weakness frequently to appear almost in the light of an opponent, is the residence of the eminent French Reformer, Bucer, at Lambeth, who had been invited from his native country by Cranmer. Another guest of the Archbishop's, the Earl Cassilis, came under different auspices. He was taken prisoner in the defeat of the Scottish army at Solway Moss, in 1542, which was attended by such disgraceful circumstances that it broke their King's (James) heart. On reaching London Cassilis was sent to Lambeth Palace on his parole, where Cranmer busied himself with endeavours to turn him from the errors of Popery. The Archbishop succeeded, and it is stated by Bishop Burnet that he was afterwards a great promoter of the Reformation in Scotland. It would have been as well if Cranmer had made Cassilis an honest man as well as a Protestant. Among all those traitors to their native land who, bribed by English gold, were for years endeavouring to place the crown of Scotland upon the head of Henry VIII., Cassilis appears to have played the most conspicuous part. The next portrait that meets our eye reminds us that the religion of the country had again shifted. Cranmer's successor was Cardinal Pole, the man who had made Europe ring again with the murder of Sir Thomas More; who did not, however, return to England till some time after the great Protestant Archbishop had perished with his glorious companions at Oxford. He arrived in 1554, and, having presented himself at court, went in his barge to Lambeth; where soon after he summoned the bishops and inferior clergy then assembled in convocation in London to come to him and be absolved from all their perjuries, heresies, and schisms. Lambeth Palace is said to have been completely furnished by Mary, at her own expense, for the reception of the Cardinal; and she still further honoured him by frequent visits. It is curious enough that they should both have died on one day. The portrait of Pole, though only a copy of one in the Barberini Palace, has great spirit and beauty. It represents him in the splendid dress usually worn by Cardinals. Fuller tells an interesting story of Pole's election to the Popedom :-" After the death of Paul III. he was, at midnight, in the Conclave, chosen to succeed him. Pole refused it, because he would not have his choice a deed of darkness, appearing therein not perfectly Italianized, in not taking preferment when tendered, and the Cardinals beheld his refusal as a deed of dulness. Next day, expecting a re-election, he found new mornings new minds; and Pole being reprobated, Julius III., his professed enemy, was chosen in his place." Next to him we have another Protestant bishop, Parker," a parker indeed," exclaims the quaint writer from whom we have just been transcribing, "careful to keep the fences and shut the gates of discipline against all such night stealers as would invade the same,"—whose portrait was, most probably, the work of Richard Lyne, an artist of great merit, whom the prelate retained in his establishment. Two engravers were also kept constantly employed by him, besides a number of the most learned and eminent men of his time, who were engaged in transcribing, collecting, and publishing some of the old historians,-as Matthew Paris, Asser, Walsingham, &c. The bible known as Parker's or the Bishop's Bible was translated under his auspices. He appears for some time to have been as great a favourite with Elizabeth as his predecessor had been with her sister. On his first promotion to the see she committed to his charge the deprived Roman Catholic Bishops, Tonstal and Thirlby, whom Parker treated in a manner that

