WOBO: Search for words and phrases in the texts here...

His principal work is an account of the rebellion, with a narrative of the regal and parliamentary privileges, printed under the title of “Elenchus Motuum nuperorum in Anglia, simul ac Juris Regis el Parliamentarii brevis narratio,” Paris, 1649, and Frankfort, 1650, 4to. Before it went to the press, it was communicated to Dr. Peter Heylyn, who made several observations on it, greatly tending to the honour of the king and the church. The first part of the Elenchus was translated into English by an unknown hand, and printed at London in 1652, in 8vo. The second part, in which the author had the assistance of some papers communicated to him by the lord-chancellor Hyde, afterwards earl of Clarendon, was printed in Latin at London in 1661, at Amsterdam the year following in 8vo, and reprinted with the first part at London in 1663, in Bvo. With such assistance this may be supposed an impartial work; but he has been accused of leaning too much to the Puritans, among whom he appears to have lived much in the early part of his life. In 1676, a third part was added to the “Elenchus,” also in Latin, by Dr. Thomas Skinner, a physician, but is inferior to the former. In 1685, the whole was translated by A. Lovel, M. A. of Cambridge. The only answer to Dr. Bate’s work, entitled “Elenchus Elenchi,” was written by Robert Pugh, an officer in the king’s army, and printed at Paris in 1664, 8vo, to which Bate replied; but we do not find that his reply was published. Dr. Bate wrote likewise, 1. “The Royal Apology; or, the declaration of the Commons in parliament, Feb. 11, 1647,” 1648, 4to. 2. “De Rachitide, sive morbo puerili, qui vulgo the Rickets dicitur,” Lond. 1650, 8vo. Mr. Wood tells us, the doctor was assisted in this work by Francis Glisson and Ahasuerus Regemorter, doctors of physic, and fellows of the college of physicians, and that it was afterwards translated into English by Philip Armin, and printed at London, 1651, 8vo and about the same time translated by Nicolas Culpepper, who styles himself ‘ student in physic and astrology.’ 3. After Dr. Bate’s death came out a dispensatory in Latin, entitled “Pharmacopoeia Batcana; in qua octoginta circiter pharmaca plcraque omnia e praxiGeorgii Batei regi Carolo 2clo proto-medici excerpta,” Lond. 1688 and 1691. It was published by Mr.lames Shipton, apothecary, and translated into English by Dr. William Salmon, under the title of “Bate’s Dispensatory,” and was long a very popular work. There was another George Bate, who wrote the “Lives of the Regicides,” London, 1661, 8vo.

Whilst he remained minister of this parish, the providence of God wonderfully interposed for the preservation of his life; for his lodgings being near a powder-mill, Mr. Morgan, a gentleman of the parish, represented to him. the danger of his situation, and at the same time invited him to his own house. Mr. Bull, at first, modestly declined the offer, but after some importunity accepted it; and, not many days after his removal to Mr. Morgan’s, the mill was blown up, and his apartment with it. In this part of his life he took a journey once a year to Oxford, where he stayed about two months, to enjoy the benefit of the public libraries. In his way to and from Oxford, he always paid a visit to sir William Masters, of Cirencester, by which means he contracted an intimacy with Mr. Alexander pregory, the minister of the place, and after some time married Bridget, one of his daughters, on the 20th of May, 1658. The same year he was presented by the lady Pool, to the rectory of Suddington St. Mary, near Cirencester, in Gloucestershire. The next year, 1659, he was made privy to the design of a general insurrection in favour of king Charles II. and several gentlemen of that neighbourhood who were in the secret, chose his house at Suddington for one of the places of their meeting. Upon the restoration, Mr. Bull frequently preached for his father-in-law, Mr. Gregory, at Cirencester, where there was a large and populous congregation; and his sermons gave such general satisfaction, that, upon a vacancy, the people were very solicitous to have procured for him the presentation; but the largeness of the parish, and the great duty attending it, deterred him Trom consenting to the endeavours they were making for that purpose. In 1662, he was presented by the lord high-chancellor, the earl of Clarendon, to the vicarage of Suddington St. Peter, which lay contiguous to Suddington St. Mary, at the request of his diocesan Dr. Nicholson, bishop of Gloucester, both livings not exceeding 100l. a year. When Mr. Bull came first to the rectory of Suddington, he began to be more open in the use of the liturgy of the church of England, though it was not yet restored by the return of the king; for, being desired to marry a couple, he performed the ceremony, on a Sunday morning, in the face of the whole congregation, according to the form prescribed by the book of common -prayer. He took the same method in governing these parishes, as in that of St. George’s, and with the same success; applying himself with great diligence to the discharge of his pastoral functions, and setting the people an admirable example in the government and œconomy of his own family. During his residence here, he had an opportunity of confirming two ladies of quality in the protestant communion, who were reduced to a wavering state of mind by the arts and subtleties of the Romish missionaries. The only dissenters he had in his parish were quakers; whose extravagances often gave him no small uneasiness. In this part of his life, Mr. Bull prosecuted his studies with great application, and composed most of his works during the twenty-seven years that he was rector of Suddington. Several tracts, indeed, which cost him much pains, are entirely lost, through his own neglect in preserving them; particularly a treatise on the posture used by the ancient Christians in receiving the Eucharist; a letter to Dr. Pearson concerning the genuineness of St. Ignatius’ s epistles; a long one to Mr. Glanvil, formerly minister of Bath, concerning the eternity of future punishments; and another, on the subject of popery, to a person of very great quality. In 1669, he published his Apostolical Harmony, with a view to settle the peace of the church, upon a point of the utmost importance to all its members; and he dedicated it to Dn William Nicholson, bishop of Gloucester. This performance was greatly disliked, at first, by many of the clergy, and others, on account of the author’s departing therein from the private opinions of some doctors of the church, and his manner of reconciling the two apostles St. Paul and St. James, as to the doctrine of justification. It was particularly opposed by Dr. Morley, bishop of WinChester; Dr. Barlow, Margaret-professor of divinity at Oxford; Mr. Charles Gataker, a presbyterian divine; Mr. Joseph Truman, a non-conformist minister; Dr. Tully, principal of St. Edmund’s-hall; Mr. John Tombes, a famous anabaptist preacher; Dr. Lewis Du Moulin, an independent; and by M. De Marets, a French writer, who tells us, “that the author, though a professed priest of the church of England, was more addicted to the papists, remonstrants, and Socinians, than to the orthodox party.” Towards the end of 1675, Mr. Bull published his “Examen Censuræ,” &c. in answer to Mr. Gataker, and his “Apologia pro Harmonia,” &c. in reply to Dr. Tully. Mr. Bull’s notion on this subject was “That good works, which proceed from faith, and are conjoined with faith, are a necessary condition required from us by God, to the end that by the new and evangelical covenant, obtained by and sealed in the blood of Christ the Mediator of it, we may be justified according to his free and unmerited grace.” In this doctrine, and throughout the whole book, Mr. Bull absolutely excludes all pretensions to merit on the part of men; but the work nevertheless excited the jealousy of many able divines both in the church and among the dissenters, as appears from the above list. About three years after, he was promoted by the earl of Nottingham, then lord chancellor, to a prebend in the church of Gloucester, in which he was installed the 9th of October, 1678. In 1680, he finished his “Defence of the Nicene Faith,” of which he had given a hint five years before in his Apology. This performance, which is levelled against the Arians and Socinians on one hand, and the Tritheists and Sabellians on the other, was received with universal applause, and its fame spread into foreign countries, where it was highly esteemed by the best judges of antiquity, though of different persuasions. Five years after its publication, the author was presented, by Philip Sheppard, esq. to the rectory of Avening in Gloucestershire, a very large parish, and worth two hundred pounds per annum. The people of this parish, being many of them very dissolute and immoral, and many more disaffected to the church of England, gave him for some time great trouble and uneasiness; but, by his prudent conduct and diligent discharge of his duty, he at last got the better of their prejudices, and converted their dislike iuto the most cordial love and affection towards him. He had not been long at Avening, before he was promoted, by archbishop Sancroft, to the archdeaconry of Landaff, in which he was installed the 20th of June, 1686. He was invited soon after to Oxford, where the degree of doctor in divinity was conferred upon him by that university, without the payment of the usual fees, in consideration of the great and eminent services he had done the church. During the reign of James II. the doctor preached very warmly against popery, with which the nation was then threatened. Some time after the revolution, he was put into the commission of the peace, and continued in it, with some little interruption, till he was made a bishop. In 1694, whilst he continued rector of Avening, he published his “Judicium Ecclesia? Catholicse, &c.” in defence of the “Anathema,” as his former book had been of the Faith, decreed by the first council of Nice. The last treatise which Dr. Bull wrote, was his “Primitive Apostolical Tradition,” &c. against Daniel Zwicker, a Prussian. All Dr. Bull’s Latin works, which he had published by himself at different times, were collected together, and printed in 1703, in one volume in folio, under the care and inspection of Dr. John Ernest Grabe, the author’s age and infirmities disabling him from undertaking this edition. The ingenious editor illustrated the work with many learned annotations, and ushered it into the world with an excellent preface. Dr, Bull was in the seventy-first year of his age, when he was acquainted with her majesty’s gracious intention of conferring on him the bishopric of St. David’s; which promotion he at first declined, on account of his ill state of health and advanced years; but, by the importunity of his friends, and strong solicitations from the governors o*f the church, he was at last prevailed upon to accept it, and was accordingly consecrated in Lambeth-chapel, the 29th of April, 1705. Two years after, he lost his eldest son, Mr. George Bull, who died of the small-pox the 11th of May, 1707, in, the thirty-seventh year of his age. Our prelate took his seat in the house of lords in that memorable session, when the bill passed for the union of the two kingdoms, and spoke in a debate which happened upon that occasion, in favour of the church of England. About July after his consecration, he went into his diocese, and was received with all imaginable demonstrations of respect by the gentry and clergy. The episcopal palace at Aberguilly being much out of repair, he chose the town of Brecknock for the place of his residence; but was obliged, about half a year before his death, to remove from thence to Abermarless, for the benefit of a freer air. He resided constantly in his diocese, and carefully discharged all the episcopal functions. Though bishop Bull was a great admirer of our ecclesiastical constitution, yet he would often lament the distressed state of the church of England, chiefly owing to the decay of ancient discipline, and the great number of lay-impropriations, which he considered as a species of sacrilege, and insinuated that he had known instances of its being punished by the secret curse which hangs over sacrilegious persons. Some time before his last sickness, he entertained thoughts of addressing a circular letter to all his clergy; and, after his death, there was found among his papers one drawn up to that purpose. He had greatly impaired his health, by too intense and unseasonable an application to his studies, and, on the 27th of September, 1709, was taken with a violent fit of coughing, which brought on a spitting of blood. About the beginning of February following, he was seized with a distemper, supposed to be an ulcer, or what they call the inward piles; of which he died the 17th of the same month, and was buried, about a week after his death, at Brecknock/ leaving behind him but two children out of eleven.

The king was now determined to give the seals of secretary of state to lord Dorchester; and as the measure^ was taken, though not yet divulged, of making peace as soon as possible both with France and Spain, he judo-ed it of the utmost consequence to have one in that department, whose judgment and skill in negotiation had been exercised in a long course of foreign employment. Lord Conway had for several years discharged that great trust, according to the earl of Clarendon’s expression, with notable insufficiency, and as old age and sickness were now added to his original incapacity, the court and nation must with great satisfaction have seen him succeeded by so able a minister as lord Dorchester, but the parliament, when it Inet on the day appointed, agreed no better with the court than it had done in the preceding session. The lord treasurer Weston, and Dr. Laud, bishop of London, were become as great objects of national dislike as Buckingham had ever been, while the commons shewed their aversion to Weston in the state, and to Laud in the church, by warm remonstrances against the illegal exaction of tonnage and poundage, and the increase of Popisb and Arminian doctrines; on which account the king dissolved the house on the lOth of March. According to some writers, lord Dorchester hi this parliament proposed the laying an excise upon the nation, which was taken so ill, that though he was a privy counsellor, and principal secretary of state, he with difficulty escaped being committed to the Tower. Of this story, which we believe originated in Howel’s letters, and is referred to in Lloyd’s StateWorthies, we find no traces in the parliamentary history, or in thejords and commons journals. It is, however, generally inferred from the authority of the earl of Clarendon, that lord Dorchester was better acquainted with the management of foreign affairs, than with the constitution, laws and customs of his own country. In his capacity of secretary of state, he was a chief agent in carrying on and completing the treaties with France and Spain; and besides these, he directed in the course of the years 1629 and 1630, the negociations of sir Henry Vane in Holland, and sir Thomas Roe in Poland and the maritime parts of Germany. The former was sent to the Hague, to explain to the States the motives of our treaty with Spain, and to sound their dispositions about joining- in it; and the latter was employed as mediator between the kings of Sweden and Poland after which he was very instrumental in persuading the heroic Gustavus Adolphus to undertake his German expedition. Lord Dorchester appears, likewise, to have kept up a private correspondence with the queen of Bohemia, who rising superior to her misfortunes, he used the best offices in his power to prevent misunderstandings between her and the king her brother; and he gave her advice, when the occasion required it, with the freedom and sincerity of an old friend and servant.

