attendance; but what he thought of the Restoration, or how the good townsmen of Hull (the first town which shut its gates against the sovereign, 1642, and which Governor Overton had but a little before refused to surrender till King James should come to claim it) were affected by the revival of royalty, his letters do not inform us. Perhaps it was not thought prudent that any record of his sentiments on that occasion should survive. We may be certain that he never contemplated a fruitless opposition to a measure which was the will of the people, and the necessity of the state; but surely he would, with the smallest chance of success, have demanded from the royal party such securities as civil and religious liberty required.

The most remarkable feature in his parliamentary dispatches is, that he scarcely ever speaks of himself. He says little or nothing of his own aid or opposition to any particular measure, though it is not difficult to perceive the drift of his opinions. To his private affairs he scarcely alludes, unless it be to thank the corporation for some present or enquiry. He, indeed, manifestly writes under some degree of restraint, knowing that the sanctity of a seal is not always respected by a jealous government in perilous times. The first letters, from November 20th to December 29th, refer chiefly to the settlement of the revenue; the excise, half of which was given to the King for life, and the other half granted in perpetuum to the Crown; the abolition of the Court of Wards; the £70,000 per month for the disbanding of the army; the tonnage and poundage; the £100,000 to be raised upon lands in the several counties, (the apportioning of which gave rise, as might be expected, to much and angry discussion), which £100,000 was afterwards levied upon the excise of ale and beer; and the £1,200,000 to be settled upon his Majesty. The Act of Indemnity, and the trial of the regicides, transpired before the commencement of the correspondence, and Marvell makes no allusion to either.* Perhaps he could not have done so without committing both himself and his correspondents. Of ecclesiastical matters he says but little, though he speaks with approbation "of that very good Bill for erecting and augmenting vicarages out of all impropriations belonging to Archbishops, Bishops, Deans and Chapters, or any other ecclesiastical person or corporation, to £80 per annum, where the impropriation amounts to £120, and where less, to one moiety of the profits of such impropriations." He

In his sixth letter, (Dec. 20th, 1660,) he just mentions the "Bill of attainder, against those that had been executed, those that are fled, and of Cromwell, Bradshaw, Ireton, and Pride," but makes no remark, on the pitiful attempt to wreak vengeance on the carcases of the latter, by dragging them on a hurdle to Tyburn, hanging them awhile in their coffins, and burying them under the gallows.

casually mentions, once or twice, the King's Declaration in religious matters, which it was proposed to pass into a law; but the bill to that effect was lost by 183 against 157. This declaration was intended to satisfy the Presbyterians; and would, in fact, had it been carried into effect, have grafted the Presbyterian system on Episcopacy, and reduced the Hierarchal power to little more than an honourable presidency.* On the rejection of this measure, Marvell observes, "so there's an end of that bill; and for those excellent things therein, we must henceforth rely only on his Majesty's goodness, who, I must needs say, hath been more ready to give, than we to receive." In all his earlier letters he speaks respectfully and favourably of Charles and the Royal Family, and seems to have entertained hopes of a just and equal government, a true and comprehensive amnesty of all past offences between Prince and subject, between all sects and parties, between each man and his neighbour.

In speaking of the measures then on foot for establishing the militia, he advises rather to "trust to his Majesty's goodness," than to "confirm a perpetual and exorbitant power by law." This sentiment not only shews that the patriot was not then ill-affected towards the restored line, but proves him to have been a truly wise and liberal statesman; unlike too many champions of liberty, who, in their dread of prerogative, have unwarily strengthened the tyranny of law, a thing without bowels or conscience, and overlooks the chronic diseases of custom, which slowly but surely reduce the body politic to a condition of impotence and dotage.

Andrew was never so much absorbed by politics as to forget business. He paid sedulous attention to the interests of his borough, and of each of his constituents, and watched narrowly the progress of private bills.

