THE BRITISH FRIEND. GLASGOW, 4TH MONTH, 1ST, 1850. NOTICES OF MINISTERS TRAVELLING.-ISAAC ROBSON, of Huddersfield, was liberated by Brighouse Monthly Meeting, on the 22d of Second Month, to pay a visit to Friends of Bristol Meeting, and a few meetings in the vicinity. He was at the Quarterly Meeting for Gloucester and Wilts, held at Melksham, on the 26th current. LYDIA A. BARCLAY, of Aberdeen, has received a certificate from that Monthly Meeting, liberating her to visit the Meetings, and in some places also the Families of Friends, within the compass of the Quarterly Meeting of Dorset and Hants; and such other service as Truth may open the way for. On her way southward, she was at Edinburgh Two-Months Meeting, held at Glasgow on the 14th instant; attended Manchester Meeting on First-day, the 17th; the Week-day meeting at Melksham, on the 20th; and is now, we believe, prosecuting her religious service in the aforesaid counties. FODEN LAWRENCE, of Hackney, has been liberated by minute of Devonshire House Monthly Meeting, to visit some of the Meetings of Friends in the county of Kent. He was at the Quarterly Meeting held at Rochester, on the 19th of Second Month. RACHEL PRIESTMAN, of Newcastle, has been liberated by her Monthly Meeting, to pay a religious visit to Friends in the Quarterly Meetings of Bristol and Somerset, Devonshire, and Cornwall; in which engagement she is to be accompanied by her husband, JONATHAN PRIESTMAN. On the 19th ult., PRISCILLA WILLIAMS, of Truro, and JOHN BUDGE, of Camborne, were liberated by their Monthly Meeting, to visit the families of Friends comprising Cornwall Quarterly Meeting. MARY SAMUEL LLOYD, of Birmingham, is now engaged in visiting the families of Friends in Dublin; in which service she has been joined by ABIGAIL O'NEILL, of that city. Our friends, JAMES JONES and THOMAS ARNETT, have, since the date of our last publication, been engaged as follows:-James Jones and his companion, Edward Backhouse, jun., were at Frenchay and Lawrence Weston Meetings, on the 27th of Second Month; at Calne, on the 28th; Melksham, on the 1st curt.; and thence to Bristol, on First-day the 3d; from that to Swansea and Neath; from whence they were to cross the Channel into Devonshire. James Jones was at Cheshire Monthly Meeting, held at Stockport, on the 13th; and at the Quarterly Meeting for Cheshire and Staffordshire, held at the same place, on the following day. Proceeding northward, he was at Settle Mecting on the 20th; the 21st, at Dirleton; 22d, at Lothersdale; at Cockermouth, on First-day morning, the 24th; and in the afternoon at Greysouthen. Our latest account left him at Carlisle, somewhat improved in health, where he attended the Quarterly Meeting for Cumberland and Northumberland. THOMAS ARNETT was also at the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings, held at Stockport. At Hyde, near the latter place, he had a public meeting on First-day evening, the 10th current; at Stockport, on the 11th; and Macclesfield, the 12th. Leaving Stockport on the 16th, he was at Birmingham on First day, the 17th, and had a public meeting in the evening. Within the limits of the same Quarterly Meeting, we find him at Leicester meeting on the morning of First-day, the 24th, where also he had a public meeting in the evening. On the 25th, a similar meeting at Oakham; and on the 26th, he was to be at Coventry. WILLIAM MATTHEWS, whose liberation for religious service in the Northern Counties, &c., we mentioned in our last, is now engaged in the prosecution of his concern. He was at Darlington meeting on the morning of First-day, the 17th, and had a public meeting in the evening. He was also at the Monthly Meeting, held there on the 19th; on Fourth-day, the 20th, he was at Shildon and Bishop Auckland Meetings; 21st, Staindrop; 22d, Cotherstone; and 23d, Osmotherly and Middlesboro'. On the 27th, he was at Newcastle Weekday meeting; and on the 29th, accompanied by Thomas Handley, he attended Cumberland Quarterly Meeting, held at Carlisle. THE TITHE RENT CHARGE.-In another column will be found a letter on this subject; which, at the present time, appears to be very much engaging the attention of Friends. We mentioned in a former number, that a Conference was to be held in London, at the request of the Meeting for Sufferings. That body, accordingly, came together, and the attendance was large, there being about a hundred Friends present from the country; there were also three from Ireland; the number as-sembled thus evidencing a lively interest in the matters to come under deliberation. After devoting considerable time to the consideration of the different points involved in the question of the Rent Charge, the Conference agreed, in order to afford time for further considering some branches of the subject, to adjourn to the Seventhday preceding the Yearly Meeting, at eleven o'clock. As no official statement of what took place has been made public, we cannot be expected to offer any comment on the proceedings. We may, however, take some notice of the general bearings of the question, as it is probable the conclusions of the Conference will come to be issued in the form of advice, that we say not rule, on the matter. The subject of Rent Charge has, for several years, obtained the notice of the