With regard to the general abilities and character of lord Dorchester, it appears from alt his political remains, that he was a judicious, faithful, and diligent minister, and better qualified for his department than any who were his immediate predecessors or successors in the same office. King Charles himself, who was a good judge of his servants’ abilities, used to say, as sir P. Warwick relates in his Memoirs, “that he had two secretaries of state, the lords Dorchester and Falkland; one of whom was a dull man in comparison of the other, and yet pleased him the best for he always brought him his own thoughts in his own woreds: the latter cloathed them in so fine a dress, that he did not always know them again.” Allowing for some defects of stiffness and circumlocution, which are common to all the writings of that time, lord Dorchester’s dispatches are drawn up in that plain, perspicuous, and unaffected stile which was fittest for business. Domestic concerns were no part of his province, but entirely managed by the lord treasurer Weston and archbishop Laud. He held the pen singly in foreign affairs, and was regretted by those who were used to receive the instructions of government from a secretary of state, upon whom they could depend that he would make a just report of their services, and that he would not mislead or misrepresent the ministers with whom he corresponded. That he died much lamented by the public in general, and with the reputation of an honest and well-deserving statesman, is declared by sir Thomas Roe, in a manuscript letter to a friend in Holland. The earl of Clarendon’s assertion, that lord Dorchester was unacquainted with the government, laws, and customs of his own country, and the nature of the people, is disputed by Dr. Birch, in his “Review of the Negociations,” who considers it as absolutely incompatible with the experience which he must have acquired in the house of commons. But, not to mention that the noble historian, who had no prejudice against his lordship, could not well be deceived in the fact, it is, we think, confirmed by the figure he made in the parliament of 1626, and by his acquiescence in all the obnoxious measures of Buckingham, Weston, and Laud. The following articles are attributed to his pen, by Anthony Wood and lord Orford: 1. “Balance pour peser en toute equite & droicture la Harangue fait vagueres en L'Assemblee des illustres & puissans Seignoures Messeigneurs les Estats generaux des Provinces Unies du Pais has, &c.” 1618, 4to. 2. “Harangue fait au Counseile de Mess, les Estats generaux des Provinces Unies, touchant le Discord & le Troubles de PEglise & la Police, causes par la Doctrine d'Arminius,” 6 Oct. 1617, printed with the former. 3. Various Letters in the “Cabala, or Scrinia sacra,” London, 1663, fol. 4. Various Letters to George, duke of Buckingham, in “Cabala, or Mysteries of State,” London, 1654, 4to. 5. Several French and Latin Letters to the learned Vossius, printed in “Ger. Jo. Vossii & clarorum Virorum ad.eum Epistoiae,” London, 1690, fol. 6. Several Speeches in Parliament, in 1626, in Rushworth’s Collections. 7. Several Letters in the three volumes of “Sir Ralph Winwood’s Memorials,” published at London, in folio, 1725. 8. A Letter to the earl of Salisbury, printed in “Howard’s Collection.” 9. Memoirs for Dispatches of political Affairs relating to Holland and England, arm. 1618; with several Propositions made to the States. Manuscript. 10. Particular Observations of the military Affairs in the Palatinate, and the Low Countries, annis 1621, 1622. Manuscript. 11. Letters relating to State Affairs, written to the king and viscount Rochester, from Venice, ann. 1613. Manuscript. The manuscript pieces here mentioned, are probably no more than parts of the collections preserved in the Paper office. The letters from and to sir Dudley Carleton, during his embassy in Holland, from January 1615-16, to December 1620, properly selected, and as occasion required, abridged, or only noted, were published by the late earl of Hardwicke, in 1757, in one vol. 4to, with an historical preface. The second edition of the same work, with large additions to the historical preface, appeared in 1775, and has been twice reprinted since. These letters, if some allowances be made for party violences and prejudices, contain more clear, accurate, and interesting accounts of that remarkable period of Dutch history to which they relate, than are anj where extant. There are, likewise, discussed in the course of them, many points of great importance, at that time, to the English commerce. Lord Hardwicke’s excellent preface has furnished the materials of the present sketch.

, a loyalist in the time of Charles f. of uncommon firmness and bravery, the descendant of an ancient family, originally from Normandy, but afterwards settled at Guernsey and Jersey, was born at Jersey in 1599, his father Ilelier Carteret, esq. being at that time deputy governor of the island. He entered early into the sea service, and had acquired the character of an experienced officer, when king Charles I. ascended the throne. This circumstance recommending him to the notice and esteem of the duke of Buckingham, he was appointed, in 1626, joint governor of Jersey, with Henry, afterwards lord Jermyn and, in 1C '6 9, he obtained a grant of the office and place of comptroller of all his Majesty’s ships. At the commencement of the civil war, when the parliament resolved to send out the earl of Warwick as admiral of the fleet, they also resolved, that captain Carteret should be vice-ad miral. But he, thinking that he ought not to accept the command without knowing the royal pleasure, addressed himself to the king for direction, who ordered him to decline the employment; and captain, Batten, surveyor-general, was substituted in his place. His Majesty was probably mistaken in this advice; for, if captain Carteret had accepted of the charge, he might probably have prevented the greater part of the fleet from engaging in the cause of the parliament. Captain Carteret, however, likewise quitted the post of comptroller, and retired, with his family, to the island of Jersey, the inhabitants of which were confirmed by him in their adherence to the king; and desirous of more active service, he transported himself into Cornwall, with the purpose of raising a troop of horse. When he arrived in that country, finding there was a great want of powder, he went into France to procure that and other necessary supplies; and was so successful, that, through the remainder of the war, the Cornish army was never destitute of ammunition. This was so important and seasonable a service, that the king acknowledged it by particular approbation; and by conferring upon him, at Oxford, the honour of knighthood, which was speedily followed by his being advanced, on the 9th of May 1645, to the dignity, of a baronet. Returning the same year into Jersey, he found that several of the inhabitants had been induced to embrace the cause of the parliament, on which account he threw some of them into confinement. This was so alarming and offensive to the members at Westminster, that an order was made, that if, for the future, he should put to death any of the island whom he should take prisoners, for every one so slain, three of the king’s men should be hung up. From the words here used, it seems implied that sir George Carteret had actually executed some one or more of the people of Jersey who had appeared for the Parliament; a step highly injudicious, whence, in all the subsequent propositions for peace with the king, sir George was excepted from pardon. When the prince of Wales, and many persons of distinction with him, came into Jersey in 1646, and brought with them very little for their subsistence, they were all chear fully entertained, and at a large expence, by sir George Carteret who, being sensible how much it behoved him to take care for supplies, equipped about half a score small frigates and privateers, which soon struck a terror through the whole channel, and made a number of captures. Upon the prince’s leaving the island, at the positive command of the queen, several of the council chose to stay with sir George; au<=! the chancellor of the exchequer (afterwards earl of Clarendon) resided with him above two years. After the death of the king, sir George Carteret, though the republican party was completely triumphant, and though Charles II. was at the Hague in a very destitute condition, immediately proclaimed him at Jersey, with all his titles. Some months afterwards his Majesty determined to pay a second visit to the island of Jersey, and arrived in the latter end of September 1649, accompanied by his brother the duke of York, with several of the nobility. Here they were supplied by sir George with all necessaries. The king, when prince of Wales, had procured his father’s leave for making sir George Carteret his vice-chamberlain, and he now appointed him treasurer of his navy; which however, at this time, chiefly consisted of the privateers that sir George hue! provided, and of the men of war with prince Rupert. Charles II. staid in the island till the latter end of March 1650, when he embarked for Holland, in order to be more commodiously situated for treating with the Scots, who had invited him into that kingdom. This defiance of sir George Carteret in harbouring the king, and taking many of their trading vessels, enraged the republicans so much, that they determined to exert every nerve for the reduction of Jersey. A formidable armament being prepared, it put to sea in October 1651, under the command of admiral Blake, and major-general Holmes, to the last of whom the charge of the forces for the descent was committed. In this crisis, sir George Carteret prevented the landing of the republican army as long as possible; and when that was effected, and the remaining forts of the island were taken, he retired into Elizabeth castle, resolving to hold it out to the last extremity. The king being safely arrived in France, after the, fatal battle of Worcester, sir George informed him of the state of the garrison, but the king not being able to assist him, he advised sir George Carteret, rather to accept of a reasonable composition, than, by too obstinate a defence, to bring himself and the loyal gentlemen who were with him into danger of being made prisoners of war. Sir George was ambitious that Elizabeth castle should be the last of the king’s garrisons (as was in fact the case) which should yield to the prevailing powers. He determined, therefore, to conceal his majesty’s permission to treat, that the knowledge of it might not renew the cry for a surrender. But, at length, provisions growing scarce, the number of defenders lessening daily by death and desertion, and there being no possibility of supplies or recruits, Elizabeth castle was surrendered in the? latter end of December, and sir George went first to St. Maloes, and afterwards travelled through several parts of Europe. To facilitate his reception at the different courts and places he might be disposed to visit, he obtained from his royal master a very honourable and remarkable certificate of recommendation. In 1657, sir George had given such offence to Oliver Cromwell, by some hostile design or attempt against the English vessels trading to the French ports, that, by the Protector’s interest with cardinal Mazarine, he was committed prisoner to the Bastile from which he was, after some time, released by the intercession of his friends, upon condition of his quitting France. In 1659, however, we find him at Rheims, from whence, he repaired to the king at Brussels, and followed him to Breda. Upon his majesty’s being restored to his kingdoms, sir George Carteret rode, with him in his triumphant entry into the city of London, on the 2<nh of May 1660, and next day he was declared vice-chamberlain of the hoiishold, an-d sworn of the privy council. He was also constituted treasurer of the navy; and at the coronation of the king, he had the honour of being almoner for the day. In the first parliament called by Charles II. in May, 1661, sir George Carteret was elected representative for the corporation of Portsmouth; and it appears, that he was au active member of the house. When the duke of York, 1673, resigned the office of high admiral of England, sir George was constituted one of the commissioners of the admiralty; and“in 1676, he was appointed one of the lords of the committee of trade. He was also vice-treasurer of Ireland, and treasurer of the military forces there. At length, in consequence of his merit and services, the king determined to raise him to the dignity of a peerage; but before the design could be accomplished, he departed this life, on the 14th of January, 1679, being nearly eighty years of age. On the 11th of February following, a royal warrant was issued, in which it is recited,” That whereas sir George Carteret died before his patent for his barony was sued out, liis Majesty authorizes Elizabeth, his widow, and her youngest children, James Carteret, Caroline, wife of sir Thomas S<:ot, kut. and Louisa, wife of sir Robert Atkins, knt. to enjoy their precedency and pre-eminency, as if the said sir George Carterei hail actually been created a baron." Sir George’s rldest son, by his jady Elizabeth, who was his cousin-gr nnan, being the daughter of sir PhiUp Carteret, was ijained Philip after his grandfather. This gentleman eminently distinguished himself in the civil wars, and was khighted by Charles II on his arrival in Jersey. After the king’s restoration, sir Philip Carteret married Jemima, daughter of Edward Montague, the first earl of Sandwich, and perished with that illustrious nobleman, in the great sea-fight with the Dutch, in Solbay, on the 28th of May, 1672. Sir Philip determined, whilst many others left the ship, to share the fate of his father-in-law. His eldest son George was the first lord Carteret, and father to the subject of the following article.