must ever redound to his honour. He could appreciate their conscientious adherence to the old religion, when it came, as in their cases, in a mild and tolerant form, and was based upon extensive learning. Tonstal lived but about four months, and then was buried in the adjoining church, where among other interesting memorials are some of different Archbishops of the see interred therein. Thirlby was the prelate's guest for ten years; during all this time being treated with the greatest respect and attention. A contemporary writer, speaking of Tonstal, Thirlby, and Dr. Boxal, late secretary to Queen Mary, who was also a prisoner here, says, "All these had lodgings to themselves, with chambers for three men, and diet for them all in those lodgings; save only when they were called to the Archbishop's own table (when he dined, as the speech went abroad, out of his own private lodging three days weekly, and then persons of the degree of knights and upwards came to him); fuel for their fire, and candle for their chambers; without any allowance for all this, either from the Queen or from themselves; saving, at their death, he had from them some part of their libraries that they had there. Often had he others committed or commanded unto him from the Queen or Privy Council, to be entertained by him at his charge, as well of other nations, as home subjects; namely, the L... as a prisoner,' and after, the L. H. Howard, brother to the Duke of Norfolk. Those ever sat (but when they were with the Archbishop himself) at the steward's table, who had provision of diet answerable to their calling, and they had also fuel to their chambers." The body of Bishop Thirlby was accidentally discovered a few years ago, in opening a grave for the interment of Archbishop Cornwallis. It was wrapped in fine linen, moist, and had evidently been preserved in some species of pickle, which still retained its volatile smell, not unlike that of hartshorn; the face was perfect, the limbs flexible, the beard very long and beautifully white; the linen and woollen garments were all well preserved. Elizabeth was a frequent visitor of Parker, though there was one circumstance which must have always prevented the Archbishop from taking any pleasure in this mark of his royal mistress's favour. He was married, and Elizabeth disliked all such ties in connection with the clergy. So strong, indeed, was her feeling on this point, that she appears never to have recognised the Archbishop's lady as his lawful spouse. Although from the first "the Archbishop dissembled not his marriage," yet neither would Queen Elizabeth "dissemble her dislike of it. For whereas it pleased her often to come to his house in respect of her favour to him (that had been her mother's chaplain), being once above the rest greatly feasted, at her parting from thence, the Archbishop and his wife being together, she gave him very special thanks, with gracious and honourable terms; and then looking on his wife, And you,' saith she, madam I may not call you, and mistress I am ashamed to call you, so I know not what to call you, but yet I do thank you.'

Grindall, who succeeded Parker, was less fortunate than the latter, because more tolerant, in his intimacy with the Queen. Persecution had taught him great truths. In the reign of Mary, long before he occupied the see, he had been compelled to exile himself from England, with Coverdale, Fox the martyrologist, and the great Scottish reformer Knox. Soon after his elevation by

* Harrington's "Brief View of the Church of England,' p. 3.

Elizabeth he ventured to recommend that milder measures should be used toward the Puritans; the consequence was his own suspension from the duties of his office till the last year of his life. Whitgift, the next Archbishop, was more obsequious and more intolerant; accordingly he had the honour of almost innumerable visits from the Virgin Queen, who stayed sometimes two or three days together. James I. showed him equal favour; his last visit took place on the 28th of February, 1604, when the prelate was dying. The King appears to have been greatly moved at the scene. He told the Archbishop he would pray to God for his life, and that if he could obtain it he should think it one of the greatest temporal blessings that could be given him. The Archbishop would have said something in reply, but his speech failed him; and though he made two or three attempts to write his thoughts, he could not,-the pen falling from his hand through the power of the disease that had seized him, which was paralysis. It is said that Whitgift's death was accelerated by his mortification at James's wholesale interference in the affairs of the church; mingled, perhaps, with considerations of a more personal nature. Whitgift, assisted by certain deputies of the University of Cambridge, had drawn up at Lambeth, in 1594, certain articles, denominated the 'Nine Articles of Lambeth,' of a high Calvinistic tone, which were sent down privately to the University, with a direction from the Archbishop to use them with discretion, as Elizabeth, then on the throne, would not have given her sanction to anything of the kind. On the 14th of the month preceding that in which Whitgift died, her successor, James, held his famous Conference at Hampton Court, when it was proposed to add the Nine Articles to the general established articles of religion. But James, who then for the first time heard of them, immediately declared against needlessly extending the book with such superfluous matter. Scarcely was the breath out of the Archbishop's body when Bancroft, the next possessor of the see, began to infuse his violent spirit into the affairs of the church. Three hundred ministers were silenced or deprived in his primacy of six years. His death, and the elevation of Abbot to the vacant see, greatly improved the position of the Puritans, and they accordingly have treated the memory of the latter with much respect. "He was a man," says Clarendon, "of very morose manners and a very sour aspect, which in that time was called gravity." Hatred to Laud formed, it is said, no inconsiderable part of his motives to lenity towards the Nonconformist Puritans. During his time the commissioners for the trial of ecclesiastical causes sat frequently at Lambeth; and he complains bitterly of the cost it put him to. "I think it may be justified by my officers on oath that since I was Archbishop this thing alone has cost me out of my private estate one thousand pound and a half, and if I did say two thousand it were not much amiss, besides all my trouble of my servants, who neither directly nor indirectly gained five pounds by it in a whole year, but only travel and pains for their master's honour, and of that they had enough, my home being like a hostelry every Thursday in the term; and for my expenses no man giving so much as thanks."* His portrait here is a fine picture, of great expression and brilliant colouring, bearing the date 1610. As James, toward the latter part of his reign, found himself, in spite of his (supposed) predilections