Yearly Meeting; but, excepting the recognition of it (the change) as one equally objectionable as Tithes in their original shape, nothing further has been done. The right maintenance of the Testimony of the Society, in its details, is one upon which some Friends differ; and it was with a view that these points should obtain careful consideration, that the proposition from Essex, brought up to last Yearly Meeting, was referred to the Meeting for Sufferings. The principal points which the question involves, seem to be the following: First, With reference to the case of a Friend who may be both owner and occupier of an estate; such a case may be held to stand in much the same position to the Rent Charge as it did to the Tithe system, and therefore requires no further notice here. Second, In the case of a Friend who is a landlord In letting his land, it has been said, he should avoid making any arrangement for the payment of the Rent Charge; thus leaving the burthen to rest as the law has laid it. The effect of this would be, that payment would be sought of the tenant; and if he were not a Friend, he would pay it, and deduct the amount from the next payment of rent. In such case, the testimony would not be borne, at least by means of a distraint; but, on the other hand, neither would it be infringed upon; for the landlord would only passively submit to that which he could not avoid. It would involve no active compliance with, or acknowledgement of, the claim, on his part; and, therefore, no dereliction of principle. But were the tenant a Friend, he should refuse to pay. He would, of course, suffer a distress; but then, it is urged, he might deduct the amount of the claim from the rent, and himself bear the expenses of distraint. Here, however, arises a question, Whether, in consistency, a Friend could deduct the amount distrained from his rent? And this involves another question, Whether, the claim having been satisfied by distress, the repayment, in the way the law prescribes, retains the same objectionable character ? The situation of Friends in Ireland may be adverted to in this connection; which, though the converse of the position of Friends in England, may yet be considered the same in principle. In Ireland, the claim cannot be recovered from the tenant, but the landlord alone, whose property must be pursued; so that, during the continuance of existing agreements, or leases, in which tenants have bound themselves to pay the tithe, it cannot be collected from them, but must be taken by distress (of Friends) of landlords, who are, by the act, empowered to charge their tenants so much additional rent. But this, Friends there conscientiously object to, looking upon it as tantamount to taking tithes; and very serious losses-in some cases, almost ruinous have been the result. There is a prevalent opinion, that a tenant, having borne his testimony by suffering distraint, might be at liberty to deduct it; that, as between him and his landlord the claim appears to possess a moral character; that he having been distrained on, on behalf of the landlord, upon whom the charge lies, the latter should not suffer him to be the loser; and that, in fact, were a contrary course to be pursued, no Friend would hire land without subjecting himself to the Rent Charge, and thereby obtaining the land at a proportionate reduced rent. As to the question, Whether the landlord or tenant (where both are Friends) should bear the expenses of distress? there are who think they ought to be laid upon the landlord, on whose account the claim is made; but to what extent this view is held, we are unable to say. A third case may be stated thus:-That, in taking land, a Friend should avoid covenanting to pay the Rent Charge. But as, in many cases, landlords will not let their lands without throwing the liability to the claim upon the tenants, the Friend might be considered at liberty, in such cases, to covenant to make himself liable to the claim, to suffer distress, and to forbear to deduct the amount in paying the rent. Now, this latter part of the statement is, in our view, very objectionable. It were wrong, we think, to agree to pay the claim; not only as involving a breach of our testimony, but also as engaging to do that we never intend to do. The promise to bear the claim, seems but a slight remove from promising to pay. It involves an acknowledgment of the morality, correctness, and equity of the claim (for, were it otherwise, we surely should not consent to it), inconsistent with our religious principles And as to consenting to suffer distraint, what does it mean? Our consent is not needful to a distress. Nay, is it not essential to the very character of a distraint for conscience' sake, that it should be made without the consent of the party? Otherwise, it is only another way of paving the claim; that is, in goods, instead of money; is, in short, a proposal to lower the standard, in order to meet the exigency of the case. Although this is a point which may involve, and, we understand, has already involved some individuals in difficulty, yet, we trust, Friends will ever exercise a watchful care against every thing like a compromise of principle. We are aware that some Friends are of opinion, that it were most desirable that no