Dr. Cosin wrote a great number of books, from all which he has sufficiently confuted the calumny of his being a papist, or popishly affected. Besides his “Collection of Private Devotions,” mentioned above, he published “A Scholastical History of the Canon of the Holy Scripture; or, the certain and indubitable books thereof, as they are received in the Church of England,” Condon, 1657, 4to, reprinted in 1672. This history, which is still in esteem, is deduced from the time of the Jewish church, to the year 1546, that is, the time when the council of Trent corrupted, and made unwarrantable additions to, the ancient Canon of the Holy Scriptures, and was written by the author during his exile at Paris. He dedicated it to Dr. M. Wren, bishop of Ely, then a prisoner in the Tower. Dr. P. Gunning had the care of the edition. Since the bishop’s decease the following books and tracts of his have been published: 1. “A Letter to Dr. Collins, concerning the Sabbath,” dated from Peterhouse, Jan. 24, 1635, printed in the “Bibliotheca Literaria,” 1723, 4to; in which he proves, that the keeping of our Sunday is immutable, as being grounded upon divine institution and apostolical tradition, which he confirms by several instances. 2. “A Letter from our author to Mr. Cordel, dated Paris, Feb. 7, 165O,” printed at the end of a pamphlet entitled “The Judgment of the Church of England, in the case of Laybaptism, and of Dissenters baptism,' 1 a second edition of which was published in 1712, 8vo. 3.” Regni Anglise Religio Catholica, prisca, casta, defoecata: omnibus Christianis monarchis, principibus, ordinibus, ostensa, anno MDCLII.“i. e. A short scheme of the ancient and pure doctrine and discipline of the Church of England. Written at the request of sir Edward Hyde, afterwards earl of Clarendon, and printed at the end of Smith’s Life of bishop Cosin. 4.” The History of Popish Transubstantiation,“&c. written in Latin by the author at Paris, for the use of some of his countrymen, who were frequently attacked upon that point by the papists. It was published by Dr. Durrell, at London, 1675, 8vo, and translated into English in 1676, by Luke de Beaulieu, 8vo. There is a second part still in manuscript. 5.” The differences in the chief points of religion between the Roman Catholics and us of the Church of England; together with the agreements which we, for our parts, profess, and are ready to embrace, if they, for theirs, were as ready to accord with us in the same. Written to the countess of Peterborough, “printed at the end of bishop Bull’s” Corruptions of the Church of Rome.“6.” Notes on the Book of CommonPrayer.“Published by Dr. William Nicholls, at the end of his Comment on the Book of Common-Prayer, Lond. 171O, fol. 7.” Account of a Conference in Paris, between Cyril, archbishop of Trapezond, and Dr. John Cosin;“printed in the same book. 8.” A Letter from Dr. Cosin to bishop Moreton his predecessor, giving an account of his studies and employment when an exile abroad;“and,” A Memorial of his, against what the Romanists call the Great General Council of Lateran under Innocent III. in 1215,“both published by Des Maizeaux in vol. VI. of” The Present State of the Republic of Letters,“1730. 9.” An Apology of Dr. John Cosin,“in answer to Fuller’s misrepresentations of him in that author’s Church History, printed at the end of the first part of Heylin’s” Examen Historicum.“The following pieces were also written by bishop Cosin, but never primed: I.” An Answer to a Popish pamphlet pretending that St. Cyprian was a Papist.“2.” An Answer to four queries of a Roman Catholic, about the Protestant Religion.“3. ti An Answer to a paper delivered by a Popish BifUop to the lord Inchiquin. ' 4.” Annales Ecclesiastic!,“imperfect. 5.” An Answer to Father Robinson’s Papers concerning the validity of the Ordinations of the Church of England.“6.” Historia Conciliorum,“imperfect. 7.” Against the foraakers of the Church of England, and their seducers in this time of her tryal.“8.” Chronologia Sacra,“imperfect. 9.” A Treatise concerning the abuse of auricular confession in the Church of Rome." Some few of Dr. Cosin’s letters are extant among Dr. Birch’s collections in the British Museum.

After the restoration, and the marriage of king Charles II. queen Catharine appointed our author, who was then become one of the mission in England, her chaplain, and from that time he resided in Somerset-house, in the Strand. The great regularity of his life, his sincere and unaffected piety, his modest and mild behaviour, his respectful deportment to persons of distinction, with whom he was formerly acquainted when a protestant, and the care he took to avoid all concern in political affairs or intrigues of state, preserved him in quiet and safety, even in the most troublesome times- He was, however, a very zealous champion in the cause of the church of Rome, and was continually writing in defence of her doctrines, or in answer to the books of controversy written by protestants of distinguished learning or figure; and as this engaged him in a variety of disputes, he had the good fortune to acquire great reputation with both parties, the papists looking upon him to be one of their ablest advocates, and the protestants allowing that he was a grave, a sensible, and a candid writer. Among the works he published after his return to England, were: 1. “A non est inventus returned to Mr. Edward Bagshaw’s enquiry and vainly boasted discovery of weakness in the Grounds of the Church’s Infallibility,” 1662, 8vo. 2. “A Letter to an English gentleman, dated July 6th, 1662, wherein bishop Morley is concerned, printed amongst some of the treatises of that reverend prelate,” 3. “Roman Catholic Doctrines no Novelties; or, an answer to Dr. Pierce’s court-sermon, miscalled The primitive rule of Reformation,” 1663, 8vo; answered by Dr. Daniel Whitby. But that which contributed to make him most known, was his large and copious ecclesiastical history, entitled “The Church History of Britanny,” Roan, 1668, fol. which was indeed a work of great pains and labour, and executed with much accuracy and diligence. He had observed that nothing made a greater impression upon the people in general of his communion, than the reputation of the great antiquity of their church, and the fame of the old saints of both sexes, that had flourished in this island; and therefore he judged that nothing could be more serviceable in promoting what he styled the catholic interest, than to write such a history as might set these points in the fairest and fullest light possible. He had before him the example of a famous Jesuit, Michael Alford, alias Griffith, who had adjusted the same history under the years in which the principal events happened, in four large volumes, collected from our ancient historians; but, as this was written in Latin, he judged that it was less suited to the wants of common readers, and therefore he translated what suited his purpose into English, with such helps and improvements as he thought necessary. His history was very much approved by the most learned of his countrymen of the same religion, as appears by the testimonies prefixed to it. Much indeed may be said in favour of the order, regularity, and coherence of the facts, and the care and punctuality shewn in citing his authorities. On the other hand, he has too frequently adopted the superstitious notions of many of our old writers; transcribing from them such fabulous passages as have been long ago exploded by the inquisitive and impartial critics of his own faith. The book, however, long maintained its credit among the Romanists, as a most authentic ecclesiastical chronicle, and is frequently cited by their most considerable authors. He proposed to have published another volume of this history, which was to have carried it as low as the dissolution of monasteries by king Henry VIII. but he died before he had proceeded full three hundred years lower than the Norman conquest. Dodd, however, informs us that a considerable part of the second volume was preserved in ms. in the Benedictine monastery at Douay, and that it was never published “upon account of some nice controversies between the see of Rome, and some of our English kings, which might give offence.” While engaged on this work, he found leisure to interfere in all the controversies of the times, as will presently be noticed. His last dispute was in reference to a book written by the learned Dr. Stillingfleet, afterwards bishop of Worcester, to which, though several answers were given by the ablest of the popish writers, there was none that seemed to merit reply, excepting that penned by father Cressey, and this procured him the honour of a very illustrious antagonist, his old friend and acquaintance at Oxford, Edward earl of Clarendon. Being now grown far in years, and having no very promising scene before his eyes, from the warm spirit that appeared against popery amongst all ranks of people, and the many excellent books written to confute it by the most learned of the clergy, he was the more willing to seek for peace in the silence of a country retirement; and accordingly withdrew for some time to the house of Richard Caryll, esq. a gentleman of an ancient family and affluent fortune, at East Grinstead, co. Sussex, and dying upon the 10th of August 1674, being then near the seventieth year of his age, was buried in the parish church there. His loss was much regretted by those of his communion, as being one of their ablest champions, ready to draw his pen in their defence on every occasion, and sure of having his pieces read with singular favour and attention. His memory also was revered by the protestants, as well on account of the purity of his manners, and his mild and humble deportment, as for the plainness, candour, and decency with which he had managed all the controversies that he had been engaged in, and which had procured him, in return, much more of kindness and respect, than almost any other of his party had met with, or indeed deserved. It is very remarkable, however, that he thought it necessary to apologize to his popish readers for the respectful mention he made of the prelates of our church. Why this should require an apology, we shall not Inquire, but that his candour and politeness deserve the highest commendation will appear from what he says of archbishop Usher: “As for B. Usher, his admirable abilities in ‘chronological and historical erudition,’ as also his faithfulness and ingenuous sincerity in delivering without any provoking reflection*, what with great labour he has observed, ought certainly at least to exempt him from being treated by any one rudely and contemptuously, especially by me, who am moreover always obliged to preserve a just remembrance of very many kind effects of friendship, which I received from, him.” We have already taken notice of his inclination to the mystic divinity, which led him to take so much pains about the works of father Baker, and from the same disposition he also published “Sixteen revelations of divine love, shewed to a devout servant of our Lord, called mother Juliana, an anchorete of Norwich, who lived in the days of king Edward Hi.” He left also in ms. “An Abridgment of the book called The cloud of unknowing, and of the counsel referring to the same.” His next performance, was in answer to a famous treatise, written by Dr. Stillingfleet, against the church of Rome, which made a very great noise in those days, and put for some time a stop to the encroachments their missionaries were daily making, which highly provoked those of the Roman communion. This was entitled “Answer to part of Dr. Stillingfleet’s book, entitled Idolatry practised in the church of Rome,” 1672, 8vo, and was followed by “Fanaticism fanatically imputed to the Catholic Church by Dr. Stillingfleet, and the imputation refuted and retorted,” &c. 1672, 8vo, and “Question, Why are you a Catholic? Question, Why are you a Protestant?” 1673, 8vo. In support of Dr. Stillingfleet, the earl of Clarendon wrote “Animadversions” upon our author’s answer; in which he very plainly tells him and the world, that it was not devotion, but necessity and want of a subsistence, which drove him first out of the church of England, and then into a monastery. As this noble peer knew him well at Oxford, it may be very easily imagined that what he said made a very strong impression, and it was to efface this, that our author thought tit to send abroad an answer under the title of “Epistle apologetical to a person of honour, touching his vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet,' 1 1674, 8vo. In this work he gives a large relation of the state and condition of his affairs, at the time of what he styles his conversion, in order to remove the imputation of quitting his faith to obtain bread. The last work that he published was entitled” Remarks upon the Oath of Supremacy."

In 1763 he superintended the publication of “Henry Earl of Clarendon’s Diary and Letters,” and wrote the preface which is prefixed to these papers. In June of this year, he accompanied lord Bath to Spa, where he became acquainted with the hereditary prince of Brunswick (the late duke), from whom he received marked and particular attention, and with whom he was afterwards in correspondence. It is known that within a few years there existed a series of letters written by him during his stay at Spa, and also a book containing copies of all the letters which he had written to, and received from, the prince of Brunswick, on the state of parties, and the characters of their leaders in this country, and on the policy and effect of its continental connexions; but as these have not been found among his papers, there is reason to apprehend, that they may have been destroyed, in consideration of some of the persons being still alive, whose characters, conduct, and principles, were the topics of that correspondence.

In 1666, he published in folio, “Origines Juridiciales; or, historical memoirs of the English laws, courts of justice, forms of trial, punishment in cases criminal, law-writers, law-books, grants and settlements of estates, degree of serjeants, inns of court and chancery, &c.” This book is adorned with the heads of sir John Clench, sir Edward Coke, sir Randolph Crew, bir Robert Heath, Edward earl of Clarendon-, to whom it is dedicated, sir Orlando Bridgman, sir John Vaughan, and Mr. Selden. There are also plates of the arms in the windows of the Temple-hall, and other inns of court. A second edition was published in 1671, and a third in 1680. Nicolson recommends this book as a proper introduction to the history of the laws of this kingdom. His next work was, “The Baronage of England,” of which the first volume appeared in 1675, and the second and third in 1676, folio. Though the collecting of materials for this work cost him, as he tells us, a great part of thirty years’ labour, yet there are many faults in it; so many, that the gentlemen at the Heralds’ office said they could not depend entirely upon its authority. Wood informs us, that Dugdale sent to him copies of all the volumes of this work, with an earnest desire that he would peruse, correct, and add to them, what he could obtain from records and other authorities; whereupon, spending a whole long vacation upon it, he drew up at least sixteen sheets of corrections, but more additions; which being sent to the author, he remitted a good part of them into the margin of a copy of his Baronage on large paper (which copy, we believe, still exists). With all its faults, however, the work was so acceptable, that the year following its publication, there were very few copies unsold.

