answerable for the spread of immorality is true, inasmuch as the
royalists, considering sufficient aversion could not be shown to
the loathsome hypocrisy of the puritans, therefore fell into an
opposite extreme of ostentatious profligacy. But that the court
was entirely responsible for the vice tainting all classes of
society whilst the merry monarch occupied the throne, is false.

Other causes had long been tending to produce this unhappy
effect. The reign of the Commonwealth had not been, remarkable
for its virtue, though it had been notable for its pharisaism.
With the puritan, words of piety took place of deeds of grace;
the basest passions were often hidden under sanctimonious
exteriors. Even Cromwell, "a man of long and dark discourses,
sermons, and prayers," was not above reproach. Bishop Burnet,
who has no harsh words for him, and few gentle ones for Charles,
states the Protector's intrigue with Lady Dysart was "not a
little taken notice of;" on which, the godly man "broke it off."
He therefore, Heath records, began an amour with a lady of lesser
note--Mrs. Lambert, the wife of a puritan, herself a lady devoted
to psalm singing and audible prayer when, not otherwise
pleasantly engaged.

The general character of many news-sheets of the day proves that
morality under the Republic was at a low ebb. Anarchy in a
kingdom invariably favours dissoluteness in a people, inasmuch as
the disturbance of civil order tends to unsettle moral law.
Homes being divided amongst themselves by political strife,
paternal care was suspended, and filial respect ignored. In the
general confusion which obtained, the distinction of social codes
was overlooked. Lord Clarendon states that; during this unhappy