THE REV CHARLES CLARK’S LECTURE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4338, 13 February 1875, Page 4

THE REV CHARLES CLARK’S LECTURE.

THE TOWER OE LONDON. Mr. Clark’s second lecture, on the Tower of London, attracted a crowded auditory to St. Andrew’s Church last evening. For the purposes of his lecture Mr. Clark exhibited an excellent plan or map of the Tower, which familiarised his hearers with the venerable building which has for so, many centuries withstood “ the inexorable vengeance of time.” When Mr. Clark made his appearance he was received with warm applause, upon the subsidence of which he proceeded to give a description of the Tower, the origin of which was enveloped in obscurity. Ancient historians ascribed its origin to Julius Ca3sar, and this opinion was to some extent borne out by the remnant of an old Roman wall which could be traced along the moat. . The Tower as it stood, however, was established by William the Conqueror, and for some time formed a residence for the Norman princes. After describing the purposes to which the main portion of the building were devoted, allusion was made to the dungeons and prisons, the Cold Harbor, the Traitor’s Gate, and the King’s private block, where he cut off the heads of his enemies and those of Ins friends who displeased him. The mural towers, the quadrangles, and other notable sections of the ancient pile formed part of the building, and then the lecturer came to the subject of the Water Gate, which went down with a crash into the river just as Henry had nearly completed it. It was built up again, but strange to say, upon the same day in the next year the whole mass again came down with a crash. This, of course, was attributed to supernatural agency, and a pious priest of St. Alban’s averred that he knew the cause, for he saw the ghost of the Archbishop of Canterbury shaking • a crucifix at the structure as it disappeared into the river. He had little doubt that if the excellent clergyman’s sense of smell had been very keen he would have discovered the presence of brimstone about it, but, however, it all ended in smoke. Henry set to work again, and successfully built the Water Gate ; and to-day, 600 years after, it stood as strong as the ground upon which it was built. It happened once that the Bishop of Durham was imprisoned in the banquetting hall, “hoist with his own petard ” as it were, but not a great, deal of care was taken to keep him in. He was the Treasurer of the Kingdom, but the 41 King discovering his fingers to be too adhesive he was shut up in the Tower, allowed a certain sum per day, and kept servants, who were sent, perhaps, to the nearest “ pub.” for what he wanted. The King wanted him to give back the .money, but the idea was preposterous, for did they ever know a Minister who ever gave back money once in his possession. (Laughter.) At last the Bishop grew tired of his confinement, and making his guards drink, the good Bishop being sober-—for bishops could keep sober when there was an object to be gained by it—got a long rope and taking his crozier in his hand squeezed himself through the window bars ; but the rope being a little too short to reach the ground, the Bishop being rather a large man came down “plump.” Then came the sad story of Maud Fitzwalter prisoned in the “ top chamber ” by King John, because she resented his love. Finally, her death was brought about by means of a poisoned egg. Fifty years then elapsed before the Tower walls enclosed another prisoner. John Baliol and David Bruce were then immured, and following tliem Griffin, the hereditary Prince of Wales, who, being betrayed by his own brother, was held to ransom and imprisoned in the banqueting-room. Following the example of the Bishop of Durham, or Bishop Flambeau (the firebrand), as he was called, he resolved to make his escape ; but, having no rope, he entrusted himself to strips of bedclothes, which he fondly hoped would sustain his sylph-like form (twenty-two stone) in a drop of ninety feet. About threeparts of the way down the rope was found to be short, and Griffin came upon that part of his pate where kings usually wear their crowns, which “caved in” andhediedou thespot. Next came the story of Prince Charles of Orleans, who fell into the hands of Henry of Monmouth at Agincourt. He remained in the White Tower for twenty-five years, when grief made him a poet. Grief had made a great many people poets—to the great misery of the world in which they lived—but, nevertheless, he knew of some verses of Charles’s which were still quoted as a consolation to widowed authors. The verses being quoted with great elocutionary skill, had a very touching effect, and were much applauded. Shakespeare had filled the Tower with memories of Richard 111., sumamed Crookback, and he (Mr. Clark) brought out impressively the murder by Richard of Edward V. and the Duke of "Fork, which was splendidly illustrated in Clarence’s dream, A chronologic step brought him down to the time of Henry VIII., when Dr. Fisher, Bishop of Gloucester, incurred the King's displeasure by smiling on the Maid of Kent, who had taken upon herself to condemn the King’s divorce of Catherine, and predicted his death as a concurrent circumstance with his marriage with Anne Boleyn, should the latter event take place. Both priest and prophet were sent to the Tower, and after a little delay the one was beheaded and the other hanged at Tyburn. The affecting incident in the life of Sir Thomas

More and his daughter just previous to the old man passing through tho Traitor’s-Gate to be beheaded, was becomingly touched upon, and the lecturer next dealt with the marriage of Henry and Anne Boleyn, the fall of the latter from her high estate, and her subsequent misery, which culminated in her execution three short years after. The sad story of Lady Jane Grey, the victim of the cowardly and brutal Duke of Northumberland, formed an interesting feature in the narrative, and was followed by a splendid eulogy upon the character of Sir Walter Raleigh, the next victim to the axe and the corruption of the times. Mr Clark excited a strong combative feeling amongst a section of, his hearers by his scathing denunciation of James 1., whom he designated a drunken, gluttonous, slobbering creature, who could never keep himself sober, any more than he could help shivering and exhibiting his cowardice at the sight of a drawn sword ; and it was such a creature who rolled in the dust the head of the finest and proudest man in England (Sir Walter Raleigh) to satisfy the menaces of the King of Spain. The Gunpowder Plot, Colonel Blood’s Bobbery, the fate of Algernon Sydney, and the character of George 1., formed sections of the lecture which were ably dealt with, and the lecturer concluded, as on the previous evening, with a brilliant peroration summing up the whole in a masterly manner, which evoked prolonged and enthusiastic applause. The lecture for to-night will be “Oliver Goldsmith.” The illustrations being taken from “The Traveller,” "The Deserted Village,” and “The Vicar of Wakefield.” It is needless to remark that Goldsmith's writings have an interest, not for Irishmen only, but for all communities. This, no doubt, will be the best lecture of the three, and as it is Mr. Clark’s last and best, St. Andrew's Church will witness a greater gathering than it has ever contained before.