His wife died Dec. 18, 1681, aged seventy-five, after they had been married fifty-nine years. He had several children by her, sons and daughters. One of his daughters was married to Elias Ashmole, esq. All his sons died young, except John, who was created M. A. at Oxford, in 1661, and was at that time chief gentleman of the chamber to Edward earl of Clarendon, lord chancellor of England. In Oct. 1675, he was appointed Windsor-herald, upon the resignation of his brother-in-law, Elias Ashmole, esq and Norroy king of arms in March 1686, about which time he was also knighted by James II. He published “A Catalogue of the Nobility of England, &c.” printed at London, a large broadside, in 1685, and again, with additions, in 1690. This sir John Dugdale died in 1700, leaving two sons, William and John, who both died single, the latter in 1749; and four daughters, the third of whom, Jane, married Richard Geast, esq. by whom she had a son named Richard, who took the name and arms of Dugdale only. This gentleman died in 1806, leaving a son, Dugdale Stratford Dugdale, esq. the present member of parliament for the county of Warwick.

and cultivated minds to cherish an affectionate remembrance of the academies where they first pursued their studies, Mr. Evelyn gave a noble testimony of his high respect for his alma mater, Oxford, by using his utmost interest with the lord Henry Howard, in order to prevail upon him to bestow the Arundeliao marbles, then in the garden of Arundel-house in the Strand, upon the university, in which he happily succeeded, and obtained the thanks of that learned body, delivered by Dr. Barlow, and other delegates specially appointed for the purpose. Nor was this the last favour conferred by lord Arundel, at the request of Mr. Evelyn, whom he honoured with his closest friendship, after he arrived at the title of Duke of Norfolk. Of this interest Mr. Evtlyn made no other advantage than giving a right direction to the natural generosity of that excellent person, whence flowed some particular marks of kindness to the royal society, which were very gratefully accepted; and something farther would have been procured, if the duke’s sudden and unexpected death had not frustrated the schemes formed by our author for the service of that learned society, to which, from its very foundation, he was attached with unabated zeal. Mr. Evelyn spent his time, at this juncture, in a manner as pleasing as he could wish. He had great credit at court, and great reputation in the world; was one of the commissioners for rebuilding St. Paul’s, attended the meetings of the royal society with great regularity, undertook readily whatever tasks were assigned him to support that reputation, which, from their first institution, they had acquired, and which, by degrees, triumphed over that envy which it raised. He was punctual in the discharge of his office as a commissioner of the sick and wounded; and when he had leisure retired to his seat at Sayes-court, where the improvement of his garden was his favourite ambition. Yet in the midst of his employments, both public and private, and notwithstanding the continual pains that he bestowed in augmenting and improving the books he hud already published, he found leisure sufficient to undertake fresli labours oi the same kind, without any diminution of the high character he had obtained by his former writings. He made a journey to Oxford in the summer of 1669, where, on the 15th of July, at the opening of the theatre, he was honoured with the degree of doctor of the civil law; at the same time this honour was conferred on the duke of Ormond, their chancellor, and on the earl of Chesterfield. After king Charles II. had tried, with very little effect, to promote trade, according to the advice of persons engaged in it, he thought proper to constitute a particular board for that purpo.se, in Sept. 1672, and named several persons of great rank to be members of that council, and amongst them Mr. Evelyn, who had previously (Feb. 1671) been nominated one of the council of foreign plantations. These preferments were so welcome to a person of his disinterested temper and true public spirit, that he thought he could not express his gratitude better than by digesting, in a short and plain discourse, the chief heads of the history of trade and navigation, dedicated to the king, which was very graciously received, and is allowed to contain as much matter in as small a compass as any that was ever written uprm the topic. Notwithstanding these late auditions to his employments, when the royal society found it requisite to demand the assistance of some of its principal members, and to exact from them the tribute of certain dissertations upon weighty and philosophical subjects, he produced his share with his usual vigour and promptitude, as appears by their TVmisactions. We have now named all the preferments ronferred on him in that reign; and though they were none of them very considerable in respect of profit, yet he was jo easy in his own circumstances, so good an oeconomist, and so true a patriot, that while he daily saw fresh improvements made in every county throughout the kingdom, and the commerce of the nation continually extended, he thought himself amply recompensed, and never failed to express his sentiments in that respect with great cordiality. The severe winter of 1683 gave some interruption to his domestic enjoyments, the frost committing dreadful depredations in his fine gardens at Sayes-court, of which he sent a full and very curious account to the royal society in the beginning of the succeeding spring. After the accession of king James, we find him, in December 1685, appointed with the lord viscount Tiviot of the kingdom of Scotland, and colonel Robert Philips, one of the commissioners for executing the great office of lord privy-seal, in the absence of Henry earl of Clarendon, lord lieutenant of Ireland, which he held till March 11, 1686, when the king was pleased to make Henry baron Arundel of Wardour lord privy seal. While in this office he refused to put the seal to Dr. Obadiah Walker’s licence to print popish books. On May 5, 1695, he was appointed treasurer of Greenwich hospital, and although now much advanced in years, continued his literary labours, with his accustomed zeal, at his leisure hours.

, brother of the preceding, and youngest son of the dean, was born in the parish of St Faith, near St. Paul’s, London, Dec. 17, 16$2, was educated under his father at St. Paul’s school, and intended for the university, but his elder brother Roger being sent to Cambridge, and his father dying 1702, he was provided for in the custom-house, London, and at the time of his death was one of the land surveyors there. He was one of the revivers of the society of antiquaries in 1717, and their first treasurer. On resigning that office Feb. 21, 1740, the society testified their opinion of his merit and services, by presenting him with a handsome silver cup, value ten guineas, with a suitable inscription. He was a man of great learning and uncommon abilities, and well versed in the antiquities of England, for which he left many valuable collections behind him; but printed nothing in his life-time, except “A History of Winchester Cathedral,” London, 1715, begun by Henry earl of Clarendon, and continued to that year, with cuts. A few of his communications have been since printed in the “Archoeologia,” and spme in the “Bibl. Top. Britannica.” He died of a fever Jan. 10, 1754, at his lodgings at Hampstead. His library and prints were sold by auction in the same year, by Langford, but his Mss. became the property of Dr. Stukeley, who married his sister, and some of them, afterwards descended to Dr. Ducarel, at whose sale they were purchased by Mr. Gough. A list of them, which may be seen in our authority, sufficiently attests his industry and knowledge as an antiquary.

But he did not sit down content here; thinking his services deserved something more. He had already published his “Anti'-sacrilegus,” or, “A Defensative against the plausible or gilded poison of that nameless paper, supposed to be the plot of Cornelius Surges and his partners, which tempts the king’s majesty by the offer of 500,000l. to make good by an act of parliament, to the purchasers of Bishops’ Lands, &c. their illegal bargain for 99 years, 1660,” 4to: As also, his “Analysis, against the covenant in defence of the Hierarchy” and his '< Anti-Baal-Berith, or, the binding of the covenant and all the covenanters to their good behaviour, &c. With an answer to that monstrous paradox of no sacrilege, no sin, to alienate church lands, without, alid against all laws of God and man.“These were all printed before his promotion to the see of Exeter. His zeal continued to glow with equal ardour the two following years; in his” Life of Hooker,“prefixed to an edition of Hooker’s works, published by him in 1661; and, again, in his” Pillar of Gratitude, humbly dedicated to the glory of God, the honour of his majesty, &c. for restoring Episcopacy,“in 1662. But, above all, he particularly pleaded his merit in respect to the” Euuav BcwjXixw.“He applied to the earl of Clarendon, in a letter dated Dec. 28, 1661, with a petition to the king; in which having declared the advantages which had accrued to the crown by this service, he adds, that what was done like a king, should have a king-like retribution. In another letter to the duke of York, dated Jan. 17, the same year, he strongly urges the great service he had done, and importunately begs his royal highness to intercede for him with the king. Chancellor Hyde thought he had carried his merit too far, with regard to the king’s book: and, in a letter to him, dated March 13, 1661, writes thus:” The particular you mention, has indeed been imparted to me as a secret: I am sorry I e-'er knew it; and when it ceases to be a secret, it will please none but Mr. Milton."

In the mean time the most promising views opened to him at court; he was caressed by some leading persons in the ministry; and his patroness rejoiced to see him taken from her house the same year, to attend the earl of Clarendon, as secretary in his embassy to the court of Hanover. But, whatever were his hopes from this new advancement, it is certain they began and ended almost together; for queen Anne died in fifteen days after their arrival at Hanover. This, however, did not prove an irreparable loss; his present situation made him personally known to the succeeding royal family; and returning home he made a proper use of it, in a handsome compliment to the princess of Wales, on her arrival in England. This address procured him a favourable admittance at the new court; and that raising a new flow of spirits, he wrote his farce, “The What d'ye call it,” which appeared upon the stage before the end of the season, and was honoured by the presence of the prince and princess. The profits, likewise, brought some addition to his fortune; and his poetical merit being endeared 'by the sweetness and sincerity of his nature, procured him an easy access to persons of the first distinction. With these he passed his time with much satisfaction, notwithstanding his disappointment in the hopes of favours from the new court, where he met with nothing more valuable than a smile. In 1716 he made a visit to his native county at the expence of lord Burlington, and repaid his lordship with an humourous account of the journey. The like return was made for Mr. Pulteney’s favour, who took him in his company the following year to Aix, in France.

Soon after their deprivation, archbishop San croft and his colleagues began to consider about maintaining and continuing the episcopal succession among those who adhered to them; and, having resolved upon it, they sent Dr. Hickes over, with a list of the deprived clergy, to confer with king James about that matter. The doctor set out in May 1693, and had several audiences of the king, who complied with all he askedj Dr. Hickes, after being detained some months by an ague and fever, returned to England in February, and on the eve of St. Matthias the consecrations were performed by Dr. Lloyd bishop of Norwich, Dr. Turner bishop of Ely, and Dr. White bishop of Peterborough, at the bishop of Peterborough’s lodgings in the Rev. Mr. Giffard’s house, Southgate. Hickes was consecrated suffragan bishop of Thetford, and Wagstaffe suffragan of Ipswich; at which solemnity Henry earl of Clarendon is aid to have been present. It has indeed been averred, that Hickes was once disposed to take the oaths, in order to save his preferments; but this is not probable: he was a man very strict in his principles, and what he was convinced was his duty he closely adhered to, choosing to suffer any thing rather than violate his conscience. Some years before he died he was grievously tormented with the stone; and at length his constitution, though naturally strong, gave way to that distemper, Dec. 15, 1715, in his 74th year.

, earl of Clarendon, and chancellor of England, was descended from an ancient family in Cheshire, and born at Dinton in Wiltshire, Feb. 16, 1608. In 1622, he was entered of Magdalen-hall in Oxford, and ir 1625, took the degree of bachelor in arts but failing of a fellowship in Exeter college, for which he stood, he removed to the Middle Temple, where he studied the law for several years with diligence and success. When tha lawyers resolved to give a public testimony of their dissent from the new doctrine advanced in Prynne’s “Histriomastix,” in which was shewn an utter disregard of all manner of decency and respect to the crown, Hyde and Whitelocke were appointed the managers of the masque presented on that occasion to their majesties at Whitehall on Candlemas-day, 1633-4. At the same time he testified, upon all occasions, his utter dislike to that excess of power, which was then exercised by the court, and supported by the judges in Westminster-hall. He condemned the oppressive proceedings of the high-commission court, the star-chamber, the council-board, the earl-marshal’s court, or court of honour, and the court of York. This just way of thinking is said to have been formed in him by a domestic accident, which Burnet relates in the following manner: “When he first began,” says that historian, “to grow eminent in his profession of the law, he went down to visit his father in Wiltshire; who one day, as they were walking in the fields together, observed to him, that ‘ men of his profession were apt to stretch the prerogative too far, and injure liberty: but charged him, if ever he came to any eminence in his profession, never to sacrifice the laws and liberty of his country to his own interest, or the will of his prince.’ He repeated this twice, and immediately fell into a fit of apoplexy, of which he died in afew hours; and this advice had so lasting an influence upou the son, that he ever after observed and pursued it”

Besides the post of lord chancellor, in which he was continued, he was chosen chancellor of the university of Oxford in Oct. 1660 and, in November following, created a peer by the title of baron Hyde of Hindon in Wiltshire; to which were added, in April 1661, the titles of viscount Cornbury in Oxfordshire, and earl of Clarendon in Wiltshire. These honours, great as they were, were, however, by no means beyond his merit. He had, upon the Restoration, shewn great prudence, justice, and moderation, in settling the just boundaries between the prerogative of the crown and the liberties of the people. He had reduced much confusion into order, and adjusted many clashing interests, where property was concerned. He had endeavoured to make things easy to the Presbyterians and malcontents by the act of indemnity, and to satisfy the Royalists by the act of uniformity. But it is not possible to stand many years in a situation so much distinguished, without becoming the object of envy; which created him such enemies as both wished and attempted his ruin, and at last effected it. Doubtless nothing more contributed to inflame this passion against him, than the circumstance of his eldest daughter being married to the duke of York, which became known in a few months after the king’s return. She had been one of the maids of honour to the princess royal Henrietta, some time during the exile, when the duke fell in love with her; and being disappointed by the defeat of sir George Booth, in a design he had formed of coming with some forces to England in 1659, he went to Breda, where his sister then resided. Passing some weeks there, he took this opportunity, as Burnet tells us, of soliciting miss Hyde to indulge his desires without marriage; but she managed the matter with such address, that in the conclusion he married her, Nov. 4 that year, with all possible secrecy, and unknown to her father. After their arrival in England, being pregnant, she called upon the duke to own his marriage; and though he endeavoured to divert her from this object, both by great promises and great threatenings, yet she had the spirit and wisdom to tell him, “She would have it known that she was his wife, let him use her afterwards as he pleased.” The king ordered some bishops and judges to peruse the proofs of her marriage; and they reporting that it had been solemnized according to the doctrine of gospel and the law of England, he told his brother, that he must live with her whom he had made his wife, and at the same time generously preserved the honour of an excellent servant, who had not been privy to it; assuring him, that “this accident should not lessen the esteem and favour he had for him.”