We cannot participate the surprise of some of Marvell's biographers at the tokens of respect which he and his partner received from the

"In this declaration the King promised that he would provide suffragan Bishops in all the large dioceses; that the prelates should all of them be regular and constant preachers; that they should not confer ordinations, or exercise any jurisdiction, without the advice of Presbyters, chosen by the diocese; that such alterations should be made in the Liturgy as should render it totally unexceptionable; that, in the mean time, the use of that mode should not be imposed on such as were unwilling to receive it; and that the surplice, the cross in baptism, and the bowing at the name of Jesus, should not be rigidly insisted on."-Hume.

It is easy to conjecture what Andrew Marvell considered as the excellent things in this declaration. The constant preaching of the Bishops he would freely have left to their Lordships' own discretion: to crossings or bowings he had neither attachment nor antipathy. The Bulimia for sermons which afflicted the Puritans was one of the most distressing maladies that ever appeared in Christendom.

worthy corporation of Hull, or suppose that more modern senators would sneer at a cask of ale. Did not Joseph Hume graciously receive a butt of cider? And did not the Orthodox of Cheshire express their admiration of the late Duke of York's Anti-Catholic declaration by presenting him with a mighty cheese? In acknowledging a donation of British beverage, Andrew writes thus (Letter 7th, Dec. 8th):"We are now both met together, and shall strive to do you the best service we are able. We must first give you thanks for the kind present you have pleased to send us, which will give us occasion to remember you often; but the quantity is so great, that it might make sober men forgetful."

On the 29th of December the King in person dissolved the Parliament with a most gracious speech. All hitherto had gone smooth. The King signified, at parting, a great satisfaction in what had been done, and that it was very shortly his intention to call another Parlia ment. This dissolution did not interrupt Marvell's correspondence with Hull, neither did he quit London, or take any measures to secure his re-election, which doubtless he knew to be sure enough. His letters during the intervals of Parliament are chiefly taken up with news, among which the movements of the King and Royal Family occupy a conspicuous place. It would seem that the Mayor and Corporation of Hull did not take in a newspaper, though several had been issued during the civil war, particularly the Mercurius Aulicus, or Court Journal, and the Mercurius Rusticus, the reporter of the Republicans. It was, moreover, the practice of the Puritan clergy, in their prayers, to make a recapitulation of the events of the week, under the form of thanksgiving, or remonstrance. The pulpit, in its bearings upon the people, then exerted the power which now belongs to the periodical press.

Marvell complains of the stoppage of letters, and, that even under ordinary circumstances, the several porters carried them about in their walks, and that so much time was lost. The admirable arrangement and dispatch, with the general sacredness of epistolatory communication, is one of the highest blessings which England for many years has enjoyed. It is true that the commerce of the heart is still subject to heavy duties, which we would gladly see diminished, as they might be with advantage to the revenue. Thousands of letters are unwritten from regard to the expense of postage.

In January, 1661, took place the mad insurrection of Venner and the Millenarians. To this Marvell cautiously alludes in his letter of the 12th of January, as an insurrection of rude and desperate fellows. It only deserves notice as the first in that series of plots, real and

imaginary, Popish, Millenarian, and Republican, which made the reign of the Second Charles as sanguinary as it was licentious.

Reports were already growing rife of conspiracies in various quarters. "Still it is my ill fortune," says Marvell, "to meet with some rumour or other, (as I did yesterday at the Exchange,) of a plot against Hull, (I think indeed those have so that divulge such falsehoods,) but I am not failing to suppress any such thing where I meet with it.

*

* *

I saw, within this week, a letter from a person who dwells not in your town, but near, that your governor was turning out all the inhabitants who had been in the Parliament's service; I believe one is as true as the other." It will not be forgotten, that Hull was a depot in which the Parliament placed much confidence, and where the Presbyterian interest was strong.