* Whitelock's' Memorials.'

for Calvinism, driven by political considerations to discourage that mode of faith, Abbot, the Calvinistic Archbishop, grew out of favour, and was ultimately disgraced and suspended, whilst his rivals and enemies-Laud, Neile, and otherswere honoured and promoted at every opportunity. He stood, however, in the way of the former to the Archbishopric for many years. He died on the 4th of August, 1633. Laud writes in his Diary, "That very morning there came one to me, seriously, and that carried ability to perform it, and offered me to be a cardinal. I went presently to the King (Charles I.), and acquainted him both with the thing and the person." He determined, however, to be content with the primacy of England, to which he was appointed on the 19th of the following month. This is the most important and in every way interesting period in the history of Lambeth Palace; and it becomes still more interesting from the circumstance that from the Diary before mentioned we can, without quitting our text, the palace, illustrate his momentous history in his own words :

“ 1633. Sep. 19.—I was translated to the Archbishopric of Canterbury. The Lord make me able, &c. The day before, viz. Sep. 18, when I first went to Lambeth, my coach, horses, and men sunk to the bottom of the Thames in the ferry-boat, which was overladen; but, I praise God for it, I lost neither man nor horse. 1637. Thursday.-I married James Duke of Lennox to the Lady Mary Villiers, the daughter of the Lord Duke of Buckingham: the marriage was in my chapel at Lambeth; the day very rainy; the King present. 1640. May 9.-A paper posted upon the Old Exchange, animating 'prentices to sack my house upon the Monday following. May 11. Monday night.—At midnight my house was beset with 500 of these rascal routers. I had notice, and strengthened the house as well as I could; and, God be thanked, I had no harm: they continued there full two hours. Since I have fortified my house as well as I can, and hope all may be safe. May 26. Thursday.-One of the chief, being taken, was condemned at Southwark, and hanged and quartered on Saturday morning following.* Oct. 27. Tuesday. Simon and Jude's Eve.-I went into my upper study to see some

"Such a riot was in itself a serious offence, and the leaders of it subjected themselves to punishment, though no harm was done beyond threatening and hard words. But it is atrocious to see the cold-blooded manner in which the head of a Christian Church and the model historian of the royalists can speak of the hanging and quartering of the offender. Clarendon says that the man was a sailor; but neither he nor the Archbishop relates the worst part of the story. Miss Aikin, in her interesting 'Memoirs of the Court of King Charles,' makes up for this deficiency, and corrects some of their mistakes or wilful misrepresentations. She says, 'This person, named John Archer, was a drummer in the north; but, having obtained leave of absence immediately after the dissolution of parliament, he joined in the attack on Lambeth Palace, and was taken into custody. Being rescued from prison by his comrades, he was subsequently proclaimed as a traitor. The captain of his troop in the north, seeing the description of his person in the proclamation, wrote to the council to inform them where he was to be found. Upon this the poor drummer was arrested and paraded through the city by a troop of train-bands to the Tower. "On the Friday following," says a contemporary," this fellow was racked in the Tower to make him confess his companions. I do fear he is a very simple fellow, and knows little or nothing, neither doth he confess anything save against himself. But it is said there will be mercy showed to save his life; but this is more than I am yet certain of. The King's serjeants, Heath and Whitfield, took his examination on the rack last Friday." It will be recollected that, in the case of Felton, the judges had solemnly decided against the use of torture, as always, and in all circumstances, contrary to the law of England. Its subsequent employment in this case was therefore an enormity destitute of all excuse, and it can scarcely be doubted that it was perpetrated by the direction of Laud himself. In all probability the execution of the wretched victim preserved the atrocious secret in few hands, or it would surely have attracted the notice of the Long Parliament. The circumstance is mentioned by no historian, but the warrant for applying the torture still exists in the State Paper Office.' It has been printed by Mr. Jardine in his interesting tract on the Use of Torture in England."-Pictorial England, b. vii. p. 219.

