tending to afford still further explanation of the circumstances already referred to. We conceive, that their historical importance ought, by no means, to be estimated according to the subject to which they immediately relate. Mutatis mutandis, they will apply to the situation of half the property in the kingdom, exposed to the insolence and rapacity of the sequestrators, for whose acts it can hardly be said, however, that the government itself was fairly answerable.

66

1st. That Sir John Acland was in Exeter at the time of the surrender thereof to Sir Thomas Fairfax, and had the benefit of the articles.

"2nd. That, by the articles, he was not to be molested or troubled for four months, and had liberty thereby to dispose of his goods, which accordingly he did, to Mr. Henry Turpin, for £500.

"3rd.—That about the 30th of May, 1646, the serjeant of Exeter, with eight or ten musqueteers, came to the house of the said Sir John Acland, and attached his goods, as they said, for £100, at the suit of Mr. Evans, the said Evans standing at the street door in the mean time.

4th. The said Evans afterwards demands £200 more upon the said goods.

"5th.-In January following, the serjeant delivered up the keys of the goods into the court, (the said Evans undertaking to save him harmless,) which the said Evans took into his custody, and shortly after broke open the outer door of the house, where his goods were, and accordingly possessed himself of said goods,

"6th.-In

term, afterwards, the said Sir John Acland put

bail to his action to answer the case.

"Whether Sir John, being a freeman of the town, could have his goods attached without notice?"

The next paper is without date or signature.

66

(Qu.) That the Lady Acland's jointure was settled on her since these troublesome times, and since Sir John, her husband, was declared a delinquent.

Resp. That Sir J. A. was not able to settle a jointure on his wife until after the death of his mother, the Lady Vincent, in whom the sole power of the whole estate remained during her life, and she would, by no means, condescend to the levying of a fine to settle a jointure.

"2nd Query.-That Sir John Acland settled a very large jointure on his wife, &c., the more in regard he was there upon composition at Goldsmiths' Hall, merely to defraud upon the state.

Resp. 1.-That Sir J. hath settled no more on his lady in jointure than was first agreed on by Sir Francis Vincent, her ladyship's father, upon her intermarriage with Sir John.

"2.-That he compounded, at two years' value, for all the demesnes and estates mentioned in her jointure.

"3.-Sir John was willing to grant the larger jointure, in regard he left many young children, which will be a burthen to her. "That Sir John Acland hath levied a fine in confirmation of the jointure.

"If it be urged by Evans, or Mr. Rowe in his behalf, that my Lady Acland hath broken open the chapel door, and taken out some goods there,

66

Resp.-When she came to Killerton, (her own house,) and wanting all necessaries of bedding, stools, &c. for the present to supply her want, she, having a great family both of children and servants, because they should not lie out of doors, upon,straw, did, before sufficient witnesses, cause the door to be opened, and took out thence some small implements, which she is ready to answer. And this she did by reason of her then great necessity, and no committee then sitting to appeal for an order."

From these printed papers somewhat more may be inferred, than from the petition and order of the committee above cited, as to the grounds of the threatened surcharge; but we are not furnished with sufficient documents from which to infer either the validity or the futility of the excuses. The two following entries in the books of the committee prove, however, that they were taken into consideration and ultimately accepted; and with them we shall close the series of our documentary evidence.

"7th April, 1648.-According to order of this honourable house, of 28th March, 1648, whereby it was referred to examine the business touching Sir John Acland, (a delinquent,) and to state the whole matter of fact concerning him in relation to the articles of Exeter, we have accordingly examined the same, and do find, that the said Sir John Acland, being in arms against the parliament, was in Exeter at the surrender, (as by certificate from Sir Thomas Fairfax, &c.); that he petitioned this committee to be admitted to compound on the 30th of April, 1646, (which was within the time limited by the said articles,) and did proceed to his composition accordingly; but in respect that the said Sir John Acland was, by name, excepted in the propositions sent to Uxbridge, to compound at one-third of his estate, this committee thought fit, upon their report to the House, to present his fine both ways, viz. at £1727, according to the articles, (being two years' value,) and at £4318, as at a third (according to the propositions). That the said Sir John Acland did pay into the treasury of this committee a moiety of the lesser fine, and gave security to pay such further sum as both Houses should order. That upon the report of the said fines to the House, the higher fine was voted to stand; and that, in default of payment of the remainder, according to his security, this committee did proceed to revoke their former order for suspension of the sequestration, and to sequester him anew until he should satisfy the same according to the vote of both Houses.

Which is the true state of the matter, and hereby left to consideration." "13th June, 1648. £1727 ordered to be accepted for the fine of Sir John Acland, a delinquent in arms against the parliament, he coming in upon the articles of Exeter at the surrender thereof."

Our loyal baronet, if still living at the date of the last mentioned order,* could have survived it but a few hours, since we find a resolution of the standing committee of Devon, dated the 22nd of August, and made in pursuance of another order of the 16th of June, 1648, for the delivering, "unto the executors or administrators of John Acland, of Columbjohn, Esq., deceased," of all such writings of the said Mr. Acland as they had in their custody. And this is followed by the petition of the widow, that she might be permitted to enjoy her "small jointure."

