in his youth by a lady at Jersey (Gent. Mag. January 1866, based on G. Bobro, Storia della Conversione di Carlo II, published at Rome from the Jesuit archives; cf. Christie, ii. 17, with Colbert's memoir in Appendix, ib.; Mignet, Négociations rel, à la Succession d'Espagne, iii.; and Ranke, iv. 23). Yet eyen these discoveries prove nothing as to Charles having made any profession of the catholic faith before he lay on his deathbed. That he made it admits of no doubt. Barillon states that at the suggestion of the Duchess of Portsmouth he prevailed upon the Duke of York to obtain the king's permission to bring a priest to him, and that from this priest, Father Hudlestone, who had helped to save the king's life in his wanderings, Charles, after declaring himself a catholic and expressing contrition for having so long delayed nis reconciliation, received absolution, the communion, and extreme unction (see the father's narrative, Ellis, 2nd series, iv. 78- 81; cf. Dalrymple, ii. Appendix, 110-21). James II asserts that his brother refused the communion according to the rites of the church of England proffered by Bishop Ken, who, however, pronounced the absolution on the king's expressing regret for his sins (Clarke, i. 747; cf. A True Relation, &c., in Somers Tracts, viii. 429). There are some minor discrepancies between the various accounts, which include Burnet's (ii. 468-72), but as to the main fact of the king's profession their agreement leaves no room for doubt. The controversial papers in support of the doctrines of the church of Rome found in his strong box after his death, and afterwards communicated by James II without effect to his daughter, the Princess of Orange (see her Lettres et Mémoires, 1880, 61), may, as Halifax shrewdly observes, have been written all by Charles II himself, 'and yet not one word his own.'
Halifax, the author of the best character ever drawn of Charles II, observed (Burnet, ii. 840) that God had made him of a particular composition; and though his fortunes were certainly more extraordmary than his qualities, he was not altogether a common type of man. The vicissitudes of his fortunes may be held in part accountable for some of his weaknesses and his vices; for his fickleness (Reresby, 221); for his dissimulation, which at times imposed upon the unworldly (Reliquiæ Baxtertanæ, 231); even perhaps in some measure for his immorality. These were hardly counterbalanced by the gifts which help to account for his undeniable popularity. He was good-natured, or, in Evelyn's words, 'debonnaire and easy of access,' grateful to those who had rendered him personal service in misfortune, kind to all, down to the spaniels who dwelt in his bedchamber. He had it not in his nature, as is told by a cast-off mistress, to do cruel things to anything living (Harris, ii. 396), and Evelyn calls him 'not bloody nor cruel.' Burnet, however, demurs to this praise (ii. 481), and without dwelling on an exceptional instance of brutal revengefulness such as the mutilation of Sir John Coventry, we may well believe that Charles II had 'no tenderness in his nature.' He was, however, blessed with an excellent temper, which only broke down when a courtier, such as Henry Savile, ventured to use his vote and interest against the royal wish (Lauderdale Papers, iii. 139-40; cf Burnet, i. 501). At the root of his character lay a selfishness which showed itself in innumerable ways, but above all in an indomitable hatred of taking trouble. It was this which, when he could not get rid of petitioners by fast walking or by taking sanctuary with one of his mistresses (Halifax, 23-5), made him give pleasant words to everybody, careless whether he or his ministers for him afterwards broke his promises (Schwerin, 176; cf. Burnet, ii. 480). It was this too which made him shrink from wise counsellors, in accordance, as Clarendon writes (iii. 63), with the unfortunate disposition of his line to follow the counsel of intellectual inferiors. Yet he was by no means always inattentive to business. Whatever really interested him, beginning with his health, he generally thought worth trouble. The records of courtiers and diplomatists (Henry Sidney, Schwerin, Savile Correspondence) alike convey the impression that he frequently applied iiimself to matters of state, both in council and in parliament, although his habit of standing by the fire with a circle of peers round him during the sittings of the House of Lords, which he thought as diverting as a play, did not tend to expedite affairs (Dalrymple, i. 21; cf. Jesse, iii. 343-4).
The sensualism of Charles was another phase of his utter selfishness. Among his favourite vices drinking had no place. Again, though high play was fashionable at court, he never became a gambler. Except in one direction, he cannot be charged with great personal extravagance, although, as Evelyn says, he loved planting and building, and in general brought in a politer style of living which led to luxury. The extraordinary superfluity of offices in his court and household (see especially Cal. 1661-4, and Chamberlayne) can hardly be laid at his door; nor did he only preach economy in dress, &c. to parliament (May 1662; see Somers Tracts,