Being now about to quit the kingdom in exile, before he departed he drew up an apology, in a petition to the house of lords, in which he vindicated himself from any way contributing to the late miscarriages, in such a manner as laid the blame at the same time upon others. The lords received it Dec. 3, and sent two of the judges to acquaint the commons with it, desiring a conference. The duke of Buckingham, who was plainly aimed at in the petition, delivered it to the commons; and said, “The lords have commanded me to deliver to you this scandalous and seditious paper sent from the earl of Clarendon. They bid me present it to you, and desire you in a convenient time to send it to them again; for it has a style which they are in love with, and therefore desire to keep it.” Upon the reading of it in that house, it was voted to be “scandalous, malicious, and a reproach to the justice of the nation;” and they moved the lords, that it might be burnt by the hands of the common hangman, which was ordered and executed accordingly. The chancellor retired to Rouen in Normandy; and, the year following, his life was attempted at Evreux near that city by a body of seamen, in such an outrageous manner, that he with great difficulty escaped. In the Bodleian library at Oxford, there is an original letter from Mr. Oliver Long, dated from Evreux, April 26, 1668, to sir William Cromwell, secretary of state, in which the following account is given of this assault. “As I was travelling from Rouen towards Orleans, it was my fortune, April 23, to overtake the earl of Clarendon, then in his unhappy and unmerited exile, who was going towards Bourbon, but took up his lodgings at a private hotel in a small walled town called Evreux, some leagues from Rouen. I, as most English gentlemen did to so valuable a patriot, went to pay him a visit near supper-time; when he was, as usual, very civil to me. Before supper was done, twenty or thirty English seamen and more came and demanded entrance at the great gate; which, being strongly barred, kept them out for some time. But in a short space they broke it, and presently drove all they found, by their advantage of numbers, into the earl’s chamber; whence, by the assistance of only three swords and pistols, we kept them out for half an hour, in which dispute many of us were wounded by their swords and pistols, whereof they had many. To conclude, they broke the windows and the doors, and under the conduct of one Howard, an Irishman, who has three brothers, as I am told, in the king of England’s service, and an ensign in the company of cannoneers, they quickly found the earl in his bed, not able to stand by the violence of the gout; whence, after they had given him many blows with the;r swords and staves, mixed with horrible curses and oaths, they dragged him on the ground in the middle of the yard, where they encompassed him around with their swords, and after they had told him in their own language, how he had sold the kingdom, and robbed them of their pay, Howard commanded them all, as one man, to run their swords through his body. But what difference arose among themselves before they could agree, God above, who alone sent this spirit of dissention, only knows. In this interval their lieutenant, one Svvaine, came and disarmed them. Sixteen of the ringleaders were put into prison; and many of those things they had rifled from him, found again, which were restored, and of great value. Mons. la Fonde, a great man belonging to the king of France’s bed-chamber, sent to conduct the earl on his way thither, was so desperately wounded in the head, that there were little hopes of his life. Many of these assassins were grievously wounded; and this action is so much resented by all here, that many of these criminals will meet with an usage equal to their merit. Had we been sufficiently provided with fire-arms, we had infallibly done ourselves justice on them; however, we fear not but the law will supply our defect.”

, earl of Clarendon, eldest son of the chancellor, was born in 1638. Having received the rudiments of education, he early entered into business; for his father, apprehending of what fatal consequence it would be to the king’s affairs, if his correspondence should be discovered by unfaithful secretaries, engaged him, when very young, to write all his letters in cypher; so that he generally passed half the day in writing in cypher, or decyphering, and was so discreet, as well as faithful, that nothing was ever discovered by him. After the restoration, he was created master of arts, at Oxford, in 1660; and, upon settling the queen’s household, appointed chamberlain to her majesty. He was much in the queen’s favour; and, his father being so violently prosecuted on account of her marriage, she thought herself bound t. protect him in a particular manner. He so highly resented the usage his father met with, that he united himself eagerly to the party which opposed the court, and made no inconsiderable iigure in the list of speakers. Mr. "Grey has preserved a great number of his speeches. On his father’s death in 1674, he took his seat in the House of Lords; still continued his opposition, and even signed a protest against an address voted to the king on his speech. He still, however, held his post of chamberlain to the queen; and afterwards, shewing himself no less zealous against the bill of exclusion, was taken into favour, and made a privycounsellor, 1680. But he soon fell under the displeasure of the prevailing party in the House of Commons; who, unable to carry the exclusion bill, shewed their resentment against the principal opposers of it, by voting an address to the king, to remove from his presence and councils, the marquis of Worcester, and the earls of Halifax, Feversham, and Clarendon.

, Lord Hyde and Cornbury, eldest son to Henry earl of Clarendon and Rochester, was the author of a few pamphlets published without his name: of some tragedies still in manuscript, and of a comedy called “The Mistakes or, The Happy Resentment,” printed in 1758 at Strawberry Hill, with a preface by lord Orford. This was a juvenile performance, of no great merit, never acted, and printed for the benefit of an actress. His lordship was killed by a fall from his horse, in France, May 2, 1753. Pope has neatly complimented the virtuous taste of lord Cornbury, by making it a criterion of merit to “disdain whatever Cornbury disdained.” “He was,” says lord Orford, “upright, calm, steady his virtues were of the gentlest complexion, yet of the firmest texture vice could not bend him, nor party warp him even his own talents could not mislead him. Though a master of eloquence, he preferred justice and the love of his country to all the applause which the violence of the times in which, he lived was so prodigal of bestowing on orators who distinguish themselves in any faction; but the tinsel of popularity and the intrinsic of corruption were equally his contempt. He spoke, nor wrote, nor acted, for fame.” He wrote the paper dated Feb. 12, 1737, in the periodical paper entitled “Common Sense,” and “A Letter to the vice-chancellor of Oxford.” 1751. His lordship had represented the university in parliament, and in this letter announces his resignation, in consequence of being called up to his father’s barony in the house of peers. This was followed by a “Letter to his Lordship,” from several members of the university, acknowledging his merits. He was succeeded by sir Roger Newdigate. But of all his compositions, that which did his lordship most credit, was his “Letter to David Mallet, on the intended publication of lord Bolingbroke’s Manuscripts,” which was printed in Dr. Havvkes worth’s edition of Swift’s works; and it is a monument, says that editor, that will do more honour to the writer’s memory than all that mere wit or valour has achieved since the word began. Mallet, it is well known, did not profit as he ought to have done by this advice. Pope’s allusion of “disdain,” &c. is said, by Ruffhead, to have arisen from the following circumstance: when lord Cornbury returned from his travels, the earl of Essex, his brother-in-law, told him he had got a handsome pension for him; to which lord Cornbury answered with a composed dignity, “How could you tell, my lord, that I was to be sold; or, at least, how came you to know my price so exactly?”

On Aug. 3, 1710, appeared the first number of “The Examiner,” the ablest vindication of the measures of the queen and her new ministry. Swift be^an with No. 13, and ended by writing part of No. 45 when Mrs.Mauley took it up, and finished the first volume it was afterwards resumed by Mr. Oldisworth, who completed four volumes more, and published nineteen numbers of a sixth volume, when the queen’s death put an end to the work. The original institntors of that paper seem to have employed Dr. King as their publisher, or ostensible author, before they prevailed on their great champion to undertake that task. It is not clear which part of the first ten numbers were Dr. King’s; but he appears pretty evidently the writer of No. H, Oct. 12 No. 12, Oct. 19 and No. 13, Oct. 26 and this agrees with the account given by the publisher of his posthumous works, who says he undertook that paper about the 10th of October. On the 26th of October, no Examiner at all appeared; and the next number, which was published Nov. 2, was written by Dr. Swift. Our author’s warm zeal for the church, and his contempt for the whigs (“his eyes,” says Dr. Johnson, “were open to all the operations of whiggism”), carried him naturally on the side of Sacheverell; and he had a hand, in his dry sarcastic way, in many political essays of that period. He published, with this view, “A friendly Letter from honest Tom Boggy, to the Rev. Mr. Goddard, canon of Windsor, occasioned by a sermon preached at St. George’s chapel, dedicated to her grace the duchess of Marlborough,” 1710; and “A second Letter to Mr. Goddard, occasioned by the late Panegyric given him by the Review, Thursday, July 13, 1710.” These were succeeded by “A Vindication of the Rev. Dr. Henry Sacheverell, from the false, scandalous, and malicious aspersions, cast upon him in a late infamous pamphlet entitled ‘The Modern Fanatic;’ intended chiefly to expose the iniquity of the faction in general, without taking any particular notice of their poor mad fool, Bisset, in particular in a dialogue between a tory and a whig.” This masterly composition had scarcely appeared in the world before it was followed by “Mr. Bisset’s Recantation in a letter to the Rev. Dr. Sacheverell” a singular banter on that enthusiast, whom our author once more thought proper to lash, in “An Answer to a second scandalous book that Mr. Bisset is now writing, to be published as soon as possible.” Dr. White Kennel’s celebrated sermon on the death of the first duke of Devonshire, occasioned, amongst many other publications, a jeu d'esprit of Dr. King-, under the title of “An Answer to Clemens Alexandrinus’s Sermon upon * Quis Dives salvetur?‘ ’ What rich man can be saved' proving it easy for a camel to get through the eye of a needle.” In 1711, Dr. King very diligently employed his pen in publishing that very useful book for schools, his “Historical account of the Heathen Gods and Heroes, necessary for the understanding of the ancient Poets;” a work still in great esteem, and of which there have been several editions. About the same time he translated “Political considerations upon Refined Politics, and the Master-strokes of State, as practised by the Ancients and Moderns, written by Gabriel Naude, and inscribed to the cardinal Bagni.” At the same period also he employed himself on “Rufinus, or an historical essay on the Favourite Ministry under Theodosius and his son Arcadius with a poem annexed, called ' Rufinus, or the Favourite.” These were written early in 1711, but not printed till the end of that year. They were levelled against the duke of Marlborough and his adherents and were written with much asperity. Towards the close of 1711 his circumstances began to reassume a favourable aspect and he was recommended by his firm friend Swift to an office under government. “I have settled Dr. King,” says that great writer, “in the Gazette; it will be worth two hundred pounds a year to him. To-morrow I am to carry him to dine with the secretary.” And in another letter, he tells the archbishop of Dublin, “I have got poor Dr. King, who was some time in Ireland, to be gazetteer; which will be worth two hundred and fifty pounds per annum to him, if he be diligent and sober, for which I am engaged. I mention this because I think he was under your grace’s protection in Ireland.” From what Swift te,lls the archbishop, and a hint which he has in another place dropped, it should seem, that our author’s finances were in such a state as to render the salary of gazetteer no contemptible object to him. The office, however, was bestowed on Dr. King in a manner the most agreeable to his natural temper; as he had not even the labour of soliciting for it. On the last day of December, 1711, Dr. Swift, Dr. Freind, Mr. Prior, and some other of Mr. secretary St. John’s friends, came to visit him; and brought with them the key of the Gazetteer’s office, and another key for the use of the paper-office, which had just before been made the receptacle of a curious collection of mummery, far different from the other contents of that invaluable repository. On the first of January our author had the honour of dining with the secretary; and of thanking him for his remembrance of him at a time when he had almost forgotten himself. He entered on his office the same day; but the extraordinary trouble he met with in discharging its duties proved greater than he could long endure. Mr. Barber, who printed the gazette, obliged him to attend till three or four o'clock, on the mornings when that paper was published, to correct the errors of the press; a confinement which his versatility would never have brooked, if his health would have allowed it, which at this time began gradually to decline. And this, joined to his natural indisposition to the fatigue of any kind of business, furnished a sufficient pretence for resigning his office about Midsummer 1712. On quitting his employment he retired to the house of a friend, in the garden-grounds between Lambeth and Vauxhall, where he enjoyed himself principally in his library; or, amidst select parties, in a sometimes too liberal indulgence of the bottle. He still continued, however, to visit his friends in the metropolis, particularly his relation the earl of Clarendon, who resided in Somerset-house.

