tioned, e. g. The last entry for February, 1643-4, is, "Sir John Gell routed a party of the King's horse under Colonel Hastings, took 120 horse, many prisoners and their arms." Ten days later Whitelocke records that "the Clergy and others being summoned to Leicester to take the covenant, and very many of them coming in, Colonel Hastings with 400 of the King's horse roamed about the country, and took about 100 prisoners of those that were going to take the covenant, and drove the rest home again. Upon this, about 200 horse were sent from Leicester, who unexpectedly fell into the quarters of Hastings, rescued all the prisoners, dispersed his troops, took 50 of them prisoners, and 140 horse and arms." According to the same historion an unusual misadventure. befel him in the following October. "A party of Colonel Hastings his men came into Lougborough on the Lord's day, rode into church in sermon time, and would have taken the preacher away out of the pulpit, but the women rescued him, and proved then more valiant than their husbands, or Hastings his men."

It would be easy to multiply instances; but these which we have selected will suffice-they tell of a man. whose energy was unrestrained by prudence, and whose enterprises were seldom illuminated by success.

Within three days after the defeat at Naseby, Hastings surrendered Leicester to Fairfax, an act which apparently displeased the King, for Whitelocke states on the following 13th August that "at Lichfield the King confined Colonel Hastings for delivering up of Leicester."

Lichfield had been captured by Rupert in April, 1643, after a gallant defence, and Colonel Henry Bagot

had been appointed Governor of the place. Between Bagot and Hastings a fierce feud sprung up which was remembered with acrimonious resentment by the latter even after Bagot had met a soldier's death in the service of the Crown. On 25th July, 1645, writing from Lichfield to Rupert on the subject of an appointment, which we presume was that of successor to Bagot, he says, "I beseech you, Sir, give me leave to tell you that Town Adjutant Shrimshaw was the chief assistant Colonel Bagot used in his opposition against me, and our minds both too high to acknowledge a superiority, his present expressions declaring an impossibility of our agreement, which must needs be destructive to the King's service." What the result of this letter was we cannot say, but it is evident that the feuds at Lichfield were unappeased, and at length that they needed the intervention of Sir Jacob Astley to compose them.

The subsequent career of Hastings is the subject of several notes in Whitelocke. On 23rd February, 1645-6, the articles for the surrender of Ashby de la Zouche were received by the Parliament, and it was agreed that the estate of Colonel Hastings should be discharged of sequestration. He was again in arms, however, in 1648, and assisted in the gallant and vain defence of Colchester. He was taken prisoner when that town was surrendered to Fairfax, and Whitelocke states was banished the kingdom by the Parliament. However, he was at a little later date a prisoner in Windsor Castle, and escaped from that place on the evening of 30th January, 1649, the memorable day on which Charles perished on the scaffold.

James Stewart, Duke of Lenox, Hereditary High

Steward and High Admiral of Scotland, was nearly related to Charles. He was born in 1612, and having completed his education by foreign travel, returned to England.

He was born to great possessions, and added to them by his marriage to the daughter of the Duke of Buckingham. He was appointed Privy Councillor immediately on his return to England, and was subsequently made Lord Steward, Warden of the Cinque Ports, and created Duke of Richmond.

He was a most devoted subject and servant of the Crown. He had at his command all that could make life conspicuous. Youth, wealth, an ample patrimony, and an ancient and honoured name-yet without hesitation he perilled everything, except the last, in defence of the King he reverenced and the benefactor he loved.

grave faults and

Charles was guilty of many weaknesses, but at least he won the attachment of faithful friends, and when he was convinced of their fidelity could repay it with confidence and trust; in the Duke of Richmond he recognised a kinsman bound to him by the recollection of past favours, and sincerely loyal to his person and his cause. Others had motives of selfishness to gratify or ambition to serve: one man desired to command his armies, another to control his councils, and a third to earn his gifts; each of them had some personal end to gratify, some private pique to avenge, or some exalted position to maintain or seize. Richmond stood alone; his wealth was sufficient for his needs, his position satisfied his pride, and he had no motive of interest or cupidity to color his advocacy or biass his mind,

He is spoken of by Clarendon as being in 1639 the only councillor about the King who "had the least consideration for his honour," and in 1641 as "almost the only man of great quality and consideration who did. not in the least degree stoop or make court" to the Malcontents, "but crossed them boldly in the house." In the troubled scenes which then occurred he became the mark of repeated attacks, for he was known to be incorruptible, and it was felt he must therefore be disgraced. "His great and haughty spirit," unbending honour, and uncompromising speech, never quailed before the power, the insolence, or the intellect of the factions to which he was opposed.

When war broke out he attached himself to the person of the King. He had a great though silent influence in the little Court at Oxford, and his advice, as far as we can trace it, was sound and wise. He seems to have endeavoured to allay the feuds that recklessly weakened the royal cause, and, so far as Rupert was concerned, his aim was evidently to soothe his haughty and impracticable spirit, and to explain away the slights which might otherwise have led to serious discord in the camp as well as in the Court.

Richmond preserved his consistency of character and conduct to the last. He faithfully served the King in various negociations for peace with the Parliament; when Charles was in prison he unsuccessfully sued to be allowed to share his captivity, and when the regicides had passed their sentence the Duke vainly asked to be allowed to see his master and accompany him to the scaffold. He was present on the dreary day when the royal corpse was committed to the earth amid the sighs

and silent prayers of a few weeping mourners, and then he left England to follow the fortunes of his master's son, and die of a broken heart in an alien land.

The Commission held by Rupert, the power it vested in him, and the extent to which he was subject to control was constantly matter of debate. The tone of the letter (No. 14) of the Duke dated Oxford, 21 April, is eminently that of a peace maker. Plans were certainly discussed at the Council, of the nature of those to which the Prince objected, but the intention was "to propound only by way of question all things of moment," and not to give orders to him about them. If the truth was

spoken somewhat plainly on some points, they were points which the Council was acquainted with, such "as settinge downe the King's condition here" to a greater extent than Rupert-and even that discussion was held. in the presence of William Legge, the most trusted servant. and truest friend of the Prince.

Letter No. 18 must have been written on 18th September, 1643, for it states "Last night my Lord Digby writt to your Highness by the King's orders on the receipt of yours from Stamford," and Lord Digby's letter is dated 17th September, 1643.*

It was written at a critical period. After Rupert had won Bristol the Royal army, flushed with victory and confident of success, had beleaguered Gloucester. That city, surrounded by a ditch and a mouldering wall, was supposed to be incapable of defence, and after it had fallen the Cavaliers anticipated an easy and triumphant march to London. The fortifications of Gloucester were

See Warburton History. Rupert and the Cavaliers, p, 290, vol. 3, where it is printed at length,