is was the case of divorce between lady Frances Howard, daughter to the earl of Suffolk, and Robert, earl of Essex, her husband, which has always been considered as one
In the following year he was preferred to the see of
Canterbury, and confirmed April 9, and on the 23d of
June he was sworn of his majesty’s most honourable privycouncil. At this time he was in the highest favour both
with prince and people, and appears to have taken an
active part in all the great transactions in church and state.
Although not thought excessively fond of power, or desirous of carrying his prerogative, as primate of England,
to an extraordinary height, yet he was resolute in maintaining the rights of the high commission court, and would
not submit to lord Coke’s prohibitions. In the case of
Vorstius, his conduct was more singular. Vorstius had
been appointed to a professorship hi the university of
Leyden, and was a noted Arminian. King James, by our
archbishop’s advice, remonstrated with the States on this
appointment; and the consequence was that Vorstius was
banished by the synod of Dort, as will appear more at
length in his life. This condact on the part of the archbishop alarmed those who were favourers of Arminianism,
and who dreaded Calvinism from its supposed influence on
the security of the church; but their fears as far as he was
concerned appear to have been groundless, his attachment
to the church of England remaining firm and uniform. He
had soon, however, another opportunity of testifying his
dislike of the Arminian doctrines. The zeal which the
king had shewn for removing, first Arminius, and then
Vorstius, had given their favourers in Holland so much
uneasiness, that the celebrated Grotius, the great champion of their cause, was sent over to England to endeavour
to mitigate the King’s displeasure, and, if possible, to give
him a better opinion of the Remonstrants, as they then
began to be called. On this occasion the archbishop
wrote an account of Grotius and his negociation in a
letter to sir Ralph Winwood, in which he treats Grotius
with very little ceremony. For this he has met with an
advocate in archdeacon Blackburn, who, in his Confessional, observes in his behalf, that “his disaffection to
Grotius was owing to the endeavours and proposals of the
latter, towards a coalition of the Protestants and Papists,
which every wise and consistent Protestant, in every period
lince the Reformation, as well as Abbot, has considered as
a snare, and treated accordingly.
”
Another affair which occurred in 1613, created no little
perplexity to our archbishop, while it afforded him an opportunity of evincing a decidedness of character not common at that period. This was the case of divorce between
lady Frances Howard, daughter to the earl of Suffolk, and
Robert, earl of Essex, her husband, which has always been
considered as one of the greatest blemishes of king James’s
reign. The part Abbot took in this matter displayed his
unshaken and incorruptible integrity; and he afterwards
published his reasons for opposing the divorce, as a measure
tending to encourage public licentiousness. If this conduct
displeased the king, he does not appear to have withdrawn
his favour from the archbishop, as in 1615 he promoted his
brother, Robert, to the see of Salisbury. The archbishop
was less prudent in recommending -to the king, George
Villiers, afterwards the celebrated duke of Buckingham;
but of this he lived to repent, and to leave a satisfactory
vindication.
nt,” with the rest of the Oxford divines, 1611. 8. “Some memorials, touching the Nullity between the earl-of Essex and his lady, pronounced Sept. 25, 1613, at Lambeth;
His works are: 1. “Quæstiones Sex, totidem pralectionibus in Schola Theologica Oxoniae, pro forma habitis,
discussae et disceptatae anno 1597, in quibus e Sacra Scriptura & Patribus, quid statuendum sit definitur.” Oxon.
1598, 4to, & Francfort, 1616, 4to, published by Abraham
Scultetus. 2. “Exposition on the Prophet Jonah, contained in certaine Sermons, preached in S. Maries Church
in Oxford,” 4to, 1600. It appears by a postscript to the
reader, that these sermons or lectures were delivered on
Thursdays early in the morning, “sometimes before
daylight,” from 1594 to 1599. They were reprinted in
and form the most popular of his works. 3. His “Answer
to the questions of the Citizens of London in Jan. 1600,
concerniug Cheapside Cross,
” not printed until The reasons which Dr. Hill hath brought for the upholding of Papistry, unmasked and shewed to be very
weak, &c.
” Oxon. 4to. Quatron of Reasons
” in vindication
of his conduct, printed at Antwerp, 4to. 1600. 5. “A Preface to the examination of George Sprot,
” &c. noticed
before. 6. “Sermon preached at Westminster, May 26,
1608, at the funeral of Thomas earl of Dorset, late lord
high treasurer of England, on Isaiah xl. 6.
” 4to. Translation of a part of the New Testament,
” with
the rest of the Oxford divines, Some memorials, touching the Nullity between the earl-of Essex and
his lady, pronounced Sept. 25, 1613, at Lambeth; and
the difficulties endured in the same.
” To this is added
“some observable things since Sept. 25, 1613, when the
sentence was given in the cause of the earl of Essex, continued unto the day of the marriage, Dec. 26, 1613,
”
which appears also to have been penned by his grace, or
by his direction; and to it is annexed “the speech intended to be spoken at Lambeth, Sept. 25, 1613, by the
archbishop of Canterbury, &c.
” These were reprinted in
one volume, A brief description of the whole World,
wherein is particularly described all the monarchies, empires, and kingdoms of the same, with their academies,
”
&c. 4to. A short apology for archbishop Abbot,
touching the death of Peter Hawkins, dated Oct. 8, 1621.
”
11. “Treatise of perpetual visibility and succession of the
true Church in all ages,
” Lond. 4to. A narrative containing the
true cause of his sequestration and disgrace at Court: in
two parts, written at Ford in Kent,
” History of the
Massacre in the Valtoline,
” printed in the third volume of
Fox’s Acts and Monuments. 14. His “Judgment on
bowing at the name of Jesus,
” Hamburgh, 8vo. Cause of God,
” a work written
against the Pelagians.
he was the rarest poet and Grecian that any one age or nation produced. He attended the unfortunate earl of Essex in his voyage to Cadiz, as his chaplain; and entertaining
, an English divine, was born
in Suffolk, and educated in Trinity college, Cambridge,
where he took the degree of M. A. and was afterwards incorporated of the university of Oxford, June 7, 1592.
Wood says, he was the rarest poet and Grecian that any one
age or nation produced. He attended the unfortunate earl
of Essex in his voyage to Cadiz, as his chaplain; and entertaining some doubts on religion, he was prevailed upon
to declare himself a Roman Catholic, and published “Seven
Motives for his Conversion,
” but he soon discovered many
more for returning to the church of England. He applied
himself much to caballistic learning, the students of which
consider principally the combination of particular words,
letters, and numbers, and by this, they pretend to see clearly
into the sense of scripture. In their opinion there is not
a word, letter, number, or accent, in the law, without some
mystery in it, and they even venture to look into futurity
by this study. Alabaster made great proficiency in it, and
obtained considerable promotion in the church. He was
made prebendary of St. Paul', doctor of divinity, and rector of Thai-field in Hertfordshire. The text of the sermon
which he preached for his doctor’s degree, was the first
verse of the first chapter of the first book of Chronicles,
namely “Adam, Seth, Enoch,
” which he explained in the
mystical sense, Adam signtfying misery, &c. He died April
1640. His principal work was “Lexicon Pentaglotton,
Hebraicum, Chaldaicum, Syriacum, &c.
” Lond. Commentarius de bestia Apocalyptica,
” and other works of that stamp. As a
poet he has been more highly applauded. He wrote the
Latin tragedy of “Roxana,
” which bears date If,
” says Dr. Johnson, in his
life of Milton, “we produced any thing worthy of notice
before the elegies of Milton, it was perhaps Alabaster’s
Roxana.
” He also began to describe, in a Latin poem entitled “Elisceis,
” the chief transactions Of queen
Elizabeth’s reign, but left it unfinished at the time of his death.
The manuscript was for some time in the possession of
Theodore Haak, and some manuscript verses of his are in
the library of Gonvil and Caius college, Cambridge, and
the Elisceis is in that of Emmanuel.
nce, put under his care a young man, afterwards sir Christopher Blount, and who was concerned in the earl of Essex’s insurrection.
He now began to write in support of the cause for which
he had left his country; and his first piece, published in
1565, was entitled “A defence of the doctrine of Catholics, concerning Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead,
” 8vo.
This was intended as an answer to the celebrated bishop
Jewell’s work on the same subject; and if elegance of style,
and somewhat of plausibility of matter, could have prevailed, it would have served his cause very essentially; but,
unluckily, of all the subjects which Jewell had handled,
there was none in which he reasoned with such irresistible
force. Alan’s work was at the same time answered by Dr.
William Fulke; but whatever its fate in England, it procured him the highest reputation abroad, among the chiefs
of his party, who, as a mark of their confidence, put under
his care a young man, afterwards sir Christopher Blount,
and who was concerned in the earl of Essex’s insurrection.
ad been made use of. Upon this he was seized, and would probably have suffered severely, had not the earl of Essex called away the forces on a sudden, and by that means
, an eminent
English divine, was born in March 1619, at Uppington
near the YVrekin in Shropshire. He was at first educated
at a free-school in that neighbourhood, and afterwards removed to one at Coventry, taught by Philemon Holland
the translator. In 1636, he was sent to Oxford, and entered a commoner in Christ-church, under the tuition of
Mr. Richard Busby, afterwards master of Westminster
school. Six months after his settlement in the university,
Dr. Fell, dean of Christ-church, having observed the parts
and industry of young Allestry, made him a student of that
college, where he applied himself to his books with great
assiduity and success. When he had taken the degree of
bachelor of arts, he was chosen moderator in philosophy,
in which office he continued till the disturbances of the
kingdom interrupted the studies and repose of the university. In 1641, Mr. Allestry, amongst other of the Oxford
students, took ar;ns for the king, under sir John Biron,
and continued therein till that gentleman withdrew from
Oxford, when he returned to his studies. Soon after, a
party of the parliament forces having entered Oxford and
plundered the colleges, Mr. Allestry narrowly escaped being severely handled by them. Some of them having
attempted to break into the treasury of Christ-church, and
having forced a passage into it, met with nothing but a
single groat and a halter, at the bottom of a large iron
chest. Enraged at their disappointment, they went to the
deanry, where having plundered as much as they thought
fit, they put it all together in a chamber, locked it up, and
retired to their quarters, intending next day to return and
dispose of their prize; but, when they came, they found
themselves disappointed, and every thing removed out of
the chamber. Upon examination it was discovered, that
Mr. Allestry had a key to the lodgings, and that this key
had been made use of. Upon this he was seized, and would
probably have suffered severely, had not the earl of Essex
called away the forces on a sudden, and by that means rescued him from their fury. In October following, he took
arms again, and was at the battle fought betwixt the king
and the parliament’s forces under the command of the earl
of Essex upon Keinton-field in Warwickshire; after which,
understanding that the king designed immediately to march
to Oxford, and take up his residence at the deanry of
Christ-church, he hastened thither to make preparations
for his majesty’s reception; but in his way was taken
prisoner by a party of horse from Boughton-house, which
was garrisoned by lord Say for the parliament: his confinement, however, was but short, as the garrison surrendered to the king. And now Mr. Allestry returned again
to his studies, and the spring following took his degree of
master of arts. The same year he was in extreme danger
of his life by a pestilential distemper, which raged in the
garrison at Oxford; but as soon as he recovered, he entered
once more into his majesty’s service, and carried a musquet in a regiment formed out of the Oxford scholars.
Nor did he in the mean time neglect his studies, “but
frequently (as the author of the preface to Dr. Allestry’s Sermons expresses it) held the musquet in one hand and
the book in the other, unitinEf the watchfulness of a soldier
with the lucubrations of a student.
” In this service he
continued till the end of the war; then went into holy orders, and was chosen censor of his college. He had a
considerable share in that test of loyalty, which the university of Oxford gave in their decree and judgment against
the Solemn League and Covenant. In 1648, the parliament sent visitors to Oxford, to demand the submission of
that body to their authority: those who refused to comply
were immediately proscribed; which was done by writing
their names on a paper, and affixing it on the door of St.
Mary’s church, signifying that such persons were, by the
authority of the visitors, banished the university, and required to depart the precincts within three days, upon pain
of bein,; taken for spies of war, and proceeded against as
such. Mr. Allestry, amongst many others, was accordingly
expelled the university. He now retired into Shropshire,
and was entertained as chaplain to the honourable Francis
Newport, esq. and upon the death of Richard lord Newport, that gentleman’s father, in France, whither he had
Hed to avoid the violence of the prevailing party, was sent
over to France to take care of his effects. Having dispatched this affair with success, he returned to his employment, in which he continued till the defeat of king Charles
II, at Worcester. At this time the royalists wanting an intelligent and faithful person to send over to his majesty,
Mr. Allestry was solicited to undertake the journey, which
he accordingly did; and having attended the king at Roan,
and received his dispatches, returned to England. In 1659,
he went over again to his majesty in Flanders; and upon
his return was seized at Dover by a party of soldiers, but
he had the address to secure his letters, by conveying them
to a faithful hand. The soldiers guarded him to London,
and after being examined by a committee of the council of
safety, he was sent prisoner to Larnbeth-house, where he
contracted a dangerous sickness. About six or eight weeks
after, he was set at liberty; and this enlargement was perhaps owing to the prospect of an approaching revolution;
for some of the heads of the republican party, seeing every
thing tend towards his majesty’s restoration, were willingby kindnesses to recommend themselves to the royal
party.
atutes: this he shewed on many occasions, particularly at the trial of Henry Cuffe, secretary to the earl of Essex, where the attorney-general charging the prisoner
In the proceedings against those who endeavoured to set
up the Geneva discipline, Anderson shewed much zeal:
but in the case of Udal, a puritan minister, who was confined in 1589, and tried and condemned the year following,
we find him unjustly censured by Mr. Pierce in his “Indication of the Dissenters,
” and yet more unjustly by Neal,
in his History of the Puritans, who asserts that Anderson
tried and condemned Udal, which is a direct falsehood.
Still it cannot be denied that he was severe in suoh cases,
although from his conduct in other matters, it is evident
that he acted conscientiously. In 1596 we have an account
of his going the northern circuit, where he behaved with
the same rigour; declaring in his charges, that such persons as opposed the established church, opposed her majesty’s authority, and were in that light enemies to the
state and disturbers of the public peace, and he directed
the grand juries to inquire, that they might be punished.
He was indeed a very strict lawyer, who governed himself
entirely by statutes: this he shewed on many occasions,
particularly at the trial of Henry Cuffe, secretary to the
earl of Essex, where the attorney-general charging the
prisoner syllogistically, and Cuffe answering him in the
same style, lord chief justice Anderson said, “I sit here
to judge of law, and not of logic:
” and directed Mr.
attorney to press the statute of Edward III. on which
Mr. Cuffe was indicted. He was reputed severe, and strict
in the observation of what was taught in courts, and laid
down as law by reports; but this is another unfounded report to his discredit, for we have his express declaration
to the contrary, and that he neither expected precedents
in all cases, nor would be bound by them where he saw
they were not founded upon justice, but would act as if
there were no such precedents. Of this we have a proof
from the reports in his time, published by Mr. Goldesborough: “The case of Resceit was moved again; and Shuttleworth said, that he cannot be received, because he is
named in the writ; and added, that he had searched all
the books, and there is not one case where he who is named
in the writ may be received. What of that? said
Anderson; shall we not give judgment, because it is not
adjudged in the books before? we, will give judgment according to reason; and if there be no reason in the books,
I will not regard them.
” His steadiness was so great, that
he would not be driven from what he thought right, by
any authority whatever. This appeared in the case of
davendish, a creature of the earl of Leicester; who had
procured, by his interest, the queen’s letters patent for
making out writs of supersedeas upon exigents in the court
of common pleas, aiyd a message was sent to the judges to
admit him to that office: with which, as they conceived
the queen had no right to grant any such patent, they did
not comply. Upon this, Mr. Cavendish, by the assistance of his patron, obtained a letter from the queen to
quicken them, but which did not produce what was ex
pected from it. The courtier again pursued his point,
and obtained another letter under the queen’s signet and
sign manual; which letter was delivered in presence of
the lord chancellor and the earl of Leicester, in the beginning of Easter term. The judges desired time to consider it, and then answered, that they could not comply
with the letter, because it was inconsistent with their duty
and their oaths of office. The queen upon this appointed
the chancellor, the lord chief justice of the queen’s bench,
and the master of the rolls, to hear this matter; and the
queen’s serjeant having set forth her prerogative, it was
shewn by the judges, that they could not grant offices by
virtue of the queen’s letters, where it did not appear to
them that she had a power to grant; that as the judges
were bound by their oaths of office, so her majesty was
restrained by her coronation-oath from such arbitrary interpositions: and with this her majesty was satisfied. He
concurred also with his brethren in remonstrating boldly
against several acts of power practised in Elizabeth’s reign.
On the accession of king James he was continued in his
office, and held it to the time of his death, which happened August 1, 1605. He was interred at Eyworth in
Bedfordshire. The printed works of this great lawyer,
besides his “Readings,
” which are still in manuscript, are,
1. “Reports of many principal Cases argued and adjudged
in the time of queen Elizabeth, in the Common Bench,
”
London, Resolutions a-nd Judgements on,
the Cases and Matters agitated in all the courts of Westminster, in the latter end of the reign of queen Elizabeth,
”
published by John Goldesborough, esq. prothonotary of
the common pleas, London, 1653, 4to.
called one of his daughters by his second wife, Frances, daughter and coheiress of Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, Arabella Seymour.
, commonly called the lady Arabella, was so often talked of for a queen, that custom seems
to have given her a right to an article in this manner under
her Christian name, as that by which our historians distinguish her. She was the daughter of Charles Stuart, earl
oY Lenox, who was younger brother to Henry lord Darnley,
father to king James VI. of Scotland, and First of England,
by Elizabeth, daughter of sir William Cavendisu, km. She
was born, as near as can be computed, in 1577, and educated at London, under the eye of the eld countess of
Lenox, her grand-mother. She was far from being either
beautiful in her person, or from being distinguished by
any extraordinary qualities of mind; and yet she met with
many admirers, on account of her royal descent and near
relation to the crown of England. Her father dviug in
1579, and leaving her thereby sole heiress, as some understood, of the house of Lenox, several matches were projected for her at home and abroad. Her cousin, king
James, inclined to have married her to lord Esme Stuart,
whom he had created duke of Lenox, and whom before his
marriage he considered as his heir; but this match was
prevented by queen Elizabeth, though it was certainly a
very fit one in all respects. As the English succession was
at this time very problematical, the great powers on the
Continent speculated on many husbands for the lady Arabella, such as the duke of Savoy, a prince of the house of
Farnese, and others. In the mean time, this lady had some
thoughts of marrying herself at home, as Thuanus relates,
to a son of the earl of Northumberland, but it is not credible that this took effect, though he says it did privately.
The very attempt procured her queen Elizabeth’s displeasure, who confined her for it. In the mean time her title
to the crown, such as it was, became the subject, amongst
many others, of father Persons’ s famous book, wherein are
all the arguments for and against her, and which served to
divulge her name and descent all over Europe; and yet
this book was not very favourable to her interest. On the
death of the queen, some malcontents framed an odd design of disturbing the public peace, and amongst other
branches of their dark scheme, one was to seize the lady
Arabella, and to cover their proceedings by the sanction of
her title, intending also to have married her to some
English nobleman, the more to increase their interest, and
the better to please the people. But this conspiracy was
fatal to none but its authors, and those who conversed with
them; being speedily defeated, many taken, and some executed. As for the lady Arabella, it does not appear that
she had any knowledge of this engagement in her behalf,
whatever it was; for domestic writers are perplexed, and
foreign historians ruu into absurdities, when they
endeadeavour to explain it. She continued at liberty, and in
apparent favour at court, though her circumstances were
narrow till the latter end of the year 1608, when by
some means she drew upon her king James’s displeasure.
However, at Christmas, when mirth and good-humour prevailed at court, she was again taken into favour, had a service of plate presented to her of the value of two hundred
pounds, a thousand marks given her to pay her debts, and
some addition made to her annual income. This seems to
have been done, in order to have gained her to the interest
of the court, and to put the notions of marriage she had
entertained out of her head; all which, however, proved
ineffectual; for in the beginning of the month of February
1609, she was detected in an intrigue with Mr. William
Seymour, son to the lord Beauchamp, and grandson to the
earl of Hertford, to whom, notwithstanding, she was. privately married some time afterwards. Upon this discovery,
they were both carried before the council, and severely reprimanded, and then dismissed. In the summer of 1610,
the marriage broke out, on which the lady was sent into
close custody, at the house of sir Thomas Parry, in Lambeth; and Mr. Seymour was committed to the Tower for
his contempt, in marrying a lady of the royal family without the king’s leave. It does not appear that this confinement was attended with any great severity to either; for
the lady was allowed the use of sir Thomas Parry’s house
and gardensj and the like gentleness, in regard to his high
quality, was shewn to Mr. Seymour. Some intercourse
they had by letters, which after a time was discovered,
and a resolution taken thereupon to send the lady to Durham, a resolution which threw her into deep affliction.
Upon this, by the interposition of friends, she and her
husband concerted a scheme for their escape, which was
successfully executed in the beginning, though it ended
unluckily. The lady, under the care of sir James Crofts,
was at the house of Mr. Conyers, at Highgate, from whence
she was to have gone the next day to Durham, on which
she put a fair countenance now, notwithstanding the trouble
she had before shewn. This made her keepers the more
easy, and gave her an opportunity of disguising herself,
which she did on Monday the 3d of June, 1611, by drawing over her petticoats a pair of large French-fashioned
hose, putting on a man’s doublet, a peruke which covered
her hair, a hat, black cloak, russet boots with red tops, and
a rapier by her side. Thus equipped, she walked out between three and four with Mr. Markham. They went a
mile and half to a little inn, where a person attended with
their horses. The lady, by that time she came thither, was
so weak and faint, that the hostler, who held the stirrup
when she mounted, said that gentleman would hardly hold
out to London. Riding, however, so raised her spirits,
that by the time she came to Blackwall, she was pretty well
recovered. There they found waiting for them two men,
a gentlewoman, and a chambermaid, with one boat full of
Mr. Seymour’s and her trunks, and another boat for their
persons, in which they hasted from thence towards Woolwich. Being come so far, they bade the watermen row on
to Gravesend. There the poor fellows were desirous to
land, but for a double freight were contented to go on to
Lee, yet being almost tired by the way, they were forced
to lie still at Tilbury, whilst the rowers went on shore to
refresh themselves; then they proceeded to Lee, and by
that time the day appeared, and they discovered a ship
at anchor a mile beyond them, which was the French
bark that waited for them. Here the lady would have lain
at anchor, expecting Mr. Seymour, but through the importunity of her followers, they forthwith hoisted sail and put
to sea. In the mean time Mr. Seymour, with a peruke and
beard of black hair, and in a tawny cloth suit, walked alone
without suspicion, from his lodging out at the great west
door of the Tower, following a cart that had brought him
billets. From thence he walked along by the Towerwharf, by the warders of the south gate, and so to the iron
gate, where one Rodney was ready with a pair of oars to
receive him. When they came to Lee, and found that the
French ship was gone, the billows rising high, they hired
a fisherman for twenty shillings, to put them on board a
certain ship that they saw under sail. That ship they
found not to be it they looked for, so they made forwards
to the next under sail, which was a ship from Newcastle.
This with much ado they hired for forty pounds, to carry
them to Calais, and the master performed his bargain, by
which means Mr. Seymour escaped, and continued in Flanders. On Tuesday in the afternoon, my lord treasurer being advertised that the lady Arabella had made an escape,
sent immediately to the lieutenant of the Tower to set
strict guard over Mr. Seymour, which he promised, after
his yxrt manner, “he would thoroughly do, that he would;
”
but, coming to the prisoner’s lodgings-, he found, to his great
amazement, that he was gone from thence one whole day
before. A pink being dispatched from the Downs into
Calais road, seized the French bark, and brought back the
lady and those with her; but, before this was known, the
proclamation issued for apprehending them. As soon as
she was brought to town, she was, after examination, committed to the Tower, declaring that she was not so sorry for
her own restraint, as she should be glad if Mr. Seymour
escaped, for whose welfare, she affirmed, she was more concerned than for her own. Her aunt, the countess of Shrewsbury, was likewise committed, on suspicion of having
prompted the lady Arabella, not only to her escape, but to
other things, it being known that she had amassed upwards
of twenty thousand pounds in ready money. The earl of
Shrewsbury was confined to his house, and the old earl of
Hertford sent for from his seat. By degrees things grew
cooler, and though it was known that Mr. Seymour continued in the Netherlands, yet the court made no farther
applications to the archduke about him. In the beginning of 1612, a new storm began to break out; for the
lady Arabella, either pressed at an examination, or of her
own free will, made some extraordinary discoveries, upon
which some quick steps would have been taken, had it not
shortly after appeared, that her misfortunes had turned her
head, and that, consequently, no use could be made of her
evidence. However, the countess of Shrewsbury, who before had leave to attend her husband in his sickness, was,
very closely shut up, and the court was amused with abundance of strange stories, which wore out by degrees, and
the poor lady Arabella languished in her confinement till
the 27th of September, 1615, when her life and sorrows
ended together. Even in her grave this poor lady was not
at peace, a report being spread that she was poisoned, because she happened to die within two years of sir Thomas
Overbury. Sir Bull. Whitlocke has put this circumstance
in much too strong a light; for it was a suspicion at most,
and never had the support of the least colour of proof. As
for her husband, sir William Seymour, he soon after her
decease, procured leave to return, distinguished himself
by loyally adhering to the king during the civil wars,
and, surviving to the time of the Restoration, was restored to his great-grandfather’s title of duke of Somerset, by an act of parliament, which entirely cancelled
his attainder and on the giving his royal assent to this act,
king Charles II. was pleased to say in full parliament, what
perhaps was as honourable for the family as the title to
which they are restored, flis words were these: “As this
is an act of an extraordinary nature, so it is in favour of a
person of no ordinary merit: he has deserved of my father,
and of myself, as much as any subject possibly could do;
and I hope this will stir no man’s envy, because in doing it
I do no more than' what a good master should do for such a
servant.
” By his lady Arabella, this noble person had no
issue: but that he still preserved a warm affection for her
memory, appears from hence, that he called one of his
daughters by his second wife, Frances, daughter and coheiress of Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, Arabella Seymour.
Reading in Berkshire, and commissary-general of the horse in which post he three times repulsed the earl of Essex, who, at the head of the parliament army, laid siege
, an officer of note in king
Charles I-.'s army, was son of sir Arthur Aston of Fulham
in Middlesex, who was the second son of sir Thomas Aston,
of Aston, of Bucklow-hundred in Cheshire; “an ancient
and knightly family of that county.
” He was a great traveller, and made several campaigns in foreign countries.
Being returned into England about the beginning of the
grand rebellion, with as many soldiers of note as he could
bring with him, he took part with the king against the
parliament. He commanded the dragoons in the battle of
Edge- hill, and with them did his majesty considerable
service. The king, having a great opinion of his valour
and conduct, made him governor of the garrison of Reading in Berkshire, and commissary-general of the horse
in which post he three times repulsed the earl of Essex,
who, at the head of the parliament army, laid siege to
that place. But sir Arthur being dangerously wounded,
the command was devolved on colonel Richard Fielding,
the eldest colonel in the garrison. Sir Arthur was suspected of taking this opportunity to get rid of a dangerous
command. Some time after, he was appointed governor
of the garrison of Oxford, in the room of sir William Pennyman deceased. In September following, he had the
misfortune to break his leg by a fall from his horse, and
was obliged to have it cut off, and on the twenty-fifth of
December, he was discharged from his command, which
was conferred on colonel Gage. After the king’s death,
sir Arthur was employed in the service of king Charles IL
and went with the flower of the English veterans into Ireland, where he was appointed, governor of Drogheda,
commonly called Tredagk; “at which time (Mr. Wood tells us) he laid an excellent plot to tire and break the
English army.
” But at length Cromwell having taken the
town, about the tenth of August 1649, and put the inhabitants to the sword, sir Arthur the governor was cut to
pieces, and his brains beaten out with his wooden-leg.
Wood says, that he was created doctor of physic, May 1,
as he forsook its natural channel in the Cecils, and attached himself and his brother Anthony to the earl of Essex. Sir Robert Cecil is consequently represented as preventing
His progress in his professional studies, however, was
rterer interrupted, and his practice became considerable.
In 1588, he discharged the office of reader at Gray’s Inn,
and such was his fame, that the queen honoured him by
appointing him her counsel learned in the law extraordinary, but whatever reputation he derived from this appointment, and to a young man of only twenty-eight years
of age, it must have been of great importance, it is said
he derived from her majesty very little accession of fortune.
As a candidate for court-preferment, and a lawyer already
distinguished by acknowledged talents, it might be expected
that the road to advancement would have been easy, especially if we consider his family interest, as the son of a lordkeeper, and nephew to William lord Burleigh, and first cousin to sir Robert Cecil, principal secretary of state. But it
appears that his merit rendered his court-patrons somewhat
jealous, and that his interest, clashing with that of the two
'Cecils, and the earls of Leicester and Essex, who formed
the two principal parties in queen Elizabeth’s reign, was
rather an obstruction to him, as he forsook its natural channel in the Cecils, and attached himself and his brother
Anthony to the earl of Essex. Sir Robert Cecil is consequently represented as preventing his attaining any very
high appointment, although, that he might not seem to
slight so near a relation, he procured him the reversion of
the place of register of the court of Star-chamber, which,
however, he did not enjoy until the next reign, nearly
twenty years after. This made him say, with some pleasantry,
that “it was like another man’s ground buttalling upon
his house, which might mend his prospect, but did not fill
his barn.
” It was in gratitude for obtaining for him thb
reversion that, in 1592, he published “Certain observations upon a libel entitled A Declaration of the true causes
of the great Troubles,
” in which he warmly vindicates the
lord treasurer particularly, and his own father; and the
rest of queen Elizabeth’s ministers occasionally. This is
thought to have been his first political production.
His other patron, Robert earl of Essex, proved a warm, steady, and indefatigable friend, and
His other patron, Robert earl of Essex, proved a warm, steady, and indefatigable friend, and earnestly strove to make him queen’s solicitor, in 1594, although unsuccessfully, from the superior influence of the Cecils. He endeavoured, however, to make him amends for his disappointment out of his own fortune. This, it might be supposed, demanded on the part of Mr. Bacon, a high sense of obligation, and. such he probably felt at the time but it is much to be lamented, that he afterwards sullied his character by taking a most forward and active part in bringing that unfortunate nobleman to the block for he not only appeared against him as a lawyer for the crown, but after his death, endeavoured to perpetuate the shame of it, by drawing a declaration of the treasons of the earl of Essex, which was calculated to justify the government in a very unpopular measure, and to turn the public censure from those who had ruined the earl of Essex, and had never done Mr. Bacon any good. It is but fair, however, that we should give the outline of the apology which he found it necessary to make for his conduct. It amounts to this, that he had given the earl good advice, which he did not follow that upon this a coldness ensued, which kept them at a greater distance than formerly that, however, he continued to give his advice to the earl, and laboured all he could to serve him with the queen that in respect to his last unfortunate act, which was, in truth, no better than an act of madness, he had no knowledge or notice whatever that he did no more than he was in duty bound to do for the service of the queen, in the way of his profession and that the declaration was put upon him altered, after he had drawn it, both by Uie ministers and the queen herself. Such an apology, however, did not satisfy the public at that time, and the utmost investigation of the affair since has only tended to soften some parts of his conduct, without amounting to a complete justification.
It has been said that Bales was engaged in the earl of Essex’s treasons in 1600, but he appears to have been entrapped
It has been said that Bales was engaged in the earl of Essex’s treasons in 1600, but he appears to have been entrapped by one John Danyell of Deresburie, esq. who, resolving out of the distresses of his lord to raise a considerable addition to his own substance, induced Bales to imitate some of that earl’s letters; but Danyell was sentenced in the Star-chamber, upon the evidence of Bales and other witnesses, in June 1601, to pay a fine of 3000l. for which his whole effects were extented, also to be exposed on the pillory, and endure perpetual imprisonment besides, for his forgery, fraud, and extortion. Bales was, indeed, for a short time, under some confinement, that they might be certain of his evidence at the trial and we find also that he wrote a large declaration to the countess of Essex, and, it seems, at her request or command, in which he set forth the whole manner of his engagement, and the justification of his conduct in this business. We have little more of Bales after this, except that he is supposed to have died about 1610.
umber, yet few of them have been performed for some years past, excepting “The Unhappy Favourite, or Earl of Essex,” which continued till very lately a stock tragedy
, an English dramatic writer, was bred
an attorney at law, and belonged to the society of New-inn.
The dry study of the law, however, not being so suitable
to his Natural disposition as the more elevated flights of
poetical imagination, he quitted the pursuit of riches in
the inns of court, to attend on the muses in the theatre,
but here he found his rewards hy no melins adequate to his
deserts. His emoluments at the best were precarious, and
the various successes of his pieces too feelingly convinced
him of the error in his choice. Yet this did not prevent
him from pursuing with cheerfulness the path he had
taken his thirst of fame, and warmth of poetic enthusiasm, alleviating to his imagination many disagreeably
circumstances, into which indigence, the too frequent
attendant on poetical pursuits, often threw him. His turn
was entirely to tragedy his merit in which is of a peculiar
kind. For at the same time that his language must be
confessed to be extremely unpoetical, and his numbers
uncouth and inharmonious nay, even his characters,
very far from being strongly marked qr distinguished, and
his episodes extremely irregular yet it is impossible to
avoid being deeply affected at the representation, and
even at the reading of riis tragic pieces. This is owing in
general to a happy choice of his subjects, which are all
borrowed from history, either rpal or romantic, and most
of them from circumstances in the annals of our own
country, which, not only from their being familiar to our
continual recollection, but even from their having some
degree of relation to ourselves, we are apt to receive with
a kind of partial prepossession, and a predetermination
to be pleased. He has constantly chosen as the basis of
his plays such tales as were, in themselves and their wellknown catastrophes, best adapted to the purposes of the
drama. He has, indeed, seldom varied from the strictness
of historical facts, yet he seems to have made it his constant rule to keep the scene perpetually alive, and never
suffer his characters to droop. His verse is not poetry,
but prose run mad, Yet will the false gem sometimes approach so near in glitter to the true one, at least in the
eyes of all but the real connoisseurs, that bombast frequently passes for the true sublime and where it is rendered the vehicle of incidents in themselves affecting,
and in which the heart is apt to take an interest, it will
perhaps be found to have a stronger power on the human
passions, than even that property to which it is in reality
no more than a bare succedaneum. On this account only
Mr. Banks’s writings have in general drawn more tears
from the eyes, and excited more terror in the breasts even,
of judicious audiences, than those of much more correct
ariid more truly poetical authors. The tragedies he has
left behind him are seven in number, yet few of them
have been performed for some years past, excepting “The
Unhappy Favourite, or Earl of Essex,
” which continued
till very lately a stock tragedy at both theatres. The
writers on dramatic subjects have not ascertained either
the year of the birth, or that of the death of this author.