advice at all should be issued on this subject; believing that it would tend to make many of our members appear as delinquents, and cause dissension amongst us as a Society; and, therefore, that Friends ought to be left to act upon their own judgment individually. Now, we cannot but consider that this important christian testimony of the Society will be in a critical situation, if Friends are to be left at liberty to act as they think proper; there would thus, we apprehend, be found instances of agreement to pay the Rent Charge, though the parties meant to suffer distress; and the testimony, we fear, would, by little and little, be suffered to fall. There is one point in the Essex proposition of last year, which we have not yet adverted to; that is, the manner of recording the accounts of Sufferings under the new law. It has, we believe, been suggested, that all claims for Rent Charge should be recorded. But here a question arises, as to what should be deemed sufferingWhether a Friend, having either purchased or hired land subject to the Rent Charge (as is supposed, at a consequent reduced price), ought to be considered a sufferer beyond the amount of the costs of distraint? This, in our judgment, is making the matter too much a pecuniary question; and, we believe, that to a tender conscientious mind, there is a suffering in having our goods forced from us, for the satisfaction of a claim, neither the origin nor application of which we can feel unity or sympathy with; and this beyond the amount of loss we may sustain But we can see little consistency in recording accounts of distraints as Sufferings, which Friends may have brought upon themselves, by voluntarily rendering themselves liable to a charge which the law has not laid upon them. Having thus given a brief, and, it may be, imperfect view of the main points of this important and interesting question, we conclude by remarking, that we do very sincerely desire the Conference may, at its next sitting, be favoured to act under the influence of that wisdom which is "profitable to direct;" while there may be no yielding to views of mere expediency, that patience, meekness, and charity may be the clothing of every mind; and that there may prevail, over all, that feeling that would seek to preserve "our Society every where, as a united body; upholding our ancient standard of faith and practice, in all its fulness, spirituality, and simplicity." LEAGUE OF BROTHERHOOD BAZAAR.-A very interesting demonstration is in course of preparation, to welcome the return of ELIHU BURRITT to this country. The friends of Peace and Brotherhood intend to hold a great Bazaar in London upon the occasion, the latter end of the 5th Month; the proceeds of which will be devoted to the furtherance of the great objects to which ELIHU BURRITT has devoted his life and genius. A novel and interesting feature will be, the appropriation of separate stalls for the contributions of friends to the object in different countries; an earnest effort being made to carry out the Brotherhood spirit by combining the sympathy and activities of the Women of various nations in one philanthropic enterprise. It is believed that, in this way, new and powerful ties will be established, binding the different countries of the world in relations of mutual friendship and alliance. Female Committees have been formed in various parts of the kingdom, to promote this object; and we understand that a very effective demonstration is expected. The wife of Richard Cobden, and several other influential females connected with the progressive movements of the day, have kindly given their co-operation. ELIHU BURRITT has been actively engaged, during the winter, in disseminating the principles of the Brotherhood movement throughout America; and is now travelling through the Western States, to organize a large and influential delegation of Americans to attend the Peace Congress, which will be held at Frankfort in the 8th Month next. ELIHU BURRITT is expected to reach England in the 5th Month, on his way to Germany, where he will spend some weeks, in securing the interest and sympathy of leading German minds in the approaching Congress. While approving of the objects of this and other Bazaars of a similar character, we yet feel that it becomes Friends to be very guarded as to the part they take in their management; and we think our members should confine their efforts to the furnishing of such articles as are useful; avoiding that which may, in any wise, tend to compromise our testimony to what Anthony Benezet aptly termed, "the plainness and innocent simplicity of the christian religion." 