, descended of an ancient and honourable family, of the county of Essex,
, descended of an
ancient and honourable family, of the county of Essex,
was born in 1488. He was by nature endowed with great
abilities, from his ancestors inherited an ample fortune,
and was happy in a regular education, but whether at
Oxford or Cambridge is not certain. At what time he was
entered of the Inner-Temple, does not appear, but in
1526 he was autumn reader of that house, and is thought
to have read on the statute of privileges, which he handled
with so much learniag and eloquence, as to acquire great
reputation. This, with the duke of Suffolk’s recommendation, to whom he was chancellor, brought him to the'
knowledge of his sovereign, who at that time wanted men
of learning and some pliability he was, accordingly, by
the king’s influence, chosen speaker of that parliament,
which sat first on the third of November, 1529, and is by
some styled the Black Parliament, and by others, on account of its duration, the Long Parliament. Great complaints were made in the house of commons against the
clergy, and the proceedings in ecclesiastical courts, and
several bills were ordered to be brought in, which alarmed
some of the prelates. Fisher, bishop of Rochester,
inveighed boldly against these transactions, in the house of
lords, with which the house of commons were so much
offended, that they thought proper to complain of it, by
their speaker, to the king, and Fisher had some difficulty
in excusing himself. The best historians agree, that great
care was taken by the king, or at least by his ministry, to
have such persons chosen into this house of commons as
would proceed therein readily and effectually, and with
this view Audley was chosen to supply the place of sir
Thomas More, now speaker of the lords’ house, and chancellor of England. The new house and its speaker justified
his majesty’s expectations, by the whole tenor of their behaviour, but especially by the passing of a law, not nowfound among our statutes. The king, having borrowed
very large sums of money of particular subjects, and entered into obligations for the repayment of the said sums,
the house brought in, and passed a bill, in the preamble of
which they declared, that inasmuch as those sums had been
applied by his majesty to public uses, therefore they cancelled and discharged the said obligations, &c. and the
king, finding the convenience of such a parliament, it sat
again in the month of January, 1530-1. In this session
also many extraordinary things were done amongst the
rest, there was a law introduced in the house of lords, by
which the clergy were exempted from the penalties they
had incurred, by submitting to the legatine power of
Wolsey. On this occasion the commons moved a clause in
favour of the laity, many of themselves having also incurred the penalties of the statute. But the king insisted
that acts of grace ought to flow spontaneously, and that this
was not the method of obtaining what they wanted; and the
house, notwithstanding the intercession of its speaker, and
several of its members, who were the king’s servants, was
obliged to pass the bill without the clause, and immediately
the king granted them likewise a pardon, which reconciled
all parties. In the recess, the king thought it necessary
to have a letter written to the pope by the lords and commons, or rather by the three estates in parliament, which
letter was drawn up and signed by cardinal Wolsey, the
archbishop of Canterbury, four bishops, two dukes, two
marquisses, thirteen earls, two viscounts, twenty-three
barons, twenty-two abbots, and eleven members of the
house of commons. Thepurport of this letter, dated
July 13, above three weeks after the parliament rose, was
to iMigage the pope to grant the king’s desire in the divorce
business, for the sake of preventing a civil war, on account of the succession, and to threaten him if he did not,
to take some other way. To gratify the speaker for the
great pains he had already taken, and to encourage him to
proceed in the same way, the king made him this year
attorney for the duchy of Lancaster, advanced him in
Michaelmas term to the state and degree of a serjeant at
law, and on the 14th of November following, to that of
his own serjeant. In January, 1531-2, the parliament had
its third session, wherein the grievances occasioned by the
excessive power of the ecclesiastics and their courts, were
regularly digested into a book, which was presented by
the speaker, Audley, to the king. The king’s answer was,
He would take advice, hear the parties accused speak, and
then proceed to reformation. Jn this session, a bill was
brought into the house of lords, for the better securing the