His last remains, however, lie interred in the church of
St. James, Westminster.
and use of diverse Instruments framed chiefly for that purpose,” Lond. 1597, 4to dedicated to Robert earl of Essex. 2. “Magnetical Advertisement, or diverse pertinent
Barlowe died in the year 1625. His works are as follow:
1. “The Navigator’s Supply, containing rnaiw things of
principal importance belonging to Navigation, and use of
diverse Instruments framed chiefly for that purpose,
”
Lond. Magnetical Advertisement, or diverse pertinent observations and improved experiments concerning the natnre and properties of the Loadstone,
” Lond. A Brief Discovery of the idle animadversions of Mark
Ridley, M. D. upon a treatise entitled Magnetical Advertisement,
” Lond.
ld not have proved mortal. As soon as the other army was composed by the coming on of the night, the earl of Essex about midnight sent sir William Balfour, and some other
The fortune, which he inherited from his ancestors, was a very considerable one; and though he did not manage it with such care, as if he desired much to improve it, yet he left it in a very fair condition. He was a man of great honour, and spent his youth and the vigour of his age in military actions and commands abroad. And though he indulged himself in great liberties, yet he still preserved a very great interest in his country; as appears by the supplies, which he and his son brought to the king’s army, the companies of his own regiment of foot being commanded by the principal knights and gentlemen of Lincolnshire, who engaged themselves in the service principally out of their personal affection to him. He was of a very generous nature, and punctual in what he undertook, and in exacting what was due to him which made him bear the restriction so heavily, which was put upon him by the commission granted to prince Rupert, who was general of the horse, in which commission there was a clause exempting him from receiving orders from any but the king himself; and by the king’s preferring the prince’s opinion in all matters relating to the war before his. Nor did he conceal his resentment for the day before the battle, he said to some friends, with whom he had used freedom, that he did not look upon himself as general; and therefore he was resolved, when the day of battle should come, that he would be at the head of his regiment as a private colonel, where he would die. He was carried out of the field to the next village; and if he could then have procured surgeons, it was thought his wound would not have proved mortal. As soon as the other army was composed by the coming on of the night, the earl of Essex about midnight sent sir William Balfour, and some other officers, to see him, and designed himself to visit him. They found him upon a little straw in a poor house, where they had laid him in his blood, w.hich had run from him in great abundance. He said, he was sorry to see so many gentlemen, some whereof were his old friends, engaged in so foul a rebellion wishing them to tell the earl of Essex, that he ought to throw himself at the king’s feet to beg his pardon which if he did not speedily do, his memory would be odious to the nation. He continued his discourse with such vehemence, that the officers by degrees withdrew themselves, and prevented the visit, which the earl of Essex intended him, who only sent him the best surgeons; but in the very opening of his wounds he died, before the morning, by the loss of blood. He had very many friends, and very few enemies, and died generally lamented. His body was interred at Edenham in Lincolnshire.
ing one of the delegates that pronounced and signed the sentence of divorce between Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, and the lady Frances Howard, in the year 1613 and
, a learned writer, and bishop, in
the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth
century, was born in the city of Winchester, being the son
of Harman Bilson, the same probably who was fellow of
Merton-college in 1536, and derived his descent by his
grandmother, or great-grandmother, from the duke of t>avaria. He was educated in Winchester school and in
1565 admitted perpetual fellow of New-college, after he
had served two years of probation. October 10, 1566, he
took his degree of bachelor, and April 25, 1570, that of
master of arts; that of bachelor of divinity, June 24, 1579;
and the degree of doctor of divinity on the 24th of January 1580. In his younger years, he was a great lover
of, and extremely studious in, poetry, philosophy, and
physic. But when he entered into holy orders, and applied himself to the study of divinity, which his genius
chiefly led him to, he became a most solid and constant
preacher, and one of the most accomplished scholars of
his time. The first preferment he had was that of master
of Winchester-school he was then made prebendary of
Winchester, and afterwards warden of the college there.
To this college he did a very important service, about the
year 1584, by preserving the revenues of it when they were
in danger of being swallowed up by a notorious forgery, of
which, however, we have only an obscure account. In
1585, he published his book of “The true difference
betweene Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion,
”
and dedicated it to queen Elizabeth a work, which, although it might answer her immediate purpose, was of
fatal tendency to Charles I. few books being more frequently quoted by the mal-contents to justify their resistance to that prince. In 1593, he published a very able
defence of episcopacy, entitled, “The perpetuall Government of Christes Church: wherein are handled, the fatherly superioritie which God first established in the patriarkes for the guiding of his Church, and after continued
in the tribe of Levi and the Prophetes and lastlie confirmed in the New Testament to the apostles and their
successors: as also the points in question at this day,
touching the Jewish Synedrion: the true kingdome of
Christ: the Apostles’ commission: the laie presbyterie:
the distinction of bishops from presbyters, and their succession from the apostles times and hands: the calling and
moderating of provinciall synods by primates and metropolitanes the allotting of dioceses, and the popular electing of such as must feede and watch the flock and divers
other points concerning the pastoral regiment of the house
of God.
” On the 20th of April, 15y6, he was elected v
confirmed June the llth, and the 13th of the same month
consecrated bishop of Worcester and translated in May
following to the bishopric of Winchester, and made a
privy-counsellor. In 1599, he published “The effect of
certaine Sermons touching the full Redemption of Mankind
by the death and bloud of Christ Jesus wherein, besides
the merite of Christ’s suffering, the manner of his offering, the power of his death, the comfort of his crosse, the
glorie of his resurrection, are handled, what paines Christ
suffered in his soule on the crosse together with the
place and purpose of his descent to hel after death
” &c.
Lond. 4to. These sermons being preached at Paul’s Cross
in Lent 1597, by the encouragement of archbishop Whitgift, greatly alarmed most of the Puritans, because they
contradicted some of their tenets, but they are not now
thought consonant to the articles of the church of England. The Puritans, however, uniting their forces, and
making their observations, sent them to Henry Jacob, a
learned puritan, who published them under his own name.
The queen being at Farnham-castle, and, to use the bishop’s words, “taking knowledge of the things questioned
between him and his opponents, directly commanded him
neither to desert the doctrine, nor to let the calling which
he bore in the church of God, to be trampled under foot
by such unquiet refusers of trueth and authoritie.
” Upon
this royal command, he wrote a learned treatise, chiefly
delivered in sermons, which was published in 1604, under
the title of “The survey^of Christ’s sufferings for Man’s
Redemption and of his descent to hades or hel for our
deliverance,
” Lond. fol. He also preached the sermon at
Westminster before king James I. and his queen, at their
coronation on St. James’s day, July 28, 1603, from Rom.
xiii. L. London, 1603, 8vo. In January 1603-4, he was
one of the speakers and managers at the Hampton-Court
conference, in which he spoke much, and, according to
Mr. Fuller, most learnedly, and, in general, was one of
the chief maintainers and supports of the church of England. The care of revising, and putting the last hand to,
the new translation of the English Bible in king James Ist’s
reign, was committed to our author, and to Dr. Miles
Smith, afterwards bishop of Gloucester. His last public
act, recorded in history, was the being one of the delegates that pronounced and signed the sentence of divorce
between Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, and the lady
Frances Howard, in the year 1613 and his son being
knighted soon after upon this very account, as was imagined, the world was so malicious as to give him the title
of sir Nullity Bilson. This learned bishop, after having
gone through many employments, departed this life on
the 18th of June, 1616, and was buried in Westminsterabbey, near the entrance into St. Edmund’s chapel, on the
south side of the monument of king Richard II. His character is represented to the utmost advantage by several
persons. Sir Anthony Weldon calls him “an excellent civilian, and a very great scholler
” Fuller, “a deep and
profound scholar, excellently well read in the fathers
”
Bishop Godwin, “a very grave iman and how great a divine (adds he), if any one knows not, let him consult his
learned writings
” Sir John Harrington, “I find but foure
lines (in bishop Godwin’s book) concerning him and if I
should give him his due, in proportion to the rest, I should
spend foure leaves. Not that I need make him better
known, being one of the most eminent of his ranck, and a
man that carried prelature in his very aspect. His rising
was meerly by his learning, as true prelates should rise.
Sint non modo labe mali sed suspicione carentes, not onely
free from the spot, but from the speech of corruption.
”
He wrote in a more elegant style, and in fuller and betterturned periods, than was usual in the times wherein he lived.
It is related of our prelate, that once, when he was preaching a sermon* at St. Paul’s Cross, a sudden panic, occasioned by the folly or caprice of one of the audience,
seized the multitude there assembled, who thought that
the church was falling on their heads. The good bishop,
who sympathized with the people more from pity than
from fear, after a sufficient pause, reassumed and went
through his sermon with great composure.
till her death. In which the secret intrigues of her court, and the conduct of her favourite, Robert earl of Essex, both at home and abroad, are particularly illustrated.
Having related the more personal and private circumstances of Dr. Birch’s history, we proceed to his various
publications. The first great work he engaged in, was
“The General Dictionary, historical and critical
” wherein
a new translation of that of the celebrated Mr. Bayle was
included and which was interspersed with several thousand lives never before published. It was on the 29th of
April, 1734, that Dr. Birch, in conjunction with the rev.
Mr. John Peter Bernard, and Mr. John Lockman, agreed
with the booksellers to carry on this important undertaking; and Mr. George Sale was employed to draw up the
articles relating to oriental history. The whole design
was completed in ten volumes, folio; the first of which
appeared in 1734, and the last in 1741. It is universally
allowed, that this work contains a very extensive and useful body of biographical knowledge. We are not told
what were the particular articles written by Dr. Birch
but there is no doubt of his having executed a great part
of the dictionary neither is it, we suppose, any disparagement to his coadjutors, to say, that he was superior
to them in abilities and reputation, with the exception of
Mr. George Sale, who was, without controversy, eminently
qualified for the department he had undertaken. The
next great design in which Dr. Birch engaged, was the
publication of “Thurloe’s State Papers.
” This collection,
which comprised seven volumes in folio, came out in 1742.
It is dedicated to the late lord chancellor Hardwicke, and
there is prefixed to it a life of Thurloe but whether it
was written or not by our author, does not appear. The
same life had been separately published not long before.
The letters and papers in this collection throw the greatest
light on the pe'riod to which they relate, and are accompanied with proper references, and a complete index to
each volume, yet was a work by which the proprietors
were great losers. In 1744, Dr. Birch published, in octavo,
a “Life of the honourable Robert Boyle, esq
” which
hath since been prefixed to the quarto edition of the works
of that philosopher. In the same year, our author began
his assistance to Houbraken and Vertue, in their design of
publishing, in folio, the “Heads of illustrious persons of
Great Britain,
” engraved by those two artists, but chiefly
by Mr. Houbraken. To each head was annexed, by Dr,
Birch, the life and character of the person represented.
The first volume of this work, which came out in numbers,
was completed in 1747, and the second in 1752. Our
author’s concern in this undertaking did not hinder his
prosecuting, at the same time, other historical disquisitions: for, in 1747, appeared, in octavo,“His inquiry
into the share which king Charles the First had in the
transactions of the earl of Glamorgan.
” A second edition
ef the Inquiry was published in Miscellaneous works of sir Walter Raleigh
” to which was prefixed the life of that unfortunate and injured man. Previously to this, Dr. Birch
published “An historical view of the negociations between
the courts of England, France, and Brussels, from 1592
to 1617; extracted chiefly from the ms State Papers of
sir Thomas Edmondes, knight, embassador in France, and
at Brussels, and treasurer of the household to the kings
James I. and Charles I. and of Anthony Bacon, esq. brother to the lord chancellor Bacon. To which is added, a
relation of the state of France, with the character of Henry
IV. and the principal persons of that court, drawn up by
sir George Carew, upon his return from his embassy there
in 1609, and addressed to king James I. never before
printed.
” This work, which consists of one volume, in
octavo, appeared in 1749; and, in an introductory discourse
to the honourable Philip Yorke, esq. (the late earl of Hardwicke), Dr. Birch makes some reflections on the utility of deducing history from its only true and unerring
sources, the original letters and papers of those eminent
men, who were the principal actors in the administration
of affairs; after which he gives some account of the lives
of sir Thomas Edmondes, sir George Carew, and Mr. Anthorry Bacon. The “Historical View
” is undoubtedly a
valuable performance, and hath brought to light a variety
of particulars relative to the subjects and the period treated
of, which before were either not at all, or not so fully
known. In 17.51, was published by our author, an edition,
in two volumes, 8vo, of the “Theological, moral, dramatic, and poetical works of Mrs. Catherine Cockburn
”
with an account of her life. In the next year came out
his “Life of the most reverend Dr. John Tillotson, lord
archbishop of Canterbury. Compiled chiefly from his
original papers and letters.
” A second edition, corrected
and enlarged, appeared in 1753. This work, which was
dedicated to archbishop Herring, is one of the most pleasing and popular of Dr. Birch’s performances; and he has
done great justice to Dr. Tillotsou’s memory, character,
and virtues. Our biographer hath likewise intermixed
with his narrative of the good prelate’s transactions, short
accounts of the persons occasionally mentioned; a method
which he has pursued in some of his other publications.
In 1753, he revised. the quarto edition, in two volumes, of
Milton’s prose works, and added a new life of that great
poet and writer. Dr. Birch gave to the world', in the following year, his “Memoirs of the reign of queen Elizabeth, from the year 1581, till her death. In which the
secret intrigues of her court, and the conduct of her favourite, Robert earl of Essex, both at home and abroad,
are particularly illustrated. From the original papers of
his intimate friend, Anthony Bacon, esq. and other manuscripts never before published.
” These memoirs, which
are inscribed to the earl of Hardwicke, give a minute account of the letters and materials from which they are
taken and the whole work undoubtedly forms a very valuable collection in which our author has shewn himself
(as in his other writings) to be a faithfnl and accurate compiler and in which, besides a full display of the temper
and actions of the earl of Essex, much light is thrown on
the characters of the Cecils, Bacons, and many eminent
persons of that period. The book is now becoming scarce,
and, as it may not speedily be republished, is rising in its
value. This is the case, likewise, with regard to the edition of sir Walter Raleigh’s miscellaneous works. Dr.
Birch’s next publication was “The history of the Royal
Society of London, for improving of natural knowledge,
from its first rise. In which the most considerable of those
papers, communicated to the society, which have hitherto
not been published, are inserted in their proper order, as
a supplement to the Philosophical Transactions.
” The
twq first volumes of this performance, which was dedicated
to his late majesty, appeared in 1756, and the two other
volumes in 1757. The history is carried on to the end of
the year 1687 and if the work had been continued, and
had been conducted with the same extent and minuteness,
it would have been a very voluminous undertaking. But,
though it may, perhaps, be justly blamed in this respect,
it certainly contains many curious and entertaining
anecdotes concerning the manner of the society’s proceedings
at their first establishment. It is enriched, likewise, with
a number of personal circumstances relative to the members, and with biographical accounts of such of the more
considerable of them as died in the course of each year.
In 1760, came out, in one volume, 8vo, our author’s “Life
of Henry prince of Wales, eldest son of king James I.
Compiled chiefly from his own papers, and other manuscripts, never before published.
” It is dedicated to his
present majesty, then prince of Wales. Some have objected to this work, that it abounds too much with trifling
details, and that Dr. Birch has not given sufficient scope
to such reflections and disquisitions as arose from his subject. It must, nevertheless, be acknowledged, that it affords a more exact and copious account than had hitherto
appeared of a prince whose memory has always been remarkably popular; and that various facts, respecting several other eminent characters, are occasionally introduced. Another of his publications was, “Letters, speeches,
charges, advices, &c. of Francis Bacon, lord viscount St.
AJban, lord chancellor of England.
” This collection,
which is comprised in one volume, 8vo, and is dedicated
to the honourable Charles Yorke, esq. appeared in 1763.
It is taken from some papers which had been originally in
the possession of Dr. Rawley, lord Bacon’s chaplain, whose
executor, Mr. John Rawley, having put them into the
hands of Dr. Tenison, they were, at length, deposited in
the manuscript library at Lambeth. Dr. Birch, speaking
of these papers of lord Bacon, says, that it can scarcely
be imagined, but that the bringing to light, from obscurity
and oblivion, the remains of so eminent a person, will be
thought an acquisition not inferior to the discovery (if the ruins of Herculaneum should afford such a treasure) of a
new set of the epistles of Cicero, whom our immortal
countryman most remarkably resembled as an orator, a
philosopher, a writer, a lawyer, and a statesman. Though
this, perhaps, is speaking too highly of a collection, which
contains many things in it seemingly not very material, it
must, at the same time, be allowed, that nothing can be
totally uninteresting which relates to so illustrious a man,
or tends, in any degree, to give a farther insight into his
character. To this catalogue we have still to add “Professor Greaves’s miscellaneous works,
” Intellectual System,
” (improved from the Latin edition of Mosheim) his discourse on the
true notion of the Lord’s Supper, and two sermons, with
an account of his life and writings, 1743, in two vols. 4to.
An edition of Spenser’s “Fairy Queen,
” Letters
between col. Robert Hammond, governor of the Isle of
Wight, and the committee of lords and commons at Derbyhouse, general Fairfax, lieut.-general Cromwell, commissary general Ireton, &c. relating to king Charles I. while
he was confined in Carisbrooke-castle in that island. Now
first published. To which is prefixed a letter from John
Ashburnham, esq. to a friend, concerning his deportment
towards the king, in his attendance on his majesty at
Hampton-court, and in the Isle of Wight,
” The life of Dr. Ward,
” which
was finished but a week before his death, was published
by Dr. Maty, in 1766.
I returned from the Provinces United, which was in the year 1597, and likewise after my return, the earl of Essex did use me so kindly, both by letters and messages,
After near five years residence in Holland, he obtained
leave to return to England to look after his private affairs,
but was shortly after remanded back to the Hague. About
a year after he came into England again, to communicate some private discoveries to the queen and presently
returned to the States for the execution of those councils
he had secretly proposed. At length, having succeeded
in all his negociations, he obtained his final recal in 1597.
After his return, finding his advancement at court obstructed by the jealousies and intrigues of the great men,
he retired from the court and all public business, and
never could be prevailed with to return and accept of any
new employment. His own account of his treatment at
this time is too amusing and characteristic to be omitted
“I cannot chuse,
” says he, “in making report of the
principal accidents that have befallen unto me in the course
of my life, but record among the rest, that from the very
first day 1 had no man more to triend, among the lords of
the council, than was the lord treasurer Burleigh for when
occasion had been ottered of declaring his conceit, as
touching my service, he would always tell the queen
(which I received from herself, and some other ear-witnesses) that there was not any man in England so meet as
myself to undergo the office of the secretary; and since,
his son the present lord treasurer hath signified unto me in
private conference, that, when his father first intended to
advance him to that place, his purpose was withal to make
me his colleague. But the case stood thus in my behalf:
Before such time as I returned from the Provinces United,
which was in the year 1597, and likewise after my return,
the earl of Essex did use me so kindly, both by letters and
messages, and other great tokens of his inward favour to
me, that, alihough I had no meaning but to settle in my
mind my chiefest dependance upon the lord Burleigh, as
one that I reputed to be both the best able, and therewithal the most willing, to work my advancement with the
queen; yet I know not how the earl, who sought by all
devices to divert her love and liking both from the father
and the son (but from the son in special), to withdraw my
affection from the one and the other, and to win me altogether to depend upon himself, did so often take occasion
to entertain the queen with some prodigal speephes of my
sufficiency for a secretary, which were ever accompanied
with words of disgrace against the present lord treasurer,
as neither she herself (of whose favour before I was thoroughly assured) took any great pleasure to prefer me the
sooner (for she hated his ambition, and would give little countenance to any of his followers); and both the lord
Burleigh and his son waxed jealous of my courses, as if
underhand 1 had been induced, by the cunning and kindness of the earl of Essex, to oppose myself against their
dealings. And though in very truth they had no solid
ground at all of the least alteration in my disposition towards either of them both (for I did greatly respect their persons and places, with a settled resolution to do them any service, as also in my heart I detested to be of any faction whatsoever) yet the now lord treasurer, upon occasion of some talk that I have since had with him of the
earl and his actions, hath freely confessed of his own accord to me, that his daily provocations were so bitter and
sharp against him, and his comparisons so odious, when he
put us in a balance, as he thought thereupon, he had very
great reason to use his best means to put any man out of
love of raising his fortune, whom the earl with sucn violence, to his extreme prejudice, had endeavoured to dignify. And this, as he affirmed, was all the motive -he had
to set himself against me, in whatsoever might redound to
the bettering of my state, or increasing my credit and
countenance with the queen. When I
” had thoroughly
now bethought me, first in the earl, of the slender holdfast he had in the queen; of an endless opposition of the
chiefest of our statesmen like still to wait upon him; of
his perilous, feeble, and uncertain advice, as well in his
own, as in all the causes of his friends; and when moreover for myself I had fully considered how very untowardly
these two counsellors were affected unto me, (upon whom before in cogitation I had framed all the fabric of my future prosperity); how ill it did concur with my natural
disposition, to become, or to be counted a stickler
or partaker in any public faction how well I was able,
by God’s good blessing, to live of myself, if I could
be content with a competent livelihood; how short a time
of farther life I was then to expect by the common course of
nature when I had, I say, in this manner represented to
my thoughts my particular estate, together with the earl’s,
I resolved thereupon to possess my soul in peace all the
residue of my days; to take my full farewell of state employments; to satisfy my mind with that mediocrity of
worldly living that I had of mine own and so to retire
me from the court, which was the epilogue and end of all
my actions, and endeavours of any important note, till I
came to the age of sixty three. Now although after this,
by her majesty’s directions, I was often called to the court
by the now lord treasurer, then secretary, and required by
him, as also divers times since, by order from the king, to
serve as an ambassador in France, to go a commissioner
from his highness for concluding the truce between Spain
and the Provinces, and to negotiate in other very honourable employments yet I would not be removed from my
former final resolution insomuch as at length to reduce
me the sooner to return to the court, I had an offer made
me by the present lord treasurer (for in process of time he saw, as he himself was pleased to tell me more than once, that all my dealing was upright, fair, and direct) that in
case I myself were willing unto it, he would make me his
associate in the secretary’s office And to the intent I
might believe that he intended it bonafide, he would get
me out of hand to be sworn of the council. And for the
better enabling of my state to maintain such a dignity,
whatsoever 1 would ask that might be fit for him to deal in,
and for me to enjoy, he woul'd presently solic.t the king to
give it passage. All which persuasions notwithstanding,
albeit I was often assaulted by him, in regard of my years,
and for that I felt myself subject to many indispositions,
besides some other reasons, which I reserve unto myself,
I have continued still at home my retired course of life,
which is now methinks to me as the greatest preferment
that the state can afford.“Mr. Camden mentions the affair of sir Thomas’s disappointment in regard to the office
of secretary in these words
” It raised in him (the earl of Essex) a greater and more apparent discontent, that sir
Robert Cecil was chosen secretary in his absence whereas
he had some time before recommended sir Thomas Bodley,
on the score of his great wisdom and experience in the affairs of the Low Countries, and had run very high in his
commendations; but with so much bitterness, and so little
reason, disparaged Cecil, that the queen (who had by this time a mean opinion of Essex’s recommendations) was the
more inclinable to refuse to make Bodley secretary; neither
would she let the lord treasurer join him in commission
with his son; both which honours were designed him, till
Essex, by too profuse and lavish praises, had rendered
him suspected as a creature of his own."
reign of queen Elizabeth, there are extracts of several letters written by sir Thomas Bodley to the earl of Essex, the lord treasurer Burghley, sir Robert Cecil, and
In Dr. Birch’s Memoirs of the reign of queen Elizabeth, there are extracts of several letters written by sir Thomas Bodley to the earl of Essex, the lord treasurer Burghley, sir Robert Cecil, and Mr. Anthony Bacon, chiefly during sir Thomas’s residence in Holland. From these, therefore, and from other passages in that work, we shall select a few particulars, which may serve to render the account of his life somewhat more complete. In 1583, when Mr. Stafford (afterwards sir Edward Stafford) was appointed ambassador to France, it was said that Mr. Bodley was to go with him as chief secretary but no evidence appears of his having actually served the ambassador in that capacity. The letters we have mentioned exhibit a farther proof of the fidelity and diligence with which he discharged his duty, in the management of queen Elizabeth’s affairs in the United Provinces. As some of the facts the letters relate to r are too minute to require a particular discussion in this place, it may be sufficient to refer generally to Dr. Birch’s Memoirs. One principal business of Mr. Bodley in Holland, was to obtain satisfaction from the States General, for certain sums of money due from them to the queen, for the expence she had been at, in assisting and supporting their republic and though he conducted himself in this negociation with his usual ability, and, in general, gave high satisfaction to her majesty, yet he once greatly displeased her, by returning to England, in order to lay before her, a secret proposition, from some leading members of the States, relative to the payments demanded.
odley received, in his noble design of restoring the public library at Oxford, his great friend, the earl of Essex, made him a present of a considerable part of the very
Among the other aids which sir Thomas Bodley received,
in his noble design of restoring the public library at Oxford, his great friend, the earl of Essex, made him a present of a considerable part of the very valuable library that
had belonged to the celebrated Jerom Osorius, successively bishop of Sylvas, and of Algarva, in which last see
he died in 1580. This library had fallen to the earl’s
share, among the booty which had been taken in the famous expedition against Cadiz, in 1596. King James I.
likewise, enriched the Bodleian library at Oxford at the
expence of his own for he gave a warrant to sir Thomas
Bodley, under the privy seal, for any books, which that
gentleman should like in any of his houses or libraries.
However, his majesty amply supplied this loss, by purchasing lord Lumley’s library, which contained not only
his own collection, but that of his father-in-law, Henry
Fitz-Alan, earl of Arundel, who had lived in the reign of
king Henry the eighth, when, upon the dissolution of the
monasteries, he had great opportunities of collecting manuscripts. Many of these manuscripts, as well as of the
printed books in the Royal library, have the name of Arundel and Lumley written in them and now constitute a part
of the noble collection in the British Museum. In Hearne’s
“Johannis Glastoniensis Historia de Rebus Glastoniensibus,
” are two letters to sir Robert Cotton, which peculiarly belong to this article, as one of them gave rise to
a very ridiculous report. They will be found in the
note .
its ample contents in every branch of science. Among the earliest benefactors were, Robert Devereux, earl of Essex Thomas Sackville, lord Buckhurst and earl of Dorset
It would requirea volume to enumerate the many important additions made to the Bodleian library by its numerous benefactors, or to give even a superficial sketch of its ample contents in every branch of science. Among the earliest benefactors were, Robert Devereux, earl of Essex Thomas Sackville, lord Buckhurst and earl of Dorset Robert Sidney, lord Sidney of Penshurst viscount Lisle and earl of Leicester; George Carey,- lord Hunsdon William Gent, esq. Anthony Browne, viscount Montacute John lord Lumley Philip Scudamore, of London, esq. and Lawrence Bodley, younger brother to the founder. All these contributions were made before the year 16 Oo. In 1601, collections of books and manuscripts were presented by Thomas Allen, some time fellow of Trinity college Thomas James, first librarian Herbert Westphaling, bishop of Hereford sir John Fortescue, knt. Alexander Nowell, dean of St. Paul’s John Crooke, recorder of London, and chief justice of the Common Pleas and Nicholas Bond, D. D. president of Magdalen college. The most extensive and prominent collections, however, are those of the earl of Pembroke, Mr. Selden, archbishop Laud, sir Thomas Roe, sir Kenelm Digby, general Fairfax, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Barlow, Dr. Rawlinson, Mr. St. Amand, Dr. Tanner, Mr. Browne Willis, T. Hearne, and Mr. Godwin. The last collection bequeathed, that of the late eminent and learned antiquary, Richard Gough, esq. is perhaps the most perfect series of topographical science ever formed, and is particularly rich in topographical manuscripts, prints, drawings, and books illustrated by the manuscript notes of eminent antiquaries. Since 1780, a fund of more than 4001. a year has been esablished for the purchase of books. This arises from a small addition to the matriculation fees, and a moderate contribution annually from such members of the university as are admitted to the use of the library, or on their taking their first degree.
son of William Bourchier earl of Ewe in Normandy, and the countess of Stafford, and brother of Henry earl of Essex, and, consequently, related to the preceding lord Berners.
, archbishop of Canterbury in the successi^eio-ns of
Henry VI. Edward IV. Edward V. Richard III. tf Henry
VII. was son of William Bourchier earl of Ewe in Normandy, and the countess of Stafford, and brother of Henry
earl of Essex, and, consequently, related to the preceding
lord Berners. He had his education in Neville’s-inn at
Oxford, and was chancellor of that university three ears
viz. from 1433 to 1437. His first dignity in the church
was that of dean of the collegiate church of St. Martin’s in
London; from which, in 1433, he was advanced, by pope
Eugenius IV. to the see of Worcester but his consecration
was deferred to May 15, 1436, by reason (as is supposed)
of a defect in age. He had not sat a full year, before he
was elected by the monks of Ely bishop of that see, and
confirmed by the pope: but, the king refusing his consent,
Bourchier did not dare to comply with the election,' for
fear of incurriig the censure of the laws, which forbad,
under very sevtfe penalties, the receiving the pope’s bull
without the khg’s leave. Nevertheless, seven or eight
years after, the see of Ely still continuing vacant, and the
king consenting, he was translated thither, the 20th of
December 1443. The author of the “Historia Eliensis
”
speaks very disadvantageously of him, as an oppressor,
and neglectfi of his duty during his residence on that see,
which was ten years twenty-three weeks and five days. At
last he was elected archbishop of Canterbury, in the
room of John Kemp, the 23d of April 1454. This election
was the irre remarkable, as the monks were left entirely to trir liberty of choice, without any interposition
either frc the crown or the papal chair. On the contrary, pof Nicolas Vth’s concurrence being readily obtained, t> archbishop was installed with great solemnity.
In the m^th of December following, he received the red
hat from vome, being created cardinal-priest of St. Cyriacus in Ttemis, but Bentham thinks this was not till 1464,
The next ear, he was made lord high chancellor of England, but‘esigned that office in October the year following. So’ after his advancement to the see of Canterbury,
he be^aia visitation in Kent, and made several regulations fothe government of his diocese. He likewise
publish* 3 - constitution for restraining the excessive abuse
of papa'rovisions, but deserved most highly of the learned
world, r being the principal instrument in introducing
the no 2 art of printing into England. Wood’s account^
althou not quite correct, is worth transcribing. Bourchier being informed that the inventor, Tossan^ alias
John -ithenberg, had set up a press at Harlem, was extremely desirous that the English might be made masters
of s^ 6116 ^ ^ an art. To this purpose he persuaded
fcino Henry VI. to dispatch one Robert Tournour, belong to the wardrobe, privately to Harlem. This man,
f ur ed with a thousand marks, of which the archbishop
suried three hundred, embarked for Holland, and, to
disise the matter, went in company with one Caxton, a,
nnhant of London, pretending himself to be of the same
profession. Thus concealing his name and his business, he
went first to Amsterdam, then to Leyden, and at last settled
at Harlem where having spent a -great deal of time and
money, he sent to the king for a fresh supply, giving his
Highness to understand, that he had almost compassed the
enterprize. In short, he persuaded Frederic Corselli, one
of the compositors, to carry off a set of letters, and embark
with him in the night for London. When they arrived, the
archbishop, thinking Oxford a more convenient place for
printing than London, sent Corselli down thither. And,
lest he should slip away before he had discovered the whole
secret, a guard was set upon the press. And thus the mystery of printing appeared ten years sooner in the university
of Oxford than at any other place in Europe, Harlem and
Mentz excepted. Not long after, there were presses set up
at Westminster, St. Alhan’s, Worcester, and other monasteries of note. After this manner printing was introduced
into England, by the care of archbishop Bourchier, in the
year of Christ 1464, and the third of king Edward IV."
Temple, intending to renew his studies in the law till the rebellion should be suppressed. When the earl of Essex was nominated lord-deputy of Ireland, Mr. Boyle, being
, a celebrated statesman, descended
from an ancient and honourable family, and distinguished
by the title of the great earl of Cork, was the youngest
son of Mr. Roger Boyle of Herefordshire, by Joan, daughter of Robert Naylor of Canterbury, and born in the city
of Canterbury, Oct. 3, 1566. He was instructed in grammar learning by a clergyman of Kent; and after having
been a scholar in Ben'et college, Cambridge, where he
was remarkable for early rising, indefatigable study, and
great temperance, became student in the Middle Temple.
He lost his father when he was but ten years old, and his
mother at the expiration of other ten years; and being
unable to support himself in the prosecution of his studies,
he entered into the service of sir Richard Manwood, chief
baron of the exchequer, as one of his clerks: but perceiving few advantages from this employment, he resolved
to travel, and landed at Dublin in June 1588, with a very
scanty stock, his whole property amounting, as he himself
informs us, to 271. 3s. in money, two trinkets which his
mother gave him as tokens, and his wearing apparel. He
was then about two-and-twenty, had a graceful person,
and all the accomplishments for a young man to succeed in
a country which was a scene of so much action. Accordingly he made himself very useful to some of the
principal persons employed in the government, by penning
for them memorials, cases, and answers; and thereby acquired a perfect knowledge of the kingdom and the state
of publia affairs, of which he knew well how to avail himself. In 1595 he married at Limeric, Joan, the daughter
and coheiress of William Ansley of Pulborough, in Sussex,
<esq. who had fallen in love with him. This lady died 1599,
in labour of her first child (born dead) leaving her husband an estate of 500l. a year in lands, which was the beginning of his fortune. Some time after, sir Henry Wallop, of Wares, sir Robert Gardiner, chief justice of the
king’s bench, sir Robert Dillam, chief justice of the common pleas, and sir Richard Binghim, chief commissioner
of Connaught, envious at certain purchases he had made in
the province, represented to queen Elizabeth that he was
in the pay of the king of Spain (who had at that time some thoughts of invading Ireland), by whom he had been furnished with money to buy several large estates; and that
he was strongly suspected to be a Roman catholic in his
heart, with many other malicious suggestions equally
groundless. Mr. Boyle, having private notice of this,
determined to come over to England to justify himself:
but, before he could take shipping, the general rebellion
in Minister broke out, all his lands were wasted, and he
had not one penny of certain revenue left. In this distress
he betook himself to his former chamber in the Middle
Temple, intending to renew his studies in the law till the
rebellion should be suppressed. When the earl of Essex
was nominated lord-deputy of Ireland, Mr. Boyle, being
recommended to him by Mr. Anthony Bacon, was received
by his lordship very graciously; and sir Henry Wallop,
treasurer of Ireland, knowing that Mr. Boyle had in his
custody several papers which could detect his roguish
manner of passing his accounts, resolved utterly to depress
him, and for that end renewed his former complaints
against him to the queen. By her majesty’s special directions, Mr. Boyle was suddenly taken up, and committed
close prisoner to the Gatehouse: all his papers were
seized and searched; and although nothing appeared to
his prejudice, yet his confinement lasted till two months
after his new patron the earl of Essex was gone to Ireland,
At length, with much difficulty, he obtained the favour of
the queen to be present at his examination; and having
fully answered whatever was alledged against him, he gave
a short account of his behaviour since he first settled in
Ireland, and concluded with laying open to the queen
and her council the conduct of his chief enemy sir Henry
Wallop. Upon which her majesty exclaimed with, her
usual intemperance of speech, “By God’s death, these are
but inventions against this young man, and all his sufferings are for being able to do us service, and these
complaints urged to forestal him therein. But we find him to
be a man fit to be employed by ourselves; and we will employ him in our service: and Wallop and his adherents
shall know that it shall not be in the power of any of them,
to wrong him. Neither -shall Wallop be our treasurer any
longer.