66 BRITISH TAX-GATHERERS IN INDIA. have laughed at them as Utopian enthusiasts; but we THE friends of peace have had many assailants, who have never heard even the most reckless opponent attempt to defend the existence of an army, or the practice of war, except as a dreadful necessity, and only to be legitimately employed in defence against invasion, or some threatened peril of life or province. What, however, will be said by the war party in reference to the news received by the last mail from India; by which it appears that British soldiers have been and that three villages have been razed to the ground, employed to collect taxes at the point of the bayonet, and several hundreds of the natives slaughtered, because the chief had neglected to pay his tribute? What would be the state of public feeling in this country, if we heard from Ireland that, because some board of guardians had neglected to refund one of the Government loans, their town had been sacked and burned to and women massacred on the spot? It is impossible the ground, and a couple of thousand poor Irish men to conceive the indignation which would be excited by such a revolting outrage, if perpetrated at home; but what is there to alter the character of the foul deed because it has been perpetrated in India instead of Ireland? Yet the newspapers thus coolly narrate some of the incidents of this bloody tragedy:-"The practice of the artillery was very good and pretty. The had immense numbers killed; and lost flags, swords, whole business was over by ten o'clock. The rebels and matchlocks without end. At about three o'clock, the three villages having been razed, the force retired to the level ground, and, on being drawn up, the brigadier thanked his army, and seemed pleased with their achievements." When will the eyes of the people be opened to the real character of our military achievements in India? filled with the revolting details of our great battles with It is scarcely twelve months since the newspapers were the Sikhs. In one action alone, twenty six British officers were killed, and sixty-six wounded, whilst 2500 men were slain or disabled, besides the fearful slaughter of the Sikhs; and yet, even the Times, writing of this, spoke of it as a needless affair." 66 An officer engaged in one of those actions, thus describes the conduct of our troops, the servants of a Christian nation, be it remembered:-"The cavalry charged in amongst the enemy, and the horse-artillery rattled on at a gallop, mowing them down in heaps, while we took possession of their guns and camp, leaving the cavalry to deal with the fugitives; and awful execution they did amongst them, pursuing them for ten miles. Not a rein was drawn till the horses could go no farther; their sabres drank deep of blood that day, and they returned, wearied and jaded, and glutted with slaughter. The whole line of their flight was strewed with dead; for but little quarter, I am ashamed to say, was given; but, after all, it was a war of extermination." Are these the deeds of which a Christian people should boast? Are the actors in such scenes to be the especial objects of national honour and reward? CHURCH-RATES. AN account of furniture, the property of William Hughes, of Scott's-yard, Cannon-street, City, London, seized for two years' church-rates (the demand, with experses, amounting to £17, 38.), by Robert Harding, of 25, New Broad-street, under warrant obtained by James Collins, of Turnwheel-lane, wholesale grocer, and Ford Hale, of Cannon-street, City, tallow chandler, churchwardens of St. Mary Bothaw, on the 7th of Third Month (March), 1850: should be the last place where such doings ought to be allowed. My object is to arouse public opinion on these grievous sufferings, and to induce the members of the Establishment especially to reflect how far their conduct comports with the Divine command, "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." I have no doubt the time will come, when such transactions as are above stated will be looked upon with almost universal abhorrence. I find it is often stated, by persons unacquainted One set of mahogany telescope dining tables and with the usages of the Society of Friends, that these cover; one mahogany horsehair sofa and bolsters; one losses are made good to the individuals by the Society: Brussels carpet and hearth rug; one Pembroke maho- it is proper to state, that neither directly nor indirectly gany dining table; one bronze fender and fire irons; is it ever done; each member bears alone his own loss. one large framed and glazed plate, on Slavery; two The known disinclination of respectable parties to large framed and glazed prints: another set of maho-have any thing to do with the sale of goods taken gany telescope dining tables and cover; one other set under these circumstances, occasions their being sold of fire irons and bronze fender; one almost new to brokers of the lowest class, at a serious sacrifice. Brussels carpet, 30 feet long by 14 feet wide; rug to match; seven cane-seated chairs; eleven imitation rosewood chairs; one chimney glass, plate, 42 inches by 4 (gilt frame); one mahogany pier table; one copper coal scuttle and scoop.