Twenty years before, in 1633, Lawes had been chosen to assist in composing the airs, lessons, and songs of a masque, presented at Whitehall on Candlemas-night, before the king and queen, by the gentlemen of the four inns of court, under the direction of Noy the attorney- general, Hyde afterwards earl of Clarendon, Selden, Whitelock, and others. Whitelock has given an account of it in his “Memorials,” &c. Lawes also composed tunes to Mr. George Sandys’s “Paraphrase on the Psalms,” published in 1638: and Milton’s “Comus” was originally set by him, and published in 1637, with a dedication to lord Brady, son and heir of the earl of Bridgewater. It was represented in 1634, at Ludlow-castle, Lawes himself performing in it the character of the attendant spirit. The music to “Comus” was never printed and there is nothing in any of the printed copies of the poem, or in the many accounts of Milton, to ascertain the form in which it was composed.

This appearance at the court of Cromwell was much censured, after the restoration, by some of the royal party, who also objected to him, that he had once been heard playing in a concert where the usurper was present, and, therefore, they nick-named him “Oliver’s Fidler.” He was charged also with having bribed some of the protector’s people, but he positively disavows it; averring, he never spoke to Thurloe but once in his life about his discharge; and that, though during the dependency of that affair he might well be seen at Whitehall, yet he never spoke to Cromwell on any other business, or had the least commerce of any kind with him. From this to the time of the restoration, he seems to have lived free from any disturbance from the then governing powers; and perhaps the obscurity into which he had fallen made him be overlooked by Charles II. and his ministry, on that prince’s recovering his throne. He did not, however, so undervalue his own sufferings and merits, as to put up quietly with this usage, and therefore addressed a warm expostulation to the earl of Clarendon, in the dedication to that minister of his “Memento,” published in 1662; where he joins himself with other neglected cavaliers, who had suffered for their attachment to the royal family during the civil wars and the succeeding usurpation, at the same tima acknowledging the personal obligations he had received from Clarendon. For some time his remonstrances appear to have produced little effect, but at length he was made licenser of the press, a profitable post, which he enjoyed till the eve of the revolution. This, however, was all the recompence he ever received, except being in the commission of the peace, after more than twenty years, as he says, spent in serving the royal cause, near six of them in gaols, and almost four under a sentence of death in Newgate. It is true, he hints at greater things promised him; and, in these hopes, exerted his talents, on behalf of the crown, in publishing several pieces. In 1663, for a farther support, he set up a paper, called “The Public Intelligencer, and the News;' f the first of which came out the 1st of August, and continued to be published twice a week, till January 19, 1665; when he laid it down, on the design then concerted of publishing the” London Gazette,“the first of which papers made its appearance on. Saturday Feb. 4. After the dissolution of Charles’s second parliament, in 1679, he set up a paper, called” The Observator;“the design of which was to vindicate the measures of the court, and the character of the king, from the charge of being popislily affected. With the same spirit he exerted himself in 1681, in ridiculing the popish plot; which he did with such vehemence, that it raised him many enemies, who endeavoured, notwithstanding his known loyalty, to render him obnoxious to the government. But he appeared with no less vehemence against the fanatic plot in 1682; and, in 1683, was particularly employed by the court to publish Dr. Tillotson’s papers exhorting lord Russel to avow the doctrine of non-resistance, a little before his execution. In this manner he weathered all the storms raised against him during that reign, and, in the next, unrewarded with the honour of knighthood, accompanied with this declaration,” that it was in consideration of his eminent services and unshaken loyalty to the crown, in all extremities; and as a mark of the singular satisfaction of his majesty, in his present as well as his past services.“In 1687, he was obliged to lay down his” Observator,“now swelled to three volumes; as he could not agree with the toleration proposed by his majesty, though, in all other respects, he had gone the utmost lengths. He had even written strenuously in defence of the dispensing power, claimed by that infatuated prince; and this was probably one reason, why some accused him of having become a proselyte to the church of Home, an accusation which gave him much uneasiness, and which was heightened by his daughter’s defection to that church. To clear himself from this aspersion, he drew up a formal declaration, directed to his kinsman, sir Nicolas L'Estrange, on the truth of which he received the sacrament at the time of publishing the same, which is supposed to be in 1690 . By this declaration we find he was married his lady’s name was Anne Doleman but what issue he had by her, besides the just- mentioned daughter, has not come to our knowledge. After the revolution, he seems to have been left out of the commission of the peace; and, it is said, queen Mary shewed her contempt of him by the following anagram she made upon his name,” Lying- Strange Roger:" and it is certain he met with some trouble, for the remainder of his life, on account of his being a disaffected person.

In this station he preserved the esteem of both parties for some time, and the two houses of parliament agreed to return their thanks by him to the king, for passing the triennial bill, and that of the subsidies; but, as he concurred in the votes for raising an army, and seizing the militia, in March 1641, measures very hostile to the royal cause, the king sent an order from York to lord Falkland, to demand the seal from him, and to consult about a successor with Hyde, afterwards earl of Clarendon; but this last step prevented the former order from being put into execution. Hyde, who always entertained a great regard for the keeper, had, upon his late behaviour, paid him a visit at Exeter-house, on which occasion the keeper freely disclosed his mind, lamenting that he had been removed from the common-pleas, of which court he was acquainted with the business aud the persons with whom he had to deal, to an higher office, which involved him with another sort of men, and in affairs to which he was a stranger; and this without his having one friend among them, to whom he could confide any difficulty that occurred to him. Adverting likewise to the unhappy state of the king’s affairs, he said that the party in hostility to the court “would never have done what they had already, unless they had been determined to do more: that he foresaw it would not be long before a war would break out, and of what importance it was, in that season, that the great seal should be with his majesty; that the prospect of this necessity had made him comply to a certain degree with that party; that there had lately been a consultation, whether, in case the king might send for him, or the great seal be taken from him, it were advisable to keep it in some secure place, where the keeper should receive it upon occasion, they having no mind to disoblige him: that the knowledge of this had induced him to vote as he did in the late debates; and by that compliance, which he knew would give the king a bad impression of him, he had gained so much credit with them, that he should be able to preserve the seal in his own hands till his majesty should demand it, and then he would be ready to wait on the king with it, declaring that no man should be more willing to perish with and for his majesty than himself.” Mr. Hyde acquainted lord Falkland with this conference; and, being confident that the lord-keeper would keep his promise, recommended to advise his majesty to write a kind invitation to the keeper to come to York, and bring the seal with him, rather than, think of giving it to any other person. The advice was embraced by the king, who, though he still had his doubts of Littleton’s sincerity, was influenced by the reasons assigned; and accordingly the seal was sent to York on the f2d, and followed by the keeper on the 23d of May, 1642. But, notwithstanding this piece of service and eminent proof of his loyalty, at the risk of his life, he could never totally regain the king’s confidence, or the esteem of the court-party. He continued, however, to enjoy his post, in which he attended his majesty to Oxford, was there created doctor of laws, and made one of the king’s privycouncil, and colonel of a regiment of foot in the same service, some time before his death, which happened Aug. 27, 1645, at Oxford. His body was interred in the cathedral of Christ church; uu which Qccasioa a funeral oration was pronounced by the celebrated Dr. Hammond, then orator to the university. In May 1683, a monument was erected there to his memory, by his only daughter and heiress, the lady Anne Lyttelton, widow of sir Thomas Lyttelton; and the same year came out his “Reports,” in folio, which, however, Mr. Stevens, in his introduction to lord Bacon’s Letters, edition 1702, p. 21, thinks were not composed by him, many of the cases being the same verbatim as in Hetley’s reports. Lord Clarendon says of sir Edward Littleton, that “he was a man of great reputation in the profession of the law, for learning, and all other advantages which attend the most eminent men. He was of a very good extraction in Shropshire, and inherited a fair fortune and inheritance from his father. He was a handsome and a proper man, of a very graceful presence, and notorious courage, which in his youth he had manifested with his sword. He had taken great pains in the hardest and most knotty part of the law, as well as that which was most customary; and was not only ready and expert in the books, but exceedingly versed in records, in studying and examining whereof he had kept Mr. Selden company, with whom he had great friendship, and who had much assisted him: so that he was looked upon as the best antiquary of his profession, who gave himself up to practice; and, upon the mere strength of his abilities, he had raised himself into the first of the practisers of the common law courts, and was chosen recorder of London before he was called to the bench, and grew presently into the highest practice in all the other courts, as well as those of the law.” Whitelocke also observes, that he was a man of courage, and of excellent parts and learning. But we fear he cannot be altogether acquitted of unsteadiness in some parts of his conduct, although it must at the same time be owned that when he found he could no longer retain the seal with credit, he delivered it, with his own hands, to his unhappy sovereign, and died firmly attached to his cause.

, an exemplary Irish prelate, was descended from a Saxon family, formerly seated in Kent, whence his great-grandfather removed; and was born at Hannington, in Wiltshire, Dec. 20, 1638. He received the first rudiments of learning in his native place; and being there well fitted for the university, was admitted of Magdalen-hall, in Oxford, in 1654. He became B. A. in 1657, master in 16 60, bachelor of divinity in 1667, and doctor in 1671. In the mean time he was made fellow of Exetercollege, in 1658; afterwards chaplain to Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Exeter, and then to chancellor Hyde, earl of Clarendon. In 1673, he was appointed principal of Alban-hall, Oxford, by the duke of Ormond, chancellor of that university; and executed the duties of his office with such zeal and judgment, that, according to Wood, “he made it flourish more than it had done many years before, or hath since his departure.” In 1678 he was removed by the interest of Dr. John Fell, together with that of the duke of Ormond, then lord-lieutenant of Ireland, to the dignity of provost of Dublin-college. He was promoted to the bishopric of Leighlin and Ferns in 1683, translated to the archbishopric of Cashell in 1690, thence to Dublin in 1699, and then to Armagh in 1703. After having lived with honour and reputation to himself, and benefit to mankind in general, he died Nov. 2, 1713, aged seventy-five, and was buried in a vault in St. Patrick’s church-yard.

Prynne has been thought an honest man, for opposing equally Charles, the army, and Cromwell, when he thought they were betrayers of the country; and after having accurately observed, and sensibly felt, in his own person, the violation of law occasioned by each of them, he gave his most strenuous support to the legal and established government of his country, effected by the restoration of Charles II. The earl of Clarendon calls him learned in the law, as far as mere reading of books could make him learned. His works are all in English; and, “by the generality of scholars,” says Wood, “are looked upon to be rather rhapsodical and confused, than any way polite or concise: yet for antiquaries, critics, and sometimes for divines, they are useful. In most of them he shews greatindustry, but little judgment, especially in his large folios against the pope’s usurpations. He may be well entitled ‘voluminous Prynne,’ as Tostatus Abulensis was, two hundred years before his time, called ‘ voluminous Tostatus;’ for I verily believe, that, if rightly computed, he wrote a sheet for every day of his life, reckoning from the time when he came to the use of reason and the state of man.” Many of his works have lately been in request, and have been purchased at high prices. Whether they are more read than before, is not so certain; but much curious matter might be extracted by a patient and laborious reader, which would throw light on the controversies and characters of the times. He was himself perhaps one of the most indefatigable students. He read or wrote during the whole clay, and that he might not be interrupted, had no regular meals, but took, as he wanted it, the humble refreshment of bread, cheese, and ale, which were at his elbow.