” Accordingly, she gave orders not only for Mr.
Boyle’s present enlargement, but also for paying all the
charges and fees his confinement had brought upon him,
and gave him her hand to kiss before the whole assembly.
A few days after, the queen constituted him clerk of the
council of Munster, and recommended him to sir George
Carew, afterwards earl of Totness, then lord president of
Munster, who became his constant friend; and very soon,
after he was made justice of the peace and of the quorum,
throughout all the province. He attended in that capacity
the lord president in all his employments, and was sent by
his lordship to the queen with the news of the victory
gained in December 1601, near Kinsate, over the Irish,
and their Spanish auxiliaries, who were totally routed,
1200 being slain in the field, and 800 wounded. “I
made,
” says he, “a speedy expedition to the court, for I
left my lord president at Shannon -castle, near Cork, on
the Monday morning about two of the clock; and the next
day, being Tuesday, I delivered my packet, and supped
with sir Robert Cecil, being then principal secretary of
state, at his house in the Strand; who, after supper, held
me in discourse till two of the clock in the morning; and
by seven that morning called upon me to attend him to
the court, where he presented me to her majesty in her
bedchamber.
” A journey so rapid as this would be thought,
even in the present more improved modes of travelling,
requires all his lordship’s authority to render it credible.
ut by taking such advice he was certainly no great gainer. Except in the case of his “Gustavus” and “ Earl of Essex,” there is no reason to think that he was successful,
From all, however, that can now be learned, Brooke
was a man of a most amiable character and ingenuous temper, and perhaps few men have produced writings of the
same variety, the tendency of all which is so uniformly in
favour of religious and moral principle. Yet even in this
there are inconsistencies which we know not how to explain, unless we attribute them to an extraordinary defect
in judgment. During a great part of his life, his religious opinions approached to what are now termed
methodistical, and one difficulty, in contemplating his character,
is to reconcile this with his support of the stage, and his
writing those trifling farces we find among his works. Perhaps it may be said that the necessities of his family made
him listen to the importunity of those friends who considered the stage as a profitable resource; but by taking
such advice he was certainly no great gainer. Except in
the case of his “Gustavus
” and “Earl of Essex,
” there is
no reason to think that he was successful, and the greater
part of his dramas were never performed at all, or printed
until 1778, when he could derive very little advantage
from them. Nor can we impute it to any cause, except a
total want of judgment and an ignorance of the public
taste, that he intermixed the most awful doctrines of religion, and the lighter incidents and humorous sketches of
vulgar or fashionable life, in his novels. He lived, however, we are told, more consistently than he wrote. No
day passed in which he did not collect his family to prayer,
and read and expounded the scriptures to them : Among
his tenants and humble friends he was the benevolent and
generous character which he had been accustomed to depict in his works, and while he had the means, he literally
went about doing good.
2 he was in Germany again, and published a piece called “The Sinai Sight,” which he dedicated to the earl of Essex, and had the odd whim of having it engraved on brass,
He continued several years in London, where he procured many friends. One of these was Mr. William
Cotton, whose son Rowland, who was afterwards knighted,
he instructed in the Hebrew tongue. In 1589 Mr. Broughton went over into Germany, accompanied by Mr. Alexander Top, a young gentleman who had put himself
under his care, and travelled with him, that he might
continually receive the benefit of his instructions. He was
some time at Frankfort, where he had a long dispute in
the Jewish synagogue, with rabbi Elias, on the truth of
the Christian religion. He appears to have been very solicitous for the conversion of the Jews, and his taste for
rabbinical and Hebrew studies naturally led him to take
pleasure in the conversation of those learned Jews whom he
occasionally met with. In the course of his travels, he
had also disputes with the papists; but in hig contests both
with them and with the Jews, he was not very attentive to
the rules either of prudence or politeness. It appears,
that in 1590 he was at Worms; but in what other places is
not mentioned. In 1591 he returned again to England,
and met at London with his antagonist Dr. Reynolds; and
they referred the -decision of the controversy between
them, occasioned by his “Consent of Scripture,
” to Dr.
Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury, and Dr. Aylmer,
bishop of London. Another piece which he published,
entitled “An Explication of the article of Christ’s Descent
to Hell,
” was a source of much controversy, though his
opinion on this subject is now generally received. Two
of his opponents in this controversy were archbishop Whitgift and bishop Bilson. He addressed on this subject
“An Oration to the Geneveans,
” which was first published
in Greek, at Mentz, by Albinus. In this piece he treats
the celebrated Beza with much severity. In 1592 he was
in Germany again, and published a piece called “The
Sinai Sight,
” which he dedicated to the earl of Essex, and
had the odd whim of having it engraved on brass, at a considerable expence. About the year 1596, rabbi Abraham
Reuben wrote an epistle from Constantinople to Mr.
Broughton, which was directed to him in London; but
he was then in Germany. He appears to have continued
abroad till the death of queen Elizabeth; and during his
residence in foreign countries, cultivated an acquaintance
with Scaliger, Raphelengius, Junius, Pistorius, Serrarius,
and other eminent and learned men. He was treated with
particular favour by the archbishop of Mentz, to whom he
dedicated his translation of the Prophets into Greek. He
was also offered a cardinal’s hat, if he wo<;ld have embraced the Romish religion. But that offer he retused to
accept, and returned again to England, soon after the accession of king James I. In 1603 he preached before
prince Henry, at Oatlands, upon the Lord!s Prayer. In
1607 the new translation of the Bible was begun; and Mr.
Broughton’s friends expressed much surprize that he was
not employed in that work. It might probably be disgust
on this account, which again occasioned him to go abroad;
and during his stay there, he was for some time puncher
to the English at Middleburgh. But finding his health
decline, 'having a consumptive disorder, which he found
to increase, he returned again to England in November,
1611. He lodged in London, during the winter, at a
friend’s house in Cannon-street; but in the spring he was
removed, for the benefit of the air, to the house of another
friend, at Tottenham High-cross, where he died of a pulmonary consumption on the 4th of August, 1612, in the
sixty-third year of his age. During his illness he made
such occasional discourses and exhortations to his friends,
as his strength would enable him; and he appears to have
had many friends and admirers’ even to the last. His
corpse was brought to London, attended by great numbers
of people, many of whom had put themselves in mourning
for him; and interred in St. Amholin’s church, where his
funeral sermon was preached by the rev. James Speght,
B. D. afterwards D. D. minister of the church in Milkstreet, London. Lightfoot mentions it as a report, that
the bishops would not suffer this sermon to be published;
but it was afterwards printed at the end of his works.
f abilities, succeeded his father William, fourth lord Chandos, in Nov. 1602. He was a friend of the earl of Essex, in whose insurrection he was probably involved, for
, a man of
abilities, succeeded his father William, fourth lord
Chandos, in Nov. 1602. He was a friend of the earl of Essex,
in whose insurrection he was probably involved, for his
name appears on the list of prisoners confined in the Fleet
on that account, Feb. 1600. He was made a knight of the
bath at the creation of Charles duke of York, Jan. 1604,
and in August 1605 was created M. A. at Oxford, the king
being present. He was an associate of that active and
romantic character, lord Herbert of Cherbury. and appears
to have volunteered his services in the Low Countries,
when the prince of Orange besieged the city of Juliers in
1610, and the Low Country army was assisted by four
thousand English soldiers, under the command of sir Edward Cecil. From the great influence which his hospitality
and popular manners afterwards obtained in Gloucestershire, and his numerous attendants when he visited the
court, he was styled king of Cotswould, the tract of country on the edge of which his castle of Sudeley was situated.
On November 18, 1617, he was appointed to receive and
introduce the Muscovite ambassadors, who had brought
costly presents from their master to the king. He died
August 20, 1621. There is no doubt, says sir Egerton
JBrydges (by whom the preceding notices were drawn together) that lord Chandos was a man of abilities as well as
splendid habits of life, and by no means a literary recluse,
although he is supposed to have been the author of “Horae
subsecivas, Observations and Discourses,
” Lond.
rees, to D. D. in the latter end of 1596. After leaving the university, he became chaplain to Robert earl of Essex, and was rector of North Fambridge in Essex, and of
, an eminent English prelate, was the son of William Buckeridge, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Thomas Keblewhyte of Basilden in Berks, son of John Keblewhyte, uncle to sir Thomas White, founder of St. John’s college, Oxford. He was educated in Merchant Taylors’ school, and thence sent to St. John’s college, Oxon, in 1578, where he was chosen fellow, and proceeded, through other degrees, to D. D. in the latter end of 1596. After leaving the university, he became chaplain to Robert earl of Essex, and was rector of North Fambridge in Essex, and of North Kiiworth in Leicestershire, and was afterwards one of archbishop Whitgii't’s chaplains, and made prebendary of Hereford, and of Rochester. In 1604, he was preferred to the archdeaconry of Northampton; and the same year, Nov. 5, was presented by king James to the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, in which he succeeded Dr. Andrews, then made bishop of Chichester. About the same time he was chaplain to the king; was elected president of St. John’s college, 1605, and installed canon of Windsor, April 15, 1606. His eminent abilities in the pulpit were greatly esteemed at court; insomuch that he was chosen to be one of the four (Dr. Andrews, bishop of Chichester, Dr. Barlow of Rochester, and Dr. John King, dean of Christ-church, Oxford, being the other three) who were appointed to preach before the king at Hampton-court in September 1606, in order to bring the two Melvins and other presbyterians of Scotland to a right understanding of the church of England. He took his text out of Romans xiii. 1. and managed the discourse (as archbishop Spotswood, who was present, relates), both soundly and learnedly, to the satisfaction of all the hearers, only it grieved the Scotch ministers to hear the pope and presbytery so often equalled in their opposition to sovereign princes.
or court party, proposed to introduce the duke of Monmouth into this high station in the room of the earl of Essex, who had been removed. In order to counteract this
During his short residence in this country, he corresponded with the Irish for the purpose of inducing them to
engage in the royal cause; and having engaged lord Inchiquin to receive him in Munster, he landed at Cork,
after escaping the imminent danger of shipwreck, in 1648,
and on his arrival, adopted measures which were not a little
assisted by the abhorrence which the king’s death excited
through the country; and in consequence of this favourable
impression, the lord lieutenant caused Charles II. to be immediately proclaimed. But Owen O'Neile, instigated by
the pope’s nuncio, and supported by the old Irish, raised
obstacles in his way, which he determined to overcome by
the bold enterprise of attacking the city of Dublin, then
held for the Parliament by governor Jones. This enterprise, however, failed, with very considerable loss on the
part of the marquis; and soon after Cromwell arrived in
Ireland, and having stormed Drogheda, surrendered it to
military execution, thus striking tenor into the Irish, so
that they becoming dissatisfied with the lord lieutenant,
and insisting on his leaving the kingdom, he embarked for
France, in 1650, and joined the exiled family. In order to
retrieve his affairs, the marchioness went over to Ireland, and having in some measure succeeded in exempting
her own estate from forfeiture, she remained in the country, and never saw her husband till after the restoration.
In the mean while the marquis was employed in various
Commissions in behalf of the king; and he rendered
essential service to his cause by rescuing the duke of Gloucester out of the hands of the queen-mother, and preventing her severe treatment from inducing him to embrace the
Catholic religion. He was also instrumental in detaching
the Irish Catholic regiments from the service of France,
one of which he was appointed to command, and in obtaining the surrender of the town of St. Ghilan, near
Brussels, to the Spaniards. In a secret embassy to England for the purpose of inquiring into the actual state of
the royal party, he had some narrow escapes from the spies
of Cromwell; and at length, when Charles II. was restored
to the throne of his ancestors, the Marquis accompanied
him, and not only recovered his large estates in the county
of Tipperary, but was raised to the dignity of duke of
Ormond, and officiated as lord high steward of England at
the king’s coronation. In 1662, he was again appointed
lord lieutenant, and had considerable success in reducing
the country to a state of tranquillity; and he promoted
various very important and lasting -improvements, particularly with respect to the growth of flax and manufacture
of linen. His attachment to earl Clarendon, however, involved him in the odium which pursued that great man;
and notwithstanding the purity of his conduct, he was
deprived of his government by the machinations of the
duke of Buckingham, in 1669; but in the same year he
was elected to the office of chancellor of the university of
Oxford. In 1670 a desperate design was formed ' against
him by colonel Blood, whom he had imprisoned in Ireland
on account of his having engaged in a plot for the surprisal
of D.ublin castle. Blood, being at this time in London,
determined to seize his person, in his return from an entertainment given in the city to the Prince of Orange; and
in the prosecution of his purpose, his accomplices dragged
the duke out of his coach, and placed him behind one of
them who was on horseback, in order to convey him to
Tyburn, and execute him on the pubiic gallows; or, as
others say, to take him out of the kingdom, and compel
him to sign certain papers relating to a forfeited estate of
Blood. The duke by his struggles threw both the man and
himself from the horse, and by seasonable assistance he
was released from the custody of these assassins. This
daring act of violence excited the king’s resentment; but
Blood, for certain reasons, having been taken into favour,
hi* Majesty requested the duke to forgive the insult. To
which message he replied, “that if the king could forgive
Blood for attempting to steal his crown, he might easily
forgive him for an attempt on his life; and that he would
obey his Majesty’s pleasure without inquiring into his reasons.
” For seven years the duke was neither in favour
with the court nor employed by it; but at length, in 1677,
he was surprised by a message announcing the king’s intention to visit him. The object of this visit was to disclose his Majesty’s resolution of appointing him to the
lord lieutenancy of Ireland; and this resolution had been
adopted by the influence of the duke of York, who had
reason to imagine, that the “cabal,
” or court party, proposed to introduce the duke of Monmouth into this high
station in the room of the earl of Essex, who had been removed. In order to counteract this plan, the duke of York
recommended his grace of Ormond to the king, as the most
likely person to engage general confidence, and to unite
discordant parties in both countries. On this the duke consented, and upon his arrival adopted vigorous measures for
disarming the papists and maintaining public tranquillity;
and though he did not escape calumny, the king determined to support him against all attempts for removing him,
and declared with an oath, *' that while the duke of Ormond lived, he should never be put out of that government." He opposed the duke only in the measure of calling a parliament in Ireland for settling affairs, to which
the king would not give his consent. In 1682, when he
came over to England to acquaint the king with the state
of his government, he was advanced to the dignity of an
English dukedom; but, notwithstanding this mark of royal
favour, he had given such offence by his importunity with
respect to an Irish parliament, that immediately on his
return he was apprised of an intention to remove him.
Upon the accession of James, the duke caused him to be
proclaimed, and soon after resigned his office and came
over to England.; Although the duke’s principles did
not suit the projects of the new reign, he was treated
with respect by the king, and received from him the
honour of a visit whilst he was confined to his chamber with the gout. He died at Kingston ^hall, in Dorsetshire, July 21, 1688, in the seventy-eighth year of
his age, and was buried in Westminster-abbey.
13 he was one of the commissioners, or delegates employed in the business of the divorce between the earl of Essex and his countess; and gave sentence for that divorce.
, a learned civilian, was born near
Tottenham, in Middlesex, in 1557. His father was Cæsar
Adelmar, physician to queen Mary and queen Elizabeth
lineally descended from Adelmar count of Genoa, and admiral of France, in the year 806, in the reign of Charles
the Great. This Cæsar Adelmar’s mother was daughter to
the duke de Cesarini, from whom he had the name of
Cæsar which name Mary I. queen of England, ordered
to be continued to his posterity and his father was Peter
Maria Dalmarius, of the city of Trevigio in Italy, LL. D.
sprung from those of his name living at Cividad del Friuli.
Julius, who is the subject of this article, had his education in
the university of Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A.
May 17, 1575, as a member of Magdalen hall. Afterwards
he went and studied in the university of Paris where, in
the beginning of 1581, he was created D. C. L. and had
letters testimonial for it, under the seal of that university,
dated the 22d of April, 1531. He was admitted to the
same degree at Oxford, March the 5th, 1583; and also
became doctor of the canon law. In the reign of queen Elizabeth, he was master of requests, judge of the high court
of admiralty, and master of St. Catherine’s hospital near
the Tower. On the 22d of January, 1595, he was present
at the confirmation of Richard Vaughan, bishop of Bangor,
in the church of St. Mary-le-Bow, London. Upon kingJames’s accession to the throne, having before distinguished
himself by his merit and abilities, he was knighted by that
prince, at Greenwich, May 20, 1603. He was also constituted chancellor and under- treasurer of the exchequer
and on the 5th of July, 1607, sworn of his majesty’s privy
council. January 16th, in the eighth of king James I. he
obtained a reversionary grant of the office of master of the
rolls after sir Edward Phillips, knight; who, departing this
life September 11, 1614, was succeeded accordingly by
sir Julius, on the 1st of October following; and then he
resigned his place of chancellor of the exchequer. In
1613 he was one of the commissioners, or delegates employed in the business of the divorce between the earl of
Essex and his countess; and gave sentence for that divorce.
About the same time, he built a chapel at his house, <on
the north side of the Strand, in London, which was consecrated, May 8, 1614. As he had been privy-counsellor
to king James I. so was he also to his son king Charles I.;
and appears to have been custos rotulorum of the county
of Hertford. We are likewise informed by one author,
that he was chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. After
having thus passed through many honourable employments,
and continued in particular, master of the rolls for above
twenty years, he departed this life April 28, 1636, in the
seventy-ninth year of his age. He lies buried in the church
of Great St. Helen’s within Bishopgate, London, under
a fair, but uncommon monument, designed by himself;
being in form of a deed, and made to resemble a ruffled
parchment, in allusion to his office as master of the rolls.
With regard to his character, he was a man of great gravity and integrity, and remarkable for his extensive bounty
and charity to all persons of worth, or that were in want:
so that he might seem to be almoner-general of the nation.
Fuller gives the following instance of his uncommon charity
“A gentleman once borrowing his coach (which was as well known to poor people as any hospital in England)
was so rendezvouzed about with beggars in London, that
it cost him all the money in his purse to satisfy their importunity, so that he might have hired twenty coaches on
the same terms.
” He entertained for some time in hisr
house the most illustrious Francis lord Bacon, viscount
St. Alban’s. He made his grants to all persons double
kindnesses by expedition, and cloathed (as one expresses it) his very denials in such robes of courtship, that it was
not obviously discernible, whether the request or denial
were most decent. He had also this peculiar to himself,
that he was very cautious of promises, lest falling to an
incapacity of performance he might forfeit his reputation,
and multiply his certain enemies, by hisoiesign of creating
uncertain friends. Besides, he observed a sure principle
of rising, namely, that great persons esteem better of such
they have done great courtesies to, than those they have
received great civilities from; looking upon this as their
disparagement, the other as their glory.
aviour. He caine now to be considered as an active nonconformist, and being in great favour with the earl of Essex, he presented him to the living of Rochford in Essex,
, an eminent nonconformist divine in the seventeenth century, was the sou of a citizen of London, and born there in February 1600. July 4, 1616, he was admitted of Pembroke-hall 5 in the university of Cambridge. In 1619, he took, the degree of bachelor of arts and in 1632, that of bachelor of divinity. He shewed himself very early no friend, to the Arminian party, which was the reason that he could not obtain a fellowship in that society, even when he seemed to be entitled to it from his standing, as well as from his learning and unblemished character. At last, however, he so far conquered all prejudices, that he was elected Tanquam Socius of that hall, which entitled him to wear the cap, and take pupils, but he had no share in the government of the house. Dr. Felton, the pious and learned bishop of Ely, had so great a regard to his diligence in study, and unaffected zeal for religion, that he made him his chaplain, and paid him, during his residence in his family, uncommon marks of respect. His lordship gave him likewise, as a farther mark of his favour, the vicarage of St. Mary’s in Swaffham- Prior, in Cambridgeshire, in which capacity he did much good, though he diid not reside on his cure by reason of its small distance from the episcopal place. But after the death of the bishop in 1626, Mr. Calamy being chosen one of- th$; lecturers of St. Edmund’s-Bury, in Suffolk, he resigned his vicarage, and applied himself wholly to the discharge of his function at Bury. He continued there ten years, and, as some writers say, was during the greatest part of that time a strict conformist. Others, and indeed himself, say the contrary. The truth seems to be, that he was unwilling to oppose ceremonies, or to create a disturbance in the church about them, so long as this might, in, his opinion, be avoided with a safe conscience; but when bishop Wren’s articles, and the reading of the book of sports, came to be insisted on, he thought himself obliged to alter his conduct, and not only avoid conforming for the future, but also to apologize publicly for his former behaviour. He caine now to be considered as an active nonconformist, and being in great favour with the earl of Essex, he presented him to the living of Rochford in Essex, a rectory of considerable value, and yet it proved a fatal present to Mr. Calamy; for, removing from one of the best and wholesomest airs in England, that of St. Edmund’sbury, into the hundreds of Essex, he contracted such an illness as broke his constitution, and left behind it a dizziness in his head, which he complained of as long as he Jived. Upon the death of Dr. Stoughton, he was chosen minister of St. Mary Aldermanbury, which brought him tip to London, 1639. The controversy concerning churchgovernment was tlu n at its greatest height, in which Mr. Calainy had a very large share. In the month of July 1639, he was incorporated of the university of Oxford, which, however, did not take him off from the party in which he was engaged. In 1640 he was concerned in writing that famous book, called Smectymnuus, which himself says, gave the first deadly blow to episcopacy, and therefore we find frequent references to it in all the defences and apologies for nonconformity which have been since published. In 1641 he was appointed by the house of lords a member of the sub-committee for religion, which consisted of very eminent divines, whose conduct, however, has been differently censured. He made a great figure in the assembly of divines, though he is not mentioned in Fuller’s catalogue, and distinguised himself both by his learning and moderation. He likewise preached several times before the house of commons, for which his memory has been very severely treated. He was at the same time one of the Cornhill lecturers, and no man had a greater interest in the city of London, in consequence of his ministerial abilities. He preached constantly in his own parish church for twenty years to a numerous audience, composed of the most eminent citizens, and even persons of great quality. He steadily and strenuously opposed the sectaries, and gave many pregnant instances of his dislike to those violences which were committed afterwards, on the king’s being brought from the Isle of Wight, He opposed the beheading of his sovereign king Charles I. with constancy ^ncl courage. Under the usurpation of Cromwell he was passive, and lived as privately as he could; yet he gave no reason to suspect that he was at all a well-wisher to that government. When the times afforded a favourable opportunity, he neglected not promoting the return of king Charles II. and actually preached before the house of commons on the day they voted that great question, which, however, has not hindered some from suggesting their suspicions of his loyally. After this step was taken, he, Mr. Ash, and other eminent divines were sent over to compliment the king in Holland, by whom they were extremely well received. When his majesty was restored, Mr. Calainy retained still a considerable share in his favour, and in June 1660, was appointed one of his chaplains in ordinary, and was offered the bishopric, of Coventry and Litchfield, which he refused. When the convocation came to be chosen, he and Mr. Baxter were elected, May 2, 1661, for London; but the bishop of that diocese having the power of chusing two out of four, or four out of six, elected within a certain circuit, Dr. Sheldon, who was then bishop, was so kind as to excuse both of them; which, perhaps, was owing to the share they had in the Savoy conference. After the miscarrying of that design, Mr. Calamy made use of all his interest to procure the passing of an act agreeable to the king’s declaration at Breda: but when this was frustrated, and the act of uniformity passed, he took a resolution of submitting to ejection, and accordingly preached his farewel sermon at Aldermanbury, August 17, 1662. He made, however, a last effort three days afterwards, by presenting a petition to his majesty to continue in the exercise of his ministerial office. This petition was signed by many of the London clergy, and Dr. Man ton and Dr. Bates assisted at the presenting it, when Mr; Calamy made a long and moving speech; but neither it nor the petition had any good effect, though the king expressed himself in favour of toleration. He remained, however, in his parish, and came constantly to church, though another was in the pulpit, which proved an occasion of much t;rouble to him for on December 28, 1662, the expected preacher not coming in time, some of the principal persons in the parish prevailed upon Mr. Calamy to supply his place, which, with some importunity, he did; but delivered himself with such freedom, that he was soon after, by the lord mayor’s warrant, committed to Newgate for his sermon. But the case itself being thought hard, and some doubt arising how far the commitment was legal, his majesty in a few days discharged him. He lived to see London in ashes, the sight of which broke his heart. He was driven through the ruins in a coach to Enfield, and was so shocked at the dismal appearance, that he could never wear off the impression, but kept his chamber ever after, and died October 29, 1666, within two naonths after this accident happened. He was, though a very learned man, yet a plain and practical preacher, and one who was not afraid to speak his sentiments freely of and to the greatest; men . He was twice married. By his first wife he had a son and daughter; and by his second seven children, some of whom we shall have occasion to mention in succeeding articles.
l tragedies and comedies which procured him some reputation, particularly his “Mithridates” and the “ Earl of Essex,” but he was most celebrated for his romances, particularly
, a French dramatic and romance writer, was born in the chateau of
Toulgon in Perigord, in the diocese of Cahors, about the
year 1612, and became gentleman in ordinary to the king.
He is said to have conciliated the good opinion of the court
by his happy talent for telling agreeable stories. When a
very young man he wrote several tragedies and comedies
which procured him some reputation, particularly his
“Mithridates
” and the “Earl of Essex,
” but he was most
celebrated for his romances, particularly “Cassandra,
”
“Cleopatra,
” and “Pharamond,
” which gave place, however, to a better taste in the course of some years, and are
now thought intolerable by their insipidity and tediousness.
Calprenede had an excellent opinion of himself, and when
the cardinal Richelieu said of some of his verses, that they
were dull, he replied that “nothing dull belonged to the
family of Calprenede.
” He died in 1663.
had discovered. But when he fancied himself under the necessity of appealing to the world and to the earl of Essex, then earl marshal, and his patron, he brought in other
Being now more at liberty, he travelled in 1600 as far
as Carlisle, with his intimate friend Mr. (afterwards sir)
Robert Cotton, and having surveyed the northern counties,
returned to London in December. This year he published
his account of the monuments in Westminster abbey,
“Reges, Regina?, Nobiles, et alii in ecclesia collegiata
B. Petri Westmonasterii sepulti, usque ad annum reparatae
salutis 1600,
” 4to; which, though no more than a collection of epitaphs, has preserved many that have been since
destroyed or effaced. He reprinted it with enlargements
in 1603, and 1606. This year also, came out a fifth
edition of his Britannia, to which he added “An apology
to the reader,
” in answer to what Ralph Brooke had published to the prejudice of his work. The original difference related only to some mistakes which Brooke imagined
he had discovered. But when he fancied himself under
the necessity of appealing to the world and to the earl of
Essex, then earl marshal, and his patron, he brought in
other matter, foreign to his purpose, cljarging Camden
with errors in the pedigrees of noble families, with not acknowledging the assistance he derived from Glover’s papers
in lord Burleigh’s library, and from Leland, whom he pretends he had pillaged largely. Camden, in answer, acknowledges himself to have been misled by one of his
predecessors, Robert Cook, clarencieux; that he had indeed borrowed from Leland, but not without citing him,
and that where he says the same things on his own knowledge, that Leland had mentioned on his, he did not think
himself obliged to him; and that whereas Leland had spent
five years in this pursuit, he had spent thirty in consulting
authors both foreign and domestic, living and dead. He
concludes with rallying his antagonist, as utterly ignorant
of his own profession, incapable of translating or understanding the Britannia, and offers to submit the disputed
points to the earl marshal, the college of heralds, the society of antiquaries, or four persons learned in these studies. This did not prevent Brooke from writing “A Second Discoverie of Errors,
” in which he sets down the
passages from Camden, with his objections to it in his first
book; then Camden’s reply, and last of all, his own answer: and in the appendix in two columns, the objectionable passages in the edition of 1594, and the same as they
stood in that of 1600. This was not printed till about 100
years after the death.of its author, by Mr. Anstis, in 1723,
4to. The story which Mr. Camden, in his Annals, and Dr.
Smith tell of Brooke’s dirty treatment of sir William Segar,
another officer in the college, whom he had a pique against,
in 1616, will justify us in believing him capable of any
thing.
at the restoration, he was, by Charles II. advanced to the title and dignity of viscount Maiden, and earl of Essex, on April 20, 1661. He also was constituted lord lieutenant
, eldest son and heir of the preceding, became his successor, and notwithstanding the sufferings of his father, his estate was under sequestration; but
at the restoration, he was, by Charles II. advanced to the
title and dignity of viscount Maiden, and earl of Essex,
on April 20, 1661. He also was constituted lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Hertford, on
July 7, 1660; and lord lieutenant of the county of Wilts,
during the minority of the duke of Somerset, on April 2,
1668. In the year 1670, he was sent ambassador to Christian V. king of Denmark, whence he returned with high,
favour for having vindicated the honour of the British flag:
and upon testimonies of his courage, prudence, and
abilities, was sworn of the privy- council in 1672, and
made lord-lieutenant of the kingdom of Ireland which
high office he exercised in that kingdom to the general
satisfaction of the people. After his return, he, in 1678,
with Halifax, and the duke of Buckingham, had the chief
political influence among the lords; yet, when they moved
an address to the king to send the duke of York from
court, the majority was against them. In 1679, he was
appointed first and chief commissioner of the treasury:
and his majesty choosing a new council, he ordered sir
William Temple to propose it to the lord chancellor Finch,
the earl of Sunderland, and the earl of Essex, but to one
after another; on which, when he communicated it to the
earl of Essex, he said, “It would leave the parliament
and nation in the dispositions to the king, that he found at
his coming in.
” Accordingly he was sworn of that privycouncil on April 21, 1679, being then first lord commissioner of the treasury; and his majesty valued himself on
it so, that the next day he communicated it by a speech
to the parliament, which was agreeable to both houses:
but not concurring with the duke of York in his measures,
his majesty, on November 19 following, declared in council, that he had given leave to the earl of Essex to resign
his place of first commissioner of the treasury; yet intended that he should continue of his privy-council. Nevertheless, soon after, being a great opposer of the court
measures, and on Jan. 25, 1680-1, delivering a petition
against the parliament’s sitting at Oxford, he was accused,
with the lord Russel, of the fanatic plot, and sent prisoner to the Tower in the beginning of July, 1683. Bishop Burnet says, that a party of horse was sent to bring
him up from his seat in Hertfordshire, where he had been
for some time, and seemed so little apprehensive of danger, that his lady did not imagine he had any concern
on his mind. He' was offered to be conveyed away, but
he would not stir: his tenderness for lord Russel was the
cause of this, thinking his disappearing might incline the
jury to believe the evidence the more. Soon after his
commitment, he was found with his throat cut, on July
13, 1683. The cause of this is variously represented,
some imputing it to himself in a fit of despondency, and
some to the contrivance of his enemies. From the evidence examined in the Biog. Britannica, a decision seems
difficult. See “Bp. Burnet’s late History charged with
great partiality,
” by Mr. Braddon,
rles I. In 1639 he was in the expedition against the Scots, and afterwards went a volunteer with the earl of Essex. He was chosen, in 1640, a member of the house of commons
, eldest son of the preceding, was born, as is supposed, at Burford in Oxfordshire, about 1610. He received his academical learning at Trinity college in Dublin, and St. John’s college in Cambridge* Before he came to be twenty years of age, he was muster of an ample fortune, which descended to him by the gift of a grandfather, without passing through his father and mother, who were then alive. Shortly after that, and before he was of age, he went into the Low Countries, with a resolution of procuring a command; but was diverted from it by the complete inactivity of that summer. On his return to England, he entered upon a very strict course of study. We are informed by lord Clarendon, that his house being within a little more than ten miles of Oxford, he contracted familiarity and friendship with the most polite and accurate men of that university, who found such an immenseness of wit, and such a solidity of judgment in him, so infinite a fancy, bound in by most exact reasoning, such a vast knowledge, that he was not ignorant in any thing, yet. such an excessive humility, as if he had known nothing, that they frequently resorted, and dwelt with him, as in a college situated in a purer air; so that his house was a university in a less volume, whither they came, not so much for repose, as study; and to examine and refute those grosser propositions which laziness and consent made current in vulgar conversation. Before he was twenty-three years of age, he had read over all the Greek and Latin fathers, and was indefatigable in looking over all books, which with great expence he caused to be transmitted to him from all parts. About the time of his father’s death, in 1633, he was made one of the gentlemen of the privy-chamber to Charles I. In 1639 he was in the expedition against the Scots, and afterwards went a volunteer with the earl of Essex. He was chosen, in 1640, a member of the house of commons for Newport in the isle of Wight, in the parliament which began at Westminster April 13, the same year. The debates being there managed with all imaginable gravity and sobriety, he contracted such a reverence for parliaments, that he thought it really impossible they could ever procjiice mischief or inconvenience to the kingdom, or that the kingdom could be tolerably happy in the intermission of them. From the unhappy and unseasonable dissolution of that parliament, he probably harboured some jealousy and prejudice to the court, towards which he was not before immoderately inclined. He was chosen again for the same place in that parliament which began the 3d of November following;, and in the beginning of it declared himself very sharply and severely against those exorbitances of the court, which Vo*. Viij, Z had been most grievous to the state. He was so rigid an observer of established laws and rules, that he could not endure a breach or deviation from them; and thought no mischief so intolerable, as the presumption of ministers of state to break positive rules for reasons of state, or judges to transgress known laws upon the plea of conveniency or necessity. This made him so severe against the earl of Strafford and the lord Finch, contrary to his natural gentleness and temper. He likewise concurred in the first bill to take away the votes of bishops in the house of lords. This gave occasion to some to believe that he was no friend to the church, and the established government of it; it also caused many in the house of commons to imagine and hope that he might be brought to a further compliance with their designs. Indeed the great opinion he had of the uprightness and integrity of those persons who appeared most active against the court, kept him longer from suspecting any design against the peace of the kingdom; and though he differed from them commonly in conclusions, he believed their purposes were honest. When better informed what was law, and discerning in them a desire to controul that law by a vote of one or both houses, no man more opposed those attempts, and gave the adverse party more trouble, by reason and argumentation. About six months after passing the above-mentioned bill for taking away the bishops’ votes, when the same argument came again into debate, he changed his opinion, and gave the house all the opposition he could, insomuch that he was by degrees looked upon as an advocate for the court; to which he contributed so little, that he declined those addresses, and even those invitations which he was obliged almost by civility to entertain. He was so jealous of the least imagination of his inclining to preferment, that he affected even a moroseness to the court and to the courtiers, and left nothing undone which might prevent and divert the king’s or queen’s favour towards him, but the deserving it. When the king sent for him once or twice to speak to him, and to give him thanks for his excellent comportment in those councils which his majesty termed doing him service, his answers were more negligent, and Jess satisfactory, than might be expected; as if he cared only that his actions should be just, not that they should be acceptable: and he took more pains, and more forced his nature to actions unagreeable and unpleasant to it, that he might not be thought to incline to the court, than most men have done to procure an office there: not that he was in truth averse from receiving public employment, for he had a great devotion to the king’s person* and had before used some small endeavour to be recommended to him for a foreign negotiation, and had once a desire to be sent ambassador into France; but he abhorred an imagination or doubt should sink into the thoughts of any man, that in the discharge of his trust and duty in parliament he had any bias to the court; or that the king himself should apprehend that he looked for a reward for being honest. For this reason, when he heard it first whispered, that the king had a purpose to make him a privy-counsellor, for which there was in the beginning no other ground but because he was known to be well qualified, he resolved to decline it, and at last suffered himself to be over-ruled by the advice and persuasion of his friends to submit to it. Afterwards, when he found that the king intended to make him secretary of state, he was positive to refuse it, declaring to his friends that he was most unfit for it, and that he must either do that which would be great disquiet to his own nature, or leave that undone which was most necessary to be done by one that was honoured with that place; for the most just and honest men did, every day, that which he could not give himself leave to do. He was so exact and strict an observer of justice and truth, that he believed those necessary condescensions and applications to the weakness of other men, and those arts and insinuations which are necessary for discoveries and prevention of ill, would be in him a declension from his own rules of life, though he acknowledged them fit, and absolutely necessary to be practised in those employments. However, he was at last prevailed upon to submit to the king’s command, and became his secretary: but two things he could never bring himself to whilst he continued in that office (which was to his death), for which he was contented to be reproached, as for omissions in a most necessary part of his place. The one, employing of spies, or giving any countenance or entertainment to them; not such emissaries, as with danger would venture to view the enemy’s camp, and bring intelligence of their number* or quartering, or any particulars that such an observation can comprehend; but those who, by communication of guilt, or dissimulation of manners, wind themselves into such trusts and secrets, as enable them to make discoveries. The other, the liberty of opening letters, upon a suspicion that they might contain matter of dangerous consequence. For the first, he would say such instruments must be void of all ingenuity and common honesty, before they could be of use and afterwards they could never be fit to be credited and that no single preservation could be worth so general a wound and corruption of human society, as the cherishing such persons would carry with it. The last he thought such a violation of the law of nature, that no qualification by office could justify him in the trespass; and though he was convinced by the necessity and iniquity of the time, that those advantages of information were not to be declined, and were necessarily to be practised, he found means to put it off from himself, whilst he confessed he needed excuse and pardon for the omission. In all other particulars he filled his place with great sufficiency, being well versed in languages, and with the utmost integrity, being above corruption of any kind.
cepted from the parliament’s favour in the instructions given by the two houses to their general the earl of Essex. Whilst he was with the king at Oxford, his majesty
He was one of the lords, who, June 5, 1642, signed a declaration, wherein they professed they were fully persuaded that his majesty had no intention to raise war upon his parliament. About the same time he subscribed to levy twenty horse for his majesty’s service. Upon which, and other accounts, he was excepted from the parliament’s favour in the instructions given by the two houses to their general the earl of Essex. Whilst he was with the king at Oxford, his majesty went one day to see the public library, where he was shewed among other books a Virgil, nobly printed and exquisitely bound. The lord Falkland, to divert the king, would have his majesty make a trial of his fortune by the Sortes Virgiliana?, an usual kind of divination in ages past, made by opening a Virgil. The king opening the book, the passage which happened to come up, was that part of Dido’s imprecation against ^Lneas, iv. 615, &c. which is thus translated by Dryden
sty’s displeasure because he disagreed with her in opinion concerning an affair which related to the earl of Essex. Having supported the earl’s claim, in opposition to
The queen’s regard to lord Burleigh, though sincere and
permanent, was occasionally intermixed with no small degree of petulance and ill humour. He was severely reproached by her in 1594, on account of the state of affairs
in Ireland; and, on another occasion, when he persisted,
against her will, in a design of quitting the court for a few
days, for the purpose of taking physic, she called him
“a froward old fool.