rights of his majesty, and other persons interested in the
eare of wards, which rights, it was alleged, were injured
by fraudulent wills and contracts. This bill, when it came
into the house of commons, was violently opposed, and the
members expressed a desire of being dissolved, which the
king would not permit but after they had done some
business, they had a recess to the month of April. When
they next met, the king sent for the speaker, and delivered
to him the answer which had been made to the roll of
grievances, presented at their last sitting, which afforded
very little satisfaction, and they seemed now less subset
viciit. Towards the close of the month, one Mr. Themse
moved, That the house would intercede with the king, to
take back his queen again. The king, extremely alarmed
at this, on the 30th of April, 1532, sent for the speaker, to
whom he repeated the plea of conscience, which had induced him to repudiate the queen, and urged that the
opinion of the learned doctors, &c. was on his side. On
the 11th of May the king sent for the speaker again, and
told him, that he had found that the clergy of his realm
were but half his subjects, or scarcely so much, every
bishop and abbot at the entering into his dignity, taking
an oath to the pope, derogatory to that of their fidelity
to the king, which contradiction he desired his parliament to take away. Upon this motion of the king’s, the
two oaths he mentioned were read in the house of commons and they would probably have complied, if the plague
bad not put an end to the session abruptly, on the 14th
of May; and two days after, sir Thomas More, knt. then
lord chancellor of England, went suddenly, without acquainting any body with his intention, to court, his majesty being then at York Place, and surrendered up the
seals to the king. The king going out of town to EastGreenwich, carried the seals with him, and on Monday,
May 20, delivered them to Thomas Audley, esq, with the
title of lord keeper, and at the same time conferred on him
the honour of knighthood. September 6, sir Thomas delivered the old seal, which was much worn, and received a
new one in its stead, yet with no -higher title: but on
January 26, 1533, he again delivered the seal to the king,
who kept it a quarter of an hour, and then returned it with
the title of lord chancellor. A little after, the king
granted to him the site of the priory of Christ Church,
Aldgate, together with all the church plate, and lands belonging to that house. When chancellor he complied with
the king’s pleasure as effectually as when speaker of the
house of commons. For in July 1535, he sat in judgment
on sir Thomas More, his predecessor, (as he had before on bishop Fisher,) who was now indicted of high-treason upon
which indictment the jury found him gnilty, and the lord
chancellor, Audley, pronounced judgment of death upon
him. This done, we are told, that sir Thomas More said,
that he had for seven years bent his mind and study upon
this cause, but as yet he found it no where writ by any
approved doctor of the church, that a layman could be
head of the ecclesiastical state. To this Audley returned,
“Sir, will you be reckoned wiser, or of a better conscience,
than all the bishops, the nobility, and the whole kingdom
” Sir Thomas rejoined, “My lord chancellor, for
one bishop that you have of your opinion, I have a hundred
of mine, and that among those that have been saints and
for your one council, which, what it is, God knows, I have
on my side all the general councils for a thousand years
past; and for one kingdom, I have France and all the
ether kingdoms of the Christian world.
” As our chancellor
was very active in the business of the divorce, he was no
less so in the business of abbies, and had particularly a
large hand in the dissolution of such religions houses as
had not two hundred pounds by the year. This was in the
twenty-seventh of Henry VIII, and the bill being delayed
long in the house of commons, his majesty sent for the
members of that house to attend him in his gallery, where
he passed through them with a stern countenance, without
speaking a word the members not having received the
king’s command to depart to their house, durst not return
till they knew the king’s pleasure so they stood waiting in
the gallery. In the mean time the king went a hunting,
and his ministers, who seem to have had better manners
than their master, went to confer with the members to
some they spoke of the king’s steadiness and severity to
others, of his magnificence and generosity. At last the
king came back, and passing through them again, said,
with an air of fierceness peculiar to himself, That if his
bill did not pass, it should cost many of them their heads.
