Bishop Burnet confirms Dr. Gauden's statement that he had informed the Duke of York. Burnet had himself always believed the book to be the King's own work, and was, he says, not a little surprised when, in the year 1673, being engaged in conversation with the Duke of York upon the subject of religion, and having urged upon him some argument drawn from what he supposed to be his father's book, he told him "that book was not "of his father's writing." . . . "He said Dr. Gauden "wrote it. After the Restoration he brought the Duke "of Somerset and the Earl of Southampton both to the King and to himself, who affirmed that they knew it

66

was his writing, and that it was carried down by the "Earl of Southampton,' and showed the King during "the treaty of Newport, who read it, and approved of "it as containing his sense of things.'

192

In addition to this testimony that the authorship claimed by Dr. Gauden was admitted by Charles II. as well as by the Duke of York, may be cited his answer to Dr. Reynolds. During a controversy on Church government, in presence of the King, Dr. Reynolds produced the 'Icon Basilike' in support of his opinions,

The Duke of York's memory was probably at fault in saying the Earl of Southampton instead of the Marquis of Hertford carried the MS. down to the Isle of Wight; they probably went there together, but Gauden and his wife both distinctly say it was confided to the care of the Marquis of Hertford.

2 Bishop Burnet adds that the Duke of York also told him " that "Sheldon and the other Bishops opposed Gauden's promotion because he "had taken the Covenant, yet the merits of that service carried it for him, "notwithstanding the opposition made to it."-Burnet's 'Hist. of his own Times,' vol. i. p. 87, Oxford edit., 1823.

The controversy was maintained by Bishop Morley on the side of the Bishops and by Dr. Baxter on that of the Presbyterian ministers,

to which Charles with more candour than discretion immediately replied-" All that is in that book is not Gospel."

ן

It was in the power of the Marquis of Hertford, of Bishop Duppa, Bishop Morley, and probably of the Earl of Southampton, to have cleared away any doubts on the mind of either Charles or the Duke of York respecting the authorship of their father's reputed work. Yet it was manifest that the two brothers remained in the belief that Dr. Gauden was the author. Lord Clarendon expressed his belief to his son that "Lord Hert"ford had satisfied the King in that matter;" and it is utterly incredible that, if he did satisfy him in any way but one, Dr. Gauden's pretensions would ever have been listened to, or that his claims would have been treated otherwise than with the scorn and resentment due to an audacious impostor and an injurious calumniator of the late King's honour."

It would be tedious and uncalled for here to retrace

'Bates's Funeral Sermon on the Death of Baxter, December, 1691. 2 The statements of James Clifford, that Mr. Oudart, secretary to Sir Edward Nicholas, transcribed the original of the Icon,' and lodged the original in Lord Hertford's own hand, and of Captain Strangeways, that Lord Hertford had lent him for a time the original of the Icon,' written in his own hand (quoted by Dr. Wordsworth, Letter i. p. 138), may be safely rejected. If Lord Hertford had been in possession of the original MS written in the King's hand, which appears to be the meaning of these statements, he would undoubtedly have produced this precious deposit after the Restoration, which would have been treated as little short of a sacred relic by the party then in power, and thus have silenced Dr. Gauden's claims, and have put an end to all possible questions respecting the authenticity of the work. Nor indeed, if Lord Hertford had ever had in his possession the original of the Icon' in the King's own writing, can it be conceived that he should have died without leaving an attestation of the memorable fact.

1

the chain of evidence so carefully arranged and the line of argument so ably maintained by other hands,' and which the unsuccessful attempts to re-establish Charles as the author of the Icon Basilike' have had the good fortune to draw forth. It is the part borne by Lord Hertford in the matter and the mention of Lord Capell that gives any discussion on the Icon' a place in these Lives, and it is not intended to enter upon the more general question of all the proofs adduced in support of the King's authorship, or the facts brought forward to which those proofs have yielded.2

Mrs. Gauden states in her narrative that her husband showed his work to Lord Capell before it was confided to Lord Hertford. This has been treated as almost physically impossible, on the ground that Lord Capell must have been enclosed at that time within the walls of Colchester.3 But Mrs. Gauden does not specify the time at which her husband's MS. was shown to Lord Capell; she only says that "immediately after” there was a treaty with his Majesty at Newport. The objection, therefore, turns upon the sense in which the

Art. I. No. 87, of the Edinburgh Review,' on Who wrote Icon Basilike? by Ch. Wordsworth, D.D.,' by Sir James Mackintosh (reprinted in his collected works); also, note on Eikon Basilike' in Hallam's 'Constitutional History,' vol. ii. p. 635.