” He fell also under her majesty’s
displeasure because he disagreed with her in opinion concerning an affair which related to the earl of Essex. Having supported the earl’s claim, in opposition to the queen,
her indignation was so much excited against the treasurer, that she treated him as a miscreant and a coward.
Lord Burleigh being in the latter part of his life much
subject to the gout, sir John Harrington observes, in a
letter to his lordship, that he did not invite the stay of
such a guest by rich wines, or strong spices. It is probable that the frequent return of this disorder, in conjunction with the weight of business, and the general infirmities of age, contributed to the peevishness into which he
was sometimes betrayed. In a conversation which he had
with Mons. de Fouquerolles, an agent from Henry the
Fourth, king of France, he lost himself so much, as to
yeflect in the grossest terms upon that monarch. This
was, indeed, an astonishing act of imprudence, in a man
of his years and experience; and affords a striking instance
of the errors and inadvertencies to which the wisest and
best persons are liable. When the lord treasurer died,
queen Elizabeth was so much affected with the event, that
she took it very grievously, shed tears, and separated herself, for a time, from all company.
sworn of the privy-council. In 1596 he was appointed secretary of state, to the great disgust of the earl of Essex, who was then absent in the expedition against Cadiz,
, earl of Salisbury, son to the preceding, was born, probably, about the year 1550, and being of a weakly constitution, was tenderly brought up by his mother, and educated under a careful and excellent tutor till he was sent to St. John’s college, Cambridge. Here he had conferred upon him the degree of M. A. and was afterwards incorporated in the same degree at Oxford. In the parliaments of 1585 and 1586 he served for the city of Westminster; as he did afterwards, in 1588, 1592, 1597, and 1600, for the county of Hertford. In 1588 he was one of the young nobility who went volunteers on board the English fleet sent against the Spanish armada. He was a courtier from his cradle, having the advantage of the instructions and experience of his illustrious father, and living in those times when queen Elizabeth had most need of the ablest persons, was employed by her in affairs of the highest importance, and received the honour of knighthood in the beginning of June 1591, and in August following was sworn of the privy-council. In 1596 he was appointed secretary of state, to the great disgust of the earl of Essex, who was then absent in the expedition against Cadiz, and had been zealous for the promotion of sir Thomas Bodley. Whilst he was in that post he shewed an indefatigable address in procuring foreign intelligence from all parts of the world, holding, at his own charge, a correspondence with all ambassadors and neighbouring states. By this means he discovered queen Elizabeth’s enemies abroad, and private conspiracies at home* and was on this account as highly valued by die queen as he was hated by the popish party, who vented their malice against him in several libels, both printed and manuscript, and threatened to murder him; to some of which he returned an answer, both in Latin and English, declaring that he despised all their threats for the service of so good a cause as he was engaged in, that of religion and his country.
e and vindictive in the treatment of his rivals and enemies: but the part which he acted towards the earl of Essex, seems entirely the result of his duty to his mistress
It will be but justice, says Dr. Birch, to the character of
so eminent a person as the earl of Salisbury, to consider
him as he now appears to us from fuller and more impartial lights than the ignorance or envy of his own time
would admit of; and which may be opposed to the general
invectives and unsupported libels of Weldon and Wilson,
the scandalous chroniclers of the last age. He was evidently a man of quicker parts, and a more spirited writer
and speaker than his father, to whose experience he was
at the same time obliged for his education and introduction
into public business, in the management of which he was
accounted, and perhaps justly, more subtle, and less open.
And this opinion of his biass to artifice and dissimulation
was greatly owing to the singular address which he shewed
in penetrating into the secrets and reserved powers of the
foreign ministers with whom he treated; and in evading,
with uncommon dexterity, such points as they pressed, when
it was not convenient to give them too explicit an answer.
His correspondence with king James, during the life of
queen Elizabeth, was so closely and artfully managed,
that he escaped a discovery, which would have ruined his
interest with his royal mistress, though he afterwards justified that correspondence from a regard to her service.
“For what,
” says he, “could more quiet the expectation
of a successor, so many ways invited to jealousy, than
when he saw her ministry, that were most inward with her,
wholly bent to accommodate the present actions of state
for his future safety, when God should see his time!
”
He was properly a sole minister, though not under the
denomination of a favourite, his master having a much
greater awe of than love for him; and he drew all business,
both foreign and domestic, into his own hands, and suffered no ministers to be employed abroad but who were
his dependents, and with whom he kept a most constant
and exact correspondence: but the men whom he preferred to such employments, justified his choice, and did
credit to the use he made of his power. He appears to
have been invariably attached to the true interest of his
country, being above corruption from, or dependence
upon, any foreign courts; which renders it not at all surprising, that he should be abused by them all in their
turns; as his attention to all the motions of the popish
faction made him equally odious to them. He fully understood the English constitution, and the just limits of
the prerogative; and prevented the fatal consequences
which might have arisen from the frequent disputes between
king James I. and his parliaments. In short, he was as
good a minister as that prince would suffer him to be, and
as was consistent with his own security in a factious and
corrupt court; and he was even negligent of his personal
safety, whenever the interest of the public was at stake.
His post of lord treasurer, at a time when the exchequer
was exhausted by the king’s boundless profusion, was attended with infinite trouble to him, in concerting schemes
for raising the supplies; and the manner in which he was
obliged to raise them, with the great fortune which he accumulated to himself, in a measure beyond perhaps the
visible profits of his places, exposed him to much detraction and popular clamour, which followed hi ui to his grave;
though experience shewed 1 that the nation sustained an
important loss by his death since he was the only minister
of state of real abilities during the whole course of that
reign. He has been thought too severe and vindictive in
the treatment of his rivals and enemies: but the part
which he acted towards the earl of Essex, seems entirely
the result of his duty to his mistress and the nation. It
must, however, be confessed, that his behaviour towards
the great but unfortunate sir Walter Raleigh is an imputation upon him, which still remains to be cleared up; and
it probably may be done from the ample memorials of his
administration in the Hatfield library.
eville, and wrote an ironical sonnet upon the duke of Medina’s triumphal entry into Cadiz, after the earl of Essex had plundered and left the place. Probably Cervantes
Upon his return to Spain in the spring of the year following, he fixed his residence in Madrid, where his mother
and sister then lived. Following his own inclination to
letters, he gave himself up anew to the reading of every
kind of books, Latin, Spanish, and Italian, acquiring hence
a great stock of various erudition. The first product of his
genius was his “Galatea,
” which he published in Don Quixote,
” of
which he published the first part at Madrid in 1605. There
was a second edition of this in 1608, at the same place and
by the same printer, much corrected and improved, no
notice of which is taken by Pellicer, who speaks of that of
Valentia of 1605. supposing such to exist, but which he
had not seen. There is another of Lisbon in 1605, curious
only on the score of its great loppings and amputations.
ight of the garter in 1591. In 1601 he was one of the lords that were sent with forces to reduce the earl of Essex to obedience. He departed this life at the Savoy in
, third earl of Cumberland, and father to the preceding, was very eminent for his skill in navigation. He was born at Brougham castle, We*stmoreland, Aug. 8, 1558, and educated at Peterhouse, Cajnbridge, where his tutor was the celebrated John Whitgift^ afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. In this place he applied himself chiefly to the study of the mathematics, to which his genius led him, and by which he became qualified for the several great expeditions he afterwards undertook. His first public employment, of a melancholy kind indeed, was in 1586, when he was one of the peers who sat in judgment upon Mary queen of Scots. But having a greater inclination to act by sea than by land, and, according to the fashion of the times, being bent on making foreign discoveries, and defeating the ambitious designs of the court of Spain, then preparing the armada that was to conquer England, he fitted out, at his own charge, a little fleet, consisting of three ships and a pinnace, with a view to send them into the South Sea, to annoy the Spanish settlements there. They sailed from Gravesend, June 26, 1586, and from Plymouth Aug. J7; but were forced back hy contrary winds into Dartmouth, from whence putting out again on the 29th, they fell in with the coast of Barbary the 17th September, and the next day sailed into the road of Santa Cruz. On the 25th they came to the river Oro, just under the northern tropic, where they anchored. Searching upwards the next day, they found that river to be as broad all the way for fourteen or fifteen leagues, as at the mouth, which was two leagues over; but met with no town nor house. On the last of September they departed for Sierra Leone; where they arrived the 2 1st of October, and going on shore, they burned a town of the negroes, and brought away to their ships about fifteen tons of rice; and having furnished themselves with wood and water, they sailed the 2 1st of November from Sierra Leone, making the straights of Magellan. The 2d of January 1587 they discovered land; and on the 4th of that month fell in with the American shore, in 30 deg. 40 min. south lat. Continuing their course southward, they took, January 10, not far from the river of Plata, a small Portuguese ship; and the next day another; out of which they furnished themselves with what necessaries they wanted. The 12th of January they came to Seal Island, and two days after to the Green Island, near which they took in water. Returning to Seal Island, a consultation was held on the 7th of February, whether they should continue their course for the South Sea, and winter in the straights of Magellan, or spend three or four months upon the coast of Brazil, and proceed on their voyage in the spring. The majority being for the former, they went as far as 44 degrees of southern latitude. But meeting with storms and contrary winds, they took a final resolution, on the 21st of February, to return to the coast of Brazil. Accordingly they fell in with it the 5th of April, and, after taking in water and provisions in the bay of Camana, came into the port of Baya the llth. Eight Portuguese ships being there, they found means to carry off four of them, the least of which were of a hundred and thirty tons, notwithstanding all the resistance made by the enemy; and also brought a supply of fresh provision from the shore. In this spirited manner, the earl undertook no less than eleven expeditions, fitted out at his own expence, in which he made captures to a prodigious amount 5 and, on his return, was graciously received by his royal mistress, who created him knight of the garter in 1591. In 1601 he was one of the lords that were sent with forces to reduce the earl of Essex to obedience. He departed this life at the Savoy in London, Oct. 30, 1605, and was buried at Skipton, in Yorkshire, the 30th of March following; where a fine toinb was afterwards erected to his memory.
an. He died of the plague in London, in 1665. His publications are: 1. “The Life and Death of Robert earl of Essex,” Loud. 1646, 4to, in which, according to Wood, he
, a miscellaneous writer and
translator of the seventeenth century, and probably an
ancestor of the preceding, was born of an ancient family
in Gloucestershire, in 1602, and educated at Oxford,
where he was elected demy of Magdalen college, in July
1619, and completed his degree of M. A. in 1626. He
then travelled, and on his return settled as a private gentleman in Norfolk, where he married. Wood says he
was always accounted a puritan. He died of the plague
in London, in 1665. His publications are: 1. “The Life
and Death of Robert earl of Essex,
” Loud. rank
parliamentarian.
” 2. “A Collection of Proverbs.
” 3.
“The Life of Æsop,
” prefixed to Barlow’s edition of the
Fables, On
the Knowledge of God,
” Lond. Heptameron,
or the History of the Fortunate Lovers,
” ibid.
trial, Feb. 19, 1600. After he had laid open the nature of the treason, and the many obligations the earl of Essex was under to the queen, he is said to have closed with
After this marriage, by which he became allied to some
of the noblest houses in the kingdom, preferments flowed
in upon him apace. The cities of Coventry and Norwich
chose him their recorder; the county of Norfolk, one of
their knights in parliament; and the house of commons,
their speaker, in the thirty-fifth year of queen Elizabeth.
The queen likewise appointed him solicitor-general, in
1592, and attorney-general the year following. Some
time after, he lost his wife, by whom he had ten children;
and in 1598 he married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas
Jord.Burleigh, afterwards earl of Exeter, and relipt of sir
William Hatto.n. As this marriage was the source of many
troubles to both parties, so the very celebration of it occasioned no small noise and disquiet, by an unfortunate circumstance that attended it. There had been the same
year so much notice taken of irregular marriages, that
archbishop Whitgift had signified to the bishops of his province to prosecute strictly all that should either offend in point
of time, place, or form. Whether Coke looked upon his
own or the lady’s quality, and their being married with the
consent of the family, as placing them above such restrictions, or whether he did not advert to them, it is certain
that they were married in a private house, without either
banns or license; upon which he and his new married lady,
the minister who officiated, Thomas lord Burleigh, and
several other persons, were prosecuted in the archbishop’s
court; but upon their submission by their proxies, were
absolved from excommunication, and the penalties consequent upon it, because, says the record, they had offended,
not out of contumacy, but through ignorance of the law
in that point. The affair of greatest moment, in which, as
attorney-general, he had a share in this reign, was the
prosecution of the earls of Essex and Southampton, who
were brought to the bar in Westminster-hall, before the
lords commissioned for their trial, Feb. 19, 1600. After
he had laid open the nature of the treason, and the many
obligations the earl of Essex was under to the queen, he
is said to have closed with these words, that, “by the
just judgment of God, he of his earldom should be
Robert the last, that of a kingdom thought to be Robert the
first.
”
e connections both of Mr, Anthony and Mr. Francis Bacon, and especially with their attachment to the Earl of Essex, and on these accounts was not favourable to their
The time of lady Russel' s death has not been ascertained. In a letter written by her ta sir Robert Cecil, without date, she complains of her bad health and infirmities, and mentions her having compleated sixty-eight years. She seems to have been buried at Bisham, in Berks, near the remains of her first husband, and in the chapel which she herself had founded. From Birch’s Memoirs of the reign of queen Elizabeth, it appears that lady Russel interested herself in the concerns of her nephew Anthony Bacon, and endeavoured to do him service with the lord treasurer Burleigh. In that work there are some extracts from two of her letters upon this occasion, and a long account of a curious conversation which she had with her nephew, relative to the disputes between him and the treasurer. The fact was, that lord Burleigh was dissatisfied with the connections both of Mr, Anthony and Mr. Francis Bacon, and especially with their attachment to the Earl of Essex, and on these accounts was not favourable to their promotion.
, earl of Essex, an eminent statesman in the sixteenth century, was
, earl of Essex, an eminent statesman in the sixteenth century, was the son of Walter Cromwell, a blacksmith, at Putney, near London, and in his latter days a brewer; after whose decease, his mother was married to a sheerman in London. What education he had, was In a private school: and all the learning he attained to, was (according to the standard of those times), only reading and writing, and a little Latin. When he grew up, having a very great inclination for travelling, he went into foreign countries, though at whose expence is not known; and by that means he had an opportunity of seeing the world, of gaining experience, and of learning several languages, which proved of great service to him afterwards. Coming to Antwerp, where was then a very considerable English factory, he was by them retained to be their clerk, or secretary. But that office being too great a confinement, he embraced an opportunity that offered in 1510, of taking a journey to Rome. Whilst he remained in Italy he served for some time as a soldier under the duke of Bourbon, and was at the sacking of Rome: and at Bologna he assisted John Russel, esq. afterwards earl of Bedford, in making his escape, when he had like to be betrayed into the hands of the French, being secretly in those parts about our king’s affairs. It is also much to his credit, as an early convert to the reformation, that, in his journey to and from Rome, he learned by heart Erasmus’s translation of the New Testament. After his return from his travels he was taken into the family and service of cardinal Wolsey, who is said to have first discovered him in France, and who made him his solicitor, and often employed him in business of great importance. Among other things, he had the chief hand in the foundation of the two colleges begun at Oxford and Ipswich by that magnificent prelate; and upon the cardinal’s disgrace in 1529, he used his utmost endeavours and interest to have him restored to the king’s favour: even when articles of high-treason against him were sent down to the house of commons, of which Cromwell was then a member, he defended his master with so much wit and eloquence, that no treason cauld be laid to his charge: which honest beginning procured Cromwell great reputation, and made his parts and abilities to be much taken notice of. After the cardinal’s household was dissolved, Cromwell was taken into the king’s service (upon the recommendation of sir Christopher Hales, afterwards master of the rolls, and sir John Russel, knt. above-mentioned) as the fittest person to manage the disputes the king then had with the pope; though some endeavoured to hinder his promotion, and to prejudice his majesty against him, on account of his defacing the small monasteries that were dissolved for endowing Wolsey’s colleges. But he discovering to the king some particulars that were very acceptable to him respecting the submission of the clergy to the pope, in derogation of his majesty’s authority, he took him into the highest degree of favour, and soon after he was sent to the convocation, then sitting, to acquaint the clergy, that they were all fallen into a praemunire on the above account, and the provinces of Canterbury and York were glad to compromise by a present to the king of above 100,000l. In 1531 he was knighted; made master of the king’s jewel-house, with a salary of 50l. per annum; and constituted a privy-counsellor. The next year he was made clerk of the Hanaper, an office of profit and repute in chancery; and, before the end of the same year, chancellor of the exchequer, and in 1534, principal secretary of state, and master of the rolls. About the same time he was chosen chancellor of the university of Cambridge; soon after which followed a general visitation of that university, when the several colleges delivered up their charters, and other instruments, to sir Thomas Cromwell. The year before, he assessed the fines laid upon those who having 40l. per annum estate, refused to take the order of knighthood. In 1535 he was appointed visitor-general of the monasteries throughout England, in order for their suppression; and in that office is accused of having acted with much violence, although in other cases promises and pensions were employed to obtain the compliance of the monks and nuns. But the mode, whatever it might be, gave satisfaction to the king and his courtiers, and Cromwell was, on July 2, 1536, constituted lord keeper of the privy seal, when he resigned his mastership of the rolls . On the 9th of the same month he was advanced to the dignity of a baron of this realm, by the title of lord Cromwell of Okeham in Rutlandshire; and, six days after, took his place in the house of lords. The pope’s supremacy being now abolished in England, lord Cromwell was made, on the 18th of July, vicar-general, and vicegerent, over all the spirituality, under the king, who was declared supreme head of the church. In that quality his lordship satin the convocation holden this year, above the archbishops, as the king’s representative. Being-invested with such extensive power, he employed it in discouraging popery, and promoting the reformation. For that purpose he caused certain articles to be enjoined by the king’s authority, differing in many essential points from the established system of the Roman-catholic religion; and in September, this same year, he published some injunctions to the clergy, in which they were ordered to preach up the king’s supremacy; not to lay out their rhetoric in extolling images, relics, miracle*, or pilgrimages, but rather to exhort their people to serve God, and make provision for their families: to put parents and other directors of youth in mind to teach their children the Lord’s-prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments in their mother-tongue, and to provide a Bible in Latin and English, to be laid in the churches for every one to read at their pleasure. He likewise encouraged the translation of the Bible into English; and, when finished, enjoined that one of the largest volume should be provided for every parish church, at the joint charge of the parson and parishioners. These alterations, with the dissolution of the monasteries, and (notwithstanding the immense riches gotten from thence) his demanding at the same time for the king subsidies both from the clergy and laity, occasioned very great murmurs against him, and indeed with some reason. All this, however, rather served to establish him in the king’s esteem, who was as prodigal of money as he was rapacious and in 1537 his majesty constituted him chief justice itinerant of all the forests beyond Trent and on the 26th of August, the same year, he was elected knight of the garter, and dean of the cathedral church of Weils. The year following he obtained a grant of the castle and lordship of Okeham in the county of Rutland; and was also made constable of Carisbrook-castle in the Isle of Wight. In September he published new injunctions, directed to all bishops and curates, in which he ordered that a Bible, in English, should be set up in some convenient place in every church, where the parishioners might most commodiously resort to read the same: that the clergy should, every Sunday and holiday, openly and plainly recite to their parishioners, twice or thrice together, one article of the Lord’s Prayer, or Creed, in English, that they might learn the same by heart: that they should make, or cause to be made, in their churches, one sermon every quarter of a year at least, in which they should purely and sincerely declare the very gospel of Christ, and exhort their hearers to the works of charity, mercy, and faith not to pilgrimages, images, &c. that they should forthwith take clown all images to which pilgrimages or offerings were wont to be made: that in all such benefices upon which they were not themselves resident, they should appoint able curates: that they, and every parson, vicar, or curate, should for every church keep one book of register, wherein they should write the day and year of every wedding, christening, and burying, within their parish; and therein set every person’s name that shall be so wedded, christened, or buried, &c. Having been thus highly instrumental in promoting the reformation, and in dissolving the monasteries, he was amply rewarded by the king in 1539, with many noble manors and large estates that had belonged to those dissolved houses. On the 17th of April, the same year, he was advanced to the dignity of earl of Essex; and soon after constituted lord high chamberlain of England. The same day he was created earl of Essex he procured Gregory his son to be made baron Cromwell of Okeham. On the 12th of March 1540, he was put in commission, with others, to sell the abbey-lands, at twenty years’ purchase: which was a thing he had advised the king to do, in order to stop the clamours of the people, to attach them to his interest, and to reconcile them to the dissolution of the monasteries. But as, like his old master Wolsey, he had risen rapidly, he was now doomed, like him, to exhibit as striking an example of the instability of human grandeur; and au unhappy precaution to secure (as he imagined) his greatness, proved his ruin. Observing that some of his most inveterate enemies, particularly Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, began to be more in favour at court than himself, he used his utmost endeavours to procure a marriage between king Henry and Anne of Cleves, expecting great support from a queen of his own making; and as her friends were Lutherans, he imagined it would bring down the popish party at court, and again recover the ground he and Cranmer had now lost. But this led immodiaieiy to his destruction; for the king, not liking the queen, began to hate Cromwell, the great promoter of the marriage, and soon found an opportunity to sacrifice him; nor was this difficult. Cromwell was odious to all the nobility by reason of his low binh: hated particularly by Gardiner, and the Roman catholics, for having been so busy in the dissolution of the abbies: the reformers themselves found he could not protect them from persecution; and the nation in general was highly incensed against him for his having lately obtained a subsidy of four shillings in the pound from the clergy, and one tenth and one fifteenth from the laity; notwithstanding the immense sums that had flowed into the treasury out of the monasteries. Henry, with his usual caprice, and without ever considering that Cromwell’s faults were his own, and committed, if we may use the expression, for his own gratification, caused him to be arrested at the council table, by the duke of Norfolk, on the 10th of June, when he least suspected it. Being committed to the Tower, he wrote a letter to the king, to vindicate himself from the guilt of treason; and another concerning his majesty’s marriage with Anne of Cleves; but we do not find that any notice was taken of these: yet, as his enemies knew if he were brought to the bar he would justify himself by producing the king’s orders and warrants for what he had done, they resolved to prosecute him by attainder; and the bill being brought into the house of lords the 17th of June, and read the first time, on the 19th was read the second and third times, and sent down to the commons. Here, however, it stuck ten days, and at last a new bill of attainder was sent up to the lords, framed in the house of commons: and they sent back at the same time the bill the lords had sent to them. The grounds of his condemnation were chieHy treason and heresy; the former very confusedly expressed. Like other falling favourites, he was deserted by most of his friends, except archbishop Cranmer, who wrote to the king in his behalf with great boldness and spirit. But the duke of Norfolk, and the rest of the popish party, prevailed; and, accordingly, in pursuance of his attainder, the lord Cromwell was brought to a scaffold erected on Tower-hill, where, after having made a speech, and prayed, he was beheaded, July 28, 1540. His death is solely to be attributed to the ingratitude and caprice of Henry, whom he had served with great faithfulness, courage, and resolution, in the most hazardous, difficult, and important undertakings. As for the lord Cromwell’s character, he is represented by popish historians as a crafty, cruel, ambitious, and covetous man, and a heretic; but their opponents, on better grounds, assert that he was a person of great wit, and excellent parts, joined to extraordinary diligence and industry; that his apprehension was quick and clear; his judgment methodical and solid; his memory strong and rational; his tongue fluent and pertinent; his presence stately and obliging; his heart large and noble; his temper patient and cautious; his correspondence well laid and constant; his conversation insinuating and close: none more dextrous in finding out the designs of men and courts; and none more reserved in keeping a secret. Though he was raised from the meanest condition to a high pitch of honour, he carried his greatness with wonderful temper; being noted in the exercise of his places of judicature, to have used much moderation, and in his greatest pomp to have taken notice of, and been thankful to mean persons of his old acquaintance. In his whole behaviour he was courteous and affable to all; a favourer in particular of the poor in their suits; and ready to relieve such as were in danger of being oppressed by powerful adversaries; and so very hospitable and bountiful, that about two hundred persons were served at the gate of his house in Throgmorton-strcet, London, twice every day, with bread, meat, and drink sufficient. He must be regarded as one of the chief instruments in the reformation; and though he could not prevent the promulgation, he stopped the execution, as far as he could, of the bloody act of the six articles. But when the king’s command pressed him close, he was not firm enough to refuse his concurrence to the condemnation and burning of John Lambert. In his domestic concerns he was very regular; calling upon his servants yearly, to give him an account of what they had got under him, and what they desired of him; warning them to improve their opportunities, because, he said, he was too great to stand long; providing for them as carefully, as for his own son, by his purse and credit, that they might live as handsomely when he was dead, as they did when he was alive. In a word, we are assured, that for piety towards God, fidelity to his king, prudence in the management of affairs, gratitude to his benefactors, dutifulness, charity, and benevolence, there was not any one then superior to him in England.
ksmith at Putney, spoken of in the preceding article; and his grandmother sister to Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex. Yet we are told that when Goodman, bishop of Gloucester,
, protector of the commonwealth of England, and one of the most remarkable characters in English history, was descended, both by his father and mother, from families of great antiquity. He
was the son of Mr. Robert Cromwell, who was the second
son of sir Henry Cromwell of Hinchinbrooke, in the
county of Huntingdon, knt. whose great grandfather is
conjectured to have been Walter Cromwell, the blacksmith
at Putney, spoken of in the preceding article; and his
grandmother sister to Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex.
Yet we are told that when Goodman, bishop of Gloucester,
who turned papist, and was very desirous of making his
court to the protector, dedicated a book to him, and presented a printed paper to him, by which he pretended to
claim kindred with him, as being himself someway allied
to Thomas earl of Essex, the protector with some warmth
told him, “that lord was not related to his family in any
degree.
” For this story, however, told by Fuller, there
seems little foundation . Robert Cromwell, father of the
protector, was settled at Huntingdon, and had four sons
(including the protector) and seven daughters. Though
by the interest of his brother sir Oliver, he was put into
the commission of the peace for Huntingdonshire, he had
but a slender fortune; most of his support arising from a
brewhouse in Huntingdon, chiefly managed by his wife.
She was Elizabeth, daughter of a Stewart, of Rothseyth in
Fifeshire, and sister of sir Robert Stewart, of the isle of
Ely, knt. who has been reported, and not without some
foundation of truth, to have been descended from the
royal house of Stuart; as appears from a pedigree of her
family still in being. Out of the profits of this trade, and
her own jointure of 60l. per annum, Mrs. Cromwell
provided fortunes for her daughters, sufficient to marry them
into good families. The eldest, or second surviving, was
the wife of Mr. John Desborough, afterwards one of the
protector’s major-generals; another married, first, Roger
Whetstone, esq. and afterwards colonel John Jones, who
was executed for being one of the king’s judges; the third
espoused colonel Valentine Walton, who died in exile;
the fourth, Robina, married first Dr. Peter French, and
then Dr. John Wilkins, a man eminent in the republic of
letters, and after the restoration bishop of Chester. It
may be also added, that an aunt of the protector’s married
Francis Barrington, esq. from whom descended the Barringtons of Essex; another aunt, John Hampden, esq.
of Buckinghamshire, by whom she was mother of the famous John Hampden, who lost his life in Chalgrave field;
a third was the wife of Mr. Whaley, and the mother of
colonel Whaley, in whose custody the king was while he
remained at Hampton-court; the fourth aunt married Mr.
Dunch.
ir Thomas Coningsby sheriff of Hertfordshire, and had sent him a writ, requiring him to proclaim the earl of Essex and his adherents traitors, Cromwell marched with his
1642, Cromwell shewed his activity, by going immediately
to Cambridge; where he soon raised a troop of horse, of
which himself was appointed commander. He fixed his
head quarters there, where he acted with great severity;
towards the university especially, after he missed seizing
the plate which was contributed by the loyal colleges for the
king’s service, and sent down to the king when he set up
his standard at Nottingham. It was probably about the
same time that Cromwell had a very remarkable interview
with his uncle, of which sir Philip Warwick had an account
from the old gentleman himself. “Visiting old sir Oliver
Cromwell, his uncle and godfather, at his house at Ramsey, he told me this story of his successful nephew and
godson, that he visited him with a good strong party of
horse, and that he asked him his blessing; and that the
few hours he was there, he would not keep on his hat in
his presence; but at the same time that he not only disarmed, but plundered him, for he took away all his plate.
”
He was more successful in his next enterprise; for being
informed that the king had appointed sir Thomas Coningsby sheriff of Hertfordshire, and had sent him a writ, requiring him to proclaim the earl of Essex and his adherents
traitors, Cromwell marched with his troop directly to St.
Alban’s, where he seized sir Thomas Coningsby for that
action, and carried him prisoner to London. He received
the thanks of the parliament for this; and we find him soon
after at the head of 1000 horse, with the title of colonel.
Strange as it may be seem, it is confirmed by historians on
all sides, that, though he assumed the military character
in his 43d year, in the space of a few months he not only
gained the reputation of an officer, but really became a
good one; and still stranger, that by mere dint of discipline he made his new-raised men excellent soldiers, and
laid the foundation of that invincible strength, which he
afterwards exerted in behalf of the parliament.
im for active pursuits. This disposition recommended him much to the favour of the celebrated Robert earl of Essex, who was himself equally fond of knowledge and business.
At what time he left Oxford, or upon what occasion,
does not appear; but there is some reason to believe, it
was for the sake of travelling in order to improve himself.
For he was always inclined rather to a busy, than to a retired life; and held, that learning was of little service to
any man, if it did not qualify him for active pursuits. This
disposition recommended him much to the favour of the celebrated Robert earl of Essex, who was himself equally fond
of knowledge and business. Cuff became his secretary in
1596, when the earl was made lord lieutenant of Ireland;
but it had been happier for him, if he could have contented himself with the easy and honourable situation,
which his own learning, and the assistance of his friends in
the university, had procured him. Even his outset was
unfortunate; he accompanied the earl in his expedition
against Cadiz, and after its successful conclusion, was
dispatched with his lordship’s letters to England, and,
when he had landed, endeavoured with the utmost speed,
to arrive with them at the court. Beinsr, however, unfortunately taken ill on the road, he was obliged to send up
the letters, inclosed in one of his own, to Mr. Reynoldes,
another of the earl’s secretaries. Mr. Cuff, agreeably to
Jarge instructions which he had received from his lordship,
had drawn up a discourse concerning the great action at
Cadiz, which the earl purposed to be published as soon as
possible, both to stop all vagrant rumours, and to inform
those that were well affected, of the truth of the whole.
It was at the same time to be so contrived, that neither his
lordship’s name, nor Cuff’s, nor any other person’s, connected with the earl, should either be openly mentioned,
used, or in such a manner insinuated, as that the most
slender guess could be made, who was the penman. The
publication was to have the appearance of a letter that
came from Cadiz, and the title of it was to be, “A true
relation of the action at Cadiz, the 21st of June, under the
earl of Essex and the lord admiral, sent to a gentleman in
court from one that served there in good place.