The high-church party, who had indeed the plea of retaliation, both for their present suspicions and for their meditated severities, interpreted the apocalyptic frenzy of Venner and the fifth-monarchy-men, as a sample of Presbyterian loyalty; although in the millenial reign of the saints, there were to be no more Presbyters than Bishops. But any pretext will serve a court to break its word if it be so inclined. It would seem that the good people of Hull, were anxious to retain their old ministers, or at least to have the choice of their new ones. Marvell, their honest counsellor, presses upon them the necessity of unanimity, and the imperative duty of providing, freely and liberally, a maintenance for their pastors. He also admonishes them that in case of the excise being farmed, they should bid its fair value to Government, and not, by a niggardly offer, put it into the hands of a foreigner,* "who❞ says he, “will not stick to outbid you, so he may thereby be forced to oppress you." He takes care to sprinkle his letters with loyalty; whether sincerely, or prudently, it matters not to enquire. Thus, Jan. 3, 1660-61, "The last of December here was an ugly false report got abroad, that his Majesty was stabbed, which made the guard be up in arms all night. I doubt not the same extraordinary hand that hath hitherto guided him, will still be his protection against all attempts of discontented persons or parties." Jan. 12, "The Queen having embarked, and at sea, was forced to put back, by the Princess Henriettat falling

Foreigner. By Marvell spelt Forainer. We do not remember to have met in any more recent author, the word Foreigner used thus merely for one who is not a townsman. We do not think it necessary, in our extracts, to preserve Andrew's orthography, which, like every body's in that age, was extremely irregular; the same word is frequently spelt in different letters on the same page.

+ From this Princess Henrietta, married to the Duke of Orleans, is descended the present King of Sardinia, whose contingent relationship to the British crown has been

C

sick; so the Queen is landed again, and the Princess on shipboard in the port at Portsmouth, the meazles being thick upon her, and too dangerous to carry her ashore at present; but we hear that, God be praised, there is all good hopes of her recovery. I beseech God to stay his hand from further severity in that Royal Family wherein the nation's being and welfare is so much concerned."

Marvell does not seem to have sympathized with the anti-monarchial prejudices of Milton. He is said to have written a most pathetic letter on the execution of King Charles. Could it by no means be recovered? Certainly he expressed not pity merely, but admiration for that Prince, and that too in an ode addressed to Oliver Cromwell, but so worded, that it may pass either for a satire or an eulogy on the Protector. We shall give some extracts when we come to speak of Marvell as a poet.

The new Parliament met on the 8th of May, 1661. Marvell was re-elected seemingly without opposition; but instead of Mr. John Ramsden, (who was probably related to William Ramsden, the mayor of Hull, to whom the earlier letters are addressed,) his partner was Colonel Gilby, who seems to have started on the court interest. Some unrecorded heart-burnings took place between the associates at the election, which ended in an open rupture, which did not, however, prevent Marvell from co-operating with the Colonel, when the good of their constituents required. April 6th,* (Letter 14th,) he thus acknowledges his election, which had passed without his appearing or haranguing from the hustings :-" I perceive you have again" (as if it were a thing of course) "made choice of me, now the third time, to serve you in Parliament; which as I cannot attribute to any thing but your constancy, so God willing, as in gratitude obliged, with no less constancy and vigour, I shall continue to execute your commands, and study your service." In his next communication, (May 16th,) he speaks of the bill for confirmation of ministers in a manner which shews him apprehensive that the Episcopal party might go to extremes. The inhabitants of Hull were especially desirous to obtain the patronage of their own

made a bugbear of by those loyal persons who hold that the removal of catholic disabilities annuls the title of the present Royal Family. Certainly her daughter, the Duchess of Savoy, took care to reserve her own right by protesting against the Act of Settlement, in 1700.

"Tis two

In the same 14th letter is a piece of intelligence worth transcribing :days news upon the Exchange, that some French in the bay of Canada, have discovered the long-looked for North-west Passage." This letter also contains an account of the new peerages to be created in honour of the approaching coronation. Charles II. was crowned April 13, 1661, nearly a year after his restoration. What was the reason of so long a delay ?