, a distinguished English gentleman, son of John Churchill, esq.
, a distinguished English
gentleman, son of John Churchill, esq. of Minthorn in
Dorsetshire, by Sarah, daughter and coheiress of sir Henry
Winston, of Standiston in Gloucestershire, was descended
from a very ancient family, and born at Wooton Glanville
in Dorsetshire, or, according to Wood, at London, in
1620. He was sent to St. John’s college in Oxford when
he was scarce sixteen years of age, where he made an uncommon progress in his studies; but, on account of the
civil commotions which arose soon after, was obliged to
leave the university before he had taken a degree. He
engaged on the side of the king, for which he suffered severely in his fortune; and having married a daughter of
sir John Drake of Ashe in Devonshire, was forced to seek
refuge in that gentleman’s house, where many of his children were born. At the restoration he represented Weyinouth in the parliament which met in May 8, 1661. In
1663, Charles II. conferred on him the honour of knighthood; and soon after the foundation of the Royal Society,
he was, for his Icnown love of letters and conversation with
learned men, elected a member of it in Dec. 1664. In
the same year he was appointed one of the commissioners
of the court of claims in Ireland; and, upon his return,
one of the clerks comptrollers of the green cloth. Notwithstanding his engagements in these public offices, he
found time to draw up a kind of political essay upon the
history of England, which was published in folio, 1675,
under the title of “Divi Britannici, being a remark upon
the lives of all the kings of this isle, from the year of the
world 2855, unto the year of grace 1660.
” It was dedicated to Charles II; and in the dedication the author takes
notice, that having served his majesty’s father as long as
he could with his sword, he spent a great part of those
leisure hours, which were forced upon him by his misfortunes, in defending that prince’s cause, and indeed' the
cause of monarchy itself, with his pen: and he franklyowns, that he considered his work as the funeral oration of
that deceased government, or rather, as his title speaks it,
the apotheoses of departed kings. We are told by Wood,
that there were some passages in this work about the king’s
power of raising money without parliament, which gave
such offence to the members then sitting, that the author
had them cancelled, and the book reprinted. Nicolsou
speaks very slightly of this performance, and represents it
as “only giving the reader a diverting view of the arms
and exploits of our kings down to the restoration in 1660;
”
but it is very accurate as to dates and authorities.