, an English traveller, was the tenth son of sir Peter Ricaut, probably a mer* chant in London, and the author of some useful works, who was one of the persons excepted in the “Propositions of the Lords and Commons,” assembled in parliament, “for a safe and well-grounded peace, July 11, 1646, sent to Charles I. at Newcastle.” He also paid o.1500 for his composition, and taking part with his unhappy sovereign. His son Paul was born in London, and admitted scholar of Trinity college, Cambridge, in 1647, where he took his bachelor’s degree^ in 1650. After this he travelled many years, not only in Europe, but also in Asia and Africa; and was employed in some public services. In 1661, when the earl of Winchelsea was sent ambassador extraordinary to the Ottoman Porte, he went as his secretary; and while he continued in that station, which was eight years, he wrote “The present State of the Ottoman Empire, in three books; containing the Maxims of the Turkish Politic, their Religion, and Military Discipline,” illustrated with figures, and printed at London, 1670, in folio, and 1675 in 8vo, and translated into French by Bespier, with notes, and anittoadversions on some mistakes. During the same time, he had occasion to take two voyages from Constantinople to London; one of them was by land, through Hungary, where he remained some time in the Turkish camp with the famous vizier, Kuperlee, on business relating to England. In 1663 he published the “Capitulations, articles of peace,” &C; concluded between England and the Porte^ which were very much to our mercantile advantage, one article being that English ships should be free from search or visit under pretence of foreign goods, a point never secured in any former treaty. After having meritoriously discharged his office of secretary to lord Winchelsea, he was made consul for the English nation at Smyrna; and during his residence there, at the command of Charles II. composed “The present State of the Greek and Armenian Churchesjanno Christi 1678,” which, upon his return to England, he presented with his own hands to his majesty; and it was published in 1679, 8vo. Having acquitted himself, for the space of eleven years, to the entire satisfaction of the Turkey company, he obtained leave to return to England, where he lived in honour and good esteem; The earl of Clarendon > being appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland in 1685, made him his principal secretary for the provinces of Leinster and Connaught; and James II. knighted him, constituted him one of the privy council for Ireland, and judge of the high court of admiralty* which he enjoyed till the revolution in 1688, Soon after this, he was employed by king William as his resident with the Hanse-towns in Lower Saxony, namely, Hamburg, Lubeck, and Bremen; where he continued for ten years, and gave the utmost satisfaction. At length, worn out with age and infirmities, he had leave in 1700 to return to England, where he died, Dec. 16 of that year. He was fellow of the Royal Society for many years before his decease; and a paper of his, upon the “Sable Mice,” or “Mures Norwegici,” is published in the Philosophical Transactions. He understood perfectly the Greek, both ancient and modern, the Turkish, Latin, Italian, and French languages.

Selden was a man of extensive learning, and had as much skill in the Hebrew and Oriental languages as perhaps any man of his time, Pocock excepted. Grotius, over whom he triumphed in his “Mare clausum,” styles him “the glory of the English nation.” He was knowing in all laws, human and divine, yet did not greatly trouble himself with the practice of law: he seldom appeared at the bar, but sometimes gave counsel in his chamber. “His mind also,” says Whitelocke, “was as great as his learning; he was as hospitable and generous as any man, and as good company to those he liked.” Wilkins relates, that he was a man of uncommon gravity and greatness of soul, averse to flattery, liberal to scholars, charitable to the poor; and that, though he had a great latitude in his principles with regard to ecclesiastical power, yet he had a sincere regard for the church of England. Baxter remarks, that “he was a resolved se-> rious Christian, a great adversary, particularly, to Hobbes’s errors;” and that sir Matthew Hale affirmed, “how he had seen Selden openly oppose Hobbes so earnestly, as either to depart from him, or drive him out of the room.” But the noblest testimony in his favour is that of his intimate friend the earl of Clarendon, who thus describes him in all parts of his character: “Mr. Selden was a person,” says he, “whom no character can flatter, or transmit in any expressions equal to his merit and virtue. He was of such stupendous learning in all kinds and in all languages, as may appear from his excellent and transcendant writings, that a man would have thought he had been entirely conversant among books, and had never spent an hour but in reading or writing; yet his humanity, courtesy, and affability, was such, that he would have been thought to have been bred in the best courts, but that his good-nature, charity, and delight in doing good, and in communicating all he knew, exceeded that breeding. His style in all his writings seems harsh, and sometimes obscure; which is not wholly to be imputed to the abstruse subjects of which he commonly treated, out of the paths trod by other men, but to a little undervaluing the beauty of a style , and too much propensity to the language of antiquity: but in his conversation he was the most clear discourser, and had the best faculty in making hard things easy, and present to the understanding, of any man that hath been known.” His lordship also used to say, that *' he valued himself upon nothing more than upon having had Mr. Selden’s acquaintance, from the time he was very young; and held it with great delight as long as they were suffered to continue together in London: and he was very much troubled always when he heard him blamed, censured, and reproached for staving in London, and in the parliament, after they- were in rebellion, and in the worst times, which his age obliged him to do; and how wicked soever the actions were, which were every day done, he was confident he had not given his consent to them, but would have hindered them if he could with his own safety, to which he was always enough indulgent. If he had some infirmities with other men, they were weighed down with wonderful and prodigious abilities and excellences in the other scale.“The political part of Selden’s life, is that which the majority of readers will contemplate with least pleasure; but on this it is unnecessary to dwell. The same flexibility of spirit, which made him. crouch before the reprehension of James I. disfigured the rest of his life, and deprived him of that dignity and importance which would have resulted from his standing erect in any place he might have chosen. Clarendon seems to have hit the true cause of all, in that anxiety for his own safety to which, as he says,” he was always indulgent enough."

Afterwards he had a sinecure in Wales bestowed upon him by his patron the earl of Clarendon and, at that earl’s retirement into France in 1G67, became chaplain to James duke of York. In 1670, he was made canon of Christ church, Oxibrd. In 1676, he attended as chaplain Laurence Hyde, esq. ambassador extraordinary to the king of Poland; of which journey he gave an account, in a letter to Dr. Edward Pocock, dated from Dantzick the 16th of Dec. 1677; which is printed in the “Memoirs of his Life.” In 167S, iie was nominated by the dean and chapter of Westminster to the rectory of Islip in Oxfordshire; and, in 16SO, rebuilt the chancel of that church, as he did afterwards the rectory-house. He also allowed an hundred pounds per annum to his curate, and expended the rest in educating and apprenticing the poorer children of the parish. Jn I6bl he exhibited a remarkable example of accommodating his principles to those of the times. Being now one of the king’s chaplains in ordinary, he preached before his majesty upon these words, “The lot is cast into the lap, but the disposing of it is of the Lord.” In this sermon he introduced three remarkable instances of unexpected advancements, those of Agathocles, Massaniello, and Oliver Cromwell. Of the latter he says, “And who that had beheld such a bankrupt beggarly fellow as Cromwell, first entering the parliament house with a threadbare torn cloak, greasy hat (perhaps neither of them paid for), could have suspected that in the space of so few years, he should, by the murder of one king, and the banishment of another, ascend the throne r” At this, the king is said to have fallen into a violent tit of laughter, and turning to Dr. South’s patron, Mr. Laurence Hyde, now created lord Rochester, said, “Odds fish, Lory, your chaplain must be a bishop, therefore put me in mind of him at the next death!”

It does not, however, appear that he was concerned in any measures against the king, but continued in London, without acting in the rebellion. And although on December 1, 1645, the parliament, debating on propositions of peace with the king, voted, that it be recommended to his majesty 10 create sir Henry Vane, senior, a baron of the kingdom, he never accepted any commission or employment under them. Before the murder of the king, he retired to his seat at Raby castle, neither he nor his sons being concerned therein. The earl of Clarendon is severe in his character of sir Henry Vane. He certainly was at one time in full confidence with the king, but his taking part against Strafford did incalculable mischief to the royal cause. Clarendon allows that, in his judgment, “he liked the government, both in church and state.” As to what his lordship observes, “of his growing at last into the hatred and contempt of those who had made most use of him, and died in universal reproach;” it may, says Collins, be more justly represented, that he saw the vile use they made of their power, and, contemning them, chose retirement. He lived to the latter end of 1654, when he departed this life, at his seat at Raby-castle, in the sixtyninth year of his age.

As to the character of this great man, Clarendon says, he was “of a noble and generous disposition, and of such other endowments as made him very capable of being a great favourite with a great king. He understood the arts of a court, and all the learning that is possessed there, exactly well. By long practice in business, under a master that discoursed excellently, and surely knew all things wonderfully, and took much delight in indoctrinating his young unexperienced favourite, who (he knew) would always be looked upon as the workmanship of his own hands, he bad obtained a quick conception and apprehension of business, and had the habit of speaking very gracefully anci pertinently. He was of a most flowing courtesy and affability to all men who made any address to him, and so desirous to oblige them that he did not enough consider the value of the obligation, or the merit of the person he chose to oblige; from which much of his misfortune resulted. He was of a courage not to be daunted, which was manifested in all his actions, and in his contests with particular persons of the greatest reputation; and especially in his whole demeanour at the Isle of Rhee, both at the landing and upon the retreat; in both which no man was more fearless, or more ready to expose himself to the highest dangers. His kindness and affection to his friends was so vehement, that they were as so many marriages for better or worse, and so many leagues offensive and defensive: as if he thought himself obliged to love all his friends, and to make war upon all they were angry with, let the cause be what it would. And it cannot be denied, that he was an enemy in the same excess $ and prosecuted those he looked upon as enemies with the utmost rigour and animosity, and was not easily induced to a reconciliation. His single misfortune was, which was indeed productive of many greater, that he had never made a noble and a worthy friendship with a man so near his equal, that he would frankly advise him for his honour and true interest against the current, or rather the torrent, of his passions; and it may reasonably be believed, that, if he had been blessed with one faithful friend, who had been qualified with wisdom and integrity, he would have committed as few faults, and done as transcendant worthy actions, as any man who shined in such a sphere in that age in Europe; for he was of an excellent disposition, and of a mind very capable of advice and counsel; he was in his nature just and candid, liberal, generous, and bountiful; nor was it ever known, that the temptation of money swayed him to do an unjust or unkind thing. If he had an immoderate ambition, with which he was charged, it doth not appear that it was in his nature, or that he brought it with him to the court, but rather found it there. He needed no ambition, who was so seated in the hearts of two such masters.” This is the character which the earl of Clarendon has thought fit to give the duke; and if other historians have not drawn him in colours quite so favourable, yet they have not varied from him in the principal features.

, a learned nonjuring divine and able writer, was of a gentleman’s family in Warwickshire, and was born February 15, 1645. He was educated at the Charterhouse school under Mr. Wood. In Lent-­term 1660, he was admitted commoner of New-Inn at Oxford, where he took the degree of bachelor of arts October 15, 1664, and that of master June 20, 1G67. He was ordained deacon by Dr. John Hacket, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, June 6, 1669; and priest by Dr. Joseph Henshaw, bishop of Peterborough, November 19, 1669. He was instituted to the rectory of Martins-Thorpe in the county of Rutland, by Joseph, bishop of Peterborough, November 19, 1669. After that he lived in the family of sir Richard Temple at Stow, in the county of Bucks, and entered upon the curacy of that church April 12, 1676. In December 1684, he was presented by king Charles II. and instituted by William, archbishop of Canterbury, to the chancellorship of the cathedral church of Lichfield, together with the prebendary of Alderwas in the same church. In March 1684 he was presented by Henry, bishop of London, to the rectory of St. Margaret Pattens in London. Upon the revolution, being deprived of his preferments for not taking the new oaths, he practised physic for many years afterwards in the City of London with good success, and wore his gown all the while. In February 1693 he vvas consecrated bishop by Dr. William Lloyd, bishop of Norwich, Dr. Francis Turner, bishop of Ely, and Dr. Thomas White, bishop of Peterborough, at the bishop of Peterborough’s lodgings, at the reverend Mr. Giffard’s house at Southgate, at which solemnity Henry earl of Clarendon was present Mr. Wagstaffe was consecrated suffragan of Ipswich, and Dr. Hickes at the same time suffragan of Thetford. Mr. Wagstaffe died October 17, 1712, in the sixty- seventh year of his age. He published few sermons, but wrote many pieces in defence of the constitution both in Church and State, with great strength of reason and perspicuity.

