Charles's letters we were likely once to have had; but by the uncommon care of the

tensions in so great a fault: and which as his sacred majestie of England, in the true sense of honour of his mother, doth abhor, and will punish, so he expect his [Denmark's] concurrence, in vindicating a sister of so happy memory, and by whom so near an union and continued league of amity, hath been produced between the families and kingdoms. These things were to be urged by Cockeram to the Danish king, in order, we may suppose, to inflame him against the parliament, and thereby procure a loane of 100,000l. in money, 6000 musquets, 1500 horse-arms, and 20 pieces of fieldartillery mounted, together with some horse-men"." These instructions have no date; but they must have been given about the middle of the year 1642, at the latest; for we read in Whitlock," that in November, that year, letters from Holland to the king were intercepted, whereby notice is given him of store of ammunition and money sent to him from thence, and of an ambassador coming from Denmark to the king, and colonel Cockeram with him "."-Milton speaks of this suspicion, mentioned of his mother's chastity, in the following terms: "Was it not dishonourable in himself [Charles] to feign suspicions and jealousies, which we found among those letters [taken at Naseby], touching the chastity of his mother, thereby to gain assistance from the king of Denmark, as in vindication of his sister." It looks by this, that Milton was unacquainted with the rumours of that queen's amours*. These instructions to Cockran were afterwards made

friends to his memory they were suppressed 27, and will not, in all probability, ever

use of by the parliament to Charles's disadvantage, as we may learn from the following passage.-Feb. 11, 1647, "Debate upon the declaration touching no more addresses to the king, and voted upon hearing proofs, that his majesties instructions to Mr. Cockeram-be inserted in the declaration, and ordered it to be printed and published ".”

What I have here inserted, is merely to discharge the duty of an historian. I am accountable for nothing contained in these letters and instructions: whether they are honourable or disgraceful to their author, the reader, as he has a right, will and must judge. But I cannot conclude this note without observing, that the artifice of the editors of Charles's works was poor and ineffectual. They thought to have buried thesę writings in oblivion, by omitting them in their collection; they imagined that for the future men would not think of them. But the thought was vain, as they had made so much noise in the world, and had been inserted in so many different collections; and the event has shewn, that historical inquirers have come to the knowledge of them, and declared their contents. For all writers have not been so very complaisant to the memory of this monarch as Mr. Hume, who passes over so remarkable a letter as what is here quoted to Gregory XV. with only saying, "that the prince [Charles] having received a very civil letter from the pope, he was induced to return a very civil answer "."

b

27 More of Charles's letters we were likely once to have had; but by the friends to his memory they were suppressed.] The following quotation, as it contains

a Whitlock, p. 291.

b

History of Great Britain, p. 100.

see the light. All that remains now to be

something remarkable, so will it be new to a great many of my readers, who, I doubt not, will be pleased with my giving it them at length." The most exceptionable part of Charles I.'s character, and what appears to have been the main source of his misfortunes, and occasion of his ruin, was his want of sincerity in all matters, in which his power and prerogative were concerned. This is too clearly proved by many public facts, to be denied by any impartial person; and might have been still more strongly evinced, if the friends to the king's memory had not taken an uncommon care to suppress such evidences as would have discredited their panegyrics upon him. A remarkable instance of this zeal appears from a letter of Dr. Charles Hickman [afterwards bishop of Londonderry], chaplain to Laurence Hyde earl of Rochester, the younger son of the earl of Clarendon, and the editor of his history. This letter was written by the doctor, at the desire of his patron, to Dr. Thomas Sprat, bishop of Rochester, to request that prelate's concurrence for preventing the intended publication of a collection of letters of king Charles I. to his queen; which must have been different from those taken in his cabinet at Naseby, since the latter had not only been published by order of the long parliament, but likewise several times reprinted, and particularly with that king's works. But the former 'collection has never seen, nor is ever likely to see the light; as it is probable, that those who appear, from Dr. Hickman's letter, so zealous for his majesty's memory, would sacrifice to his honour what they thought so inconsistent with it. This suppression of important facts, in favour of particular characters and parties, is little less criminal than the absolute falsification of them and such a violation of one of the first laws of

mentioned of the production of this king's

history has been the great source of the corruption of it, whether civil or ecclesiastical." Dr. Hickman's letter is as follows:

46 MY LORD,

"Last week Mr. Bennet [a bookseller] left with me a manuscript of letters from king Charles I. to his queen ; and said it was your lordship's desire and Dr. Pelling's, that my lord Rochester would read them over, and see what was fit to be left out in the intended edition of them. Accordingly my lord has read them over, and upon the whole matter says, he is very much amazed at the design of printing them; and thinks that king's enemies could not have done him a greater discourtesy. He shewed me many passages, which detract very much from the reputation of the king's prudence, and something from his integrity; and, in short, he can find nothing throughout the whole collection, but what will lessen the character of the king, and offend all those who wish well to his memory. He thinks it very unfit to expose any man's conversation and familiarity with his wife, but especially that king's; for it was apparently his blind side, and his enemies gained great advantage by shewing it. But my lord hopes his friends will spare him; and therefore he has ordered me not to deliver the book to the bookseller, but put it into your lordship's hands; and when you have read it, he knows you will be of his opinion. If your lordship has not time to read it all, my lord has turned down some leaves, where he makes his chief objections. If your lordship sends any servant to town, I beg you would order him to call here for the book, and that you would take care about it.

"Here is a hot discourse that the warrant is signed

pen, is a copy of verses 28, written at Caris

my

for lord Preston's execution; but I cannot believe it. My lord, I humbly beg your lordship's blessing; and remain your most dutiful son, and humble servant,

"To the right reverend the lord bishop of Rochester, at Bromley in Kent.

"This letter was written some time between the 17th of January, 1690, and the 16th of February following, tho' the precise day be uncertain; and it is transcribed from the Harleian library of manuscripts, 161, c. 18, fol. 189, which was purchased in 1753 by the parliament, and now made part of the British Museum":" so that there can be no possible doubt of its authenticity.

This letter, as it tends little to the honour of the memory of Charles, reflects somewhat on the character of lord Rochester, and may possibly tempt the reader to pay the less regard to the protestation he makes, of his not daring to take on him to make any alterations in his father's history; it being to be suspected, that he who scruples not, out of party-views, to conceal the truth, may on occasion pervert it, to answer the same purposes.

28

25 A copy of verses, &c.] This poem has the title of Majesty in Misery: or an Imploration to the King of Kings. It is said to have been written by his majesty at Carisbrook Castle, in the year 1648.

It is somewhat long; but as it is little known, and perhaps may gratify the reader's curiosity, and enable him to judge of the poetical talents of Charles, I will

insert it.

2 Appendix to the Enquiry into the Share K. Charles I. had in Glamorgan's Transactions, p. 12. See Preface to the 1st vol. of