” Sir
Anthony Ashley, who was entrusted with the design, acted
a treacherous part on this occasion. He betrayed the secret to the queen, and the lords of her council; the consequence of which was, that Mr. Fulke Grevill was charged
by her majesty to command Mr. Cuff, upon pain of death,
not to set forth any discourse concerning the expedition
without her consent.
ed in Ireland, as lieutenantgeneral of the horse, and serjeant-major of the whole army, under Robert earl of Essex, and Charles Baron of Montjoy, in the reign of queen
, a brave warrior in the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, and created earl of Dariby by king Charles I. was the second son of sir John Danvers, knight, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter and coheir to John Nevil the last lord Latimer. He was born at Dantesey in Wiltshire, on the 28th of June, 1573. After an education suitable to his birth, he went and served in the Low Country wars, under Maurice count of Nassau, afterwards prince of Orange; and was engaged in many military actions of those times, both by sea and land. He was made a captain in the wars of France, occasioned in that kingdom by the League; and there knighted for his good service under Henry IV. king of France. He was next employed in Ireland, as lieutenantgeneral of the horse, and serjeant-major of the whole army, under Robert earl of Essex, and Charles Baron of Montjoy, in the reign of queen Elizabeth. Upon the accession of king James I. he was, on account of his family’s deserts and sufferings, advanced, July 21, 1603, to the dignity of a peer of this realm, by the title of Baron of Dantesey: and in J 605, by a special act of parliament, restored in blood as heir to his father, notwithstanding the attainder of his elder brother, sir Charles Danvers, knight. He was also appointed lord president of Munster in Ireland; and in 1620 made governor of the Isle of Guernsey for life. By king Charles I. he was created earl of Danby, February 5, 1625-6; and made of his privy council; and knight of the order of the garter. Being himself a man of learning, as well as a great encourager of it, and observing that opportunities were wanting in the university of Oxford for the useful study of botany, he purchased for the sum of two hundred and fifty pounds, five acres of ground, opposite Magdalen college, which had formerly served for a burying-place to the Jews (residing in great numbers at Oxford, till they were expelled England by king Edward I. in 1290), and conveyed his right and title to that piece of land to the university, on the 27th of March, 1622. The ground being first considerably raised, to prevent its being overflowed by the river Cherwell, the heads of the university laid the first stones of the walls, on the 25th of July following. They were finished in 1633, being fourteen feet high: and cost the noble benefactor about five thousand pounds. The entrance into the garden is on the north side under a stately gate, the charge of building which amounted to between rive and fix hundred pounds. Upon the front of that gateway, is this Latin inscription: Gloriie Dji Opt. Max. Honori Caroli Regis, in usum Acad. et Keipub. Henricus Comes Danby, D.D. MDCXXXII. For the maintenance of it, and of a gardener, the noble founder left, by will, the impropriate rectory of Kirkdale in Yorkshire: which was afterwards settled for the same purpose, by his brother and heir sir John Danvers, knt. The earl of Danby’s will bore date the 14th of December, 1640.
mmended to queen Elizabeth by the treasurer Burleigh, and as such he was strongly recommended by the earl of Essex to king James I. It seems, that noble person stuck
, a very eminent statesman, and
secretary of state in the reign of queen Elizabeth, was, if not
a native of Scotland, at least descended from those who were,
as himself professed to sir James Mel vile. At what time he
came into the court of queen Elizabeth, or in what state, is
uncertain. It is most probable, that his parts and learning, together with that extraordinary diligence and wonderful address for which he was always distinguished, recommended
him to Mr. Killigrew, afterwards sir Henry Kiiligrew, with
whom he went in quality of secretary, at the time he was sent
into Scotland, to compliment queen Mary upon the birth of
her son. This was in 1566, and there is a good reason to believe that he remained from that time about the court, and was
employed in several affairs of great consequence. In 1575,
when the states of Brabant and Flanders assumed to themselves the administration of all affairs till his catholic majesty should appoint a new governor of the Low Countries,
Mr. Davison was sent over with a public character from
the queen to those states, under the plausible pretence of
exhorting them to continue in their obedience to his catholic majesty; but, in reality, to see how things actually
stood in that part of the world, that her majesty might be
the better able to know how to proceed in respect to the
several applications made to her from the prince of Orange,
and the people of Holland. He executed this commission
very successfully, and therefore the queen sent him over
as her minister, to pacify the troubles that had arisen at
Ghent; and when his presence was no longer necessary
there, he was commissioned on her behalf to the States of
Holland, in 1579. His conduct there gave equal satisfaction to the queen his mistress, and to those with whom he
negotiated. He gave them great hopes of the queen’s assistance and support, and when a sum of money was desired, as absolutely necessary towards providing for their
defence, he very readily undertook to procure it upon
reasonable security; in consequence of which, a very considerable sum was sent from England, for which all the
valuable jewels and fine plate that had been pledged by
Matthias of Austria to the States of Holland, and which
were the remains of the magnificence of the house of Burgundy, were transported to England. These journies,
and the success attending them, gave Mr. Davison great
reputation at court, insomuch, that in all matters of a nice
and difficult nature, Davison was some way or other continually employed. Thus in 1583, when matters wore a
serious aspect in Scotland, he was sent thither as the
queen’s ambassador, in order to counteract the French
ministers, and to engage the king of Scots and the people,
both to slight the offers made them from that country, and
to depend wholly upon assistance from England. Affairs
in the Low Countries coming at last to a crisis, and the
states resolving to depend upon queen Elizabeth, in the
bold design they had formed of defending their freedom
by force of arms, and rendering themselves independent,
Mr. Davison, at this time clerk of the privy council, was
chosen to manage this delicate business, and to conclude
with them that alliance which was to be the basis of their
future undertakings. In this, which, without question,
was one of the most perplexed transactions in that whole
reign, he conducted things with such a happy dexterity,
as to merit the strongest acknowledgments on the part of
the States, at the same time that he rendered the highest
service to the queen his mistress, and obtained ample security for those expences which that princess thought
necessary in order to keep danger at a distance, and to encourage the flames of war in the dominions of her enemy,
whom at that juncture she knew to be meditating how he
might transfer them into her own. Upon the return of
Mr. Davison into England, after the conclusion of this
treaty, he was declared of the privy-council, and appointed
one of her majesty’s principal secretaries of state, in conjunction with sir Francis Walsingham; so that, at this
time, these offices may be affirmed to have been as well
filled as in any period that can be assigned in our history,
and yet by persons of very different, or rather opposite
dispositions; for Walsingham was a man of great art and
intrigue, one who was not displeased that he was thought
such a person, and whose capacity was still deeper than
'those who understood it best apprehended it to be. Davison, on the other hand, had a just reputation for wisdom
and probity; and, though he had been concerned in many
intricate affairs, yet he preserved a character so unspotted,
that, to the time he came into this office, he had done nothing that could draw upon him the least imputation. It
is an opinion countenanced by Camden, and which has
met with general acceptance, that he was raised in order
to be ruined, and that, when he was made secretary of
state, there was a view of obliging him to go out of his
depth in that matter, which brought upon him all his misfortunes. This conjecture is very plausible, and yet there
is good reason to doubt whether it is well founded. Mr.
Davison had attached himself, during the progress of his fortunes, to the potent earl of Leicester; and it was chiefly to
his favour and interest that he stood indebted for this high
employment, in which, if he was deceived by another great
statesman, it could not be said that he was raised and
ruined by the same hands. But there is nothing more probable than that the bringing about such an event by an
instrument which his rival had raised, and then removing
him, and rendering his parts useless to those who had
raised him, gave a double satisfaction to him who managed
this design. It is an object of great curiosity to trace the
principal steps of this transaction, which was, without
doubt, one of the finest strokes of political management in
that whole reign. When the resolution was taken, in the
beginning of October 1586, to bring the queen of Scots?
to a trial, and a commission was issued for that purpose,
secretary Davison’s name was inserted in that commission;
but it does not appear that he was present when that commission was opened at Fotheringay castle, on the llth of
October, or that he ever assisted there at all. Indeed,
the management of that transaction was very wisely left in
the hands of those who with so much address had conducted the antecedent business for the conviction of Anthony Babington, and his accomplices, upon the truth and
justice of which, the proceedings against the queen of
Scots entirely depended. On the 25th of October the
sentence was declared in the star-chamber, things proceeding still in the same channel, and nothing particularly
done by secretary Davison. On the 29th of the same
month the parliament met, in which Serjeant Puckering
was speaker of the house of commons; and, upon an application from both houses, queen Elizabeth caused the
sentence to be published, which, soon after, was notified
to the queen of Scots; yet hitherto all was transacted by
the other secretary, who was considered by the nation in
general as the person who had led this prosecution from
beginning to end. The true meaning of this long and solemn proceeding was certainly to remove, as far as possible, any reflection upon queen Elizabeth; and, that it
might appear in the most conspicuous manner to the world,
that she was urged, and even constrained to take the life
of the queen of Scots, instead of seeking or desiring it.
This assertion is not founded upon conjecture, but is a
direct matter of fact; for, in her first answer to the parliament, given at Richmond the 12th of November, she
complained that the late act had brought her into a great
strait, by obliging her to give directions for that queen’s
death; and upon the second application, on the 24th of
the same month, the queen enters largely into the consequences that must naturally follow upon her taking that
step, and on the consideration of them, grounds her returning no definitive resolution, even to this second application. The delay which followed after the publication
of the sentence, gave an opportunity for the French king,
and several other princes, to interpose, but more especially
to king James, whose ambassadors, and particularly sir
Robert Melvile, pressed the queen very hard. Camden
says, that his ambassadors unseasonably mixing threatenings with intreaties, they were not very welcome; so that
after a few days the ambassadors were dismissed, with
small hopes of succeeding. But we are elsewhere told,
that, when Melvile requested a respite of execution for
eight days, she answered, “Not an hour.
” This seemed
to be a plain declaration of her majesty’s final
determination, and such in all probability it was, so that her death
being resolved, the only point that remained under debate
was, how she should die, that is, whether by the hand of
an executioner, or otherwise. In respect to this, the two
secretaries seem to have been of different sentiments. Mr.
Davison thought the forms of justice should go on, and
the end of this melancholy transaction correspond with the
rest of the proceedings. Upon this, sir Francis Walsingham pretended sickness, and did not come to court, and
by this means the whole business of drawing and bringing
the warrant to the queen to sign, fell upon Davison, who,
pursuant to the queen’s directions, went through it in the
manner that Camden has related. But it is very remarkable, that, while these judicial steps were taking, the other
method, to which the queen herself seemed to incline,
proceeded also, and secretary Walsingham, notwithstanding
his sickness, wrote the very day the warrant was signed,
which was Wednesday, February 1st, 1586-7, to sir Amiss
Pawlet and sir Drew Drury, to put them in mind of the
association, as a thing that might countenance, at least,
if not justify, this other way of removing the queen of
Scots. It is true, that Mr. Davison subscribed this letter,
and wrote another to the same persons two days after; but
it appears plainly from the anssver, that the keepers of
the queen of Scots considered the motion as coming from
Walsingharn. The warrant being delivered to the lords
of the council, they sent it down by Mr. Beale, their clerk,
a man of sour and stubborn temper, and who had always
shewn a great bitterness against the queen of Scots. The
day of his departure does not appear; but queen Mary
had notice given her on the Monday, to prepare for death
on the Wednesday, which she accordingly suffered. As
soon as queen Elizabeth was informed of it, she expressed
great resentment against her council, forbad them her presence and the court; and caused some of them to be
examined, as if she intended to call them to an account
for the share they had in this transaction. We are not
told particularly who these counsellors were, excepting the
lord treasurer Burleigh, who fell into a temporary disgrace about it, and was actually a witness against Mr. Davison. As for the earl of Leicester and secretary Walsingharn, they had prudently withdrawn themselves at the last
act of the tragedy, and took care to publish so much, by
their letters into Scotland; but secretary Davison, upon whom
it was resolved the whole weight of this business should fall,
v.-deprived of his office, and sent prisoner to the Tower, at
which nobody seerus to have been so much alarmed as the lord
treasurer, who, though himself at that time in disgrace, wrote
to the queen in strong terms, and once intended to have
written in much stronger. This application bad no effect,
for the queen having sent her kinsman Mr. Cary, son to the
lord Hunsdon, into Scotland, to excuse the matter to king
James, charged with a letter to him under her own hand, in
which she in the strongest terms possible asserted her own
innocence, there was a necessity of doing something that
Davison[?] carry an air of evidence, in support of the turn she
had now given to the death of that princess. On the 28th
of March following, Davison, after having undergone various examinations, was brought to his trial in the star
chamber, for the contempt of which he had been guilty,
in revealing the queen’s counsels to her privy counsellors,
and performing what he understood to be the duty of his
office in quality of her secretary. We have several accounts of this trial, which, in a variety of circumstances,
differ from each other. In this, however, they all agree,
that the judges, who fined him ten thousand marks, and
imprisonment during the queen’s pleasure, gave him a very
high character, and declared him to be, in their opinions,
both an able ana an honest man. One thing is very remarkable, that, in the conclusion of this business, sir Christopher Wray, chief justice of the queen’s bench, told the
court, that though the queen had been offended with her
council, and had left them to examination, yet now she
forgave them, being satisfied that they were misled b? this
man’s suggestions. Sir James Melvile, who wrote at that
time, and who seems to have had some prejudice against
Davison, said very candidly and fairly upon this occasion,
that he was deceived by the council. As soon as the proceeding was over, the queen, to put it out of doubt with
the king of Scots, that his mother was put to death without her privity or intention, sent him the judgment given
against Davison, subscribed by those who had given it, and
exemplified under the great seal, together with another
instrument, under the hands of all the judges of England,
that the sentence against his mother could not in the least
prejudice his title to the succession. As for Mr. Davison,
now left to a strange reward for his past services, a long
imprisonment, which reduced him to indigence, he comforted himself with the thoughts of his innocence; and, to
secure his memory from being blasted by that judgment
which had withered his fortune, he had long before written
an apology for his own conduct, which he addressed to
secretary Walsingham, as the man most interested in it,
and who could best testify whether what he affirmed was
truth or not. In this he gave a very clear and natural detail of the transaction which cost him all his sufferings. It
is allowed by all who have written on this subject, and
especially by Camden, that he was a very unhappy, though
at the same time a very capable and honest man. As
such we have seen him recommended to queen Elizabeth
by the treasurer Burleigh, and as such he was strongly
recommended by the earl of Essex to king James I. It
seems, that noble person stuck fast by him under his misfortunes, which plainly shews the party to which he had
always adhered. That lord lost no opportunity of soliciting
the queen in his favour, and never let slip any occasion of
testifying for him the warmest and thesincerest affection. At
length, it seems he was not altogether unsuccessful; for
though, upon the death of secretary Walsingham, the
queen absolutely rejected his motion, that Mr. Davison
should come into his place, yet, afterwards, it seems that
she yielded in some degree, as plainly appears by the earl’s
letter to king James. That we are under an incapacity of
tracing him farther, is owing to the profound silence of the
writers of those times.
, the first earl of Essex of this name and family, a general equally distinguished
, the first earl of Essex of this
name and family, a general equally distinguished for his
courage and conduct, and a nobleman not more illustrious
by his titles than by his birth, was descended from a most
ancient and noble farrr!“, being the son of sir Richard Devereux, knight, by Do 'thy, daughter of George earl of
Huntingdon, and gra.idson of Walter viscount of Hereford,
so created by king Edward the Sixth. He was born about
1540, at his grandfather’s castle in Carmarthenshire, and
during his education applied himself to his studies with
great diligence and success. He succeeded to the titles of
viscount Hereford and lord Ferrers of Chartley, in the
nineteenth year of his age, and being early distinguished
for his modesty, learning, and loyalty, stood in higii favour
with his sovereign, queen Elizabeth. In 1569, upon the
breaking out of the rebellion in the north, under the earls
of Northumberland and Westmoreland, he raised a considerable body of forces, which joining those belonging to
the lord admiral and the earl of Lincoln, he was declared
marshal of the army, and obliged the rebels to disperse.
This so highly recommended him to the queen, that in
1572 she honoured him with the garter, and on the 4th of
May, the same year, created him earl of Essex, as being
descended by his great grandmother from the noble
family of Bourchier, long before honoured with the same
title. In the month of January following, he was one of
the peers that sat in judgment upon the duke of Norfolk.
At this time he was such a favourite with the queen, that
some, who were for confining her good graces to themselves, endeavoured to remove him by encouraging an inclination he shewed to adventure both his person and fortune for her majesty’s service in Ireland. Accordingly, on
the 16th of August, 1573, he embarked at Liverpool, accompanied by lord Darcy, lord Rich, and many other persons of
distinction, together with a multitude of volunteers, who
were incited by the hopes of preferment, and his lordship’s
known reputation. His reception in Ireland was not very
auspicious landing at Knockfergus on the 16th of September, he found the chiefs of the rebels inclined apparently to submit; but having gained time, they broke out
again into open rebellion. Lord Rich was called away by
his own affairs, and by degrees, most of those who went
abroad with the earl, came home again upon a variety of
pretences. In this situation Essex desired the queen to
carry on the service in her own name, and by her own
command, though he should be at one half of the expence.
Afterwards he applied to the earls of Sussex and Leicester,
and the lord Burleigh, to induce the queen to pay one
hundred horse and six hundred foot; which, however, did
not take effect; but the queen, perceiving the slight
put upon him, and that the lord deputy had delayed sending him his commission, was inclined to recal him out of
Ulster, if Leicester and others, who had promoted his removal, had not dissuaded her. The lord deputy, at last,
in 1574, sent him his patent, but with positive orders to
pursue the earl of Desmond one way, while himself pressed
him another. The earl of Essex reluctantly obeyed, and
either forced or persuaded the earl of Desmond to submission; and it is highly probable, would have performed
more essential service, if he had not been thwarted. The
same misfortune attended his subsequent attempts; and,
excepting the zeal of his attendants, the affection of the
English soldiers, and the esteem of the native Irish, he
gained nothing by all his pains. Worn out at length
with these fruitless fatigues, he, the next year, desired
leave to conclude upon honourable terms an accommodation with Turlough Oneile, which was refused him. He
then surrendered the government of Ulster into the lord
deputy’s hands, believing the forces allowed him altogether insufficient for its defence; but the lord deputy
obliged him to resume it, and to majrch against Turlough,
Oneile, which he accordingly did; and his enterprize
” being in a fair way of succeeding, he was surprized to receive instructions, which peremptorily required him to
make peace. This likewise he concluded, without loss of
honour, and then turned his arms against the Scots from
the western islands, who had invaded and taken possession,
of his country. These he quickly drove out, and, by the
help of Norris, followed them into one of their islands;
and was preparing to dispossess them of other posts, when
he was required to give up his command, and afterwards
to serve at the head of a small body of three hundred men,
with no other title than their captain. All this he owed to
Leicester; but, notwithstanding his chagrin, he continued
to perform his duty, without any shew of resentment, out
of respect to the queen’s service. In the spring of the
succeeding year he came over to England, and did not hesitate to express his indignation against the all-powerful
favourite, for the usage he had met xvith. But as it was
the custom of that great man to debase his enemies by
exalting them, so he procured an order for the earl of Essex’s return into Ireland, with the sounding title of earl -marshal of that kingdom, and with promises that he should be left
more at liberty than in times past; but, upon his arrival
at Ireland, he found his situation so little altered for the
better, that he pined away with grief and sorrow, which at
length proved fatal to him, and brought him to his
end. There is nothing more certain, either from the
public histories, or private memoirs and letters of that age,
than the excellent character of this noble earl, as a
brave soldier, a loyal subject, and a disinterested patriot;
and in private life he was of a chearful temper, kind, affectionate, and beneficent to all who were about him. He
was taken ill of a flux on the 21st of August, and in great
pain and misery languished to the 22d of September,
1576, when he departed this life at Dublin, being scarcely
thirty-five years old. There was a very strong report at
the time, of his being poisoned; but for this there seems
little foundation, yet it must have been suspected, as an
inquiry was immediately made by authority, and sir Henry
Sidney, then lord deputy of Ireland, wrote very fully upon
this subject to the privy-council in England, and to one
of the members of that council in particular. The corpse
of the earl was speedily brought over to England, carried
to the place of his nativity, Carmarthen, and buried there
with great solemnity, and with most extraordinary i<
monies of the unfeigned sorrow of all the country round
about. A funeral sermon was preached on this occasion,
Nov. 26, 1576, and printed at London 1577, 4to. He
married Lettice, daughter to sir Frances Knolles, knight
of the garter, who survived him many years, and whose
speedy marriage after his death to the earl of Leicester,
upon whom common fame threw the charge of hastening
his death, perhaps might encourage that report. By this
lady he had two sons, Robert and Walter, and two daughters, Penelope, first married to Robert lord Rich, and
then to Charles Blount, earl of Devonshire; and Dorothy,
who becoming the widow of sir Thomas Perrot, knight,
espoused for her second husband Henry Percy earl of
Northumberland.
One important objection only has been brought forward against the character of the first earl of Essex, which is mentioned by Dr. Leland, in his History of
One important objection only has been brought forward
against the character of the first earl of Essex, which is
mentioned by Dr. Leland, in his History of Ireland. The
story, as literally translated by Mr. O'Connor, from the
Irish manuscript annals of queen Elizabeth’s reign, is as follows: “Anno 1574. A solemn peace and concord was
made between the earl of Essex and Felim O‘Nial. However, at a feast wherein the earl entertained that chieftain,
and at the end of their good cheer, O’Nial with his wife
were seized, their friends who attended were put to the
sword before their faces. Felim, together with his wife
and brother, were conveyed to Dublin, where they were
cut up in quarters. This execution gave universal discontent and horrour.
” Considering the general character of
the earl of Essex, we cannot avoid greatly doubting of the
authenticity of this fact; and indeed, if it was founded
on truth, it must appear very extraordinary that it should
not have occurred in any other narrative of the times.
, earl of Essex, memorable for having been a great favourite, and an
, earl of Essex, memorable for having been a great favourite, and an unhappy victim to the arts of his enemies and his own ambition, m the reign of queen Elizabeth, was son of the preceding, and born Nov. 10, 1567, at Netherwood, his father’s seat in Herefordshire. His father dying when he was only in his 10th year, recommended him to the protection of William Cecil lord Burleigh, whom he appointed his guardian. Two years after, he was sent to the university of Cambridge by this lord, who placed him in Trinity college, under the care of Dr. Whitgift, then master of it, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. But Mr. Cole, for many reasons, is inclined to think that he was placed at Queen’s, under Dr. Chaderton. He was, however, educated with much strictness, and applied himself to learning with great diligence; though it is said that, in his tender years, there did not appear aoy pregnant signs of that extraordinary genius which shone forth in him afterwards. In 1583, he took the decree of M. A. and kept his public act, and soon after left Cambridge, and retired to his own house at Lampsie in South Wales, where he spent some time, and became so enamoured of his rural retreut, that he was with difficulty prevailed on to quit it. His first appearance at court, at least as a candidate for royal favour, was in his seventeenth year; and he brought thither a fine person, an agreeable behaviour, and an affability which procured him many friends. By degrees he so far overcame the reluctance he first shewed against the earl of Leicester, his father’s enemy, and now very strangely his father-in-law, that in 1585 he accompanied him to Holland, where we find him next year in the field, with the title of general of the horse. In this quality he gave the highest proofs of personal courage in the battle of Zutphen, fought in 1586; and, on his return to England, was made, the year after, master of the horse in the room of lord Leicester promoted. In 1588, he continued to rise, and indeed almost reached the summit of his fortune; for, when her majesty thought fit to assemble an army at Tilbury, for the defence of the kingdom against the Spanish invasion, she gave the command of it, under herself, to the earl of Leicester, and created the earl of Essex general of the horse. From this time he was considered as the favourite declared; and if there was any mark yet wanting to rix the people’s opinion in that respect, it was shewn by the queen’s conferring on him the honour of the garter.
n, and to so great an height, unfortunately excited an impetuosity of spirit that was natural to the earl of Essex, who, among other instances of uncontrouled temper,
So quick an elevation, and to so great an height, unfortunately excited an impetuosity of spirit that was natural to the
earl of Essex, who, among other instances of uncontrouled
temper, often behaved petulantly to the queen herself t
who did not admit, while she sometimes provoked, freedoms of that kind from her subjects. His eagerness about
this time to dispute her favour with sir Charles Blunt, afterwards lord Montjoy and earl of Devonshire, ended in a
duel, in which sir Charles wounded him in the knee. The
queen, so far from being displeased with it, is said to have
sworn a good round oath, that it was fit somebody should
take him down, otherwise there would be no ruling him,
yet she assisted in reconciling the rivals; who, to their
honour, continued good friends as long as they lived. la
1589, sir John Norris and sir Francis Drake having undertaken an expedition for restoring don Antonio to the crown
of Portugal, the earl of Essex, willing to share the glory,
followed the fleet and army to Spain; which displeasing
the queen very bighty, as it was done without her consent
or knowledge, she sent him the following letter: “Essex,
your sudden and undutifnl departure from our presence
and your place of attendance, you may easily conceive
how offensive it is and ought to be unto us. Our great favours, bestowed upon you without deserts, have drawn you.
thus to neglect and forget your duty; for other construction we cannot make of these your strange actions. Not
meaning, therefore, to tolerate this your disordered part,
we gave directions to some of our privy-council, to let you
know our express pleasure for your immediate repair
hither, which you have not performed as your duty doth
bind you, increasing thereby greatly your former offence
and undutiful behaviour in departing in such sort without
our privity, having so special office of attendance and
charge near our person. We do therefore charge and
command you forthwith, upon the receipt of these our
letters, all excuses and delays set apart, to make your present and immediate repair nnto us, to understand our farther pleasure. Whereof see you fail not, as you will be
loth to incur our indignation, and will answer for the contrary at your uttermost peril. The 15th of April, 1589.
”
1598, a warm dispute arose in the council, between the old and wise lord-treasurer Burleigh and the earl of Essex, about continuing the war with Spain. The earl was
But whatever disadvantages the earl might labour under
from* intrigues at court, the queen had commonly recourse
to his assistance in all dangers and difficulties, and placed
him at the head of her fleets and armies, preferably to any
other person. His enemies, on the other hand, were contriving and exerting all they could against him, by insinuating to the queen, that, considering his popularity, it
would not be at all expedient for her service to receive
such as he recommended to civil employments; and they
carried this so far, as even to make his approbation a sufficient objection to men whom they had encouraged and
recommended themselves. In 1598, a warm dispute arose
in the council, between the old and wise lord-treasurer
Burleigh and the earl of Essex, about continuing the war
with Spain. The earl was for it, the treasurer against it;
who at length grew into a great heat, and told the earl that
he seemed intent upon nothing but blood and slaughter.
The earl explained himself, and said, that the blood and
slaughter of the queen’s enemies might be very lawfully
his intention; that he was not against a solid, but a specious and precarious peace; that the Spaniards were a
subtle and ambitious people, who had contrived to do England more mischief in the time of peace, than of war, &c.
The treasurer at last drew out a Prayer-book, in which he
shewed Essex this expression: “Men of blood shall not
live out half their days.
” As the earl knew that methods
would be used to prejudice him with the people of England, especially the trading part, who would easily be persuaded to think themselves oppressed by taxes levied for
the support of the war, he resolved to vindicate his proceedings, and for that purpose drew up in writing his own
arguments, which he addressed to his dear friend Anthony
Bacon. This apology stole into the world not long after it
was written; and the queen, it is said, was exceedingly
offended at it. The title of it runs thus: “To Mr. Anthony Bacon, an Apologie of the Earle of Essexe, against
those which falselie and maliciouslie take him to be the
only hindrance of the peace and quiet of his countrie.
”
This was reprinted in The Earl
of Essex’s vindication of the war with Spain,
” in 8vo.
About this time died the treasurer Burleigh, which was a great misfortune to the earl of Essex; for that lord having shewn a tenderness for the earl’s
About this time died the treasurer Burleigh, which was
a great misfortune to the earl of Essex; for that lord having shewn a tenderness for the earl’s person, and a concern
for his fortunes, had many a time stood between him and
his enemies. But now, this guardian being gone, they
acted without any restraint, crossed whatever he proposed,
stopped the rise of every man he loved, and treated all his
projects with an air of contempt. He succeeded lord
Burleigh as chancellor of the university of Cambridge;
and, going down, was there entertained with great magnificence*. This is reckoned one of the last instances of
this great man’s felicity, who was now advanced too high
to sit at ease; and those who longed for his honours and
employments, very closely applied themselves to bring
about his fall. The first great shock he received came
from the queen herself, and arose from a warm dispute
with her majesty about the choice of some fit and able person to superintend the affairs of Ireland. Camden tells
us, that there were only present on this remarkable occasion, the lord admiral, sir Robert Cecil, secretary; and
“Windebanke, clerk of the seal. The queen considered
sir William Knolls, uncle to Essex, as the most proper
person for that charge: Essex contended, that sir George
Carew was a much fitter man for it. When the queen
could not be persuaded to approve his choice, he so far
forgot himself and his duty, as to turn his back upon her in
a contemptuous manner; which insolence her majesty not
being able to bear, gave him a box on the ear, and, somewhat in her father’s language, bid him
” go and be hanged.“He immediately clapped his hand on his sword, and the
lord admiral stepping in between, he swore a great oath,
declaring that he neither could nor would put up an affront
of that nature; that he would not have taken it at the
hands of Henry VIII. and in a great passion immediately
withdrew from court. The lord keeper advised him to
apply himself to the queen for pardon. He sent the lord
keeper his answer in a long and passionate letter, which
his friends afterwards unadvisedly communicated; in
which he appealed from the queen to God Almighty, in
expressions to this purpose:
” That there was no tempest
so boisterous as the resentment of an angry prince; that
he name of lord Dorchester, and who was a man of great merit. He said, that queen Elizabeth gave the earl of Essex a ring, in the height of her passion for him, ordering
The ear) met with nothing in Ireland but disappointments, in the midst of which, an army was suddenly raised
in England, under the command of the earl of Nottingham;
nobody well knowing why, but in reality from the suggestions of the earl’s enemies to the queen, that he rather meditated an invasion on his native country, than the reduction of the Irish rebels. This and other considerations
made him resolve to quit his post, and come over to
England; which he accordingly did, and presented himself
before the queen. He met with a tolerable reception;
but was soon after confined, examined, and dismissed from
all his offices, except that of master of the horse. In the
summer of“1600, he recovered his liberty; and in the
autumn following, he received Mr. Cuffe, who had been
his secretary in Ireland (See Cuffe), into his councils.
Cuffe, who was a man of his own disposition, laboured to
persuade him, that submission would never do him any
good; that the queen was in the hands of a faction, who
were his enemies; and that the only way to restore his
fortune was to obtain an audience, by whatever means he
could, in order to represent his case. The earl did not
consent at first to this dangerous advice; but afterwards,
giving a loose to his passion, began to declare himself
openly, and among other fatal expressions let fall this,
that
” the queen grew old and cankered; and that her
mind was become as crooked as her carcase.“His enemies, who had exact intelligence of all that he proposed,
and had provided effectually against the execution of his
designs, hurried him upon his fate by a message, sent on
the evening of Feb. 7, requiring him to attend the council,
which he declined. This appears to have unmanned him,
and in his distraction of mind, he gave out, that they sought
his life kept a watch in Essex-house all night; and summoned his friends for his defence the next morning. Many
disputes ensued, and some blood was spilt; but the earl
at last surrendered, and was carried that night to the archbishop’s palace at Lambeth, and the next day to the
Tower. On the 19th, he was arraigned before his peers,
and after a long trial was sentenced to lose his head: upon
which melancholy occasion he said nothing more than this,
viz.
” If her majesty had pleased, this body of mine might
have done her better service; however, I shall be glad if it
may prove serviceable to her any way.“He was executed
upon the 25th, in his thirty-fourth year, leaving behind
him one only son and two daughters. As to his person, he
is reported to have been tall, but not very well made; his
countenance reserved; his air rather martial than courtly;
very careless in dress, and a little addicted to trifling diversions, He was learned, and a lover of learned men,
whom he always encouraged and rewarded. He was sincere in his friendships, but not so careful as he ought to
have been in making a right choice; sound in his morals,
except in point of gallantry, and thoroughly well affected
to the protestant religion. Historians inform us, that as
to his execution, the queen remained irresolute to the very
last, and sent sir Edward Carey to countermand it but,
as Camden says, considering afterwards his obstinacy in
refusing to ask her pardon, she countermanded those orders, and directed that he should die. There is an odd
story current in the world about a ring, which the chevalier Louis Aubrey de Mourier, many years the French
minister in Holland, and a man of great parts and unsuspected credit, delivers as an undoubted truth; and that
upon the authority of an English minister, who might be
well presumed to know what he said. As the incident is
remarkable, and has made much noise, we will report it
in the words of that historian:
” It will not, I believe, be
thought either impertinent or disagreeable to add here,
what prince Maurice had from the mouth of Mr. Carleton,
ambassador of England in Holland, who died secretary of
state so well known under the name of lord Dorchester,
and who was a man of great merit. He said, that queen
Elizabeth gave the earl of Essex a ring, in the height of
her passion for him, ordering him to keep it; and that
whatever he should commit, she would pardon him when
he should return that pledge. Since that time the earl’s
enemies having prevailed with the queen, who, besides,
was exasperated against him for the contempt he had
shewed her beauty, now through age upon the decay, she
caused him to be impeached. When he was condemned,
she expected to receive from him the ring, and would have
granted him his pardon according to her promise. The
earl, finding himself in the last extremity, applied to admiral Howard’s lady, who was his relation; and desired
her, by a person she could trust, to deliver the ring into
the queen’s own hands. But her husband, who was one of
the earl’s greatest enemies, and to whom she told this imprudently, would not suffer her to acquit herself of the
commission; so that the queen consented to the earl’s
death, being full of indignation against so proud and
haughty a spirit, who chose rather to die than implore her
mercy. Some time after, the admiral’s lady fell sick;
and, being given over by her physicians, she sent word to
the queen that she had something of great consequence to
tell her before she died. The queen came to her bedBide i and having ordered all her attendants to withdraw,
the admiral’s lady returned her, but too late, that ring
from the earl of Essex, desiring to be excused for not
having returned it sooner, since her husband had prevented her. The queen retired immediately, overwhelmed
with the utmost grief; she sighed continually for a fortnight, without taking any nourishment, lying in bed entirely dressed, and getting up an hundred times a night.
At last she died with hunger and with grief, because she
had consented to the death of a lover who had applied to
her for mercy." Histoire de Hollancle, p. 215, 216.
Lord Orford has entered into a long disquisition on the proofs of queen Elizabeth’s love for the earl of Essex, and certainly proves that she had a more than ordinary
Lord Orford has entered into a long disquisition on the
proofs of queen Elizabeth’s love for the earl of Essex, and
certainly proves that she had a more than ordinary attachment to him, although in some of the circumstances it ap
pears to savour more of the fondness of a capricious mother, than of a mistress. His lordship has done wiser in
having placed the earl of Essex among the noble authors of
England. The various pieces enumerated by lord Orford
justly entitle him to that distinction; and he has a farther
claim to it from the numerous letters of his which occur in
the different collections of state papers, and especially in
Birch’s “Memoirs of the Reign of queen Elizabeth.
” “But
of all his compositions,
” says Mr. Walpole, “the most excellent, and in many respects equal to the performances
of the greatest geniuses, is a long letter to the queen
from Ireland, stating the situation of that country in a
most masterly manner, both as a general and statesman,
and concluding with strains of the tenderest eloquence, on
finding himself so unhappily exposed to the artifice of his
enemies during his absence. It cannot fail to excite admiration, that a man ravished from all improvement and
reflection at the age of seventeen, to be nursed, perverted,
fondled, dazzled in a court, should, notwithstanding, have
snatched such opportunities of cultivating his mind and
understanding:
” In another letter from Ireland, he says
movingly, “I provided for this service a breast-plate, but
not a cuirass; that is, I am armed on the breast, but not
On the back.
”
It has been surmised that the earl of Essex used the pen, first, of Francis Bacon, and afterwards
It has been surmised that the earl of Essex used the pen,
first, of Francis Bacon, and afterwards of Cuffe. Speaking of Bacon, Dr. Birch observes, that it is certain that
Essex did not want any such assistance, and could not
have had it upon many and most important occasions,
which required him to write' some of the most finished of
his epistolary performances, the style of which is not only
very different from, but likewise much more natural, easy,
and perspicuous than that of his friend, who acknowledges
it to be “far better than his own.
