The unhappy Charles X could not rest; he went from place to place seeing the hated tricolour everywhere along the road. He was forsaken more and more by his guard of soldiers, who could not endure to be thus dragged before the eyes of the victorious populace. His displaced ministers all dropped off, except Polignac. On the night of August 1 the King believed that all was lost, for he heard that his kinsman, the Duke of Orleans, had accepted the office of Lieutenant-General of the Kingdom. He hoped that the kingdom might be preserved for his grandson, the posthumous son of the Duc de Berri. The King that night abdicated, and the Dauphin resigned his claim to the throne. Again they had to learn it was too late. In vain did the famous writer, Chateaubriand, that inexplicable man whom the people claimed as their leader and followed with acclamations, make a speech in the Senate in favour of the young Prince who had no other supporters. The only notice taken was by sending Commissioners from Paris to advise the departure of the whole royal family for Cherbourg, whence they were to leave the kingdom.

The royal party moved as slowly as possible towards the coast. They lingered on their way, courting sympathy, but only met with indifference. When they arrived at the heights above Cherbourg, the vessels in the harbour carried the tricolour, all but two. These were American ships engaged to carry the King, his family, and his attendants into exile. The royal fugitives drove through the town without stopping, and immediately went on board the Great Britain, the soldiers on the quay presenting arms, and their officers saluting in grave silence as the exiles went on board. Capt. Dumont d'Urville (who afterwards perished by fire in the dreadful railway accident near Versailles) waited on the King to inquire whither he should have the honour of escorting him. To Spithead,' was the reply. The pilot who took them out of port related on his return that as the unhappy family saw the shores of 'La Belle France' grow dim and dimmer in the distance, like Mary, Queen of Scots, they sobbed and wept. The King alone preserved his calmness. In twentyfour hours from their sailing, before three p.m. on August 17 the vessels anchored at Spithead. Two of the King's suite

were put on shore to proceed to London, in order to learn the pleasure of the English ministry. As it was reported that the people of Portsmouth, who were in favour of the revolution, meant to hang out the tricolour over all the harbour, the vessels moved off from their first station and were moored off Cowes.

At this stage of their history comes in the narrative of Miss Frampton, who, in her Journal (pp. 35o, 351) has given the following details of their coming to the Isle of Wight Their journey to Cherbourg was performed with extreme slowness, probably with the idea that they would still be recalled. At Cherbourg the Dauphiness and the Duchesse de Berri were robbed of their clothes, and on their arrival at Cowes were obliged to be supplied by Lady Anglesey and Lady Grantham (wife of Thomas Philip, Lord Grantham, K.G., who succeeded as Earl de Grey, 1833) for immediate use. Charles did not land at Cowes, and refused to be addressed as King by those who waited upon him there. The Duchesse de Berri was soon seen in a shop in the town. She and the Dauphiness lodged in the Fountain. Inn. Mr. Weld offered Lulworth Castle as a temporary asylum, and thither they removed in steam vessels. Charles wished much to land at Lulworth Cove, but the wind did not permit, which however he could not believe till Mr. Humphrey Weld was called to him to testify to the impossibility of it. Whilst at Cowes Lady Grantham invited the French royal party to a luncheon, and Lady Listowell to tea on the day of the regatta; this the ladies declined, but the Duc de Bordeaux and his sister went to the luncheon. The French captain was invited to the great Yacht Club dinner, and made a very neat speech on his health being drunk.'

February 12, 1887.

THE WOOLFREY TOMBSTONE IN CARIS

BROOKE CHURCHYARD.

A TOMBSTONE at the west end of the now closed churchyard of Carisbrooke, which, were it not pointed out, would not attract the notice of the passer-by, preserves the record of a memorable ecclesiastical suit, which was fought out in the Court of Arches more than half a century ago. Whenever

a controversy on the subject of Prayers for the Dead' arises, the leading case of Breeks v. Woolfrey is sure to be referred to by the disputants on either side.

The adoption of memorial services on the occasion of the lamented death of H.R.H. the Duke of Clarence and Avondale has started a discussion on this topic in the columns of the Pall Mall Gazette, in the course of which, while one correspondent makes the statement that in the case of Breeks v. Woolfrey the Court of Arches expressly decided that prayers for the dead were lawful in the English Church,' others more accurately contended that this well-known case did not bear out this statement.