-The value of which was to Wm. Hughes, £57, 78. The above statement is respectfully submitted to the impartial judgment of the public, and the serious consideration of members of the Established Church, to whom I venture to appeal, in justice to myself and family, and for the purpose of exposing the above outrage. Having, on several former occasions, experienced what brokers employed on these services are capable of, I determined to make the transaction known; and fearing lest persons unacquainted with me might not believe my statement, I sent (while the furniture was being placed in a cart) to ask a merchant close by to be a witness to the seizure. This merchant, himself a Churchman, was so shocked, that rather than this wholesale spoliation should take place, he called the broker into his counting-house, and paid the demand. I informed the merchant he had better let the law take its course, as I could not conscientiously repay the amount: he, however, insisted on paying it. The goods are now his, but I know he will only have so much sold as will reimburse him the amount advanced. I appeal to reflecting men, of all persuasions of religion, if any infidel could contrive a more effectual way of bringing the Church of England into disgrace, than that its members should act thus? In order to save their pockets of a few paltry shillings each, and to perform their worship so much the cheaper, they take away my property. Even those parishioners who disapprove of sacrificing their neighbour's goods, yet do nothing to prevent it, will do well to remember the truth sublime," He who allows oppression shares the crime.' Feeling acutely, as I do, the great oppression I have experienced in this parish, I still desire to be thankful that it is not now in the power of the Established Church to imprison us for resisting the payment of ecclesiastical impositions, although-judging by the conduct of some of the parties concerned in these proceedings-it is too evident to me that the will is not wanting. In conclusion, I feel unable to find words to express the sense I feel of the cruelty and injustice of these proceedings. May they not be truly said to be a disgrace to the age in which we live, a scandal to the Established Church, and a deep dishonour on the sacred name of Christ ?—I remain, respectfully, WILLIAM HUGHES. Scott's-yard, 3d Month (March) 20th, 1850. N.B. The total amount of demands for churchrates and tithes (with charges), from 1845 to the present time, is £67, 9s. 2d.; and the total value of goods taken in liquidation thereof amounts to £149, 19s. LIVERPOOL FRIENDS' TOTAL ABSTINENCE SOCIETY. Ar a Meeting of Friends favourable to total abstinence from all intoxicating drinks, held at the Meeting-house, Liverpool, on Third-day evening, the 26th of Second Month, 1850, the following resolutions were proposed and agreed to : I. "Resolved, that an Association be formed amongst Friends, and those who attend Friends' Meetings, in Liverpool, and the neighbourhood, for the promotion of the cause of Temperance, to be called, The Liverpo 1 Friends' Total Abstinence Society.' II. That the Society shall consist of those indivi duals who shall sign the following agreement, viz.We agree to abstain from the use of all intoxicating liquor, as a beverage' III. "That the management of the Society shall be vested in a Committee, to be chosen annually by the members of the Society; and that a President, Treasurer, and Secretary, be annually appointed, who shall be, ex officio, members of the Committee. IV. That the expenses of the Society be defrayed by donations and by annual subscriptions. 64 V. That the Committee shall meet once a month; but, when special business requires it, the Secretary shall be empowered to summon them together, and not less than three shall constitute a quorum. VI. That the members of the Society shall be called together annually; and at such annual meeting, a report shall be produced of the proceedings of the Society during the past year; the Treasurer shall produce his accounts, and the Officers and Committee be appointed for the following year." I requested the churchwarden, James Collins, and also the Mayor's officer, to remain while the broker seized, but they each declined to do so; thus leaving The following Friends, with power to add to their my property, without any check, entirely in the number, were appointed the Committee for the enbroker's power: the consequence was, that two well-suing year:- FRANCIS THOMPSON, FRANCIS FRITH, furnished parlours would have been emptied, and a third partly so, but for the interference of the mer chant alluded to. I certainly think the city of London-the cradle of civil and religious liberty, as it has been called PAUL SMITH, BENJAMIN TOWNSON, WILLIAM BROWN, Correspondence. ORIGINAL LETTER FROM SIR WALTER SCOTT, RELATIVE TO HIS ANCESTRAL CONNECTION WITH THE To the EDITORS of THE BRITISH FRIEND. DEAR FRIENDS,-Having met with the following letter, I forward it for insertion in your columns, not doubting that it will be perused with interest by many of your readers. It was addressed to a Friend in the North, in answer to one he had written to Sir Walter Scott, inquiring if he had ever met with any writings or minute books belonging to their Monthly Meeting, among his family papers. Leeds, 3d Month, 12th, 1850. W. A. Abbotsford, Melrose, 1829. SIR,-I received your letter yesterday, and lose no time in replying. I have particular family reasons for desiring to oblige the Society of Friends; as two of my ancestors-one by my mother's, and the other by my father's, side-were members of that respectable body. They were both persons of some worldly dis inction; the first was that John Swinton, of Swinton, whose talents were much used by Cromwell, in the administration of Scotland; and who narrowly escaped with life, after the Restoration. He is mentioned. I believe, in Cruize's History, and in most Scottish histories. He was great-grandfather to my late mother; his papers, if he left any, must