” With regard to Cuffe,
Mr. Walpole remarks, that he might have some hand in
collecting the materials relative to business, but that there
runs through all the earl’s letters a peculiarity of style, so
adapted to his situation and feelings, as could not have
been felt for him or dictated by any body else.
It was as a prose-writer that the earl of Essex excelled, and not as a poet. He is said to have translated
It was as a prose-writer that the earl of Essex excelled,
and not as a poet. He is said to have translated one of Ovid’s
Epistles; and a few of his sonnets are preserved in the
Ashmolean museum. They display, however, no marks
of poetic genius. “But if Essex,
” says Mr. Warton, “was
no poet, few noblemen of his age were more courted by
poets. From Spenser to the lowest rhymer he was the subject of numerous sonnets, or popular ballads. I will not
except Sydney. I could produce evidence to prove, that
he scarcely ever went out of England, or even left London,
on the most frivolous enterprize, without a pastoral in his
praise, or a panegyric in metre, which were sold and sung
in the streets. Having interested himself in the fashionable
poetry of the times, he was placed high in the ideal Arcadia now just established; and, among other instances
which might be brought, on his return from Portugal in
1589 he was complimented with a poem called
” An Egloge
gratulatorie entituled to the right honorable and renowned
shepherd of Albion’s Arcadia, Robert earl of Essex, and
for his returne lately into England.“This is a light in
which lord Essex is seldom viewed. I know not if the
queen’s fatal partiality, or his own inherent attractions,
his love of literature, his heroism, integrity, and generosity, qualities which abundantly overbalance his presumption, his vanity, and impetuosity, had the greater share
in dictating these praises. If adulation were any where
justifiable, it must be when paid to the man who endeavoured to save Spenser from starving in the streets of
Dublin, and who buried him in Westminster-abbey with
becoming solemnity. Spenser was persecuted by Burleigh
because he was patronised by Essex.
”
No small degree of popularity has always adhered to the character and memory of the earl of Essex. A strong proof of this is his having been the subject
No small degree of popularity has always adhered to the
character and memory of the earl of Essex. A strong
proof of this is his having been the subject of four different
tragedies. We refer to the “Unhappy favourite,
” by
John Banks the “Fall of the Earl of Essex,
” by James
Ralph the “Earl of Essex,
” by Henry Jones and the
“Earl of Essex,
” by Henry Brooke.
, son to the former, and third earl of Essex, was born in 1592, at Essex-house, in the Strand; and
, son to the former, and third earl of Essex, was born in 1592, at Essex-house, in the Strand; and at the time of his father’s unhappy death, was under the care of his grandmother, by whom he was sent to Eton school, where he was first educated. In the month of January 1602, he was entered a gentleman-commoner of Merton- college, Oxford, where he had an apartment in the warden’s lodgings, then Mr. Savile, afterwards the celebrated sir Henry Savile, his father’s dear friend, and who, for his sake, was exceedingly careful in seeing that he was learnedly and religiously educated. The year following, he was restored to his hereditary honours; and in 1605, when king James visited the university of Oxford, our young earl of Essex was created M. A. on the 30th of August, for the first tirne, which very probably he had forgotten, or he would not have received the same honour above thirty years afterwards. He was already in possession of his father’s high spirit, of which he gave a sufficient indication in a quarrel which he had with prince Henry. Some dispute arose between them at a game at tennis; the prince called his companion the son of a traitor; who retaliated by giving him a severe blow with his racket; and the king was obliged to interfere to restore peace. At the age of fourteen, he was betrothed to lady Frances Howard, who was still younger than himself; but he immediately set out on his travels, and during his absence the affections of his young wife were estranged from him, and fixed upon the king’s favourite, Carr, afterwards earl of Somerset. The consequence was a suit instituted against the husband for impotency, in which, to the disgrace of the age, the king interfered, and which ended in a divorce. The earl of Essex, feeling himself disgraced by the sentence, retired to his country seat, and spent some years in rural sports and amusements. In 120, being wearied of a state of inaction, he joined the earl of Oxford in a military expedition to the Palatinate, where they served with companies of their own raising, under sir Horatio Vere, and in the following year they served in Holland, under prince Maurice, In the course of the winter they returned to England, and lord Essex appeared in the ranks of the opposition in parliament. On this account he was not favourably received at court, which was the mean of attaching him the more closely to foreign service. He commanded a regiment raised in England for the United States in 1624, and though nothing very important was atchieved by the English auxiliaries, yet he acquired experience, and distinguished himself among the nobility of the time. On the accession of Charles I. he was employed as vice-admiral in an expedition against Spain, which proved unsuccessful. In 1626, he made another campaign in the Low Countries, and shortly after he formed another unhappy match, by marrying the daughter of sir William Paulet, from whom, owing to her misconduct, he was divorced within two years. He now resolved to give himself up entirely to public life; he courted popularity, and made friends among the officers of the army and the puritan ministers. He was, however, employed by the king in various important services; but when the king and court left the metropolis, lord Essex pleaded in excuse his obligation to attend in his place as a peer of the realm, and was accordingly deprived of all his employments; a step which alone seemed wanting to fix him in opposition to the king; and in July 1642 he accepted the post of general of the parliamentary army. He opposed the king in person at Edge-hill, where the victory was so indecisive, that each party claimed it as his own. After this he was successful in some few instances, but in other important trusts he did little to recommend him to the persons in whose interests he was employed. He was, however, treated with external respect, until the self-denying ordinance threw him entirely out of the command: he resigned his commission, but not without visible marks of discontent. Unwilling to lose him altogether, the parliament voted that he should be raised to a dukedom, and be allowed 10,000l. per annum, to support his new dignity; but these were vented by a sudden death, which, as in the case of his grandfather, was by some attributed to unfair means. He died September 14, 1646. Parliament directed a public funeral for him, which was performed with great solemnity in the following month, at Westminster abbey. In his conduct, the particulars of which may be seen in the history of the times, a want of steadiness is to be discovered, which candour would refer to the extraordinary circumstances in which public men were then placed. Personal affronts at court, whether provoked or not, led him to go a certain length with those who, he did not perceive, wanted to go much farther, and although he appeared in arms against his sovereign, no party was pleased with his efforts to preserve a balance; yet, with all his er/ors, Hume and other historians, not friendly to the republican cause, have considered his death as a public misfortune. Hume says, that fully sensible of the excesses to which affairs had been carried, and of the worse consequences which were still to be apprehended, he had resolved to conciliate a peace, and to remedy as far as possible all those ills to which, from mistake rather than any bad intention, he had himself so much contributed. The presbyterian, or the moderate party among the commons, found themselves considerably weakened by his death; and the small remains of authority which still adhered to the house of peers, were in a manner wholly extinguished.
, as we hear no more of him, until he began his travels in his twenty-first year. He accompanied the earl of Essex in his expedition in 1596, when Cadiz was taken, and
This inquiry, which terminated probably to the grief of his surviving parent and his friends of the Romish persuasion, appears to have occupied a considerable space of time, as we hear no more of him, until he began his travels in his twenty-first year. He accompanied the earl of Essex in his expedition in 1596, when Cadiz was taken, and again in 1597, but did not return to England until he had travelled for some time in Italy, from which he meant to have penetrated into the Holy Land, and visited Jerusalem and the holy sepulchre. But the inconveniences and dangers of the road in those parts appeared so insuperable that he gave up this design, although with a reluctance to which he often used to advert. The time, however, which he had dedicated to visit the Holy Land, he passed in Spain, and both there and in Italy, studied the language, manners, and government of the country, allusions to which are scattered throughout his poems and prose works.
g out three stout frigates at his own expence, he sailed with them into Ireland, where, under Walter earl of Essex, the father of the famous unfortunate earl, he served
His success in this expedition, joined to his honourable
behaviour towards his owners, gained him high reputation,
which was increased by the use he made of his riches. For,
fitting out three stout frigates at his own expence, he sailed
with them into Ireland, where, under Walter earl of Essex,
the father of the famous unfortunate earl, he served as a
volunteer, and performed many gallant exploits. After
the death of his noble patron, he returned into England;
where sir Christopher Hatton, vice-chamberlain to queen
Elizabeth, and privy-counsellor, introduced him to her
majesty, and procured him countenance and protection at
court. By this means he acquired a capacity of undertaking that grand expedition, which will render his name
immortal. The first thing he proposed was a voyage into
the South-seas, through the Straits of Magellan, which
hitherto no Englishman had ever attempted. The project
was well received at court; the queen furnished him with
means; and his own fame quickly drew together a force
sufficient. The fleet with which he sailed on this extraordinary undertaking, consisted only of five small vessels,
compared with modern ships, and no more than 164 able
men. He sailed from England, Dec. 13, 1577; on the
25th fell in with the coast of Barbary, and on the 29th
with Cape Verd. March 13, he passed the equinoctial,
made the coast of Brazil April 5, 1578, and entered the
river de la Plata, where he lost the company of two of his
ships; but meeting them again, and taking out their provisions, he turned them adrift. May 29, he entered the
port of St. Julian, where he continued two months, for the
sake of laying in provisions; Aug. 20> he entered the
Straits of Magellan; and Sept. 25 passed them, having
then only his own ship. Nov. 25, he came to Machao,
which he had appointed for a place of rendezvous, in case
his ships separated: but captain Winter, his vice-admiral,
having repassed the Straits, was returned to England.
Thence he continued his voyage along the coasts of Chili
and Peru, taking all opportunities of seizing Spanish ships,
and attacking them on shore, till his crew were sated with
plunder; and then coasting North-America to the height
of 48 degrees, he endeavoured, but in vain, to find a passage back into our seas on that side. He landed, however,
and called the country New Albion, taking possession of
it in the name and for the use of queen Elizabeth; and,
having careened his ship, set sail from thence Sept. 29,
1579, for the Moluccas. He is supposed to have chosen
this passage round, partly to avoid being attacked by the
Spaniards at a disadvantage, and partly from the lateness
of the season, when dangerous storms and hurricanes were
to be apprehended. Oct. 13, he fell in with certain
islands, inhabited by the most barbarous people he had
met with in all his voyage; and, Nov. 4, he had sight of
the Moluccas, and, coming to Ternate, was extremely
well received by the king thereof, who appears, from the
most authentic relations of this voyage, to have been a
wise and polite prince. Dec. 10, he made Celebes, where
his ship unfortunately ran upon a rock Jan. 9th following;
from which, beyond all expectation, and in a manner miraculously, they got off, and continued their course.
March 16, he arrived at Java Major, and from thence intended to have directed his course to Malacca; but founrf
himself obliged to alter his purpose, and to think of returning home. March 25, 1580, he put this design in
execution; and June 15, doubled the cape of Good Hope,
having then on board 57 men, and but three casks of
water. July 12, he passed the Line, reached the coast of
Guinea the 16th, and there watered. Sept. 11, he made
the island of Tercera; and Nov. 3, entered the harbour
of Plymouth. This voyage round the globe was performed
in two years and about ten months.
His success in this voyage, and the immense mass of
wealth he brought home, raised much discourse throughout the kingdom; some highly commending-, and some as
loudly decrying him. The former alleged, that his exploit
>vas not only honourable to himself, but to his country
that it would establish our reputation for maritime skill in
foreign nations, and raise an useful spirit of emulation at
home; and that, as to the money, our merchants having
suffered much from the faithless practices of the Spaniards,
there was nothing more just, than that the nation should
receive the benefit of Drake’s reprisals. The other party
alleged, that in fact he was no better than a pirate; that,
of all others, it least became a trading nation to encourage
such practices; that it was not only a direct breach of all
our late treaties with Spain, but likewise of our old leagues
with the house of Burgundy; and that the consequences
would be much more fatal than the benefits reaped from it
could be advantageous. This difference of opinion continued during the remainder of 1580, and the spring of
the succeeding year; but at length justice was done to
Drake’s services; for, April 4, 1581, her majesty, going
to Deptford, went on board his ship; where, after dinner,
she conferred on him the honour of knighthood, and declared her absolute approbation of all he had done. She
likewise gave directions for the preservation of his ship,
that it might remain a monument of his own and his country’s glory. Camden, in his Britannia, has taken notice
of an extraordinary circumstance relating to this ship of
Drake’s, where, speaking of the shire of Buchan, in Scotland, he says, “It is hardly worth while to mention the
clayks, a sort of geese, which are believed by some with
great admiration, to grow upon trees on this coast, and in
other places, and when they are ripe, they fall down into
the sea, because neither their nests nor eggs can any where
be found. But they who saw the ship in which sir Francis
Drake sailed round the world, when it was laid up in the
river Thames, could testify that little birds breed in the
old rotten keels of ships, since a great number of such,
without life and feathers, stuck close to the outside of the
keel of that ship.
” This celebrated ship, which had been
contemplated many years at Deptford, at length decaying,
it was broke p; and a chair made out of the planks was
presented to the* university of Oxford.
In 1585 he sailed with a fleet to the West Indies, and
took the cities of St. Jago, St. Domingo, Carthagena, and
St. Augustin. In 1587 he went to Lisbon with a fleet of
30 sail; and, having intelligence of a great fleet assembled
in the bay of Cadiz, which was to have made part of the
armada, he with great courage entered that port, and burnt
there upwards of 10,000 tons of shipping: which he afterwards merrily called, “burning the king of Spain’s beard.
”
In 1558, when the armada from Spain was approaching
our coasts, he was appointed vice-admiral under Charles
lord Howard of Efringham, high-admiral of England,
where fortune favoured him as remarkably as ever: for he
made prize of a very large galleon, commanded by don
Pedro de Valdez, who was reputed the projector of this
invasion. This affair happened in the following manner
July 22, sir Francis, observing a great Spanish ship floating at a distance from both fleets, sent his pinnace to summon the commander to yield. Valdez replied, with much
Spanish solemnity, that they were 450 strong, that he
himself was don Pedro, and stood much upon his honour,
and propounded several conditions, upon which he was
willing to yield: but the vice-admiral replied, that he had
no leisure to parley, but if he thought fit instantly to yield
he might; if not, he should soon find that Drake was no
coward. Pedro, hearing the name of Drake, immediately
yielded, and with 46 of his attendants came aboard Drake’s
ship. This don Pedro remained above two years his prisoner in England; and, when he was released, paid him.
for his own and his captain’s liberties, a ransom of 3500l.
Drake’s soldiers were well recompensed with the plunder
of this ship: for they found in it 55,000 ducats of gold,
which was divided among them.
In 1576 happened the death of Walter, earl of Essex, which drew upon lord Leicester many suspicions, after
In 1576 happened the death of Walter, earl of Essex,
which drew upon lord Leicester many suspicions, after his
marriage with the countess of Essex took place, which,
however, was not until two years after. In 1578, when
the duke of Anjou pressed the match that had been proposed between himself and the queen, his agent, believing
lord Leicester to be the greatest bar to the duke’s pretensions, informed the queen of his marriage with lady Essex;
upon which her majesty was so enraged, that, as Camden
relates, she commanded him not to stir from the castle of
Greenwich, and would have committed him to the Tower,
if she had not been dissuaded from it by the earl of Sussex.
Lord Leicester being now in the very height of power and
influence, many attempts were made upon his character,
in order to take him down: and in 1584 came out a most
virulent book against him, commonly called “Leicester’s
Commonwealth,
” the purpose of which was to shew, that
the English constitution was subverted, and a new form
imperceptibly introduced, to which no name could be so
properly given, as that of a “Leicestrian Commonwealth.
”
In proof of this, the earl was represented as an atheist in
point of religion, a secret traitor to the queen, an oppressor of her people 1 an inveterate enemy to the nobility, a
complete monster with regard to ambition, cruelty, and
Just; and not only so, but as having thrown all offices of
trust into the hands of his creatures, and usurped all the
power of the kingdom. The queen, however, did not fail
to countenance and protect her favourite; and to remove
as much as possible the impression this performance made
upon the vulgar, caused letters to be issued from the privycouncil, in which all the facts contained therein were declared to he absolutely false, not only to the knowledge of
those who signed them, but also of the queen herself.
Nevertheless, this book was universally read, and the contents of it generally received for true: and the great
secrecy with which it was written, printed, and published,
induced a suspicion, that some very able heads were concerned either in drawing it up, or at least in furnishing the
materials. It is not well known what the original title of
it was, but supposed to be “A Dialogue between a scholar, a gentleman, and a lawyer;
” though it was afterwards
called “Leicester’s Commonwealth.
” It has been several
times reprinted, particularly in 1600, 8vo; in 1631, 8vo,
the running-title being “A letter of state to a scholar of
Cambridge;
” in Leicester’s Ghost;
” and again in Secret Memoirs of Robert Dudley earl of Leicester,
” with a preface by Dr. Drake, (see Drake) who
pretended it to be printed from an old manuscript. The
design of reprinting it in 1641, was, to give a bad impression of the government of Charles I.; and the same was
supposed to be the design of Dr. Drake in his publication.
In Dec. 1585, lord Leicester embarked for the protestant Low Countries, whither he arrived in quality of governor. At this time the affairs of those countries were in
a perplexed situation; and the States thought that nothing
could contribute so much to their recovery, as prevailing
upon queen Elizabeth to send over some person of great
distinction, whom they might set at the head of their concerns civil and military: which proposition, says Camden,
so much flattered the ambition of this potent earl, that he
willingly consented to pass the seas upon this occasion, as
being well assured of most ample powers. Before his departure, the queen admonished him to have a special regard to her honour, and to attempt nothing inconsistent
with the great employment to which he was advanced:
yet, she was so displeased with some proceedings of his
and the States, that the year after she sent over very severe
letters to them, which drew explanations from the former,
and deep submissions from the latter. The purport of the
queen’s letter was, to reprimand the States “for having
conferred the absolute government of the confederate provinces upon Leicester, her subject, though she had refused
it herself;
” and Leicester, for having presumed to take it
upon him. He returned to England Nov. 1585; and,
notwithstanding what was past, was well received by the
queen. What contributed to make her majesty forget his
offence in the Low Countries, was the pleasure of having
him near her, at a time when she very much wanted his
counsel: for now the affair of Mary queen of Scots was
upon the carpet, and the point was, how to have her taken
off with the least discredit to the queen. The earl according to report, which we could wish to be able to contradict, thought it best to have her poisoned; but that scheme
was not found practicable, so that they were obliged to
have recourse to violence. The earl set out for the Low
Countries in June 1587; but, great discontents arising on
all sides, he was recalled in November. Camden relates,
that on his return, finding an accusation preparing against
him for mal-administration there, and that he w^as summoned to appear before the council, he privately implored
the queen’s protection, and besought her “not to receive
him with disgrace upon his return, whom at his first departure she had sent out with honour; nor bring down
alive to the grave, whom her former goodness had raised
from the dust.
” Which expressions of humility and sorrow wrought so far upon her, that he was admitted into
her former grace and favour.
Jlsscx, for negotiating affairs with the senate of Denmark. His conduct in regard to the unfortunate earl of Essex, whose name will for ever distinguish yet disgrace
The integrity and abilities of the lord keeper so conciliated the favour and confidence of the queen, that she.
employed him in her most weighty emergencies. In 1598^
tye was in corpmission for treating with the Putch, and,
jointly with the lord Buckhurst, Cecil, and others, signed
a new treaty with their ambassadors in London, hy which
the queen was eased of an annual charge of 120,000l. In
1600, he was again in commission with the lord treasurer
Buckhurst and the earl of Jlsscx, for negotiating affairs
with the senate of Denmark. His conduct in regard to the
unfortunate earl of Essex, whose name will for ever distinguish yet disgrace the annals of Elizabeth, exhibits
his character both as a wise and loyal subject, and a siacere and honest friend. These illustrious men filled two
of ttie highest and most important offices of state at the
same time, and with the most perfect harmony, although
their characters were very different. Sensible, however,
of Essex’s great merit as a soldier, and of his constitutional infirmity as a man, the lord keeper took every opportunity tq soften the violence and asperity of his disposition, and to reclaim him to the -dictates of reason and
duty. An instance of his friendly interference, in the year
1598, is given by Mr. Camden by which the high and
fesentful spirit of Essex, which disdained to brook an insult from a queen, who, our readers will remember, struck
him, was at length softened into a due submission to his
royal benefactress; in consequence of which he was pardoned, and again received into her favour. (See Devereux). From this unfortunate affair, however, his friends
took an omen of his future ruin, under the conviction that
princes, once offended, are seldom thoroughly reconciled.
When on his hasty and unexpected return from the Irish
expedition, he was summoned before the privy council,
suspended from his offices, and committed to the custody
of the lord keeper, the latter rendered him every kind and
friendly office and, in all his future condu?t to this unfortunate man, tempered justice with compassion preserving a proper medium between the duty of the magistrate, and the generosity of the friend. By the most popular and well-timed measures, he appeased the minds of
a, prejudiced people, who then became tumultuous from,
the injuries and indignities 'which they supposed were
done to the person of their favourite general; asserting
the queen’s authority, and justifying the conduct of the
public counsels, without heightening or exaggerating the
misconduct of the unfortunate earl. Still as the minds of
the people remained dissatisfied, under a persuasion of his
innocence, to remove the grounds of these suspicions, the
queen resolved that his cause should have an open hearing,
not in the star-chamber, but in the lord keeper Egerton’s
house, before the council, four earls, two barons, and four
judges, in order that a censure might be formally passed
upon him, but without charge of perfidy. On this occasion, when he began to excuse and justify his conduct,
the lord keeper interrupted him in the most friendly manner, and advised him to throw himself upon the mercy and
goodness of the queen, and not, by an attempt to alleviate
his offences, to extenuate her clemency. The issue of
this trial it is unnecessary here to relate, as it may be
found in our account of this unfortunate nobleman. As
far as the subject of the present article is concerned, it
may be sufficient to add, that after the execution of Essex,
with Cuffe, Jvlerrick, Danvers, and Blunt, principal confederates, the lord keeper was in a special commission,
with others of the first dignity, to summon all their accomplices, in order to treat and compound with them for the
redemption of their estates; and, on security being given
for the payment of the fines assessed, their pardon and redemption were obtained. The next year, 1602, he was
again commissioned with others of the privy council, to
reprieve all such persons/convicted of felony as they should
think convenient, and to send them, for a certain time, to
some of the queen’s galleys. And again, in the forty-fifth
year of Elizabeth, for putting the laws in execution
against the Jesuits and seminary priests, ordained according to the rites of the church of Rome. In March 1603,
after the queen, oppressed with the infirmities of age, had
retired from Westminster to Richmond, the lord keeper
and the lord admiral, accompanied by the secretary, were
deputed by the rest of the privy council to wait upon her
there, in order to remind her majesty of her intentions, in
regard to her successor to the crown, whom she appointed
to be her nearest kinsman, James of Scotland. After the
queen’s death, the care and administration of the kingdom
devolved upon the lord keeper and the other ministers of
state, till the arrival of king James, her successor, from
Scotland, who, by his sign manual, dated at Holy-rood
house, Sth of April, 1603, signified to the privy council,
that it was his royal pleasure that sir Thomas Egerton
should exercise the office of lord keeper till farther orders.
On the 3d of May he waited upon the king at Broxbourne
in Hertfordshire, and resigned the great seal to his majesty, who delivered it back again, confirming his office,
and commanding him to use it as he had done before. On
the 19th of July, king James caused the great seal to be
broken, and put a new one into his hands, accompanied with
a paper of his own writing, by which he created him “Baron,
of Kllesmere for his good and faithful services, not only in.
the administration of justice, but also in council, both to the
late queen and himself;
” the patent for which title he caused
to be dispatched the 2 1st of the same month. On the
24th, the day before his coronation, he constituted him lord
high chancellor of England, which high and important
office of state he supported for more than twelve years,
with equal dignity, learning, and impartiality. On the
25th and 26th of November, Henry lord Cobham, and
Thomas lord Grey de Wilton, were tried by their peers,
the lord chancellor sitting as lord high steward. In 1604,
he was, with certain other commissioners, authorized by
act of parliament, to bring about an union between England and Scotland, it being the king’s desire, that, as the
two crowns were united in one person, an union of the
nations might be effected by naturalization. But, differences arising between the house of lords and house of commons upon this point of the naturalization of the Scotch,
he was one of the lords appointed of the committee of
conference between the two houses. The whole of this
transaction, and the causes of its failure, are stated at large
in the fifth volume of the Parliamentary History. In 1605,
he was appointed high steward of the city of Oxford, and
in 1609, he was in commission to compound with all those,
who, holding lands by knight’s service, &c. were to pay
the aid for making the king’s son a knight.
e queen, raised the reputation of England to an extraordinary height. At this period Robert Devereux earl of Essex, the queen’s favourite, highly distinguished himself;
The armada had now reached Calais, and cast anchor before that place; in expectation that the duke of Parma, who had gotten intelligence of their approach, would put to sea and join his forces to them. The English admiral practised here a successful stratagem upon the Spaniards. He took eight of his smaller ships, and filling them with all combustible materials, sent them one after another into the midst of the enemy. The Spaniards fancied that they were fireships of the same contrivance with a famous vessel which had lately done so much execution in the Scheld near Antwerp; and they immediately cut their cables, and took to flight with the greatest disorder and precipitation. The English fell upon them next morning while in confusion; and besides doing great damage to other ships, they took oV destroyed about twelve of the enemy. By this time it was become apparent, that the intention for which these preparations were made by the Spaniards, was entirely frustrated. The vessels provided by the duke of Parma were made for transporting soldiers, not for fighting; and that general, when urged to leave the harbour, positively refused to expose his flourishing army to such apparent hazard; while the English were not only able to keep the sea, but seemed even to triumph over their enemy. The Spanish admiral found, in many rencounters, that while he lost so considerable a part of his own navy, he had destroyed only one small vessel of the English and he foresaw that by continuing so unequal a combat, he must draw inevitable destruction on all the remainder. He prepared therefore to return homewards; but as the wind was contrary to his passage through the channel, he resolved to sail northwards, and making the tour of the island, reach the Spanish harbours by the ocean. The English feet followed him during some time; and had not their ammuniiion fallen short, by the negligence of the offices in supplying them, they had obliged the whole armada to surrender at discretion. The duke of Medina had once taken that resolution; but was diverted from it by the advice of his confessor. This conclusion of the enterprize would have been more glorious to the English; but the event proved almost equally fatal to the Spaniards. A violent tempest overtook the armada after it passed the Orkneys; the ships had already lost their anchors, and were obliged to keep to sea; the mariners, unaccustomed to such hardships, and not able to govern such unwieldy vessels, yielded to the fury of the storm, and allowed their ships to drive either on the western isles of Scotland, or on the coast of Ireland, where they were miserably wrecked^ Not a half of the navy returned to Spain; and the seamen as well as soldiers who remained, were so overcome with hardships and fatigue, and so dispirited by their discomfiture, that they filled all Spain with accounts of the desperate valour of the English, and of the tempestuous violence of that ocean which surrounds them. Such was the miserable and dishonourable conduct of an enterprize which had been preparing for three years, which had exhausted the revenue and force of Spain, and which had long filled all Europe with anxiety or expectation, and which was intended to have destroyed the civil liberties, as well as the reformed religion, in England. Soon after this, which was one of the most important events in the history of Elizabeth, or any other sovereign of England, Elizabeth became the ally of Henry IV. in order to vindicate his title, and establish him firmly on the throne of France, and for some years the Englisii auxiliaries served in France, while several naval expeditions, undertaken by individuals, or by the queen, raised the reputation of England to an extraordinary height. At this period Robert Devereux earl of Essex, the queen’s favourite, highly distinguished himself; but the events of his unfortunate life have been already given. (See Devereux.)
olished a number of monopolies, and became extremely popular. But the execution o her favourite, the earl of Essex, gave a fatal blow to her happiness. When she learnt
In 1601, Elizabeth held a conference with the marquis
de Rosni, who is better known in history as s the celebrated
Sully, for the purpose of establishing, in concurrence with
England, a new system of European power, with a view of
controlling the vast influence of the house of Austria, and
producing a lasting peace. The queen coincided with his
projects, and the French minister departed in admiration
of the solidity and enlargement of her political views. The
queen, having suppressed an insurrection in Ireland, and
obliged all the Spanish troops sent to its assistance to quit
the island, she turned her thoughts towards relieving the
burdens of her subjects; she abolished a number of monopolies, and became extremely popular. But the execution
o her favourite, the earl of Essex, gave a fatal blow to her
happiness. When she learnt from the countess of Nottingham, that he had solicited her pardon, which had been
concealed from her, she at first became furious with rage,
and when the violence of anger subsided, she fell into
the deepest and most incurable melancholy, rejecting all
consolation, and refusing food and sustenance of every
kind. She remained for days sullen and immoveable,
“feeding,
” says the historian, “her thoughts on her afflictions, and declaring life and existence an insufferable
burden to her.
” Few words she uttered, and they were
all expressive of some inward grief, which she cared not to
reveal: but sighs and groans were the chief vent which she
gave to her despondency, and which, though they discovered her sorrows, were never able to ease or assuage them.
Ten days and nights she lay upon the carpet, leaning on
cushions which her maids brought her, and her physicians
could not persuade her to allow herself to be put to bed,
much less to make trial of any remedies which they
prescribed to her. Her anxious mind at last had so long
preyed on her frail body, that her end was visibly approaching; and the council being assembled, sent the
keeper, admiral, and secretary, to know her will with regard
to her successor. She answered with a faint voice, that,
as she had held a regal sceptre, she desired no other than
a royal successor. Cecil requesting her to explain herself
more particularly, she subjoined, that she would have a
king to succeed her, and who should that be, but her
nearest kinsman, the king of Scots Being then advised
by the archbishop of Canterbury to fix her thoughts upon
God, she replied, that she did so, nor did her mind in the
least wander from him. Her voice soon after left her
her senses failed she fell into a lethargic slumber, which
continued some hours, and she expired gently, without
farther struggle or convulsion, in the 70th year of her age,
and forty-fifth of her reign.
f the rebellion. When the parliamentarians thought fit to new-model their army, and to lay aside the earl of Essex, they unanimously voted sir Thomas Fairfax to be their
Hitherto he had acquitted himself with undaunted bravery, and with great and deserved applause from his party. Had he stopped here, or at such times at least as the king’s concessions were in reason and equity a just ground for peace (which was more than once), he might have been honourably ranked among the rest of those patriots, who took up arms only for the redress of grievances. But his boundless ambition, and his great desire to rule, made him weakly engage, with the utmost zeal, in the worst and most exceptionable parts of the rebellion. When the parliamentarians thought fit to new-model their army, and to lay aside the earl of Essex, they unanimously voted sir Thomas Fairfax to be their general in his room, he being ready to undertake or execute any thing that he was ordered. To him Oliver Cromwell was joined with the title of lieutenant-general, but with intention of being his governor, exercising the superiority of deep art over a comparatively weak mind. Sir Thomas, being thus voted commander-in-chief of the parliament’s army on the 21st of January, 1644-5, received orders from the parliament speedily to come up from the north to London, where he arrived privatcsly, Feb. 18, and, the next day, was brought by four of the members into the house of commons, where he was highly complimented by the speaker, and received his commission of general. The 15th of the same month, an ordinance was made, for raising and maintaining of forces under his command: it having been voted, a few days before, that he should nominate all the commanders in his army, to be taken out of any of the other armies, with the approbation of both houses. March 25, the parliament ordered him 1500l. The 3d of April, he went from London to Windsor, where he appointed the general rendezvous and continued there till the last day of that month, new-framing and modelling the army or rather Cromwell doing it in his name. April 16, he was appointed, by both houses, governor of Hull. In the mean time, Taupton, in Somersetshire, one of the parliament’s garrisons, being closely besieged by the royalists, sir Thomas Fairfax received orders to hasten to its relief, with 8000 horse and foot. He began his march May 1, and by the 7th had reached Blandford in Dorsetshire: but, the king taking the field from Oxford, with strong reinforcements brought by the princes Rupert and Maurice, sir Thomas was ordered by the parliament to send 3000 foot and 1500 horse to relieve Taunton, and himself to return, with the rest of Juis forces, to join Oliver Cromwell and major-general Browne, and attend the king’s motions. The 14th of May he was come back as far as Newbury; where having rested three nights, he went and faced Dennington-castle, and took a few prisoners. Thence he proceeded to lay siege to Oxford, as he was directed by the committee of both kingdoms, and sat down before it the 22d. But, before he had made any progress in this siege, he received orders to draw near the king, who had taken Leicester by storm, May 31, and was threatening the eastern associated counties. Sir Thomas therefore rising from before Oxford, June 5, arrived the same day at Marsh-Gibbon, in Buckinghamshire on the llth he was at Wootton, and the next day at Gilsborough, in Northamptonshire where he kept his head-quarters till the 14th, when he engaged the king’s forces, at the fatal and decisive battle of Naseby, and obtained a complete victory. The king, after that, retiring into Wales, sir Thomas went and laid siege on the 16th to Leicester, which surrendered on the 18th. He proceeded, on the 22d, to Warwick; and thence (with 'a disposition either to go over the Severn towards the king, or to move westward as he should be ordered) he marched on through Gloucestershire towards Marlborough, where he arrived the 28th. Here he received orders from the parliament, to hasten to the relief of Taunton, which was besieged again by the royalists; letters being sent at the same time into the associated comities for recruits, and tfce arrears of pay for his army; but on his arrival at Bland ford, he was informed, that lord Goring had drawn off his horse from before Taunton, and left his foot in the passage to block up that place, marching himself with the horse towards Langport. Sir Thomas Fairfax, therefore, advancing against him, defeated him there on the 10th of July; and the next day^ went and summoned Bridgewater, which was taken by storm on the 22d. He became also master of Bath the 30th of the same month; and then laid close siege to Sherborne-castle, which was likewise taken by storm August 15. And, having besieged the city of Bristol from the 22d of August to the 10th of September, it was surrendered to him by prince Rupert. After this laborious expedition, the general rested some days at Bath, having sent out parties to reduce the castles of the Devises and Berkley, and other garrisons between the west and London; and on the 23d moved from Bath to the Devises, and thence to Warminster on the 27th, where he stayed till October 8, when he went to Lyme in Dorsetshire. From this place he came to Tiverton, of which he became master on the 19th; and then, as he could not undertake a formal siege in the winter season, he blocked up the strong city of Exeter, which did not surrender till the 13th of April following: in the mean time, he took Dartmouth by storm, January 18, 1645-6; and several forts and garrisons at different times. Feb. 16, he defeated thelord Hopton near Torrington. This nobleman retreating with his broken forces into Cornwall, sir Thomas followed him: in pursuit of whom he came to Launceston Feb. 25, and to Bodmin March 2. On the 4th, Mount Edgecornbe was surrendered to him; and Fowey about the same time. At last the parliament army approaching Truro, where lord Hopton had his head-quarters, and he being so hemmed in as to remain without a possibility of escaping, sir Thomas, on the 5th of March, sent and offered him honourable terms of capitulation, which after some delays, lord Hoptoit accepted, and a treaty was signed by commissioners on both sides, March 14 in pursuance of which, the royalists, consisting of above 5000 horse, were disbanded and took an oath never to bear arms against the parliament. But, before the treaty was signed, lord Hopton, and Arthur lord Capel, retired to Scilly, whence they passed into Jersey, April 17, with Charles prince of Wales, sir Kdtvard Hyde, and other persons of distinction. Thus the king’s army in the west being entirely dispersed by the vigilance and wonderful success of general Fairfax, he returned, March 31, to the siege of Exeter, which surrendered to him upon articles, the 13th of April, as already observed: and with the taking of this city ended his western expedition. He then marched, with wonderful speed, towards Oxford, the most considerable garrison remaining in the king’s hands, and arriving on the 1st of May, with his army, began to lay siege to it. The king, who was there, afraid of being enclosed, privately, and in disguise, departed thence on the 27th of April; and Oxford surrendered upon articles, June 24, as did Wallingford, July 22. After the reduction of these places, sir Thomas went and besieged Ragland-castle, in Monmouthshire, the property of Henry Somerset, marquis of Worcester, which yielded Aug. 19. His next employment was to disband major-general Massey’s brigade, which he did at the Devises. About that time he was seized with a violent fit of the ston, unjder which he laboured many days. As soon as he was recovered, he took a journey to London; where he arrived November 12, being met some miles off by great crowds of people, and the city militia. The next day, both houses of parliament agreed to congratulate his coming to town, and to give him thanks for his faithful services and wise conduct: which they did the day following, waiting upon him at his house in Queen-street*. Hardly had he had time to rest, when he was called upon to convoy the two hundred thousand pounds that had been granted to the Scotish army; the price of their delivering up their sovereign king Charles. For that purpose he set out from London, December 18, with a sufficient force, carrying at the same time 50,000l. for his own army. The king being delivered by the Scots to the parliament’s commissioners at Newcastle, Jan. 30, 1646-7, sir Thomas went and met him, Feb. 15, beyond Nottingham, in his way to Holmby; and his majesty stopping his horse, sir Thomas alighted, and kissed his hand; and afterwards mounted, and discoursed with him as they rode along. The 5th of March following, after long debate in parliament, he was toted general of the forces that were to be continued. He came to Cambridge the 12th of the same month, where he was highly caressed and complimented, and created master of arts.
for his wit and good-breeding. His first rise in his profession, and at court, was owing to Cromwell earl of Essex, who was himself a man of great parts, and took a pleasure
, a learned lawyer, a good historian, a celebrated poet, and a most accomplished courtier,
in the reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. Mary, and Elizabeth, was descended from an ancient family in Hertfordshire, and born in a village near St. Alban’s, about
1512. He was bred at Oxford, and removed thence to
Lincoln’s-inn, where he applied himself with so much success to the study of the law, that he was soon taken notice of in Westminster-hall as an advocate, at the same
time that he was much admired at court for his wit and
good-breeding. His first rise in his profession, and at
court, was owing to Cromwell earl of Essex, who was
himself a man of great parts, and took a pleasure in countenancing and advancing others who had talents. Upon
the fall of this patron, he quitted the public exercise of his
profession as a lawyer; not, however, before he had given
evident testimonies of his knowledge and learning, as appears from, 1. “The double translation of Magna Charta
from French into Latin and English.