Between the ministers’ persuasions and the king’s threats,
the matter was brought to an issue the king’s bill, as he
called it, passed and by it, he had not only the lands of
the small monasteries given him, but also their jewels, plate,
and rich moveables. This being accomplished, methods
were used to prevail with the abbots of larger foundations
to surrender. To this end, the chancellor sent a special
agent to treat with the abbot of Athelny, to offer him an
hundred marks per annum pension which he refused, insisting on a greater sum. The chancellor was more successful with the abbot of St. Osithes in Essex, with whom
he dealt personally and, as he expresses it in a letter to
Cromwell, the visitor-general, by great solicitation prevailed with him but then he insinuates, that his place of
lord chancellor being very chargeable, he desired the king
might be moved for addition of some more profitable offices
unto him. In suing for the great abbey of Walden, in the
same county, which he obtained, besides extenuating its
worth, he alleged under his hand, that he had in this
world sustained great damage and infamy in serving the
king, which the grant of that should recompense. But if
the year 1536 was agreeable to him in one respect, it was
far from being so in another; since, notwithstanding the
obligations he was under to queen Anne Bullen, he was
obliged, by the king’s command, to be present at her apprehension and commitment to the Tower. He sat afterwards with Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury, when he
gave sentence of divorce on the pre-contract between the
queen and the lordPiercy and on the 15th of May, in the
same year, he sat in judgment on the said queen, notwithstanding we are told by Lloyd, that with great address he
avoided it. The lengths he had gone in serving the king,
and his known dislike to popery, induced the northern,
rebels in the same year, to name him as one of the evil
counsellors, whom they desired to see removed from about
the king’s person which charge, however, his majesty,
as far as in him lay, wiped off, by his well- penned answer
to the complaints of those rebels, wherein an excellent
character is given of the chancellor. When the authors of
this rebellion came to be tried, the chancellor declined
sitting as lord high steward, which high office was executed
by the marquis of Exeter, on whom shortly after, viz. in
1538, Audley sat as high-steward, and condemned him,
his brother, and several t other persons, to suffer death as
traitors. In the latter end of the same year, viz. on the
29th of November, 30 Hen. VIII. the chancellor was created
a baron, by the style of lord Audley of Walden in the
county of Essex, and was likewise installed knight of the
garter. In the session of parliament in 1539, there were
many severe acts made, and the prerogative carried to an
excessive height, particularly by the six bloody articles,
and the giving the king’s proclamation the force of a law.
It does not very clearly appear who were the king’s principal counsellors in these matters but it is admitted by
the best historians, that the rigorous execution of these
laws, which the king first designed, was prevented by the
interposition of the lord Audley, in conjunction with Cromwell, who was then prime minister, and the duke of Suffolk,
the king’s favourite throughout his whole reign. In the
beginning of 1540, the court was excessively embarrassed.
What share Audley had in the fall of Cromwell afterwards
is not clear, but immediately after a new question was
stirred in parliament, viz. How far the king’s marriage with
Anne of Cleves, was lawful This was referred to the
judgment of a spiritual court and there are yet extant the
depositions of Thomas lord Audley, lord chancellor, Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas, duke of Norfolk,
Charles, duke of Suffolk, and Cuthbert, lord bishop of
Durham, wherein they jointly swear, that the papers produced to prove the retraction of the lady Anne’s contract
with the duke of Lorrain, were inconclusive and unsatisfactory. Other lords and ladies deposed to other points,
and the issue of the business was, that the marriage was
declared void by this court, which sentence was supported
by an act of parliament, affirming the same thing, and
enacting, That it should be high-treason to judge or believe otherwise. This obstacle removed, the king married
the lady Catherine Howard, niece to the duke of Norfolk,
and cousin -german to Anne Bullen. Nothing is clearer
from history, than that the chancellor was closely attached
to the house of Norfolk and yet in the latter end of the
year 1541, he was constrained to be an instrument in the
ruin of the unfortunate queen information of her bad life
before her marriage, being laid first before the archbishop
of Canterbury, and by him communicated to the chancellor. The king then appointed lord Audley one of the
commissioners to examine her, which they did, and there
is yet extant a letter subscribed by him and the other
lords, containing an exact detail of this affair, and of the
evidence on which, in the next session of parliament, the
queen and others were attainted. The whole of this business was managed in parliament by the chancellor, and
there is reason to believe, that he had some hand in another
business transacted in that session which was the opening
a door for the dissolution of hospitals, the king having now
wasted all that had accrued to him by the suppression of
abbies. Some other things of the like nature were the
last testimonies of the chancellor’s concern for his master’s
interest but next year a more remarkable case occurred.
Jn the 34th of Henry VIII. George Ferrers, esq. burgess
for Plymouth, was arrested, and carried to the compter,
by virtue of a writ from the court of king’s bench. The
house, on notice thereof, sent their serjeant to demand
their member in doing which, a fray ensued at the compter, his mace was broke, his servant knocked down, and
himself obliged to make his escape as well as he could.
