Good Accommodations for SOCIETIES and ORGANIZATIONS that wish a SUPPER served on any occasion.

THOMAS

April, '71-4m.

KELLER,

Cor. Front and Spring Garden Sts., Easton, Pa.

CENTRAL DINING ROOMS.

MEALS AT ALL HOURS.

Ice Cream of Every Flavor,

Oysters in Every Style.

BREAD, CAKE, PIES, fresh every day.

FAMILIES and CLUBS supplied at the house on leaving their address at the Bakery. Jan. 71-7m. WM. B. MIDDAUGH & SON.

THIS MAGAZINE IS PRINTED BY

LITTLE, RENNIE & CO.,

ELECTROTYPERS, STEREOTYPERS,

Book and Job Printers.

Orders by mail given prompt attention.

SEND FOR AN ESTIMATE.

108, 110, 112, and 114 Wooster Street,

Bet. Spring and Prince Streets,

May, '71-3m.

NEW YORK.

My last article was a cursory examination of the Tudor line of English kings. This shall be a review in the same general manner of the succeeding House.

James I., who heads the Stuarts in England, was the son of the beautiful Mary Queen of Scots, by her first cousin Henry Stuart. Mary's marriage relation, no less than her hereditary connec tions, inclined her to the Church of Rome. Catharine de Medici was the niece of Pope Clement VII., who married her to Prince Henry, afterward Henry II. of France, son of Francis I., who had been the candidate against Charles V. for the Electoral Monarchy of Germany. Catharine had by her husband three sons, who became successively Kings of France, to wit,-Francis II., Charles IX., Henry III. The first of these was the first husband of Mary Queen of Scots. He died leaving no children. Mary, proud and imperious, was impatient of Catharine's dictation, as she was defiant of the authority of Elizabeth; and replied to De Medici, who was regent in the reign of Francis II., "A Florentine shopwoman is no fitting mistress to the daughter. of a hundred kings."

Besides inheriting such a spirit from his mother, James I. united in his person all possible claims to the throne of Scotland and the throne of England. He united every claim to the English crown from the Saxon kings and from William the Conqueror. He was the great-great-grandson of Henry VII. On the death of Elizabeth without issue, it was necessary to recur to the younger issue of the founder of the Tudors. It will be seen by the table in my first article that his eldest daughter, Margaret, married James IV., King of Scotland. James was the lineal descendant from that marriage, and was the lineal heir from the Conqueror. In addition to this, Margaret, grand-daughter of King Edmund Ironside, was the person in whom vested the hereditary right of the Saxon kings, if we suppose such right not to have been abolished by the conquest. She married Malcolm, King of Scotland; and Henry II., by a descent from their daughter Matilda, was the restorer of the Saxon line. The sons of Malcolm in lineal descent formed the Royal House of Scotland down. Of this family, King James I. was the lineal heir. With such an ancestry and such a royal patrimony, it occasions little surprise that the House of Stuart should have been devotedly wedded to the doctrine of "passive obedience and divine rights of kings." Adherence to these principles sent one of the family to the block, deprived another of his crown, and ended in the Act of Settlement which established the House of Brunswick. The contest between Charles I. and his Parliament, with its unhappy and fatal ending, is too well known to require mention here. His two sons escaped with their lives and found protection at the court of their sister, who became the mother of William III. If the vigor of stern old Oliver Cromwell had been inherited by his son Richard, the fate of Europe might have been greatly changed. England would have been spared the licentiousness and immorality which disgraced the court of Charles II., and the fierce bigotry which stained the hands of James II.; and the Bloody Assizes, and the Act of Indulgence, might have been names unknown to history. The year 1660 witnessed the restoration of Charles, eldest son of him who was judicially murdered at Whitehall, several years before. The temper of the people was peculiarly prepared to receive him. Never was the advent of a new king hailed with so much joy and with so much applause. The rigid puritanical

notions of the Roundheads had been too decided for Englishmen. They found in the new king a young cavalier disposed to every manner of pleasures. His court rang with the shouts of indecent courtiers and the songs of immodest maidens. He fondled his own mistresses in the public theatres, and gave license for traffic in private virtues. He stamped the likeness of a courtesan on English coins, where it remains to this day, in the image of "Britannia."

He married Catharine of Braganza, Infanta of Portugal. The circumstances of this marriage are wrapped in a curious history. The King's brother, Duke of York, afterward King James II., had previously married Anne Hyde, daughter of Lord Clarendon, who was the chief adviser of Charles II. In the absence of any issue upon the King's death, the crown would pass to the Duke of York, husband of Clarendon's daughter. Through court intrigue, it became known that the Infanta of Portugal was incapable of having issue. A large dowry, of which Charles was in great need, was to be given with her in marriage; Clarendon had little difficulty in consummating this arrangement. She was married to the King, had no issue, and the crown passed to the husband of Anne Hyde. While Charles was in exile, he offered to marry Frances, eldest daughter of Oliver Cromwell, and had actually obtained the consent of the lady herself, and the lady's mother. The Protector refused his consent, saying that "Charles Stuart would never forgive him, at all events, for the execution of his father."

Charles pretended to be a Protestant: at heart he was a Catholic. When the contest was still pressed between the two religions, the Bill of Exclusion was introduced into Parliament to deprive the Duke of York, a violent Papist, from the succession. Charles refused his consent. He stood, as was then supposed, firmly for the rights of his brother. Years afterward it became known that the King had agreed to give his consent to the passage of the Bill for the sum of £600,000; the matter failed because the King insisted on first being paid in full. There is a scriptural precedent for one brother selling his birthright to another; but I know of no precedent for one brother selling the "divine right" of another for a sum sufficient to fill a depleted treasury.

The King, on his death-bed, cheated his Protestant watchers;