THE FOUNDERS OF CHARLES CHURCH. 
229 
and before the storm of the siege of Plymouth fell upon the town 
considerable progress had been made. Eobert Trelawny, who died 
in 1644, left by his will an order to his executor to pay the sum of 
£200 when demanded, which he had promised to contribute to- 
wards the building of Charles Church. In this may not unfairly 
be traced the payment by instalments of certain promised sums, 
and if in his imprisonment and adversity he provided for the 
payment of the balance of his promised contribution, it may be 
inferred that in his prosperity he had not forgotten liberality. The 
example was no doubt followed by his townsmen, and, says Mr. 
Henry Woollcombe in his History of Plymouth, " I have seen 
documents by which it seems that an assessment was made on the 
inhabitants to levy the sum of £ remaining unpaid for this 
church." No doubt the municipal authorities in those days did 
things which would now bring down upon them the terrors of the 
Court of Chancery, with its array of writs and injunctions; but 
the assessment could not even then have been more than a volun- 
tary rate, the levying which was only justified by the freedom 
with which subscriptions had been forthcoming. This rate, how- 
ever, was for the completion of the church, and before the siege it 
would seem that the building had got no farther than the walls ; 
but it is probable that substantial progress had been made. This 
supposition is confirmed by the fact that during some recent alter- 
ations, when a part of the roof of the chancel was raised, the 
present respected parish clerk on mounting the scaffold observed 
that strong iron pegs were driven perpendicularly into the wall, 
which it is supposed must have been used for fastening an awning 
or temporary covering at that level. Further corroboration is affor- 
ded by the following entry (copied apparently from one of an 
earlier date) in the second volume of the Eegister : " Sam 1 junior 
y e son of Samuell Brely senior was borne y e 26 th of December 
1643 and baptized the one and thirtieth day of the same month." 
Though the fact is not expressly so stated, such an entry in the ' 
Eegister of Charles may fairly be regarded as a proof that the bap- 
tism was in Charles Church, and the building so far advanced as to 
be available for sacred uses. 
On this point too tradition may have its value, and tradition says 
that the horses of the troops defending the town were stabled in 
Charles Church. This is not at all unlikely, as such buildings, it 
is known, were frequently so used during the Civil War, as well as 
