The Episcopalians in England very naturally were filled with joy. As early as the month of March one gave expression to it in violent language from the pulpit. The prudent Chancellor at Breda, hearing of these intemperate effusions, had written, in April, begging that the Episcopalian clergy would restrain their tempers. "And truly I hope," he added, "if faults of this kind are not committed that both the Church and the Kingdom will be better dealt with than is imagined; and I am confident those good men will be more troubled that the Church should undergo a new suffering by their indiscretion than for all that they have suffered hitherto themselves."[88] CHAPTER IV. [Sidenote: THE KING'S RETURN.] [Sidenote: 1660.] Charles, on his way to England, had reason for anxious care and steady forethought. Never had an English Prince come to the throne under such circumstances. A civil war was just over--the swelling of the storm had hardly ceased; a party adverse to that which the King regarded as his own remained still in power; many were expecting at his hand favour for recent services, notwithstanding former offences; Presbyterians looked at least for comprehension within the Establishment. Independents, Baptists, Quakers, asked for toleration, and Roman Catholics, who had been friends to the beheaded father and the exiled son, thought themselves entitled to some measure of religious liberty. The Episcopal Church claimed the new Monarch as her own; her prelates and ministers were waiting to welcome him--to open in the parish churches once more the beautiful old Prayer Book, with its litanies and collects for the King and Royal family. They sought exclusive re-establishment; they would cast out all Presbyterian intruders--they would tolerate no Sectaries. Here were perplexing circumstances to be encountered. The Breda Declaration had bound Charles to be considerate in dealing with religious matters, to show respect for tender consciences. _Comprehension_, _toleration_--he stood pledged to promote. But how were the problems to be solved? He was a Constitutional King. He was to rule through Parliaments. Should bigotry arise and carry all before it in the Commons' House, as elsewhere, what was he to do? Should his Ministers differ from him, how then? Such possibilities gazed at by a thoughtful man might well have made him anxious, if not alarmed. Who would not sympathize with any conscientious prince under such circumstances? Charles possessed certain intellectual and social qualities which fitted him for the task he had now to perform; for he had common sense--was keen and clever, with quick insight into character, made still more so by large acquaintance with human nature,--he knew how to put unpleasant things in a pleasant way,--could command considerable powers of persuasion when he liked, and was courteous, affable, and of winning manners. But he was not