” 2. “Other laws enacted in the time of Henry III. and Edw. I. translated into
English.
”
dy to join in all his father’s intemperate measures. Afterwards he became colonel of horse under the earl of Essex, and was made governor of Bristol, when first taken
, second son of lord Say just
mentioned, was born at Broughton in Oxfordshire in
1608; and, like his father, after a proper education at
Winchester school, was admitted of New College in Oxford, and also made fellow in right of kinship to the
founder. After passing some years there, he travelled to
Geneva, and among the Cantons of Switzerland, where he
increased that disaffection to the church which he had
been too much taught in his infancy. From his travels he
returned through Scotland, at the time when the Rebellion was beginning; and, in 1640, was elected to sit in
parliament for Banbury, when it was quickly discovered,
that he was ready to join in all his father’s intemperate
measures. Afterwards he became colonel of horse under
the earl of Essex, and was made governor of Bristol, when
first taken for the use of the parliament; but, surrendering
it too easily to prince Rupert, in July 1643, he was tried
by a council of war, and sentenced to lose his head. The
onl) witnesses against him on this occasion were the celebrated Clement Walker, and Pry line. He had afterwards,
by the interest of his father, a pardon granted him for life,
but he could not continue any longer in the army; and
the shame of it affected him so much, that he went for
some time abroad, “retaining still,
” says Clarendon, “the
same full disaffection to the government of the church and
state, and only grieved that he had a less capacity left to
do hurt to either.
” When the Presbyterians were turned
out of parliament, he became an independent, took the
engagement, was intimate with Cromwell; and when
Cromwell declared himself Protector, was made one of his
privy-council, lord privy-seal in 1655, and a member of
his house of lords. Though he had sufficiently shewn
his aversion to monarchical government, yet when he
saw what Oliver aimed at, he became extremely fond
of it, and in 1660, he published a book with this title,
“Monarchy asserted to be the best, most ancient, and
legal form of government, in a conference held at Whitehall with Oliver Lord Protector, and Committee of Parliament, &c. in April 1657.
” He published also several
speeches and pamphlets, some of which were a defence of
his own conduct at Bristol. Walker informs us that he was
the author of a historical tract called “Anglia Rediviva,
”
published under the name of Sprigge. After the restoration, he retired to Newton Tony, near Salisbury in Wiltshire, where he had an estate that came to him by his
second wife; and here continued much neglected, and in.
great obscurity, until his death, Dec. 16, 1669. Clarendon has spoken of his abilities in very high terms. “Colonel Fiennes,
” says he, “besides the credit and reputation
of his father, had a very good stock of estimation in the
house of commons upon his own score for truly he had
very good parts of learning and nature, and was privy to,
and a great manager in, the most secret designs from the
beginning; and if he had not incumbered himself with
command in the army, to which men thought his nature
not so well disposed, he had sure been second to none in
those councils, after Mr. Hampden’s death.
”
In 1571 the earl of Essex presented him to the rectory of Warley, in Essex, and
In 1571 the earl of Essex presented him to the rectory of Warley, in Essex, and soon after to the rectory of Kedington, in, Suffolk, and about this time he took his doctor’s degree at Cambridge, and was incorporated in the same at Oxford. His degree at Cambridge was in consequence of a mandamus from the earl of Essex, that he might be qualified to accompany the earl of Lincoln, who was then going as ambassador to the court of France. Upon his return he was chosen master of Pembroke hall, and as Wood says in his Fasti, Margaret professor of divinity, but Baker, in a ms note on Wood, says he never held the latter office.
might be accompanied on the harpsichord by Handel; and both accordingly attended at St. James’s. The earl of Essex, being a lover of music, became a patron of Geminiani:
, a fine performer on the violin,
and composer for tfctat instrument, was born at Lucca in
Italy, about 1666. He received his first instructions in music
from Lonati and Scarlatti, but finished his studies under
Corelli. In 1714, he came to England; and, two years
after, published twelve sonatas, “a Violino, Violone, e
Cembalo.
” These, together with his exquisite manner of
performing, had such an effect, that he was at length introduced to George I. who had expressed a desire to hear
some of the pieces, contained in this work performed by
himself. Geiuiniani wished, however, that he might be
accompanied on the harpsichord by Handel; and both accordingly attended at St. James’s. The earl of Essex,
being a lover of music, became a patron of Geminiani:
and, in 1727, procured him the offer of the place of master
and composer of the state music in Ireland: but this,
not being tenable by one of the Romish communion, he
declined; saying, that, though he had never made great
pretensions to religion, yet the renouncing that faith in
which he had been baptized, for the sake of worldly advantage, was what he could not answer to his conscience. He
afterwards composed Corelli’s solos into concertos; he
published six concertos of his own composition, and many
other things. The life of this musician appears to have
been very unsettled; spent in different countries, for he
was fond of making excursions; and employed in pursuits
which had no connection with his art. He was, particularly, a violent enthusiast in painting; and, to gratify this
propensity, bought pictures; which, to supply his wants,
he afterwards sold. The consequence of this kind of
traffic was loss, and its concomitant distress: which distress
was so extreme, that he was committed to, and would
have remained in prison, if a protection from his patron
the earl of Essex had not delivered him. Yet his spirit
was such, that when the prince of Wales, who admired his
compositions, would have settled upon him a pension of
100l. a year, he declined the offer, affecting an aversion to
a life of dependence.
rd Cobham, Henry earl of Huntingdon, lord Leicester, sir Christopher Hatton, lord Oxford, and Robert earl of Essex. He was connected with sir Philip Sydney, for he finished
, a man of some poetical turn,
but principally known as a translator, in the sixteenth century, was a native of London. In 1563 we find him living
with secretary Cecil at his house in the Strand, and in
1577 in the parish of Allhallows, London Wall. Amongst
his patrons, as we may collect from his dedications, were,
sir Walter Mildmay, William lord Cobham, Henry earl of
Huntingdon, lord Leicester, sir Christopher Hatton, lord
Oxford, and Robert earl of Essex. He was connected
with sir Philip Sydney, for he finished an English translation of Philip Mornay’s treatise in French, on the “Truth
of Christianity,
” which had been begun by Sydney, and
was published in 1587. His religious turn appears also
from his translating many of the works of the early reformers and protestant writers, particularly Calvin, Chytraeus,
Beza, Marlorat, Hemingius, &c. He also enlarged our
treasures of antiquity, by publishing translations of Justin
in 1564; and of Csesar in 1565. Of this last, a translation
as far as the middle of the fifth book by John Brend,
had been put into his hands, and he therefore began at
that place, but afterwards, for uniformity, re-translated the
whole himself. He also published translations of Seneca’s
Benefits, in 1577; of the Geography of Pomponius Mela
the Poly history of Solinus, 1587, and of many modern
Latin writers, which were then useful, and suited to the
wants of the times. Warton thinks his only original work
is a “Discourse of the Earthquake that happened in England and other places in 1580,
” 12mo; and of his original
poetry, nothing more appears than an encomiastic copy of
verses prefixed to Baret’s “Alvearie
” in Ovid’s Metamorphoses,
” the
first four books of which he published in it was a pretty good one considering the time when it was written.
” The style is certainly poetical and spirited, and his versification clear; hi
manner ornamental and diffuse; yet with a sufficient observance of the original. He has obtained a niche in the
“Biographia Dramatica
” for having translated a drama of
Beza’s, called “Abraham’s Sacrifice,
”
In 1558 Mr. Greville attended his kinsman, the earl of Essex, to Oxford; and among other persons in that favourite’s
In 1558 Mr. Greville attended his kinsman, the earl of Essex, to Oxford; and among other persons in that favourite’s train was created M. A. April 11, that year. In 1558 he was accused to the lords of the council, by a certificate of several gentlemen borderers upon Farickwood in Warwickshire, of having made waste there to the value of 14,000 but the prosecution seems to have been dropped, and, October 1597, he received the honour of knighthood. In the beginning of March the same year, he applied for the office of treasurer of the war; and about two years afterwards, in the 41st of Elizabeth, he obtained the place of treasurer of marine causes for life. In 1599 a commission was ordered to be made out for him as rear-admiral of the fleet, which was intended to be sent forth against another threatened invasion by the Spaniards.
etire to Cheam, where he would endeavour to prevent his being molested. He was disturbed here by the earl of Essex’s army, who, marching that way, took him prisoner along
In 1625 he was named by the king himself to attend an
ambassador in to Germany; but was dissuaded from the journey by being told, that on account of his severe treatment of the Jesuits in his “Loyola,
” he might be in
danger, though in an ambassador’s train. In 1628, he
commenced D. D. and in 1631 was made archdeacon of
Bedford, to which charge he usually went once in a year,
and frequently exhorted his clergy “to all regular conformity to the doctrine and discipline by law established,
without under or overdoing, asserting in his opinion, that
puritanism lay on both sides; whosoever did more than
the church commanded, as well as less, were guilty of it;
and that he only was a true son of the church, who broke
riot the boundals of it either way.
” His church of St. Andrew being old and decayed, he undertook to rebuild it,
and for that purpose got together a great sum of money
in stock and subscriptions; but, upon the breaking out of
the civil war, this was seized by the parliament, as well as
what had been gathered for the repair of St. Paul’s cathedral. In March 1641, he was one of the sub-committee appointed by the house of lords to consult of what
was amiss and wanted correction in the liturgy, in hopes
by that means to dispel the cloud hanging over the church.
He delivered a masterly speech against the bill for taking
away deans and chapters, which is published at length in
his life by Dr. Plume. In March 1642 he was presented
to a residentiary’s place in St. Paul’s, London; but the
troubles coming on, he had no enjoyment of it, nor of his
rectory of St. Andrew’s. Besides, some of his parishioners
there having articled against him at the committee of plunderers, his friend Seltlen told him it was in vain to make
any defence; and advised him to retire to Cheam, where
he would endeavour to prevent his being molested. He
was disturbed here by the earl of Essex’s army, who,
marching that way, took him prisoner along with them;
but he was soon after dismissed, and from that time lay
hid in his retirement at Cheam, where we hear no more
of him, except that in 1648-9, he attended in his last moments Henry Rich, earl of Holland, who was beheaded
for attempting the relief of Colchester.
f Buckinghamshire, about five miles from Oxford. He took the command of a regiment of foot under the earl of Essex, and shewed such skill and bravery, that, had he lived,
, of Hamden, in Buckinghamshire, a celebrated political character in the reign of Charles
I. was born at London in 1594. He was of as ancient
(Whitlocke says the ancientest) extraction as any gentleman in his county; and cousin-german to Oliver Cromwell, his father having married the protector’s aunt. In
1609 he was sent to Magdalen college in Oxford whence,
without taking any degree, be removed to the inns of
court, and made a considerable progress in the study of the
law. Sir Philip Warwick observes, that “he had great
knowledge both in scholarship and the law.
” In his entrance into the world, he is said to have indulged himself
in all the licence of sports, and exercises, and company,
such as were used by men of the most jovial conversation;
but afterwards to have retired to a more reserved and
austere society, preserving, however, his natural cheerfulness and vivacity. In the second parliament of king
Charles, which met at Westminster, February 1625-6, he
obtained a seat in the house of commons, as he also did in
two succeeding parliaments; but made no figure till 1636,
when he became universally known, by a solemn trial at
the king’s bench, on his refusing to pay the ship-money.
He carried himself, as Clarendon tells us, through this
whole suit with such singular temper and modesty, that he
obtained more credit and advantage by losing it, than the
king did service by gaining it. From this time he soon
grew to be one of the most popular men in the nation, and
a leading member in the long parliament. “The eyes of
all men,
” says the same writer, “were fixed upon him as
their pater patrite, and the pilot that must steer the vessel
through the tempests and rocks which threatened it.
”
After he had held the chief direction of his party in the
house of commons against the king, he took up arms in
the same cause, and was one of the first who opened the
war by an action at a place called Brill, a garrison of the
king’s, on the edge of Buckinghamshire, about five miles
from Oxford. He took the command of a regiment of foot
under the earl of Essex, and shewed such skill and bravery,
that, had he lived, he would; probably, soon have been
raised to the post of a general. But he was cut off early
by a mortal wound, which he received in a skirmish with
prince Rupert, at Chalgrove-field, in Oxfordshire, where,
it is generally reported, he was shot in the shoulder with a
brace of bullets, which broke the bone, June 18, 1643;
and, after suffering much pain and misery, he died the
24th, an event which affected his party nearly as much as
if their whole army had been defeated . “Many men
observed,
” says Clarendon, “that the field in which this
skirmish was, and upon which Hampden received his deathwound, namely, Chalgrove-field, was the same place in
which he had first executed the ordinance of the militia,
and engaged that county, in which his reputation was very
great, in this rebellion: and it was confessed by the prisoners that were taken that day, and acknowledged by all,
that upon the alarm that morning, after their quarters were
beaten up, he was exceeding solicitous to draw forces together to pursue the enemy; and, being a colonel of foot,
put himself amongst those horse as a volunteer, who were
first ready, and that, when the prince made a stand, all
the officers were of opinion to stay till their body came up,
and he alone persuaded and prevailed with them to advance: so violently did his fate carry him to pay the mulct
in the place where he had committed the transgression
about a year before. This was an observation made at that
time;
” but lord Clarendon does not adopt it as an opinion
of his own.
c species, of gothic machinery and familiar manners. Mr. Harrington was knighted in the field by the earl of Essex, which gave much offence to the queen, who was sparing
, an ingenious English poet,
was the son of John Harrington, esq. who was imprisoned
in the Tower, under queen Mary, for holding a correspondence with the lady Elizabeth, with whom he continued
in great favour to the time of his death. He also was
somewhat of a poet and a translator. Sir John was born at
Kelston, near Bath, in Somersetshire, in 1561, and had
queen Elizabeth for his godmother. He was instructed in
classical learning at Eton-school, and from thence removed
to Cambridge, where he took the degree of M. A. In his
thirtieth year, 159J, he published a translation of Ariosto’s
“Orlando Furioso,
” by which he gained a considerable
reputation, and for which he is now principally known.
Warton says, that although executed without spirit or accuracy, unanimated and incorrect, it enriched our poetryby a communication of new stores of fiction and
imagination, both of the romantic and comic species, of gothic
machinery and familiar manners. Mr. Harrington was
knighted in the field by the earl of Essex, which gave
much offence to the queen, who was sparing of such
honours, and chose to confer them herself. In the reign
of James, he was created knight of the Bath; and, being
a courtier, presented a ms. to prince Henry, levelled
chiefly against the married bishops, which was intended
only for the private use of his royal highness; but, being
published afterwards, created great clamour, and made
several of the clergy say, that his conduct was of a piece
with his doctrines; since he, together with Robert earl of
Leicester, supported sir Walter Raleigh in his suit to
queen Elizabeth for the manor of Banwell, belonging to
the bishopric of Bath and Wells; on a presumption that
the right rev. incumbent bad incurred a pr&munire, by
marrying a second wife. Wood’s account of it is this
"That sir John Harrington, being minded to obtain the
favour of prince Henry, wrote a discourse for his private
use, entitled * A brief View of the State of the Church
of England, as it stood in queen Elizabeth’s and king
James’s reign, to the year 1608.' This book is no more
than a character and history of the bishops of those times,
and was written to the said prince Henry, as an additional
supply to the catalogue of bishops of Dr. Francis Godwin,
upon occasion of that proverb,
Raigne of King Henrie IV. extending to the end of the first yeare of his raigne,“dedicated to Robert earl of Essex; for which he suffered a tedious imprisonment, on account
, an English historian, was educated at Cambridge, where he took the degree of LL. D.
In 1599 he published, in 4to, The first Part of the Life
and Raigne of King Henrie IV. extending to the end of
the first yeare of his raigne,“dedicated to Robert earl of
Essex; for which he suffered a tedious imprisonment, on
account of having advanced something in defence of hereditary succession to the crown. We are informed, in lord
Bacon’s
” Apophthegms,“that queen Elizabeth, being
highly incensed at this book, asked Bacon, who was then
one of her council learned in the law,
” whether there was
any treason contained in it?“who answered,
” No, madam for treason, I cannot deliver my opinion there is
any but there is much felony.“The queen,
apprehending it, gladly asked,
” How and wherein“Bacon answered,
” because he had stolen many of his sentences
and conceits out of Cornelius Tacitus.“This discovery is
thought to have prevented his being put to the rack.
Carnden tells us, that the book being dedicated to the
earl of Essex, when that nobleman and his friends were
tried, the lawyers urged, that
” it was written on purpose
to encourage the deposing of the queen;“and they particularly insisted on these words in the dedication* in which
our author styles the earl
” Magnus & present! judicio, &
futuri temporis expectatione.“In 1603 he published, in
quarto,
” An Answer to the first part of a certaine Conference concerning Succession, published not long since
under the name of R. Doleman.“Tais R. Doleman was
the Jesuit Parsons. In 1610 he was appointed by king
James one of the historiographers of Chelsea college, near
London, which, as we have often had occasion to notice,
was never permanently established. In 1613, he published
in 4to,
” The Lives of the Three Normans, kings of England; William I; William II.; Henry I.“and dedicated
them to Charles prince of Wales. In 1619, he received
the honour of knighthood from his majesty, at Whitehall.
In 1624, he published a discourse entitled
” Of Supremacie in Affaires of Religion,“dedicated to prince Charles,
and written in the manner of a conversation held at the
table of Dr. Toby Matthews, bishop of Durham, in the
time of the parliament, 1605. The proposition maintained is, that supreme power in ecciesiasticaJ affairs is a
right of sovereignty. He wrote likewise,
” The Life and
Raigne of King Edward VI. with the beginning of the
Raigne of queen Elizabeth,“1630, 4to, but this was posthumous; for he died June 27, 1627. He was the author
of several works of piety, particularly
” The Sr.nctuarie of
a troubled soul,“Lond. 1616, 12mo;
” David’s Tears,
or an Exposition of the Penitential Psalms,“1622, 8vo.
and te Christ’s Prayer on the Crosse for his Enemies,
”
1623. Wood says that “he was accounted a learned and
godly man, and one better read in theological authors,
than in those belonging to his profession; and that with
regard to his histories, the phrase and words in them were
in their time esteemed very good; only some have wished
that in his
” History of Henry IV.“he had not called sir
Hugh Lynne by so light a word as Mad-cap, though he
were such; and that he had not changed his historical style
into a dramatical, where he introduceth a mother uttering a woman’s passion in the case of her son.
” Nicolson observes, that “he had the repute in his time, of a
good clean pen and smooth style; though some have since
blamed him for being a little too dramatical,
” Strype
recommends that our author “be read with caution
that his style and language is good, and so is his fancy
but that he uses it too much for an historian, which puts
him sometimes on making speeches for others, which they
never spake, and relating matters which perhaps they never thought on.
” In confirmation of which censure, Kennet has since affirmed him to be “a professed speech-maker
through all his little history of Henry IV.
”
arce, 1774. 10. “The Heroine of the Cave,” a tragedy, loft unfinished by Henry Jones, author of the “ Earl of Essex,” completed by Hiffernan, and acted at Drury-lane in
, a minor author of the last century, much patronized and befriended by Garrick, was
born in the county of Dublin in 1719, and educated for a
popish priest, first in Ireland, and afterwards for many
years in France. Yet after all, he took his degree of bachelor in physic, and returned to Dublin that he might
practise. Indolence, however, prevented his application
jto that or any profession, and he came to London about
1753, where he subsisted very scantily and idly, as an
author, for the remainder of his life; producing several
works, but none of any great merit. He was principally
employed by the booksellers in various works of translation,
compilement, &c. In short, with no principles, and slender abilities, he was perpetually disgracing literature, which
he was doomed to follow for bread, by such a conduct as
was even unworthy of the lowest and most contemptible of
the vulgar. His conversation was highly offensive to decency and good manners, and his whole behaviour discovered a mind over which the opinions of mankind had no
influence. He associated, however, occasionally with some
of the most celebrated men of his time, Foote, Garrick,
Murphy, Goldsmith, Kelly, Sec. who tolerated his faults,
and occasionally supplied his necessities, although when
he thought their liberality insufficient, he made no scruple
of writing the grossest libels on their character. One of
his peculiar fancies was to keep the place of his lodging a
secret, which he did so completely, that he refused to disclose it even when dying, to a friend who supported him,
and actually received his last contributions through the
channel of the Bedford coffee-house. When he died,
which was in June 1777, it was discovered that he had
lodged in one of the obscure courts near St. Martin’s-lane.
Dr. Hiffernan, as he was usually called, was author of the folio wing works: 1.“The Ticklers,
” a set of periodical and political papers, published in Dublin about 1750. 2. “The
Tuner,
” a set of periodical papers, published in London in
1753. 3. “Miscellanies in prose and verse,
” The
Ladies’ Choice,
” a dramatic petite piece, acted at Coventgarden in 1759. 5. “The Wishes of a free People,
” a
dramatic poem, The New Hippocratrs,
” a
farce, acted at Drury-lane in The Earl of Warwick,
” a tragedy, from the French of
La Harpe, Dramatic Genius,
” an essay, ia
five books, The Philosophic Whim,
” a farce,
The Heroine of the Cave,
” a tragedy, loft
unfinished by Henry Jones, author of the “Earl of Essex,
”
completed by Hiffernan, and acted at Drury-lane in 1774.
He also issued proposals for a quarto volume of additional
Miscellanies in prose and verse, which we believe never
appeared.
ng the university without a degree, he retired to his native country. He married the widow of Robert earl of Essex; and delivered an oration at her funeral, Sept. 16,
, son of Dr. Thomas Hi?gons,
some time rector of Westburgh in Shropshire, was born in
1624, in that county became a commoner of St. Alban’s-hall
in the beginning of 1638, when he was put under the tuition of Mr. Edward Corbet, fellow of Merton college, and
lodged in the chamber under him in that house. Leaving
the university without a degree, he retired to his native
country. He married the widow of Robert earl of Essex;
and delivered an oration at her funeral, Sept. 16, 1656.
“Oratione funebri, a marito ipso, more prisco laudata
fuit,
” is part of this lady’s epitapii. He married, secondly,
Bridget, daughter of sir Devil Greenvili of Stow, and sister
to John earl of Bath and removed to Grewell in Hampshire was elected a burgess for Malmsbury in 16.38, and
for New Windsor in 1661. His services to the crown
were rewarded with a pension of 500l. a year, and gifts to
the amount of 4000l. He was afterwards knighted and
in 1669, was sent envoy extraordinary to invest John
George duke of Saxony with the order of the garter. About
four years after, he was sent envoy to Vienna, where he
continued three years. In 1685 he was elected burgess
for St. Germain’s, “being then,
” says Wood, “accounted
a loyal and accomplished person, and a great lover of the
tegular clergy.
” He died suddenly, of an apoplexy, in
the King’s-bench court, having been summoned there as
a witnt’ss, Nov. 24, 1691; and was buried in Winchester
caihedral near the relics of his first wife. His literary productions are, 1. “A Panegyric to the King,
” The Funeral Oration on his first Lady,
” Iff56. 3.
“The History of Isoof Bassa,
” The Venetian Triumph;
” for which he
was complimented by Waller, in his poems; who has also
addressed a poem to Mrs. Higgons. Mr. Granger, who
styles sir Thomas “a gentleman of great merit,
” was favoured by the duchess dowager of Portland with a ms
copy of his Oration; and concludes, from the great scarcity of that pamphlet, that “the copies of it were, for certain reasons, industriously collected and destroyed, though
few pieces of this kind have less deserved to perish. The
countess of Essex had a greatness of mind which enabled
her to bear the whole weight of infamy which was thrown
upon her; but it was, nevertheless, attended with a delicacy and sensibility of honour which poisoned all her enjoyments. Mr. Higgons had said much, and I think much
to the purpose, in her vindication; and was himself fully
convinced from the tenor of her life, and the words which
she spoke at the awful close of it, that she was perfectly
innocent. In reading this interesting oration, I fancied
myself standing by the grave of injured innocence and
beauty; was sensibly touched with the pious affection of
the tenderest and best of husbands doing public and solemn justice to an amiable and worthy woman, who had
been grossly and publicly defamed. Nor could I withhold
the tribute of a tear; a tribute which, I am confident, was
paid at her interment by every one who loved virtue, and
was not destitute of the feelings of humanity. This is what
I immediately wrote upon reading the oration. If I am
wrong in my opinion, the benevolent reader, I am sure,
will forgive me. It is not the first time that my heart has
got the better of my judgment.
” “I am not afraid,
” Mr.
Nichols adds, “of being censured for having transcribed
this beautiful passage.
”
was equipped with a proper number of land forces, he was appointed commander in chief at sea, as the earl of Essex was at land. In this expedition Cadiz was taken, and
In 1588, the memorable year of the Spanish invasion, the queen, knowing his abilities in naval affairs, and popularity with the seamen, gave him the command of her whole fleet, with which he entirely dispersed and destroyed the Spanish armada; and when, in 1596, another invasion was apprehended from the Spaniards, and a fleet of 150 ships was equipped with a proper number of land forces, he was appointed commander in chief at sea, as the earl of Essex was at land. In this expedition Cadiz was taken, and the Spanish fleet there burnt; and the lord high admiral had so great a share in this success, that on Oct. 22 of the same year he was advanced to the dignity of Earl of Nottingham, and appointed justice itinerant for, life of all the forests south of Trent. In 1599, upon an apprehension of the Spaniards again designing the invasion of England, and on private intelligence, that the earl of Essex, then lord deputy of Ireland, discontented at the power of his adversaries, was meditating to return into England with a select party of men, the queen having raised 6000 foot soldiers to be ready on any emergency, reposed so entire a confidence in the earl of Nottingham, that she committed to him the chief command. But these forces being again disbanded a few days after, he had no opportunity for action until 1601, when he suppressed the carl of Essex’s insurrection. The same year he was appointed one of the commissioners for exercising the office of earl marshal of England; and in the beginning of 1602-3, dnring the queen’s last illness, he was deputed by the council, with the lord keeper Egerton and secretary Cecil, to know her majesty’s pleasure in reference to the succession, which she declared in favour of James king of Scotland.
ep those ships with him, though it were at his own cost; and in the expedition to Cadiz, he, and the earl of Essex, the two commanders, contributed very largely out of
He died at the age of eighty-eight, leaving rather an
everlasting memorial of his extraordiaary worth, than any
great estate to his family; although he had enjoyed so
long the profitable post of lord admiral. He lived in a
most splendid and magnificent manner, keeping seven
standing houses at the same time; and was always forward to promote any design serviceable to his country.
He expended in several expeditions great sums out of his
private fortune; and in the critical year 1588, when, on
a surmise, that the Spaniards were unable to set sail that
year, secretary Walsingham, by order of the queen, wrote
to him to send back four of his largest ships, he desired,
that nothing might be rashly credited in so weighty a matter, and that he might keep those ships with him, though
it were at his own cost; and in the expedition to Cadiz,
he, and the earl of Essex, the two commanders, contributed very largely out of their own estates. Sir Robert
Naunton styles him “a good, honest, and brave man; and
as for his person, as goodly a gentleman as any of that
age:
” and Mr. Osborne tells us, that his “fidelity was
impregnable in relation to corruption.
” By his first wife,
Catharine, daughter to Henry Gary lord Hunsdon, he had
two sons and three daughters; and by his second, Margaret, daughter to James Stuart earl of Murray in Scot-<
land, two sons.
given to their authority by his absence so sensibly, that in their instructions shortly after to the earl of Essex their general, he was excepted with a few others from
But though Hyde was very zealous for redressing the
grievances of the nation, he was no less so for the security
of the established church, and the honour of the crown.
When a bill was brought in to take away the bishops’ vote
in parliament, and to leave them out of all commissions of
the peace, or any thing that had relation to temporal affairs,
he was very earnest for throwing it out, and said, that,
“from the time tbat parliaments begun, bishops had always been a part of it that if they were taken out, there
was nobody left to represent the clergy which would introduce another piece of injustice, that no other part of
the kingdom could complain of, who, being all represented in parliament, were bound to submit to whatever was
enacted there, because it was, upon the matter, with their
own consent: whereas, if the bill was carried, there was
nobody left to represent the clergy, and yet they must be
bound by their determination.
” He was one of the committee employed to prepare the charge against the earl of
Strafford: but, as soon as he saw the unjustifiable violence
with which the prosecution was precipitated, he left them,
and opposed the bill of attainder warmly. He was afterwards appointed a -manager at the conference with the
house of lords, for abolishing the court of York, of which
that earl had been for several years president; and was
chairman also of several other committees, appointed upon
the most important occasions, as long as he continued to
sit among them. But, when they began to put in execution their ordinance for raising the militia against his majesty, Hyde, being persuaded that this was an act of open
rebellion, left them; and they felt the blow given to their
authority by his absence so sensibly, that in their instructions shortly after to the earl of Essex their general, he
was excepted with a few others from any grace or favour.
d, 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
, 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
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.
” 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?
”
the arguments for it, that the opposers of the court gave him suitable encouragement to proceed. The earl of Essex admitted him into his company and lord William Russel,
The times were turbulent; the duke of York declaring
himself a Papist, his succession to the crown began to be
warmly opposed; and. this brought the doctrine of indefeasible hereditary right into dispute, which was strongly
disrelished by Johnson, who was naturally of no submissive
temper. This inclination was early observed by his patron, who warned him against the danger of it to one of
his profession, and advised him, if he would turn his
thoughts to that subject, to read Bracton and Fortescue
“de laudibus legum Angliae,
” &c. that so he might be
acquainted with the old English constitution but by no
means to make politics the subject of his sermons, for that
matters of faith and practice formed more suitable admonitions from the pulpit. Johnson, it is said, religiously
observed this advice; and though, by applying himself to
the study of the books recommended to him, he became
well versed in the English constitution, yet he never flitroduced it in his sermons, but employed these, with zeal,
to expose the absurdity and mischief of the Popish religion, which was then too much encouraged, and would,
he thought, unavoidably be established if the next heir to
the crown was not set aside. This point he laboured incessantly in his private conversation, and became so good a
master of the arguments for it, that the opposers of the
court gave him suitable encouragement to proceed. The
earl of Essex admitted him into his company and lord
William Russel, respecting his parts and probity, made him
his domestic chaplain. This preferment placed him in a
conspicuous point of view; and in 1679 he was appointed
to preach before the mayor and aldermen at Guildhallchapel, on Palm-Sunday. He took that opportunity of
preaching against Popery; and from this time, he tells us
himself, “he threw away his liberty with both hands, and
with his eyes open, for his country’s service.
” In short,
he began to be regarded by his party as their immoveable
bulwark; and to make good that character, while the bill
of exclusion was carried on by his patron at the head of
that party in the House of Commons, his chaplain, to promote the same cause, engaged the ecclesiastical champion
of passive obedience, Dr. Hickes , in a book entitled
“Julian' the Apostate, &c.
” published in Jovian, &c.
” to which Johnson drew
up a reply, under the title of “Julian’s arts to undermine
and extirpate Christianity,
” &c. This was printed and
entered at Stationers’-hall, 1683, in order to be published;
but, seeing his patron lord Russel seized and imprisoned,
Johnson thought proper to check his zeal, and take the
advice of his friends in suppressing it.
life, often feel the want of not pursuing them when it is too late. His principal performance, “The Earl of Essex,” appeared in 1753, and he also left a tragedy unfinished,
, a dramatic writer, was a native of
Drogheda, in Ireland, and was bred a bricklayer; but,
having a natural inclination for the muses, pursued his devotions to them even during the labours of his mere mechanical avocations, and composing a line of brick and a line
of verse alternately, his walls and poems rose in growth
together, but not with equal degrees of durability. His
turn, as is most generally the case with mean poets, or
bards of humble origin, was panegyric. This procured
him some friends; and, in 1745, when the earl of Chesterfield went over to Ireland as lord-lieutenant, Mr. Jones was
recommended to the notice of that nobleman, who, delighted with the discovery of this mechanic muse, not only
favoured him with his own notice and generous munificence,
but also thought proper to transplant this opening flower
into a warmer and more thriving climate. He brought him
with him to England, recommended him to many of the
nobility there, and not only procured him a large subscription for the publishing a collection of his “Poems,
” but
it is said, even took on himself the alteration and correction,
of his tragedy, and also the care of prevailing on the managers of Covent-garden theatre to bring it on the stage.
