pamphlet, with Camden's eulogy of the writer as a preface; and it is likely that it was published by Walton, because in the copy which belonged to him he has made several corrections; and he always expressed great respect for Cranmer's learning and virtues.

Upon the death of William Cartwright, the poet, in 1643, Walton's muse was again employed in commemorating the worth of his friends; and the following verses were prefixed to a collection of that writer's poems, , which was published eight years after his decease:

a

I cannot keep my purpose, but must give
Sorrow and verse their way; nor will I grieve
Longer in silence; no, that poor, poor part
Of nature's legacy, verse void of art,
And undissembled tears, Cartwright shall have
Fixt on his hearse; and wept into his grave.

Muses, I need you not ; for grief and I
Can in your absence weave an elegy;
Which we will do ; and often inter-weave
Sad looks, and sighs; the ground-work must receive
Such characters or be adjudg’d unfit
For my friend's shroud : others have shew'd their wit,
Learning, and language fitly; for these be
Debts due to his great merits; but for me,
My aims are like myself, humble and low,
Too mean to speak his praise, too mean to show
The world what it hath lost in losing thee,
Whose words and deeds were perfect harmony.

But now 'tis lost ; lost in the silent grave,
Lost to us mortals, lost, till we shall have
Admission to that kingdom, where he sings
Harmonious anthems to the King of kings.
Sing on, blest soul ! be as thou wast below,
A more than common instrument to show
Thy Maker's praise : sing on, whilst I lament
Thy loss, and court a holy discontent,
With such pure thoughts as thine, to dwell with me,
Then I may hope to live and die like thee,-

To live belov’d, die mourn’d; thus in my grave
Blessings that kings have wished, but cannot have.

Iz. WA.

Walton continued to reside in Chancery Lane, until about August, 1644. He was appointed examiner of St. Dunstan's on the 27th of August, 1641; and in February, 1644, was elected a vestryman of that parish; but at a

1 Vide p. vii. antea. This Letter was reprinted by Walton at the end of his Life of Hooker, in 1665.

vestry holden on the 20th of August, in the same year, another person was chosen, “in the room of Isaak Walton lately departed out of this parish and dwelling else

where.” 3

4

a

There is some doubt respecting the place of Walton's residence between 1644 and 1651; nor can it be stated with certainty whether, as has been supposed by his former biographers, he retired from business on leaving Chancery Lane. The state of the times was little favourable to commercial industry; and as an absorbing love of gain, the common vice of mercantile pursuits, was the subject of his frequent censure, * it is most probable that he considered the small competency realized during the twenty years he had been in trade, sufficient for his future wants; more especially as he was then upwards of fifty years of age, a widower, and childless.

As might be expected from Walton's early habits and associations, he adhered steadfastly during the civil wars to the throne and the altar; and was in every sense of the word a devoted royalist. His political and religious opinions occur in almost every page of his writings; and in common with other royalists he suffered for his fidelity to his sovereign, though his comparatively obscure station and peaceable disposition, protected him from heavy sacrifices. He was an intelligent, if not an impartial witness of the great struggle which agitated the country for nearly twenty years ; and the account which he gives of many events of the period, in his life of Hooker and of Sanderson, are worthy of the attention of historians. He introduces his account of the Scotch covenanters, and the proceedings of the long parliament, in his life of Bishop Sanderson, by stating that, in the year 1639, when a party of the Scots church were desirous of reforming their kirk government,

“ this nation” was " then happy and in peace, though inwardly sick of being well ;” and thus proceeds,—“there were so many chosen into the Long Parliament, that were of a conjunct council with those very zealous and as factious reformers, as begot such a confusion by the several desires and designs in many of the members of that parliament, (all did never

5

consent), and at last in the very common people of this nation, that they were so lost by contrary designs, fears, and confusions, as to believe the Scots and their covenant would restore them to that former tranquillity which they had lost. And to that end the Presbyterian party of this nation did again, in the year 1643, invite the Scotch Covenanters back into England : and hither they came, marching with it gloriously upon their pikes and in their hats, with this motto, . For the Crown and Covenant of both Kingdoms. This I saw and suffered by it. But when I look back upon the ruin of families, the bloodshed, the decay of common honesty, and how the former piety and plain-dealing of this now sinful nation is turned into cruelty and cunning; when I consider this, I praise God that he prevented me from being of that party which helped to bring in this Covenant, and those sad confusions that have followed it. And I have been the bolder to say this of myself, because in a sad discourse with Dr. Sanderson, I heard him make the like grateful acknowledgment.”'s

Walton relates from his own knowledge the following remarkable fact respecting the execution of Archbishop Laud, which took place on the 10th of January, 1645 : “ About this time the Bishop of Canterbury having been by an unknown law condemned to die, and the execution suspended for some days, many citizens, fearing time and cool thoughts might procure his pardon, became so maliciously impudent as to shut up their shops, professing not to open them till justice was executed. This malice and madness is scarcely credible, but I saw it.”

