« ПредишнаНапред »
the Lord Chancellor; he says, “ by computation, less
upon his majesty's return, may possibly be granted.” Clar.St. Pap.iii. The arranging of the claims of those purchasers and
holders was a matter of great difficulty; and at last
The instances of incorrect statement in Mr. Rose's work are almost as numerous as the pages he has written. Another occurs in the paragraph we have just examined: he cites Ludlow as saying, that “authority
was given to sell the estates of the crown and the “ church"
certain conditions. But, in the pasLudi Mem. p. sage alluded to, Ludlow informs us, that authority
was given to sell the estates not of the crown and
Insults to the
Fox p. 20,
Rose, p 21.
Mr. Fox says of Monk, that he “acquiesced in the * insults so meanly put upon the illustrious corpse « of Blake, under whose auspices and command corpse of Blake. “ he had performed the most creditable services of " his life.
Mr. Rose says, rests the authority of Neale's History of the Puritans, where Neale ii. p. 58; we read that on the 30th of January, 1660, the bodies of Cromwell, Bradshaw, and Ireton were drawn upon hurdles to Tyburn and there hung up; and that towards Ib. p. 619 the latter end of this year his Majesty's warrant to the dean and chapter was obtained, to take up the bodies of such persons, who had been unwarrantably buried in the chapel of Henry the Seventh, and in other chapels and places within the collegiate church of Westminster since 1041, and to inter them in the church-yard adjacent; and on the 12th and 14th of September about twenty bodies were taken
among them, he mentions, that of Blake; and these, with some others, of lesser note, were all thrown together into one pit in the absesit e fiquen St. Margaret's “church-yard, near the back-door of Katminte krawat one of the prebendaries.” Mr. Rose boldly asserts, or even op
the want that this account has been refuted by Grey, and also by clear evidence adduced by Bishop Kennett in his Historical Register. Not troubling the reader with the refutation by Grey, we will examine the nature of comovenientat least. this clear evidence adduced by Kennett. It is fortunate that both parties are agreed in taking Kennett for their umpire; for they both rely upon the same
page of his book.
Mr. Rose admits, in the text, without giving any dates, that there was such an orHist. Reg. p.
der as Neale alludes to, and that, in consequence, the bodies of Cromwell, Ireton, &c. were dug up and ignominiously treated ; but Blake's, which he does not mention to have been dug up,
" with great decency, re-interred in St. Margaret's church
yard.” But, as it could not be re-interred, unless it had been taken up, we may conclude it was dug up in the same irreverent manner as the bodies of those, who were so ignominiously treated afterwards. And if it was dug up at all, in pursuance of the beforementioned order, Mr. Fox's observation is strictly true, that this illustrious corpse was meanly insulted. And
Mr. Rose does not deny that, if that were the case, That is not arough,
it was done with the acquiescence of Monk. But this the drait it? no not a
passage of Mr. Rose's work is deserving of more minute investigation, and is another notable instance of the boasted accuracy which occasioned him to undertake the correcting of errors in Mr. Fox's work. He describes the bodies of Cromwell, Ireton, Blake and others, to have been taken up at the same time, by the order to remove the dead bodies of those who had acted against the King, and been buried in
Westminster Abbey; but the fact is, that in pursuCom. Journ.vii. ance of a joint resolution of the House of Lords and
Commons of the sth of December, 1660, an order of both houses was made, for the carcases of Cromwell,
Ireton, Bradshaw, and Pride, whether buried in West, minster Abbey, or elsewhere, to
be with all expe“ dition taken up and drawn upon a hurdle to Ty“ burn, and there hanged in their coffins for some “ time, and after that buried under the said gallows.
Those of Ireton and Cromwell were taken up on Dart. ii. p. 144. the 26th of January, Bradshaw's on the 29th, and all three were hanged upon the gallows at Tyburn on the 30th, where they continued till the next day at sun-set, when they were cut down, the trunks buried in a hole at the foot of the gallows, and their heads Hist.Reg.P.536, placed on Westminster Hall. More than six months afterwards, viz. 10th of September, Kennet states the warrant of the King (which Neale alludes to) to have issued; and that on the 12th, and 14th of that month, the bodies of several persons mentioned were taken up, that of Blake, being one dug up on the
p. 197 * This order originated in the House of Commons on the 4th, December; and the Serjeant at Arms was ordered to take care, that “ it was put in effectual execution.” Mr. Titus was also ordered to carry it up to the Lords for their concurrence. But, probably, it occurred to some of the members that the performance of this duty did not belong to their office; and on the 6th of December he was directed to take care it should be done by the common executioner, and others, to whom it should respectively appertain; and ib. p. 202. the sheriff of Middlesex was to give his assistance. In this form it was sent to the Lords on the 7th, December, and the Lords returned it on the Sth, with the further addition, that the dean of Westminster should give directions to his officers to assist.
Ib. p. 209.
12th. But the blunders of Mr. Rose do not end here; for he has favoured his readers, in a note, with an extract from a newspaper in his possession, published on the 26th January, 1861, which correctly announces that, in pursuance of an order of Parliament, the carcases of Cromwell and Ireton were digged up out of their graves (which, with those of Bradshaw and Pride) were to be banged at Tyburn, and buried under the gallows. The next number of the paper stated the particulars, “ but," adds Mr. Rose, “ not a syllable concerning the corpse 66 of Blake.' It would have been miraculous if there had been ; for the corpse of Blake was then resting peaceably in the vault in which the gratitude of his country had deposited it. And there it remained for many months afterwards, until disturbed, in pursuance of the royal mandate. Welli Juffroue this
an error of Rove. the main fact prosed of an insult with monks acquescenu?
But Mr. Rose's accuracy has not even yet been fully appreciated, for his assertion, that the corpse was reinterred in St. Margaret's church-yard “ with great de“ cency,” is not supported by history. Neale alleges that it," along with the others, were thrown into one “ pit.” Upon appealing to Kennett, cited as before
observed, by both parties, nothing satisfactory is found, Dart, ü. p. 145. nor is Dart in his History of the Cathedral Church
of Westminster, as referred to by Kennett, more explicit. Both of these authors, probably, wishing to conceal or palliate the disgraceful treatment of the corpse