The house, upon notice of this, resolved they would sit
no longer without their member, and desired a conference
with the lords where, after hearing the mutter, the lord
chancellor Audley declared the contempt was most flagrant,
and referred “the punishment thereof to the house of commons whereupon Thomas Moyle, esq. who was then
speaker, issued his warrant, and the sheriff of London,
and several other persons, were brought to the bar of the
house, and committed, some to the Tower, and some to
Newgate. This precedent was gained by the king’s want
of an aid, who at that time expected the commons would
offer him a subsidy the ministry, and the house of lords,
knowing the king’s will gave the commons the
complimerit of punishing those who had imprisoned one of their
members. Dyer, mentioning this case, sap,
” The sages
of the law held the commitment of Ferrers legal, and
though the privilege was allowed him, yet was it held unjust.“As the chancellor had led a very active life, he
grew now infirm, though he was not much above fifty years
old, and therefore began to think of settling his family and
affairs. But, previous to this, he obtained from the king a
licence to change the name of Buckingham college in
Cambridge, into that of Magdalen, or Maudlin some will
have it, because in the latter word his own name is included. To this college he was a great benefactor, bestowed on it his own arms, and is generally 'reputed its
founder, or restorer. His capital seat was at Christ-Christ
in town, and at Walden in Essex and to preserve some
remembrance of himself and fortunes, he caused a magnificent tomb to be erected in his new chapel at Walden.
About the beginning of April, 1544, he was attacked by
his last illness, which induced him to resign the seals but
he was too weak to do it in person, and therefore sent them
to the king, who delivered them to sir Thomas Wriothesley,
with the title of keeper, during the indisposition of the
chancellor a circumstance not remarked by any of our
historians. On the 19th of April, lord Audi ey made hU
will, and, amongst other things, directed that his executors
should, upon the next New-year’s day after his decease,
deliver to the king a legacy of one hundred pounds, from
whom, as he expresses it,
” he had received all his reputations and benefits." He died on the last of April, 1544,
when he had held the seals upwards of twelve years, and
in the fifty-sixth of his life, as appears by the inscription
on his tomb. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas
iGrey, marquis of Dorset, by whom he had two daughters,
Margaret and Mary; Mary died unmarried, and Margaret
became his sole heir. She married first lord Henry Dudley,
a younger son of John duke of Northumberland, and he
being slain at the battle of St. Quintin’s, in Picardy, in
1557, she married a second time, Thomas duke of Norfolk, to whom she was also a second wife, and had by him
a son Thomas, who, by act of parliament, in the 27th of
Elizabeth, was restored in blood; and in the 39th of the
same reign, summoned to parliament by his grandfather’s
title, as baron of Walden, In the 1st of James I. he was
created earl of Suffolk, and being afterwards lord
hightreasurer of England, he built on the ruins of the abbey of
Walden, that nee noble palace, which, in honour of our
chancellor, he called Audley-End.
, a celebrated modern traveller, descended of an ancient and honourable family, was the son of David Bruce,
, a celebrated modern traveller, descended of an ancient and honourable family, was the son of David Bruce, esq. of Kinnaird, by Marion Graham, daughter of James Graham, esq. of Airth, dean of the faculty of advocates, and judge of the high court of admiralty in Scotland. He was born at the family residence of Kinnaird, in the county of Stirling, Dec. 14, 1730. Of his first years few particulars are recorded of much consequence, except that his temper, contrary to the character which it afterwards assumed, was gentle and quiet; but as he advanced in life, became bold, hasty, and impetuous, accompanied, however, with a manly openness, that shewed the usual concomitant, a warm and generous heart. It having been determined to give him an English education, he was sent to London to the house of William Hamilton, esq. a barrister, and his uncle, with whom he remained for some time, and in 1742 he was placed at Harrow school, where he made great proficiency in classical learning. After leaving Harrow in May 1746, he lived about a year in the academy of a Mr. Gordon till April 1747, where he prosecuted his classical education, and studied French, arithmetic, and geometry. In May of that year he returned to Scotland in order to commence a course of study at the university of Edinburgh, preparatory to his following the profession of the law; but it does not appear that he made much progress, or indeed had much inclination for this study, and the precarious state of his health at this time rendered much study of any kind dangerous. His own expectations of success in the law became gradually abated, and various other circumstances determined him to relinquish it for ever.
