254 Lawrence Mason, 



damaging point against him, he assuredly was not advanced to a 

 more desirable see, at the Restoration,^ whereas his successor, 

 Peter Gunning, was translated in 1674 to the see of Ely, "with a 

 particular acknowledgment from his majesty of his steadiness to the 

 church, having kept up the face thereof in the worst of times." ^ 



The last point remains inexplicable and unanswerable, so far as 

 available informations goes, unless we are gratuitously to suppose a 

 personal enmity between King and William Juxon, Bishop of Lon- 

 don and in 1660 Archbishop of Canterbury ; ^ but after the other three 

 points in support of the charge of Puritanism have been offset, it 

 is believed that sufficient positive evidence can be brought forward to 

 establish King's orthodoxy even in the teeth of this single unanswered 

 objection. As for the first point, then. King's low-church reputa- 

 tion did not save him, and neither his repeated special petition nor 

 the terms agreed upon with Sir W. Waller previously to the surrender 

 of Chichester could alter "the ordinance of sequestration" passed 

 upon him, June 6, 1643.'* And here should be quoted Walker's 

 quasi-reservation or protest, mentioned above, for he adopted Wood's 

 charge, — "Though he was always Esteemed to be Puritanically 

 Affected, and was Promoted to this Bishoprick to please that Party," 

 — with this irreconcilable quahfication : "yet when the Rebellion 

 broke out, he was most Barbarously treated by them ; nor was he 

 suffered to live quietly," etc.; and this qualification has been repeated 

 with the charge, by practically all the biographers.^ This barbarous 

 maltreatment has been so commonly reported as to need but little 

 emphasis here : witness his Will,^ his Letter to Mr. Bysshe,'^ and Wal- 



^ This is particularly ominous, because Juxon, who twice might have 

 favored King (at his delayed appointment, in 1641— 2 [Hannah, xlii], and at 

 the Restoration) and each time apparently disapproved, was a special pro- 

 tege of Laud's ("Athen. Oxon.," IV, 818). 



2 "Athen. O.xon.," IV, 143. 



^ Le Neve, I, 27 King's relations with Juxon's successor, Cxilbcrt Shel- 

 don, do not seem to have been altogether pleasant: cf. Letters 3 and 4, 

 Appendix B, and Letters mentioned in Bibhog., p. 280, inf. 



■* "Sussex Arch. Coll.," ibid. 



^ Cf. statement of verger, in 1912 ; p. 233, sup. 



" "Later supplyes of competence .... were allmost totally consumed 

 [by] Publick calamitie or private iniurie suffered in these days of discention." 

 "My bookes, being now a small remainder of a large hberary taken from 

 me at Chichester, contrary to the condicon and contracte of the Generall 

 and Counsell of warre, at the taking of that Cittie." "During my misfor- 

 tunes since the losse of all I had at Chichester." Etc. — Hannah, cviii— cxiv. 



' Appendix B, Letter i. 