To this may be added, that, in a letter from Nicholas Rowe, (a commissioner for the city of Exeter,) dated 7th April, 1648, inclosing "a list of such delinquents and papists, together with the value of such persons' estates as are now in sequestration," &c., in which list the name of Sir John Acland occurs as "a notorious delinquent," the writer states the following query:-"I beseech you, tell me your opinion in this, If a delinquent die under sequestration, and make no composition, is the sequestration absolutely to be discharged upon his death?" We do not find any answer to this question; but under date 30th May, 1650, his name is entered as discharged" from the sequestration.

66

In the case of one Ralph Richards, we are presented with some curious particulars, both as to the part taken by Sir John Acland in the beginning of the disturbances, and the nature of the informations on which the charge of delinquency was ordinarily exhibited. We give the depositions in the order in which we find them. The first of these depositions (referring to those upon which the charge was originally founded) is in favour of the delinquent, and appears to have been taken on the occasion of some application being made to mitigate his fine.

"Depositions, 13th October, 1650. James Erisey, of Ware, (gentleman,)-That during the time the king's army was before Exon, deponent had frequent conferences with the said Richards, and found that he did respect the parliament, and lean to that side, more than the king. That he knows Thomas Halmore, who is reputed a drunkard

His death is stated in the Baronetage to have taken place the preceding year.

and incontinent; and that what is presented by him against the said Richards is out of malice.

"John Levell, of Thorveston, yeoman,-That Richards was constable of Hayridge Hundred at the time of the siege, and well affectioned to the parliament, &c.; that Thomas Helmore was constable of Cadleigh, and believes his presentment is out of malice, in revenge for a former prosecution against Helmore as a collector, in which Richards had given evidence.'

Then follows the deposition of Helmore referred to by the two former, and which is, in substance, that he (deponent) being a prisoner to the king's party at Columbjohn House, Richards brought in a warrant under the hands of the parliament commissioners, and then declared to Mr. Acland, that he had prosecuted too many of them already; and then voluntarily brought in unto the said Acland a horseman and arms, and said, he would freely give the same unto him for the service (Columbjohn being then a garrison for the king). Upon which, Acland said, "Then now I see there is some goodness in thee;" and, afterwards, Richards did send in provision to the garrison.

Also, the depositions of John Moggridge, of Cadleigh, yeoman,-That, he being sent by Mr. Nutcombe with a letter to Mr. Acland at Columbjohn, (then being a garrison,) the said Richards was then there present. At that time, Mr. Acland demanded what he (Richards) did there? To which Richards replied, that he had brought him a horse, and said, "I will freely give him to you for the service." Mr. Acland further demanded, why he had not brought a man and arms. Whereto Richards replied, that he had done so already. Mr. Acland then said, "I thought thee, Richards, hadst been a rebel; but now I see thou art an honest man." And that afterwards, when Colonel Wilding had sent forth warrants for bringing in provisions for the parliament army at Taunton, deponent, being then with Mr. Nutcombe, as constable of the hundred of Bampton, he (Wilding) sent deponent with a warrant to Richards, who, on delivery thereof, demanded, "How durst thou deliver such a warrant unto me?" To which deponent replied, he knew not what it was; and Richards said, if deponent brought any more such warrants, he would see him hanged, whatsoever did become of him.

"Information, (grounded on the above depositions,) May 29, 1650.-That Ralph Richards, of Thorveston, in the county of Devon, did, about five years since, send a man and arms to Sir John Acland to Columbjohn, at the time when the king's party kept a garrison there

*This is a truly Hudibrastic reason for impeachment of veracity..

to serve in the King's army against the parliament, and by his threats, and through his means, caused divers to do the like. Also, at the same time, did find ammunition for the use of the said garrison."

We cannot take our leave of this baronet, without remarking the singularity that Prince, who, in his Worthies of Devon, devotes his first article to the praises of another Sir John Acland, (the great uncle of our loyalist, by whom the estates of Columbjohn and Killerton were first acquired to the family,) makes no mention of his descendant, although so great a sufferer in a cause which he constantly represents as entitling its advocates to the reward of martyrdom. For ourselves, we make no apology for a length of detail which, to some, may appear (perhaps) unimportant and frivolous, conceiving that a few pages of The Retrospective Review cannot be filled more properly than in illustrating, by the cause of an individual, the nature of proceedings which embraced, in their effects, so large a portion of the property of the kingdom; and it is probable that we may, at no distant period, recur to the subject.

ART. IV. MISSALE ROMANUM, ex decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum; PII V. Pont. Max. jussu Editum, &c. 8vo. Parisiis, 1604.

Every body knows that, according to Sir Thomas Lethbridge's prediction, and the prophetic terrors of the old women of Wells and its vicinity, the Irish Catholics were to have come over in about the month of March last, to cut the throats of us English Protestants; every body knows, that they had some good reason for not coming at that time, and that their blood-thirsty design is only put off, not abandoned. A Catholic's taste for roasted heretics is too decided, to allow us the least shadow of rational hope :

"Fee, fy, fo, fum!

They smell the blood of the Englishmen ;

Be they alive, or be they dead,

They will crush our bones, and eat them for bread."

A good friend of ours, in —shire, whose stake in the Protestant establishment is not more than a thousand a year, has assured us of his positive knowledge, that not only is a design on foot to instal the very reverend the Vicar Apostolic in the Protes