend on him, but even these were often

disgusted with his vanity and indiscretion. He had turned often, but done it with dexterity and success and was proud of that, so that he would often set out the art that he had shewed in it and never seemed to be ashamed of the meanness or levity of shifting sides so often.

II. SOCIAL CONDITIONS UNDER CHARLES II

The following extracts referring to the Quakers will serve to illustrate the position at this time of all those outside of the Anglican church, which was in 1660 reëstablished by law. The persecution to which Dissenters were subjected was partly due to the laws passed between 1661 and 1665, partly to still older laws, and partly to hostile public feeling, as is shown by the fact that some of the incidents here referred to occurred before the Restoration. The first of the following extracts is a letter from a country gentleman to a justice of the peace in 1661; the others are contemporary narratives of the sufferings of the Quakers.

Honoured Sir:

312. Richard

Willoubie

I shal be reddie the next generall sessions to witnesse Alford to John against Mr. Cole, who you latelie committed to prison, that I (July 24, found him preaching, as he calleth it, unto a great number of 1661) people called Quakers, and mett together contrary to law in one Glanfeeld's house, where I hard him utter manie expressions that tend to sedition, all which I have sett downe in writing, and shal testefie to the bench against him. Sir, there is one James Glandfeeld and Julian Glandfeeld were at the meeting also, and have sence spoken very dangirous words; pray fayle not to send me a warrant for them both, according to the order given unto my servant. Sir, I render you thankes for all your favours, and subscribe my selfe

Your most humble servant,

RICHARD ALFORD.

313. Inci

dents from

Besse's
Sufferings

George Rose, after the priest had ended his sermon at Hithe, began to exhort the people to turn their minds from darkness to light, etc., but was haled away by the mayor's command, and by the rude multitude kickt and beaten in the mayor's presence, and thrown down an high place of stone Kent, 1655 stairs so violently that his life was endangered and one of his legs much bruised.

of the Quakers

Colchester,

1662

Henry Clarke suffered three months imprisonment in Maidstone gaol for asking the priest a question in the steeplehouse at Cranbrook.

John Higgins, after the priest had ended both his sermon and prayer at Dover, spake to the people, directing them to the witness of God in their own consciences. He was violently dragged away to the mayor's house, and charged with interrupting the minister by speaking before he had done; for it seems they had a child to sprinkle afterward, of which he knew nothing. That circumstance was proved against him, and the mayor sent him to prison, where he continued about thirty weeks.

In this year was a grievous persecution of this people for their religious meetings at Colchester, where William Moore, then mayor, exerted the utmost of his authority to oppress them.

On the 25th of October he came and forcibly broke up the meeting, sending Stephen Crisp and John Pike to prison. On the 28th of the same he came again, and having dispersed the meeting, he committed Thomas Brown and Thomas Gainford. And on the 1st of November he sent prisoners also to the Moothall, Thomas Bayles and George Wetherly. This method proving ineffectual, a party of the county troops were employed to go to the meeting, where they beat some and carried others to prison, having first broke the forms, seats, and windows of the meetinghouse. After this, being kept out of their meetinghouse, they assembled in the street, sometimes in the cold and rain, not daring to decline their duty for those inconveniences. Thus they continued constantly meeting twice a week, on the first and fourth days of the week, at their appointed hour, till the 6th of December,owen a troop of

horse, who came to town the day before, armed with swords, pistols, and carbines, rode in furiously among them, crying out, "What a devil do you here?" Some with their swords drawn, and others with their carbines, laying on without mercy, both on old and young, men and women, beat and bruised many exceedingly, chasing them to and fro in the streets, after which they broke into several houses to the terror of the people.

The oath of allegiance, which magistrates were empowered by law to require from any one, was always refused by Quakers, not because they were disloyal to the king but because they did not think it right to take any oath at all. This unwillingness to swear was taken advantage of to put the Quakers in a false position.

Then the judge bid the clerk read the oath, which being Berkshire, done, he asked Thomas Curtis if he heard it? He answered, 1664 Yes. So they held the Bible to him. Then Thomas Curtis said, holding the Bible in his hand, "I could read you a better lesson in that book."

They bid him say after the clerk, who read the oath, which he did, till he came to that clause, I do swear, etc. Then he said, "But I cannot swear, but what I have said I do believe, and question not but I shall prove as good a subject to the king as some of you."

Then George Lamholl was called. They asked him whether he would take the oath of allegiance. He answered; as to the oath of obedience he could promise very much, and should keep his promise. Then Sarah, his wife, was called. They asked her whether she would take the oath. She answered, at present she was not satisfied that she might safely do it; or to that purpose.

The other three, viz. Thomas Tudway, John Paine, and James Marloe, were asked the same question. T. Tudway queried, whether it were better to obey God or man? They said, that was not the question.