2 It is for this reason that no mention has been made of the important evidence of Dr. Walker, who lived as tutor in Dr. Gauden's family, of Gauden's correspondence with the Earl of Bristol, &c.

3 Dr. Wordsworth says, "Take the lady at her word, understand the "circumstances which she has imparted according to any ordinary accepta"tion of the terms, and then I do not scruple to say that the interview "spoken of is exceedingly improbable, almost (I might say) morally-in"deed, I think I might nearly maintain it to be physically-impossible."'Who wrote the Icon ?' Letter i. p. 124.

word "immediate" was used. In the beginning of the month of June Lord Capell was actively employed in raising troops in Hertfordshire;' on the 13th of June he was shut up at Colchester. In July the question was mooted in Parliament as to the propriety of sending to the King to propose a personal treaty; and the first Commissioners for that purpose were sent on the 3rd of August to the Isle of Wight. The Marquis of Hertford did not go thither till the 6th of September; but from the moment the treaty was in question, Dr. Gauden probably saw an opening for sending his work to the King. No other event intervened between the showing the MS. to Lord Capell and the confiding it to Lord Hertford that could assist this purpose; if, therefore, Mrs. Gauden used the word "immediate" in the sense of such time as intervened between Lord Capell being at large and the first prospect of the treaty being commenced, it cannot fairly be considered as even a stretch of its meaning.

The choice of Lord Capell, as the first person to whom Dr. Gauden thought fit to submit his MS., was rendered the more probable from the circumstance that Dr. Simons, with whom Dr. Gauden lived on terms of intimacy, and who was eventually the means of conveying it to Royston the printer, was also a friend of Lord Capell, and held the living of Rayne, in Essex, of which Lord Capell was the patron.3

2

'Whitelock's Memorials,' p. 307.

"We do know," says Dr. Wordsworth, "that there was a close intimacy between Lord Capell and another clergyman, Mr. Edward (Si“mons) Symmons."-Letter i. p. 125.

Mr. Symmons, of Raine (Rayne), was also one of the King's chaplains.

That Lord Hertford did carry the MS. to the King at the time of the treaty of Newport is asserted by Dr. Gauden's letters and by Mrs. Gauden's narrative, and that he was privy to the secret was evidently believed by Charles II. and the Duke of York, by Bishop Burnet, to whom the Duke of York had told it, and by the Chancellor Clarendon. The Duke of York had doubtless been originally informed that the Marquis of Hertford had conveyed the MS. to the King in the Isle of Wight, but by an error of memory confounded him with his companion the Earl of Southampton. The Chancellor believed also that the Marquis of Hertford had "satisfied the King in the matter;" and the King having been satisfied by his unimpeachable testimony, Dr. Gauden's claims to promotion were admitted and acted upon, instead of being ignominiously rejected as fraudulent attempts to exact a reward for services which he had never rendered, and as a gross insult to the memory of Charles I. and to his family. Had Dr. Gauden's claims not been well founded, and known and admitted by those in authority to be well founded, the pillory and not a bishopric would probably have been his reward.'

-Letter i. p. 126. Rayne was one of the family seats belonging to the Capell family, and is now in possession of the Earl of Essex, to whom the presentation of the living also belongs.

66

1 A monument to Bishop Gauden was erected by his widow in Worcester Cathedral, the inscription on which speaks of his memory, quam scripta "haud sinent perire"-apparently a covert allusion to his authorship of the Icon,' for his writings published in his own name were not important. The epitaph is given at length in Thomas's Survey of the Cathedral Church of Worcester,' London, 1737, p. 52. Mr. Valentine Green, 'History and Antiquities of the City and Suburbs of Worcester,' London, 1796, vol. i. p. 148, remarks that this monument seems to countenance the idea that Bishop Gauden is the author of the 'Icon.' Over the epitaph is a

VOL. III.

I