Under these circumstances it seems well, before the events which led up to this important case have altogether faded away from the memory of the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight, to give a short account of the facts, avoiding as far as possible all points of controversy. My narrative is derived in the main from what I believe to be a scarce pamphlet, entitled Letters of Alethephilos (printed for Samuel Lelli, Carisbrooke Road, 1839); and also from personal recollections of conversations held with the late Mr. Henry Sewell, who with his brother, R. B. Sewell, Esq., acted as solicitor in getting up the case for the prosecution; and also with the late Rev. J. B. Atkinson, the nephew of Mr. Breeks, the Vicar of Carisbrooke. gift of the pamphlet I am indebted to Canon Fryer, the late estimable priest of the Roman Catholic chapel at Newport, with whom I have always been on the most pleasant and

For the

friendly relations. The high-sounding Greek Alethephilos,' so I have always understood, was the name adopted by the priest of the Roman Catholic chapel at Cowes. Whoever this 'Lover of truth' was, he writes like a Christian gentleman, firmly holding his own without any abuse of his opponents or trace of odium theologicum.

From these combined sources of information it may be gathered that Mr. Joseph Woolfrey, who up to the day of his death was landlord of the Grapes Inn, Newport, departed this life on January 5, 1838, and was buried in a portion of the churchyard of Carisbrooke reserved for members of the Roman Catholic Church. The widow, Mrs. Mary Woolfrey, wished to erect a tombstone to her husband. The period was one in which the standard of good taste in the memorials of the dead was lamentably low. The tombstone itself, which is still standing, with its variegated tints of black and white paint would certainly have offended the critical eye of the late Mr. Pugin, and falls very short in design and execution of the headstones now erected in the Roman Catholic portion of the Carisbrooke Cemetery. On a painted cross, running the whole length of the stone, are inscribed the following words: Spes mea Christus. Pray for the soul of J. Woolfrey. It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead. 2 Macc. xii. 46. J. W. obiit 5a die Jan., 1838, ætat. 50.' These words formed the grievance. The tombstone was put up and the vicar's fee for the same duly offered and received by his agent, Mr. Breeks, himself residing at Northwood. An offer was afterwards made to refund the fee, but declined by Mrs. Woolfrey. A series of negotiations arose which are not of much importance, and the upshot was that Bishop Sumner of Winchester gave it as his opinion that the only proper course was to take proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court to compel the parties to remove the stone. That the Rev. Mr. Breeks is not the real author or promoter of this prosecution is well known,' writes Alethephilos; and the worthy man has his mild joke about ' none but raw Highlanders who eschew good Breeks.' The reluctance of Mr. Breeks to prosecute was justified by the result of the trial. It was wise to let sleeping dogs lie. The stone was erected over one who had lived and died a member of the Roman Catholic

Church, and who was interred in a spot reserved for his co-religionists, where a tombstone erected to the memory of Mr. Barnes with the same inscription had been standing for the last twenty-three years, and no objection had been made.

The determination to prosecute spread the matter far and wide beyond the limits of the Isle of Wight. The great religious movement which commenced with the publication of The Tracts for the Times was then in the full tide of its early enthusiasm. The trumpet was blown, and there came out Tract 72, a republication of Archbishop Usher on Prayers for the Dead.' Mr. Henry Sewell not long before his death did me the honour to call upon me in order to explain his position in the suit of my predecessor against the widow Woolfrey. His own wish was, so he said, to keep the doctrinal question altogether out of the proceedings, but he was overruled by those who had a theological interest in providing a legal and formal decision as to the teaching of the Church of England respecting prayers for the dead. However this may have been, in the citation, or preliminary process, issued June 28, 1838, Mrs. Woolfrey was summoned to appear and answer for having unlawfully and unduly' erected a tombstone in the churchyard of Carisbrooke, contrary to the consent of the incumbent, and also of placing on it an inscription contrary to the canons, &c., of the Church. Accordingly the Articles exhibited against her on the day of trial, November 19, 1838, were framed with the same double object.

The first Article charged her with placing on the headstone an inscription contrary to the discipline of the Church of England and the Articles of the said Church hereinafter recited. The second Article alleged that the headstone itself was erected without the consent of the vicar of the parish.

The Right Hon. Sir Herbert Jenner presided at the trial, and Sir John Dodson. Queen's Advocate-General, was counsel for the promoter of the suit, and Dr. Adams for the defendant. In a letter of H. and R. B. Sewell, Esqs., addressed to the Editor of the St. James's Chronicle, December 18, 1838, it is stated by these gentlemen that when the case opened,