manuscripts which I was sending to Oxford. In that study hung my picture taken by the life; and coming in, I found it fallen down upon the face, and lying on the floor, the string being broken by which it was hanged against the wall. I am almost every day threatened with my ruin in parliament. God grant this be no omen!

"Dec. 18. Friday.-I was accused by the House of Commons for high treason, without any particular charge laid against me; which they said should be prepared in convenient time. I was presently committed to the gentleman usher; but was permitted to go in his company to my house at Lambeth, for a book or two to read in, and such papers as pertained to my defence against the Scots. I stayed at Lambeth till the evening to avoid the gaze of the people. I went to evening prayer in my chapel. The Psalms of the day (Ps. xciii. and xciv.) and chap. 1. of Isaiah gave me great comfort. God make me worthy of it, and fit to receive it! As I went to my barge, hundreds of my poor neighbours stood there, and prayed for my safety and return to my house. For which I bless God and them. "1642. Aug. 19.-A party of soldiers [went to Lambeth] to search for arms, and, under that pretence, broke open doors and committed other outrages. Nov. 24.-The soldiers broke open the chapel-door, and offered violence to the organ, but were prevented by their captain. 1643. May 1.—The chapel windows were defaced, and the steps torn up." Lastly. May 9.-All the Archbishop's goods and books were seized on, and even the very Diary, from which the preceding extracts have been transcribed, taken by force out of his pocket.

We need not follow his history further, as it so soon ended on the scaffold, whither his royal master was speedily to follow him. His portrait is by Vandyck; we need hardly therefore say that it is a very fine one. Close to this picture is the portrait of Juxon, the prelate who attended Charles in his last moments, and received that mysterious communication conveyed in the word "Remember," which has so puzzled historians to understand. No unusual space exists between the two portraits; one would think, from merely looking at them, that no interruption had taken place. Yet what a momentous period had passed when Juxon received the appointment to the primacy in 1660-a period more thronged with great men and great events than any period of similar extent, whether in our own or in any other country! It was not probable that the men in power during that time should have much respect for Lambeth Palace, the late residence of him whose memory was linked in their minds with the atrocities of the Star Chamber. We have seen in Laud's Diary that it was occupied and defaced by troops; who, however, after all, did no very serious injury. By the Commonwealth Lambeth Palace was ordered to be used as a prison; and among the prisoners confined there were the Earls of Chesterfield and Derby; Sir Thomas Armstrong, afterwards executed for his participation in the Duke of Monmouth's rebellion; Dr. Allestry, an eminent divine; and Richard Lovelace, the poet. Sir George Bunkley, also, it is supposed, died here in confinement: his name is on the parish register. He was one of the party who so distinguished themselves in the defence of Basing House. Lambeth was put up to sale in 1648, and purchased with the manor for 70731. Os. 8d. by Colonel Thomas Scot and Matthew Hardyng. The former was Cromwell's secretary of state, and had sat on the trial of Charles I., for which he was executed, after the Restoration, at Charing Cross, in 1660. During the period