This statement proves that Walton was in London in January, 1645; and it is certain, from the following circumstance, that he was also in the metropolis in December, 1647. The House of Commons having ordered that all professors, heads of houses, and others, in the University of Oxford should take the covenant, negative oath, and the ordinance for Church discipline and worship, or be expelled, the University requested to be allowed to state its reasons for non-compliance. A Committee was appointed to hear the arguments of the persons deputed for the purpose; and on the 2nd of December, 1647, Dr. George Morley, a particular friend of Walton's, who was then canon of Christ-church, pleaded the right of the University to be heard by counsel with great effect.? One of the members of the Committee, whom Walton describes as “a powerful man in the Parliament,” wishing to protect Morley from expulsion by the visitors who were soon afterwards dispatched to Oxford to enforce the ordinance, sent for Walton, and, he says, “ told me that he had such a love for Dr. Morley, that knowing he would not take the oaths, and must therefore be ejected his college, and leave Oxford ; he desired I would therefore write to him to ride out of Oxford when the visitors came into it, and not return till they left it, and he should be sure then to return in safety; and that by so doing he should, without taking any oath, or other molestation, enjoy his canon's place in the college. I did receive this intended kindness with a sudden gladness, because I was sure the party had a power to do what he professed, and as sure he meant to perform it, and did therefore write the doctor word; to which his answer was, that I must not fail to return my friend (who still lives) his humble and undissembled thanks, though he could not accept of his intended kindness; for when Dr. Fell (then the dean), Dr. Gardner, Dr. Paine, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Sanderson, and all the rest of the college were turned out, except Dr. Wall, he should take it to be, if not a sin, yet a shame, to be left behind with him only. Dr. Wall I knew, and will speak nothing of him, for he is dead.”

Walton does not mention the name of the member of the Committee to whom he alludes, but the conjecture that it was Mr. Swinfen, who was one of his friends, has been confirmed by a manuscript note in the copy of the Life of Bishop Sanderson, which he presented to that gentleman, where some one, and probably his granddaughter, has written, opposite to the preceding paragraph, “ my grandfather Swinfen.",

7 Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy, p. 130. Cominons' Journals, V. 83, 284.

8 Walton's Lives, ed. Zouch, II. 221, 222.

9 This copy of the “Life of Sanderson” was formerly in the possession of Mr. Pickering, the publisher of the first edition of this work. The note was probably written by Mrs. Jervis, the only child of John Swinfen, esq. and grand-daughter of the Mr. Swinfen mentioned in the text. Mrs. Jervis was the grandmother of the late Earl of St. Vincent.

Two very interesting anecdotes of Charles the First, whom Walton elsewhere calls“ the knowing and conscientious King” and “the martyr for the Church,” occur in the memoir of Sanderson, who attended his Majesty in the Isle of Wight, and had many private conferences with him on the affairs of the Church. “Let me here,” says Walton, “take occasion to tell the reader this truth, very fit, but not commonly known; that in one of these conferences this conscientious King was told by a faithful and private intelligencer, that if he assented not to the parliament's proposals, the treaty 'twixt him and them would break immediately, and his life would then be in danger; he was sure he knew it.' To which his answer was, 'I have done what I can to bring my conscience to a compliance with their proposals, and cannot; and I will not lose my conscience to save my life.' And within a very short time after, he told Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Morley, or one of them that then waited with him, that the remembrance of two errors did much afflict him, which were, his assent to the Earl of Strafford's death, and the abolishing of episcopacy in Scotland; and that if God ever restored him to be in a peaceable possession of his crown, he would demonstrate his repentance by a public confession and voluntary penance (I think barefoot) from the Tower of London or Whitehall to St. Paul's Church, and desire the people to intercede with God for his pardon. I am sure one of them, that told it me, lives still, and will witness it. And,” he adds, “it ought also to be observed, that Dr. Sanderson's Lectures “ de Juramento" were so approved and valued by the King, that in this time of his imprisonment and solitude he translated them into exact English, desiring Dr. Juxon (then Bishop of London), Dr. Hammond, and Sir Thomas Herbert (who then attended him in his restraint), to compare them with the original. The last still lives, and has declared it, with some other of that King's excellencies, in a letter under his own hand, which was lately shewed me by Sir William Dugdale, king at arms. The translation was designed to be put into the King's library at St. James's; but, I doubt, not now to be found there. 10

There is some difficulty in deciding whether the King

10 Walton's Lives, ed. Zouch, ii. 214, 217.

e