« PreviousContinue »
endured by the colonel at Sandowne Castle, appears to be over-coloured. Such an over-colouring is, however, very excusable in a devoted, idolizing wife, mourning over the loss of a husband,—and such a husband as Colonel John Hutchinson. I may add here, as an example of the accuracy with which history is commonly written, that Noble, in his “Lives of the English Regicides,” says that Colonel Hutchinson was imprisoned in the castle of Deal, instead of Sandowne. The prisoners in the Tower of London, under the keeping of Sir John Robinson, “that inhuman bloody jaylor the liestenant of the Tower,” as Mrs. Hutchinson calls him, appear, from Mrs. Hutchinson's account, to have been much worse off than Colonel Hutchinson at Sandowne Castle. It is somewhat singular that Mrs. Hutchinson was herself the daughter of Sir Allen Apsley, a former “lieftenant” of the Tower, where she had been born and brought up. Her account of the treatment of the prisoners, by Robinson, is curious and interesting. “Only the gentlemen that were the late King's judges, and decoyed to surrender themselves to custody by the House's proclamation, after that they had voted only seven to suffer, were now given up to a trial, both for their lives and estates, and put into close prison, where they were miserably kept, brought shortly after to trial, condemned, all their estates confiscated and taken away, themselves kept in miserable bondage under that inhuman bloody jaylor the liestenant of the Tower, who stifled some of them to death for want of air; and when they had not one penny, but what was given them to feed themselves and their families, exacted abominable rates
for bare unfurnished prisons; of some, forty pounds for one miserable chamber; of others, double, besides undue and unjust fees, which their poore wives were forced to beg, and engage their jointures and make miserable shifts for: and yet this rogue had all this while three pounds a weeke pay’d out of the Chequer for every one of them. At last, when this would not kill them fast enough, and when some alms were thus privately stolen in to them, they were sent away to remote and dismal islands, where relief could not reach them, nor any of their relations take care of them; in this a thousand times more miserable than those that died, who were thereby prevented from the eternal infamy and remorse which hope of life and estate made these poor men bring upon themselves, by base and false recantations of their own judgment, against their consciences; which they wounded for no advantage, but lived ever after in misery themselves, augmented by seeing the misery of their wretched families, and in the daily apprehension of death, which, without any more formality, they are to expect whenever the tyrant gives the word. And these are the “tender mercies of the wicked!”—Mrs. Hutchinson's Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson, vol. ii. pp. 268-9-70. 8vo. edit. We find it impossible to comprise within our present limits the whole account of Robinson's treatment of Colonel Hutchinson, but we refer the reader for it to page 338, and those that follow, of Mrs. Hutchinson's interesting memoir. The instances of this Robinson's oppression and cruelty, from the “Histories of the Sufferings of the Quakers” alone, would fill a volume. Mrs. Hutchinson affirms it as “certain” that an attempt to poison was made by him upon Sir Henry Vane and others, which she also strongly suspects in the case of Colonel Hutchinson. The following articles, drawn up against Robinson by Colonel Hutchinson, exhibit a very dark picture of the man's character. “ 1st. That Robinson had affirmed that the King gave no allowance to his prisoners, not so much as to those who had all their estates taken from them: and accordingly he gave them none, but converted what the King allowed to his own use, and threatened some of the prisoners with death if they offered to demand it; and suffered others, at twelve of the clock in the night, to make such a miserable outcrie for bread, that it was heard into some parts of the city, and one was absolutely starved to death for want of relief; although the King at that time told a prisoner, that he took more care for the prisoners than for his own table. 2d. That he set down to the King seven pounds a week for one prisoner, for whom he never laid out above 27 or 30 shillings a week at the most. 3d. That he not only kept back the prisoners' allowances, but exacted of them excessive rents for bare prison lodgings, and empty warders' houses unfurmisht; and if they have not punctually payed him, hath stifled them up by close imprisonment, without any order, although he knew they had not a penny to buy bread, but what came from the charity of good people. 4th. That he received salary of the King for forty warders, and had not near so many but filled up the list with false names, and took the pay to himself. 5th. That when he had received money for those warders he kept, he had detained it many months to his own use, while the poor men were thereby in miserable wants. 6th. That he sold the warders, places, and lett them houses at a dear rate, and yet took the most considerable prisoners, which ought to have been committed to them, into his own house, and made them pay him excessive rates for bed-rooms, and set his man Cressett over them, making them pay him for attendance what the warders should have had. 7th. That he made many false musters in his own company belonging to the Tower, and though he had received the soldiers' money, was run in arrears to them five or six pounds a man; at which they cruelly murmured, because by this means their maintenance was streightened, and their duty brought more frequent upon them. 8th. That, notwithstanding all his defrauding, oppressive, and exacting ways of raising money, he had ungratefully complained of the King's scanty recompence of his service. 9th. That after the starving of the poor prisoners, and their miserable outcry, when shame forced him to allow about a dozen poor tradesmen ten shillings a piece, though at that time he received forty of the King for each of them, he and his man Cressett denied the King's allowance, and said it was his own charity. 10th. That he was frequently drunk; out of the Tower till twelve, one, and two of the clock; and threatened one of the warders, who came one night to fetch him home, with Newgate, and spited him ever after.” To this person Heylyn dedicated his Life of Laud.” “Dignum Laude virum musa vetat mori.” Worthy of the patron were the work and the subject.
II. GOOD FRIDAY.
IN Catholic countries, not only this day, but the whole of the week in which it occurs, and which is called the “Holy Week,” is observed with the greatest solemnity. The observances, however, were much neglected, or Suppressed altogether as papistical, in the countries that adopted the reformation. In England, during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I, some respect seems to have been paid to the day by the established-church party; but from the times of the civil wars this practice was given up, and, as is still the case in Scotland and some other protestant countries, no difference was made between Good Friday and any other Friday in the year. The restoration of the day to its ancient holy consideration is quite a recent event.
In 1777, the Hon. Frederic Cornwallis, as Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of England, resolved that Good Friday should again be observed as a holy-day,+a day of fasting and prayer, and he carried his point; though not without violent animadversions from the presbyterians and other dissenters, who insisted that this measure was calculated to carry us back to the superstitions and ceremonies of the Roman catholic church. One of the most active and influential co-operators with the Archbishop, was Beilby Porteus, author of the poem on Death, who was at the time Bishop of Chester, but who was afterwards translated to the see of London. Porteus, in consequence, came in for a full share of the censure; nor was his admirer and patron, George the