f the royal society, one of the lords of trade, and comptroller to the archbishop of Canterbury, was descended of an ancient and honourable family of that name, seated at
, a learned English gentleman, fellow
and treasurer of the royal society, one of the lords of trade,
and comptroller to the archbishop of Canterbury, was descended of an ancient and honourable family of that name,
seated at Shilston, in Devonshire, and was the son of Richard Hill, of Shilston, esq. His father was bred to mercantile business, which he pursued with great success, was
chosen an alderman of London, and v.as much in the
confidence of the Long-parliament, and of Cromwell and his
statesmen. Abraham, his eldest son, was born April 18,
1633, at his father’s house, in St. Botolph’s parish by Billingsgate, and after a proper education, was introduced
into his business. He was also an accomplished scholar in
the Greek, Latin, French, Dutch, and Italian languages,
and was considered as one of very superior literary attainments. On his father’s death in 1659, he became possessed of an ample fortune, and that he might, with more
ease, prosecute his studies, he hired chambers in Gresham
college, where he had an opportunity of conversing with
learned men, and of pursuing natural philosophy, to which
he was much attached. He was one of the first eucouragers of the royal society, and on its first institution became a fellow, and in 1663 their treasurer, which office
he held for two years. His reputation, in the mean time,
was not confined to his native country, but by means of
the correspondence of his learned friends, was known over
most part of Europe. Having, like his father, been biassed
in favour of the republican party from which he recovered
by time and reflection, his merit was in consequence overlooked during the reigns of Charles II. and James II. but
on the accession of king William, he was called to a seat
at the board of trade, where his knowledge of the subject
made his services of great importance; and when Dr. Tillotson was promoted to the see of Canterbury in 1691, he
prevailed on Mr. Hill to take on him the office of his
comptroller, which he accordingly accepted, and lived in
Jiigh favour with that distinguished prelate, who would frequently term him “his learned friend and his instructing
philosopher.
” On the accession of queen Anne, Mr. Hill
resigned his office in the Board of Trade, and retired to
his seat of St. John’s in Sutton, at Hone in the county of
Kent, which he had purchased in 1665, and which was
always his favourite residence. Here he died Feb. 5, 1721.
In 1767 a volume of his “Familiar Letters
” was published,
which gives us a very favourable idea of his learning, public spirit, and character; and although the information
these letters contain is not of such importance now as when
written, there is always an acknowledged charm in unreserved epistolary correspondence, which makes the perusal
of this and all such collections interesting.
, the chief instrument and promoter of the reformation in Scotland, was descended of an ancient and honourable family, and born 1505, at Gifford,
, the chief instrument and promoter of
the reformation in Scotland, was descended of an ancient
and honourable family, and born 1505, at Gifford, in the
county of East Lothian, Scotland. His parents gave him
a liberal education, which in that age was far from being
common. He was first placed at the grammar-school of
Haddington, and after acquiring the principles of the
Latin tongue, was sent to the university of St. Andrew’s
under professor John Major, the same who was Buchanan’s
tutor, a very acute schoolman, and deep in theology.
Knox, however, examining the works of Jerom and Austin,
began to dis-relish this subtilizing method, altered his taste,
and applied himself to plain and solid divinity. At his
entrance upon this new course of study, he attended the
preaching of Thomas Guillaume, or Williams, a friar of
eminence, whose sermons were of extraordinary service to
him; and he acquired still more knowledge of the truth
from the martyr, George Wishart, so much celebrated in,
the history of this time, who came from England in 1554,
with commissioners from king Henry VIII. Knox, being
of an inquisitive nature, learned from him the principles
of the reformation; with which he was so well pleased,
that he renounced the Romish religion, and having now
relinquished all thoughts of officiating in that church,
which had invested him with clerical orders, he entered as
tutor into the family of Hugh Douglas of Long Niddrie, a
gentleman in East Lothian, who had embraced the reformed doctrines. Another gentleman, in the neighbourhood, also put his son under his tuition, and these two
youths were instructed by him in the principles of religion,
as well as of the learned languages, and he taught the
former in such a way as to allow the rest of the family,
and the people of the neighbourhood, to reap advantage
from it. He catechised them publicly in a chapel at Long
Niddrie, in which be also read to them at stated times, a
chapter of the Bible, accompanied with explanatory remarks. The memory of this has been preserved by tradition; and the chapel, the ruins of which are still apparent,
is popularly called “John Knox’s kirk.
” It was not, however, to be expected, that he would long be suffered to
continue in this employment, under a government entirely
at the devotion of cardinal Beaton (see Beaton); and
although he was, in the midst of his tyranny, cut off by a
conspiracy in 1546, Hamilton, successor to the vacant
bishopric, sought Knox’s life with as much eagerness as
his predecessor. Hence Knox resolved to retire to Germany, where the reformation was gaining ground; knowing that, in England, though the pope’s authority was
suppressed, yet the greater part of his doctrine remained
in full vigour. He was, however, diverted from his purpose, and prevailed on to return to St. Andrew’s, January 1547; where he soon after accepted a preacher’s place,
though sorely against his will.