Being designed for the church, he had studied divinily with great care, and now was admitted to holy orders by Dr. Walter Curie, bishop of Winchester. In 1641 he left college to be chaplain to sir William Darley, at Bustercramb in Yorkshire. In the following year he acted in the same capacity to lady Vere, widow of sir Horatio Vere. It was during her occasional residence in London that he was enabled to discover his surprising talent in decypheringj and as this had an important effect on his future life and fame, it may be necessary to give his own account of the discovery. “About the beginning of our civil wars, in th* year 1642, a chaplain of sir William Waller’s, one evening as we were sitting down to supper at the lady Vere’s in London, with whom I then dwelt, shewed me an intercepted letter written in cypher. He shevyed it me as a curiosity (and it was indeed the first thing I had ever seen written in cyphers), and asked me, between jest and earnest, whether I could make any tiling of it; and he was surprized, when I said, upon the first view, perhaps I might, if it proved no more but a new alphabet. It was about ten o'clock, when we rose from supper. I then withdrew to my chamber to consider it; and by the number of different characters therein (not above 22 or 23) I judged, that it could not be more than a new alphabet, and in about two hours time, before I went to bed, I had decyphered it; and I sent a copy of it. so decyphered the next morning to him from whom I had it. And this was my first attempt at decyphering. This unexpected success on an easy cypher was then looked upon as a great matter; and I was somewhile after pressed to attempt one of another nature, which was a letter of Mr. secretary Windebank, then in France, to his son in England, in a cypher hard enough, and not unbecoming a secretary of state. It was in numeral figures, extending in number to above seven hundred, with many other characters intermixed; but not so hard as many that I have since met with. I was backward at first to attempt it, and after I had spent some time upon it, threw it by as desperate; but after some months resumed it again, and had the good hap to master it. Being encouraged by this success beyond expectation, I afterwards ventured on many others, some of more, some of less difficulty; and scarce missed of any that I undertook for many years, during our civil wars, and afterwards. But of late years the French, methods of cypher are grown so intricate beyond what it was wont to be, that I have failed of many, tho' I have mastered divers of them. Of such decyphered letters there be copies of divers remaining in the archives of the Bodleian library in Oxford, and many more in my own custody, and with the secretaries of state.” The copies of decyphered letters, mentioned by Dr. Wallis to be in the archives of the Bodleian library, were reposited by him there in 1653, and are in the doctor’s own hand-writing, with a memorandum at the beginning, to this purpose: “A collection of several letters and other papers, which were at several times intercepted, written in cypher,' decyphered by John Wallis, professor of geometry in the university of Oxford; given to the public library there,” anno domin‘t 1653. This part of our author’s skill gave him afterwards no small trouble, and might possibly have been of very bad consequences to him, had he not had some friends in power, particularly the earl of Clarendon and sir Edward Nicholas secretary of state, who valued him for his great learning and integrity, and were sensible of his affection for the royal family, and his loyalty to the king, and the many good services he had done his majesty before the restoration. The doctor’s enemies soon after the restoration eiH deavoured to represent him as an avowed enemy to the royal family; and to prove this they reported, that he had during the civil wars decyphered king Charles I.’s letters taken in his cabinet at Naseby; and that the letters so decyphered by him were to be seen in the books of cyphers, which our author had given to the university. This report being revived upon the accession of king James II. to the crown, the doctor wrote a letter in his own vindication to his great friend Dr. John Fell, bishop of Oxford/dated April 8, 1685 which was as follows

Of Robert Ware some farther notice must be taken, as he was a writer of considerable note in his day. He had by those writings appeared so averse to the Roman catholic interest of Ireland in the reign of Charles II. that, fearing the resentment of that party, which he had reason to believe would be severe enough, and being advised by the earl of Clarendon, then lord lieutenant, he removed with his family into England on the same day that lord Tyrcon* nel landed in Ireland to take upon him the government, which he continued until the revolution. Mr. Ware died March 1696, after publishing, I. “The Examinations of Faithful Commin and Thomas Heath,” &c. Dublin, 1671, 4to. 2. “The Conversion of Philip Corwine, a Franciscan Friari to the protestant religion^ in 1569,” ibid. 1681, 4to. 3. “The Reformation of the Church of Ireland, in the life and death of George Brown, sometime archbishop of Dublin,” ibid. 1681, 4to. This stands the first in the English edition of sir James Ware’s Works, Dublin, 1705, fol. and is also reprinted in the “Phoenix,” vol. I. 4. “Foxes and Firebrands or a specimen of the danger and harmony of popery and separation wherein is proved from undeniable matter of fact and reason, that separation from the Church of England is, in the judgment of papists, and by sad experience, found the most compendious way to introduce popery, and to ruin the protestant religion, in two parts,” London, 1680, 4to, Dublin, 1682, 8vo. The first part, with the examinations of Commin and Heath, was published by Dr. John Nalson in 1678, 8vq, and the second part was added by Mr. Robert Ware. 5. “The hunting of the Romish Fox, and the quenching of sectarian firebrands; being a specimen of popery and separation,” Dublin, 1683, 8vo. 6. “Foxes and Firebrands, the third part,” Loud. 1689, 8vo. 7. “Pope Joan; or an account that there was such a she-pope, proved from Romish authors before Luther,” &c. ibid. 1689, 4to. Mr. Ware left also an unfinished and imperfect ms. on the history and antiquities of the city and university of Dublin.

In the mean time, there have not been wanting those, who, without disguising his infirmities, have set archbishop Williams in a better light than we find him represented by the earl of Clarendon, who seems by no means to have loved the man. Arthur Wilson tells us, that, “though he was composed of many grains of good learning, yet the height of his spirit, I will not say pride, made him odious even to those that raised him; haply because they could not attain to those ends by him, that they required of him. But being of a comely and stately presence, and that animated with a great mind, made him appear very proud to the vulgar eye; but that very temper raised him to aim at great things, which he affected: for the old ruinous body of the abbey-church at Westminster was new clothed by him; the fair and beautiful library of St. John’s in Cambridge was a pile of his erection; and a very complete chapel built by him at Lincoln-college in Oxford, merely for the name of Lincoln, having no interest in nor relation; to that university. But that which heightened him most in the opinion of those that knew him best, was his bountiful mind to men in want; being a great patron to support, where there was merit that wanted supply: but these great actions were not publicly visible: those were more apparent that were looked on with envious, rather than with emulous eyes.”

He died July 26 following, without any convulsion, or so much as a groan: for, though he had not completed his thirty -third year, he was worn so entirely down, that all the powers of nature were exhausted. He left behind him a son named Charles, who died Nov. 12, 1.681; and three daughters*. The male line ceasing, Charles II. conferred the title of Rochester on Laurence viscount Killingworth, a younger son of Edward earl of Clarendon.

But, as unconnected as Wood represents himself with all human things and persons, it is certain that he had his prejudices and attachments, and strong ones too, for certain notions and systems; and these prejudices and attachments will always be attended with partialities for or against those who shall be found to favour or oppose such notions or systems. They had their influence upon Wood, who, though he always spoke to the best of his judgment, and often with great truth and exactness, yet sometimes gave way to prejudice and prepossession. Among other, freedoms, he took some with the earl of Clarendon, their late chancellor, which exposed him to the censure of the university. He had observed in the life of judge Glynne, that “after the restoration of Charles II. he was made his eldest serjeant at law, by the corrupt dealing of the then chancellor,” who was the earl of Clarendon: for which expression, chiefty, the succeeding earl preferred an action in the vice-chancellor’s court against him for defamation of his deceased father. The issue of the process was a hard judgement given against the defendant; which, to be made the more public, was put into the Gazette in these words: “Oxford, July 31, 1693. On the-29th instant, Anthony Wood was condemned in the vice-chancellor’s court of the university of Oxford, for having written and published, in the second volume of his book, entitled `Athense Oxonienses,' divers infamous libels against the right honourable Edward late earl of Clarendon, lord high chancellor of England, and chancellor of the said university; and was therefore banished the said university, until such time as he shall subscribe such a public recantation as the judge of the court shall approve of, and give security not to offend in the like nature for the future: and his said book was therefore also decreed to be burnt before the public theatre; and on this day it was burnt accordingly, and public programmas of his expulsion are already affixed in the three usual places.” An historian who has recorded this censure says, that it was the more grievous to the blunt author, because it seemed to come from a party of men whom he had the least disobliged. His bitterness had been against the Dissenters; but of all the zealous Churchmen he had given characters with a singular turn of esteem and affection. Nay, of the Jacobites, and even of Papists themselves, he had always t spoken the most favourable things; and therefore it was really the greater mortification to him, to feel the storm coming from a quarter where he thought he least deserved, and might least expect it. For the same reason, adds the historian, this correction was some pleasure to the Presbyterians, who believed there was a rebuke due to him, which they themselves were not able to pay. Wood was animadverted upon likewise by Burnet, in his “Letter to the bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, concerning a book of Anthony Harmer (alias Henry Wharton), called `A Specimen of some Errors and Defects in the History of the Reformation,' &c.” upon which, in 1693, he published a vindication of himself, which is reprinted before the second edition of his “Athenæ Oxonienses.”

, eldest son of the preceding, was born Aug. 20, 1629, at Peter- house, Cambridge, ut which time his father was master of that college. His first education was in that university, heing admitted of St. Peter’s-college in 1642, whence he removed to Oxford, where he was a student, not in a college or hall, but in a private house, as he could not conform to the principles or practises of the persons who then had the government of the university. At the restoration' he was elected burgess of St. Michael in Cornwall, in the parliament which began May8, 1661, and was appointed secretary to the earl of Clarendon, lord high chancellor of England, who visiting the university of Oxford, of which he was chancellor, in Sept. 1661, Mr. Wren was there created master of arts. He was one of the first members of the Royal Society, when they began their weekly meetings at London, in 166O. After the fall of his patron, the earl of Clarendon, he became secretary to James duke of York, in whose service he continued till his death, June 11, 1672, in the fortythird year of his age. He was interred in the same vault with his father, in the chapel of Pembroke- hall, Cambridge. He wrote, 1. “Considerations on Mr. Harrington’s Commonwealth of Oceana, restrained to the first part of the preliminaries, London, 1657,” in 8vo. To this book is prefixed a long letter of our author to Dr. John Wilkins, warden of Wadham-college in Oxford, who had desired him to give his judgment concerning Mr. Harrington’s “Oceana.” Harrington answered this work in the first book of his “Prerogative of popular government,” 1658, 4to, in which he reflects on Mr. Wren as one of those virtuosi, who then met at Dr. Wilkins’ a lodgings at Wad ham- college, the seminary of the Royal Society, and describes them as an assembly of men who “had an excellent fcculty of mag^ nifying a louse, and diminishing a commonwealth.” Mr. Wren replied in 2, “Monarchy asserted; or, the State of Monarchical and Popular Government, in vindication of the considerations on Mr. Harrington’s * Oceana,' London, 1659,” in 8vo. Harrington’s rejoinder was an indecent piece of buffoonery, entitled “Politicaster i or, a Comical Discourse in^answer to Mr. Wren’s book, entitled ‘ Monarchy asserted, &c.’” 1659, 4to. Sir Edward Hyde, after^ wards earl of Clarendon, in a letter to Dr. John Barwick, dated at Brussels the 25th of July, 1659, and printed in the appendix to the doctor’s “Life,” was very solicitous, that Mr. Wren should undertake a confutation of Hobbes’s “Leviathan:” “I hope,” says he, “it is only modesty in Mr. Wren, that makes hirn pause upon undertaking the work you have recommended to him; for I dare swear, by what I have seen of him, he is very equal to answer every part of it: I mean, every part that requires an answer. Nor is there need of a professed divine to vindicate the Creator from making man a verier beast than any of those of the field, or to vindicate scripture from his licentious interpretation. I dare say, he will find somewhat in Mr. Hobbes himself, I mean, in his former books, that contradicts what he sets forth in this, in that part in which he takes himself to be most exact, his beloved philosophy. And sure there is somewhat due to Aristotle and Tuily, and to our universities, to free them from his reproaches; and it is high time, if what I hear be true, that some tutors read his Leviathan, instead of the others, to their pupils. Mr. Hobbes is my old friend, yet I cannot absolve him from the mischiefs he hath done to the king, the church, the laws, and the nation; and surely there should be enough to be said to the politics of that man, who, having resolved all religion, wisdom, and honesty, into an implicit obedience to the laws established, writes a book of policy, which, I may be bold to say, must be, by the established laws of any kingdom or province in Europe, condemned for impious and seditious: and therefore it will be very hard if the fundamentals of it be not overthrown. But I must ask both yours and Mr. Wren’s pardon for enlarging so much, and antedating those animadversions he will make upon it.”

, a learned and illustrious English architect and mathematician, was nephew to bishop Wren, and the son of Dr. Christopher Wren, who was fellow of St. John’s college, Oxford, afterwards chaplain to Charles I. and rector of Knoyle in Wiltshire; made dean of Windsor in 1635, and presented to the rectory of Hasely in Oxfordshire in 1638; and died at Blechindon, in the same county, 1658, at the house of Mr. William Holder, rector of that parish, who had married his daughter. He was a man well skilled in all the branches of the mathematics, and had a great hand in forming the genius of his only son Christopher.' In the state papers of Edward, earl of Clarendon, vol.1, p. 270, is an estimate of a building to be erected for her majesty by dean Wren. He did another important service to his country. After the chapel of St. George and the treasury belonging to it had been plundered by the republicans, he sedulously exerted himself in recovering as many of the records as could be procured, and was so successful as to redeem the three registers distinguished by the names of the Black, Blue, and lied, which were carefully preserved by him till his death. They were afterwards committed to the custody of his son, who, soon after the restoration, delivered them to Dr. Bruno Ryves, dean of Windsor.