be with the Swintons, of Swinton. My great-grandfather's father was Walter Scott, fir t laird of Raeburn, third son of Sir Walter Scott, of Harden, and proprietor of those lands about Lessudden, on which his descendant still resides; he suffered severely for his religions faith, being repeatedly thrown into prison by the orders of the privy council; and he himself, and his wife, Isabella Macdougal, danghter of Macdougal, of Makerston, separated by violence from their children. I could point out some curious memoranda of his sufferings, if it would further the objects of the meeting. My cousin, Mr. William Scott, younger, of Raeburn, is likely to know what papers of his survive; there is some correspondence, I know, besides what notices occur in the records of the privy council. I have a copy of a Pindarique poem on the death of this inoffensive and ill-used man. in which he is highly praised for his learning and talents. He was particularly skilful in the oriental languages; and, I believe, he and his immediate elder brother, Sir Gideon Scott, of High Chester, from whom the present Mr. Scott, of Harden, is descended, were proselytes to George Fox, when he visited Scotland. The then head of the family continued a staunch Presbyterian, and it was at his instance that Walter of Raeburn was so ill-treated. If any notices of such meetings as you inquire after are still in existence, they must be at the house of Lessudden; and, as I said before, my cousin, William Scott, now younger, of Raeburn, will, I am sure, give you access to them; as, though neither he nor I have retained the peculiar tenets of the Friends, we are happy to acknowledge ourselves the descendants of one who suffered much for conscience.sake. I have seen, in my cousin's hands, some of the religious discourses of Walter Scott, first laird of Ra burn, which seemed to go deep into the disputed points betwixt the Society and the Church. I never observed any minutes among any such papers as have come under my observation. If these particulars are of little consequence to the purport of your inquiries, they will at least serve to show my kind feelings towards the Society, in which I have possessed some valued friends, now removed, in addition to my claim of ancestral connection. I am, Sir, with respect, your friend and well-wisher, WALTER SCOTT. MACAULAY'S HISTORY AGAIN. RESPECTED FRIENDS,- Many of your readers have doubtless, ere this, perused Macaulay's History of doubtless, ere this, perused Macaulay's History of Englund, and also the refutation of the sweeping charges made by the author upon the character of William Penn. It is, however, probable that there may be others who, from want of time or opportunity, have yet to learn the palpable injustice with which (to write charitably) he has been ignorantly assailed. I am not disposed to trespass on your pages farther, than to allude to the monstrous inference thrown out by Macaulay, at page 666, and which not only contradicts the author's registered opinion of William Penn at page 507, but must, by its own absurdity, convince every one at all acquainted with the real character of the latter-mentioned individual, of the impossibility of the existence of such feelings in his breast. I will, however, give the quotation : "Cornish suffered death within ten days after he had been arrested. That no circumstance of degradation might be wanting, the gibbet was set up where King-street meets Cheapside, in sight of the house where he had long lived in general respect--of the Exchange, where his credit had always stood highand of the Guildhall, where he had distinguished himself as a popular leader. He died with courage, and with many pious expressions; but showed, by look and gesture, such strong resentment at the barbarity and injustice with which he had been treated, that his ene mies spread a calumnious report concerning him, was drunk, they said, or out of his mind, when he was turned off. William Penn, however, who stood near the gallows, and whose prejudices were all on the side of the government, afterwards said, that he could see in Cornish's deportment nothing but the natural indig. nation of an innocent man, slain under the forms of the law. le ⚫ was "Elizabeth Gaunt was burned alive at Tyburn, on the same day on which Cornish suffered death in Cheapside. She left a paper, written, indeed, in no graceful style, yet such as was read by many thousands with compassion and horror. My fault," she said, one which a prince might well have forgiven; I did but relieve a poor family, and, lo! I must die for it.' She complained of the insolence of the judges, of the ferocity of the gaoler, and of the tyranny of him, the great one of all, to whose pleasure she, and so many other victims, had been sacrificed. To the last she preserved a tranquil courage, which reminded the spectators of the heroic deaths of which they had read in Fox. "William Penn, for whom exhibitions which humane men generally avoid, seem to have had a strong attraction, hastened from Cheapside, where he had seen Cornish hanged, to Tyburn, in order to see Elizabeth Gaunt burned. He afterwards related, that when she calmly disposed the straw about her, in such a manner as to shorten her sufferings, all the bystanders burst into tears. |