This nobleman also recommended him in the warmest
manner to Colley Gibber, whose friendly and humane disposition induced him to shew him a thousand acts of friendship, and even made strong efforts by his interest at court
to have secured to him the succession of the laurel after
his death. With these favourable prospects it might have
been expected that Jones would have passed through life
with so much decency as to have ensured his own happiness, and done credit to the partiality of his friends; but
this was not the case. “His temper,
” says one, who
seems to have known him, “was, in consequence of the
dominion of his passions, uncertain and capricious; easily
engaged, and easily disgusted; and, as ceconomy was a
virtue which could never be taken into his catalogue, he
appeared to think himself born rather to be supported by
others than under a duty to secure to himself the profits
which his writings and the munificence of his patrons from
time to time afforded.
” After experiencing many reverses
of fortune, which an overbearing spirit, and an imprudence
in regard to pecuniary concerns, consequently drew on
him, he died in great want, in April 1770, in a garret
belonging to the master of the Bedford coffee-house, by
whose charity he had been some time supported, leaving
an example to those of superior capacities and attainments,
who, despising the common maxims of life, often feel the
want of not pursuing them when it is too late. His principal performance, “The Earl of Essex,
” appeared in The Cave
of Idra,
” which falling into the hands of Dr. Hiffernan, he
enlarged it to five acts, and brought it out under the title
of “The Heroine of the Cave.
” His last publications
were, “Merit
” “The Relief;
” and “Vectis, or the Isle
of Wight,
” poems but his poetical worth, though not
contemptible, was far from being of the first-rate kind.
in imitation of the old manuscripts, curiously decorated with the pen. The book is dedicated to the earl of Essex. On one of the first pages are his arms neatly drawn,
, a lady celebrated for her skill in
calligraphy, in queen Elizabeth’s and king James’s time,
appears to have lived single until the age of forty, when
she became the wife of one Bartholomew Keilo, a native
of Scotland, by whom she had a son, Samuel Kello, who
was educated at Christ-church, Oxford, and was minister
of Speckshall in Suffolk. His son was sword-bearer of
Norwich, and died in 1709. All we know besides of her
is, that she was a correspondent of bishop Hall, when he
was dean of Worcester in 1617. Various specimens of her
delicate and beautiful writing are in our public repositories,
and some in Edinburgh-castle. In the library of Christchurch, Oxford, are the Psalrns of David, written in French
by Mrs. Inglis, who presented them in person to queen
Elizabeth, by whom they were given to the library. Two
manuscripts, written by her, were also preserved with care
in the Bodleian library: one of them is entitled “Le six
vingt et six Quatrains de Guy de Tour, sieur de Pybrac,
escrits par Esther Inglis, pour son dernier adieu, ce 21e
jour de Juin, 1617.
” The following address is, in the
second leaf, written in capital letters: “To the right
worshipful my very singular friende, Joseph Hall, doctor of
divinity, and dean of Winchester, Esther Inglis wisheth
all increase of true happiness. Junii xxi. 1617.
” In the
third leaf is pasted the head of the writer, painted upon a
card. The other manuscript is entitled “Les Proverbes de
Salomon; escrites en diverses sortes de lettres, par Esther
Anglois, en Francoise. A Lislehourge en Escosse,
” DC
l'Eternel Je biert, de moi le mal, ou rien.
” A music-book
lies open before her. Under the picture is a Latin epigram by Andrew Melvin, and on the following page a
second by the same author, in praise of Mrs. Inglis. In
the royal library, D. xvi. are “Esther Inglis’s fifty Emblems,
” finely drawn and written: “A Lislebourg en
Escosse, Panne 1624.
”
ty, in 1662, by virtue of the Bartholomew act; but conforming soon after, he was presented by Arthur earl of Essex to the rectory 01 Raine, in Essex, 1664. Here he continued
, a very learned English bishop,
was born, as Wood says, at Brighthelmstone in Sussex, but
as others say, in Suffolk. In June 1649, he was admitted
sizar in Emanuel -college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of A. B. 1652, was elected fellow in 1655, and took his
degree of A. M. in 1656. He was presented by his college to the vicarage of Stanground, in Huntingdonshire;
from which he was ejected for nonconformity, in 1662, by
virtue of the Bartholomew act; but conforming soon after,
he was presented by Arthur earl of Essex to the rectory 01
Raine, in Essex, 1664. Here he continued till 1674,
when he was presented to the rectory of St. Martin’s Outwicb, London, by the Merchant-tailors company. In
September 1681, he was installed into a prebend of Norwich; and in 1689 made dean of Peterborough, in the
room of Simon Patrick, promoted to the see of Chichester.
On this occasion he took the degree of D. D. Upon the
deprivation of Ken, bishop of Bath and Wells, for not
taking the oaths to king William and queen Mary, and
Beveridge’s refusal of that see, Kidder was nominated in
June 1691, and consecrated the August following. In
1693 he preached the lecture founded by the honourable
Robert Boyle, being the second that preached it. His
sermons on that occasion are inserted in his “Demonstration of the Messias,
” in three parts; the first of which
was published in 1694, the second in 1699, and the third
in 1700, 8vo. It is levelled against the Jews, whom the
author was the better enabled to combat from his great
knowledge of the Hebrew and oriental languages, for
which he had long been celebrated. He wrote also, “A
Commentary on the Five Books of Moses; with a Disser
tation concerning the author or writer of the said books,
and a general argument to each of them.
” This commentary was published in 1694, in two volumes, 8vo; and the
reader in the preface is thus acquainted with the occasion
of it: “Many years are now passed since a considerable
number of the London clergy met together, and agreed
to publish some short notes upon the whole Bible, for the
use of families, and of all those well-disposed persons
that desired to read the Holy Scriptures to their greatest
advantage. At that meeting they agreed upon this worthy
design, and took their several shares, and assigued some
part to them who were absent. I was not present at that
meeting; but I was soon informed that they had assigned
to me the Pentateuch. The work was begun with common
consent; we did frequently meet; and what was done
was communicated from time to time to those that met together and were concerned. The methods of proceeding
had been adjusted and agreed to; a specimen was printed,
and an agreement was made when it should be put to the
press. I finished my part in order thereto; but so it fell
out, that soon after all this, the clouds began to gather
apace, and there was great ground to fear that the popish
party were attempting to ruin the church of England.
Hence it came to pass that the thoughts of pursuing this
design were laid aside; and those that were concerned in
it were now obliged to turn their studies and pens against
that dangerous enemy. During this time, also, some of
the persons concerned in this work were taken away by
death; and thus the work was hindered, that might else
have been finished long since. I, having drawn up my
notes upon this occasion, do now think myself obliged to
make them public,
” &c. To the first volume is prefixed
a dissertation, in which he sets down, and answers all the
objections made against Moses being the author of the
Pentateuch; and having considered, among the rest, one
objection drawn by Le Clerc, from Gen. xxxvi. 31, and
spoken in pretty severe terms of him, some letters passed
between them, which were printed by Le Clerc in his
“Bibliotheque Choisie.
” Dr. Kidder had likewise borne
a part in the popish controversy, during which he published the following tracts: 1 “A Second Dialogue between a new Catholic Convert and a Protestant; shewing
why he cannot believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation,
though he do firmly believe the doctrine of the Trinity.
”
2. “An Examination of Bellarmine’s Thirtieth note of the
Church, of the Confession of Adversaries.
” 3. “The
Texts which Papists cite out of the Bible for the proof of
their Doctrine, `of the Sacrifice of the Mass,' examined.
”
4. “Reflections on a French Testament, printed at Bourdeaux, 1686, pretended to be translated out of the Latin
by the divines of Louvain.
” He published also several
sermons and tracts of the devotional kind.
forms us, he was exchanged very honourably above his rank, and rewarded with a purse of 300l. by the earl of Essex. Yet, when that general began to press the Scots’ covenant
When the parliament had voted an army to oppose the
king, Lilburne entered as a volunteer, was a captain of
foot at the battle of Edge-hill, and fought well in the engagement at Brentford, Nov. 12, 1612, but being taken
prisoner, was carried to Oxford, and would have been
tried and executed for high treason, had not his parliamentary friends threatened retaliation. After this, as he
himself informs us, he was exchanged very honourably
above his rank, and rewarded with a purse of 300l. by the
earl of Essex. Yet, when that general began to press the
Scots’ covenant upon his followers, Lilburne quarrelled
with him, and by Cromwell’s interest was made a major
of foot, Oct. 1643, in the new-raised army under the earl
of Manchester. In this station he behaved very well, and
narrowly escaped with his life at raising the siege of Newark by prince Rupert; but at the same time he quarrelled
with his colonel (King), and accused him of several misdemeanours, to the earl, who immediately promoted him
to be lieutenant-colonel of his own regiment of dragoons.
This post Lilburne sustained with signal bravery at the
battle of Marston-moor, in July; yet he had before that
quarrelled with the earl for not bringing colonel King to
a trial by a court* martial; and upon Cromwell’s accusing
his lordship to the House of Commons, Nov. 1644, Lilburne appeared before the committee in support of that
charge. Nor did he rest until he had procured an impeachment to be exhibited in the House of Commons in August
this year, against colonel King for high crimes and
misdemeanours. Little attention being paid to this, he first
offered a petition to the House, to bring the colonel
to his trial, and still receiving no satisfaction, he published a coarse attack upon the earl of Manchester, in
1646. Being called before the House of Lords, where
that nobleman was speaker, on account of this publication,
he not only refused to answer the interrogatories, but protested against their jurisdiction over him in the present
case; on which he was first committed to Newgate, and
then to the Tower. He then appealed to the House of
Commons; and upon their deferring to take his case into
consideration, he charged that House, in print, not only
with having done nothing of late years for the general good, but also with having made many ordinances notoriously unjust and oppressive. This pamphlet, which
was called “The Oppressed man’s oppression,
” being
seized, he printed another, entitled “The Resolved
man’s resolution,
” in which he maintained “that the
present parliament ought to be pulled down, and a new
one called, to bring them to a strict account, as the
only means of saving the laws and liberties of England
from utter destruction,
” This not availing, he applied to
the agitators in the army; and at length, having obtained
liberty every day to go, without his keeper, to attend the
committee appointed about his business, and to return
every night to the Tower, he made use of that indulgence
to engage in some seditious practices. For this he was recommitted to the Tower, and ordered to be tried; but,
upon the parliament’s apprehensions from the Cavaliers,
on prince Charles’s appearing with a fleet in the Downs,
he procured a petition, signed by seven or eight thousand
persons, to be presented to the House, which made an order, in August 1648, to discharge him from imprisonment*,
and to make him satisfaction for his sufferings. This was
not compassed, however, without a series of conflicts and
quarrels with Cromwell; who, returning from Ireland in
iament and an enemy to the measures of the court, encouraged his son to engage as a volunteer in the earl of Essex’s life-guard. In this station he appeared against the
, one of the chiefs of the republican party during the civil wars, was descended of an ancient and good family, originally of Shropshire, and thence removed into Wiltshire, in which county he wag born, at Maiden- Bradley, about 1620. After a proper foundation in grammar, he was sent to Trinity-college in Oxford, where he took the degree of batchelor of arts in 1636, but removed to the Temple, to study the law, as a qualification for serving his country in parliament, his ancestors having frequently represented the county of Wiltshire. His father, sir Henry Ludlow, who was a member of the long parliament and an enemy to the measures of the court, encouraged his son to engage as a volunteer in the earl of Essex’s life-guard. In this station he appeared against the king, at the battle of Edge-hill, in '1642; and, having raised a troop of horse the next summer, 1643, he joined sir Edward Hungerford in besieging Wardour-castle. This being taken, he was made governor of it; but being retaken the following year, 1644, by the king’s forces, he was carried prisoner to Oxford. After remaining here some time, he was released by exchange, went to London, and was appointed high-sheriff of Wiltshire by the parliament. He then appears to have declined a command under the earl of Essex, but accepted the post of major in sir Arthur Haslerig’s regiment of horse, in the army of sir William Waller, and marched to form the blockade of Oxford. From Oxford, however, he was immediately sent, with a commission from sir William, to raise and command a regiment of horse, and was so successful as to be able to join Waller with about five hundred horse, and was engaged in the second battle fought at Newbury. Upon new modelling the army, he was dismissed with Waller, and was not employed again in any post, civil or military, till 1645, when he was chosen in parliament for Wiltshire in the room of his father, who died in 1643.
Soon after the death of the earl of Essex, Sept. 1646, Ludlow had reason to suspect, from, a
Soon after the death of the earl of Essex, Sept. 1646, Ludlow had reason to suspect, from, a conversation with Cromwell, who expressed a dislike to the parliament and extolled the army, that his ambition would lead him to destroy the civil authority, and establish his own; and therefore he gave a flat negative to the vote for returning Cromwell thanks, on his shooting ' Arnell, the agitator, and thereby quelling that faction in the army. In the same spirit of what has been called pure rep ublicanism, he joined in the vote for not addressing the king, and in the declaration for bringing him to a trial: and soon alter, in a conference with Cromwell and the leaders of the army, he harangued upon the necessity and justice of the king’s execution, and, after that, the establishment of an equal commonwealth, in which he differed from another pure republican, Lilburne, who was for new-modelling the parliament first, and then, as a natural consequence, putting the king to death. Ludlow induced the Wiltshire people to agree to the raising of two regiments of foot, and one of horse, against the Scots, when they were preparing to release the king from Carisbrook- castle. After which, he went to Fairfax, at the siege of Colchester, and prevailed with him to oppose entering into any treaty with the king; and when the House of Commons, on his majesty’s answer from Newport, voted that his concessions were ground for a future settlement, Ludlow not only expressed his dissatisfaction, but had a principal share both in forming and executing the scheme of forcibly excluding all that party from the house by colonel Pride, in 1648. Agreeably to all these proceedings, he sat upon the bench at the trial and condemnation of the king, concurred in the vote that the House of Peers was useless and dangerous, and became a member of the council of state.
About the time that the town of Reading was taken by the earl of Essex, Milton’s father came to reside in his house, and his
About the time that the town of Reading was taken by
the earl of Essex, Milton’s father came to reside in his
house, and his school increased. In 1643, his domestic
comfort was disturbed by an incident which he had hoped
would have rather promoted it. This was his marriage to
Mary, the daughter of Richard Powell, esq. a magistrate
in Oxfordshire, and a loyalist. The lady was brought to
London, but did not remain above a month with her
husband, when under pretence of a visit to her relations, she
wholly absented herself, and resisted his utmost and repeated importunities to return. His biographers inform
us that the lady had been accustomed to the jovial hospitality of the loyalists at her father’s house, and that after a
month’s experience of her new life, she began to sigh for
the gaieties she had left, &c. Whether this will sufficiently account for her conduct, our readers may consider.
Milton, however, appears to have felt the indignity, and
determined to repudiate her for disobedience; and finding
no court of law able to assist him, published some treatises
to justify his intentions; such as “The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce;
” “The Judgment of Martin Bucer,
concerning Divorce,
” &c. In these he argued the point
with great ingenuity, but made few converts, and the
principal notice taken of these writings came in a very
unfortunate shape. The Westminster assembly of divines
procured that the author should be called before the House
of Lords, who did not, however, institute any process on
the matter; but in consequence of this attack, the presbyterian party forfeited his favour, and he ever after treated
them with contempt.
ord; in 151)5, he was married; in 1596, he served in the expedition to Cadiz, under Walter Devereux, earl of Essex, to whom he did great service by his wise and moderate
In 1591, he served a second time under the earl of
Cumberland; and the commission was, as all the former
were, to act against the Spaniards. They took several of
their ships; and captain Monson, being sent to convoy one
of them to England, was surrounded and taken by six
Spanish gallies, after a long and bloody fight. On this
occasion they detained him as an hostage for the performance of certain covenants, and carried him to Portugal,
where he was kept prisoner two years at Cascais and Lisbon. Not discouraged by this ill-luck, he entered a third
time into the earl’s service, in 1593; and he behaved himself in this, as in all other expeditions, like a brave and
able seaman. In 1594, he was created master of arts at
Oxford; in 151)5, he was married; in 1596, he served in
the expedition to Cadiz, under Walter Devereux, earl of
Essex, to whom he did great service by his wise and moderate counsel, and was deservedly knighted. He was
employed in several other expeditions, and was highly honoured and esteemed during Elizabeth’s reign. Military
men were not king James’s favourites: therefore, after the
death of the queen, he never received either recompence
or preferment, more than his ordinary entertainment or
pay, according to the services he was employed in. However, in 1604-, he was appointed admiral of the Narrow
Seas, in which station he continued till 1616: during which
time he supported the honour of the English flag, against
the insolence of the infant commonwealth of Holland, of
which he frequently complains in his “Naval Tracts;
” and
protected our trade against the encroachments of France.
grand-daughter of sir Richard), who married Arthur lord Capel of Hadham, an ancestor of the present earl of Essex.
, a statesman
of great learning, prudence, and integrity, is supposed by
some to have been born in Essex, and by others in Oxfordshire; but the visitations of Hertfordshire inform us
that he was the son of Thomas Morysin of that county
(descended from a Yorkshire family), by a daughter of
Thomas Merrey of Hatfield. Wood having supposed him
born in Oxfordshire, asserts that he spent several years at
Oxford university, in “Log;cals and philosophical,
” and
took a degree in arts. But Mr. Lodge says that he was
educated at Eton, and in the university of Cambridge,
from whence he went, with the reputation of an excellent
Greek and Latin scholar, to the inns of court, where he
became a proficient in the common and civil law. According, however, to Wood and others, he had previously to
this, travelled to Italy, with an intention to improve his
knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages. Padua, in
particular, was one of the places he visited, and he remained there until 1537, and soon after his return was
made prebendary of Yatminster Secunda in the church of
Salisbury, which dignity he kept until 1539. About 1541,
Henry VI 11. is said to have given him the library belonging to the Carmelites in London. The same sovereign sent
him ambassador to the emperor Charles V. and he had acquired by long habit, so thorough a knowledge of the various factions which distracted the empire, that the ministers of king Edward VI. found it necessary to continue
him in that court much against his inclination. In 1549
he was joined with the earl of Warwick, viscount Lisle, sir
William Paget, sir William Petre, bishops Holbeach and
Hethe, and other personages, in a commission to hold
visitation at Oxford, in order to promote the reformation,
and their commission also extended to the chapel of Windsor and Winchester college. The celebrated Peter Martyr
preached before them, on their entering on business, and
was much noticed and patronized by Morysin. From Edward VI. he received the honour of knighthood, and appears to have gone again abroad, as Mr. Lodge gives us a
long letter from him relating to the affairs of the imperial
court, dated Brussels, Feb. 20, 1553. He returned not
long before that prince’s death, and was employed in building a superb mansion at Cashiobury, in Hertfordshire, a
manor which had been granted to him by Henry VIIL
when queen Mary’s violent measures against the protestants compelled him to quit England, and after residing
a short time in Italy, he returned to Strasburgh, and died
there, March 17, 1556. He married Bridget, daughter
of John lord Hussey, and left a son and three daughters
sir Charles, who settled at Cashiobury Elizabeth, married, first, to William Norreys, son and heir to Henry
lordNorreys; secondly, to Henry Clinton, earl of Lincoln Mary, to Bartholomew Hales, of Chesterfield in
Derbyshire and Jane, to Edward lord Russel, eldest son
of the earl of Bedford, and afterwards to Arthur lord
Grey of Wilton. The family of Morysin ended in an
heiress, Mary (great grand-daughter of sir Richard), who
married Arthur lord Capel of Hadham, an ancestor of the
present earl of Essex.
carry the ensigns of the order of the ganer to the king of Denmark. He likewise was in camp with the earl of Essex in Normandy, probably in 1591. He spent much of the
, a physician and
naturalist of the sixteenth century, was born in London,
in or near St. Leonard’s-* parish, Shoreditch, as Wood
conjectures, where he received his early education. He
was then sent to Cambridge, as we learn from his “Health’s
Improvement,
” and not to Oxford, as Wood says; and
afterwards travelled through several of the countries of
Europe, contracting an acquaintance with many of the
most eminent foreign physicians and chemists. Before his
return he had taken the degree of M. D. in which he was
incorporated at Cambridge in 1582, and settled in London,
where he practised ph) sic with considerable reputation.
It appears also, that he resided for some time at Ipswich.
He was particularly patronized by Peregrine Bertie, lord
Willoughby, and accompanied him on his embassy, to
carry the ensigns of the order of the ganer to the king of
Denmark. He likewise was in camp with the earl of Essex
in Normandy, probably in 1591. He spent much of the
latter part of his life at Bulbridge, near Wilton, in Wiltshire, as a retainer to the Pembroke family, from which
he received an annual pension. He died in that retirement, about the end of queen Elizabeth’s reign.
Bowes, esq. Mr. Naunton was in France in 15.96 and 1597, whence he corresponded frequently with the earl of Essex, who does not appear to have had interest enough to
, a statesman in the reign of
James I. was of an ancient family in Suffolk, and educated
a fellow-commoner of Trinity-college, Cambridge, whence
he removed to Trinity -hall, and was chosen a fellow.
When his uncle, William Asriby, esq. was sent ambassador from queen Elizabeth into Scotland in 1589, he accompanied him, probably in the office of secretary; and
was sometimes sent by him on affairs of trust and importance to the court of England, where we find him in July
of that year, discontented with his unsuccessful dependance
on courtiers, and resolved to hasten back to his uncle, to
whom he returned in the beginning of the month following, and continued with him till January 1589, when Mr.
Ashby was succeeded in his embassy by Robert Bowes, esq.
Mr. Naunton was in France in 15.96 and 1597, whence he
corresponded frequently with the earl of Essex, who does
not appear to have had interest enough to advance him to
any civil post; for which reason it is probable that, after
his lordship’s disgrace, Mr. Naunton returned to college,
and, in 1601, was elected public orator of the university.
Lloyd observes, that his speeches, “both while proctor
and orator of Cambridge, discovered him more inclined to
public accomplishments than private studies.
” A speech
which he had to deliver before James I. at Hinchinbroke,
is said to have pleased the king very much, and paved the
way to his obtaining employment at court. Accordingly
he was first made master of the requests, then surveyor of
the court of wards, by the interest of sir Thomas Overbury
and sir George Villiers, and, in January 1618, was advanced to be secretary of state. He was lastly promoted to
be master of the court of wards, which office he resigned
in March 1635, and died in the same month. He was buried in the church of Letheringham in Suffolk.
ucated at Cambridge, his name occurs as having received the degree of M. A. there, along with Robert earl of Essex, July 6, 1581. He was one of the learned men whom archbishop
, an English poetical writer, was a native of Kent, descended from the
ancient and honourable family of Nevil, was the son of
Richard Nevil of the county of Nottingham, esq. by Anne
Mantel, daughter of sir Walter Mantel, of Heyford in
Northamptonshire, knight. He was born in 1544. If not
educated at Cambridge, his name occurs as having received
the degree of M. A. there, along with Robert earl of Essex,
July 6, 1581. He was one of the learned men whom archbishop Parker retained in his family, and was his secretary
at his grace’s death in 1575. It is no small testimony of
his merit and virtues that he was retained in the same of-,
fice by the succeeding archbishop, Grindal, to whom, as
well as to archbishop Parker, he dedicated his Latin narrative of the Norfolk insurrection under Kett. To this
he added a Latin account of Norwich, accompanied by an
engraved map of the Saxon and British kings. These
were both written in archbishop Parker’s time, who assisted
Nevile in the latter. The title is, “Kettus, sive de furoribus Norfolciensium Ketto duce,
” Lond. Norvicus,
” published with the preceding, is
the first printed account of Norwich; the plates are by
R. Lyne and Rem. Hogenbergius, both attached to the
household of the learned and munificent Parker. There
are copies of almost all the preceding editions in Mr.
Cough’s library at Oxford. Strype has published, in the
appendix to his Life of Parker, an elegant Latin letter from
Nevile to Parker, which is prefixed to the “Kettus.
”
The first Latin edition, printed in Sed enim Kettiani
rati,
” &c, to “Nam prosterquam quod,
” &c. p.
iderable time, and was re-admitted to Trinity-college, and took ordei-s. He was patronised by Robert earl of Essex, and, probably through his influence, was elected master
and commemorates him also in his “Encomia
” in equally
high terms. From this school Newton was first sent in his
thirteenth year to Trinity-college, Oxford, but removed
soon after to Queen’s college, Cambridge. In his return
to his native country, he stopt at Oxford for a considerable time, and was re-admitted to Trinity-college, and took
ordei-s. He was patronised by Robert earl of Essex, and,
probably through his influence, was elected master of the
grammar-school at Macclesfield. He likewise practised
physic, and published some treatises on that subject. In
1583 he left Macclesfield, on being instituted to the rectory
of Little Jlford in Essex, where he taught school, continued the practice of physic, and acquired considerable
property. Here he died in 1607, and was buried in his
church, to which he left a legacy for ornaments. At
Cambridge he became eminent for Latin poetry, and was
regarded by scholars as one of the best poets in that language, certainly one of the purest of that period.
.” 2. “A Miscellany of sundry Essays, &c. together with political deductions from the History of the Earl of Essex,” c. Other pieces have been ascribed to him on doubtful
, an English writer of considerable abilities, was born about 1589. He was descended
from an ancient family, who had been long seated at Chicksand, near Shefford, in Bedfordshire, where his grandfather, and father, sir John Osborne, were men of fortune,
and, according to Wood, puritans, who gave him what
education he had at home, but never sent him to either
school or university. This he appears to have afterwards
much regretted, on comparing the advantages of public
and private education. As soon, however, as he was of
age, he commenced the life of a courtier, and being taken
into the service of the Pembroke family, became master of
the horse to William earl of Pembroke. Upon the breaking
out of the civil wars, he sided with the parliament, but not
in all their measures, nor all their principles; yet they
conferred some public employments upon him; and, having
married a sister of one of Oliver’s colonels, he was enabled
to procure his son John a fellowship in All-souls’ college,
Oxford, by the favour of the parliamentary visitors of that
university, in 1648. After this he resided there himself,
purposely to superintend his education; and also to print
some books of his own composition. Accordingly, among
others, he published there his “Advice to a Son,
” the first
part in godly ministers,
” as Wood calls them,
they drew up a complaint against the said books, as instilling atheistical principles into the minds of the youth,
and proposed to have them publicly burnt. Although this
sentence was not carried into execution, there appeared so
many objections to the volumes, that an order passed the
27th of July, 1658, forbidding all booksellers, or any other
persons, to sell them. But our author did not long survive this order, dykig Feb. 11, 1659, aged about seventy.
For the accusation of atheism there seems little foundation;
but many of his sentiments are otherwise objectionable,
and the quaintness of his style, and pedantry of his expression, have long ago consigned the work to oblivion. His
other publications were, 1. “A seasonable Expostulation,
with the Netherlands,
” &c. Persuasive
to mutual compliance under the present government.
”
3. “Plea for a free State compared with Monarchy.
” 4.
“The private Christian’s non ultra,
” &c. 1G56, 4to. 5.
A volume in 8vo, containing, “The Turkish policy, &c.
a Discourse upon Machiavel, &c. Observations upon the
King of Sweden’s descent into Germany a Discourse upon
Piso and Vindex, &c. a Discourse upon the greatness
and corruption of the Court of Rome another upon the
Election of Pope JLeo X. Political occasion for the defection from the Church of Rome a Discourse in vindication
of Martin Luther.
” Besides these were published, 1.
“Historical Memoirs on the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth
and King James.
” 2. “A Miscellany of sundry Essays,
&c. together with political deductions from the History
of the Earl of Essex,
” c. Other pieces have been ascribed to him on doubtful authority. A collection of his
works was published in 1689, 8vo and again, 1722, in 2
vols. 12mo.
he house of Norfolk, he sought the farther pleasure of uniting those families by the marriage of the earl of Essex with lady Frances Howard, daughter of the earl of Suffolk.
His connection with Carr, now viscount Rochester, continued to be mutually agreeable until the latter engaged in an amour with the countess of Essex, the particulars of which reflect disgrace, not only on the parties immediately concerned, but on the reign in which such shameful transactions could be carried on with impunity. No sooner, says Hume, had James mounted the throne of England, than he remembered his friendship for the unfortunate families of Howard and Devereux, who had suffered for their attachment to the cause of Mary and to his own. Having restored young Essex to his blood and dignity, and conferred the.titles of Suffolk and Northampton on two brothers Of the house of Norfolk, he sought the farther pleasure of uniting those families by the marriage of the earl of Essex with lady Frances Howard, daughter of the earl of Suffolk. She was only thirteen, he fourteen years of age; and it was thought proper, till both should attain the age of puberty, that be should go abroad and pass some time in his travels. He returned into England after four years absence, and was pleased to find his countess in the full lustre of beauty, and possessed of the love and admiration of the whole court. But when he claimed the privileges of an husband, he met with nothing but symptoms of aversion and disgust; nor could his addresses, or the persuasions of her friends, overcome her obstinacy; and disgusted at last with her reiterated denials, he gave over the pursuit, and separating himself from her, thenceforth abandoned her to her own will, antS it is said that although he discovered her attachment to Rochester, he took little notice of it.
rd mentions his engraving of a good print, after Holbein, of sir Thomas Cromwell, knight, afterwards earl of Essex. From his “Gentleman’s Exercise” we learn that he either
He informs us also of his skill in painting; that he could
take likenesses, and on one occasion took his majesty’s
(James I.) as he sat at dinner. He also made, perhaps engraved, a map of Cambridge. Lord Orford mentions his
engraving of a good print, after Holbein, of sir Thomas
Cromwell, knight, afterwards earl of Essex. From his
“Gentleman’s Exercise
” we learn that he either kept
school, or had private pupils. Lord Orford says that he
was tutor to the children of the earl of Arunde), whom he
accompanied to the Low Countries. In the same work,
Peacham says he translated king James’s “Basilicon
Doron
” into Latin verse, and presented it to prince Henry,
to whom he also dedicated his “Minerva Britannica
” in
Prince Henry revived; or a poem upon the birth of prince H. Frederick,
heir apparent to Frederick Count Palatine of the Rhine.
”
The only other particulars we derive from his own hints
are, that he lived for some time in St. Martin’s in the
Fields, and was addicted to melancholy. It is said that he
was reduced to poverty in his old age, and wrote penny
pamphlets for bread. This last is asserted in a ms note
by John Gibbon, Bluemantle, on a copy of one of Peacham’s tracts sold at Mr. West’s sale. It is entitled ' A
Dialogue between the cross in Cheap and Charing crosse.
Comforting each other, as fearing their fall, in these uncertain times. By Ryhen Pameach" (Henry Peacham).
The chief merit of this, Mr. Gough says, is that its wooden
frontispiece exhibits the ruined shaft of Charing Cross,
and the entire cross of Cheap. It has no date. Cheapside cross, we know, was taken down in 1640.
and at the same time he was knighted. In 1601 he was one of the lawyers detained by the unfortunate earl of Essex, when he formed the absurd project of defending himself
, an English lawyer of eminence,
was the eldest son of Edward Popham, esq. of Huntworth
in Somersetshire, and born in 1531. He was some time a
student at Baliol college in Oxford, being then, as Wood
says, given at leisure hours to manly sports and exercises.
When he removed to the Middle Temple, he is said at first
to have led a dissipated life, but applying diligently afterwards to the study of the law, he rose to some of its highest
honours. He was made serjeant at law about 1570, solicitor-general in 1579, and attorney-general in 1581, when
he also bore the office of treasurer of the Middle Temple.
In 1592, he was promoted to the rank of chief justice of
the court of king’s-bench; not of the common pleas, as,
from some expressions of his own, has been erroneously
supposed, and at the same time he was knighted. In 1601
he was one of the lawyers detained by the unfortunate earl
of Essex, when he formed the absurd project of defending
himself in his house; and on the earl’s trial gave evidence
against him relative to their detention. He died in 1607,
at the age of seventy-six, and was buried at Wellington in
his native country, where he had always resided as much
as his avocations would permit. He was esteemed a severe
judge in the case of robbers; but his severity was welltimed, as it reduced the number of highwaymen, who before had greatly infested the country. If Aubrey may be
credited, his general character was liable to many serious
exceptions. His works are, 1. “Reports and Cases, adjudged in the time of queen Elizabeth,
” London, Resolutions and Judgements upon Cases and Matters
agitated in all the Courts at Westminster in the latter end
of queen Elizabeth,
” London, 4to. Both lord Holt and
chief justice Hyde considered the Reports as of no authority.
ccused of high treason by the king, he opposed all overtures of peace and accommodation and when the earl of Essex was disposed, in the summer of 1643, to a treaty, his
Lord Clarendon observes, that “his parts were rather
acquired by industry, than supplied by nature, or adorned
by art; but that, besides his exact knowledge of the forms
and orders of the House of Commons, he had a very comely
and grave way of expressing himself, with great volubility
of words natural and proper. He understood likewise the
temper and affections of the kingdom as well as any man,
and had observed the errors and mistakes in government,
and knew well how to make them appear greater than they
were. At the first opening of the Long Parliament, though
he was much governed in private designing by Mr. Hampden
and Mr. Oliver St. John, yet he seemed of all men to have
the greatest influence upon the House of Commons and
was at that time, and for some months’ after, the most
popular man in that or any other age. Upon the first design of softening and obliging the most powerful persons
in both Houses, when he received the king’s promise for
the chancellorship of the exchequer, he made in return a
suitable profession of his service to*1iis majesty; and thereupon, the other being no secret, declined from that sharpness in the House, which was more popular than any man’s,
and made some overtures to provide for the glory and
splendour of the crown; in which he had so ill success,
that his interest and reputation there visibly abated, and
he found, that he was much more able to do hurt than
good; which wrought very much upon him to melancholy,
and complaint of the violence nd discomposure of the
people’s affections and inclinations. In the prosecution
of the earl of Strafford, his carriage and language was such,
as expressed much personal animosity; and he was accused of having practised some arts in it unworthy of a
good man; which, if true, might make many other things,
that were confidently reported afterwards of him, to be
believed; as that he received a great sum of money from
the French ambassador, to hinder the transportation of
those regiments of Ireland into Flanders, upon the disbanding that army there, which had been prepared by the
earl of Strafford for the business of Scotland in which, if
his majesty’s directions and commands had not been diverted and contradicted by both Houses, many believed,
that the rebellion in Ireland had not happened. From the
time of his being accused of high treason by the king, he
opposed all overtures of peace and accommodation and
when the earl of Essex was disposed, in the summer of
1643, to a treaty, his power and dexterity wholly changed
the earl’s inclination in that point. He was also wonderfully solicitous for the Scots coming-in to the assistance
of the parliament. In short, his power pf doing shrewd
turns was extraordinary, and no less in doing good offices
for particular persons, whom he preserved from censure,
when they were under the severe displeasure of the Houses
of parliament, and looked upon as eminent delinquents;
and the quality of many of them made it believed, that he
sold that protection for valuable considerations.
”
is influence with her majesty, eind ta have set up, in opposition to him, Robert Devereux, the young earl of Essex. To this he appears to have paid little attention,
Sir Walter was now become such a favourite with the queen, that they who had at first been his friends at court began to be alarmed, and to intrigue against him, particularly the earl of Leicester, his former patron, who is said to have grawn jealous of his influence with her majesty, eind ta have set up, in opposition to him, Robert Devereux, the young earl of Essex. To this he appears to have paid little attention, but constantly attended his public charge and employments, whether in town or country, as occasion required. He was, in 1586, a member of that parliament which decided the fate of Mary queen of Scots, in which he probably concurred. But still speculating on the consequences of the discovery of Virginia, he sent three ships upon a fourth voyage thither, in 1587. In 1588 he sent another fleet, upon a fifth voyage, to Virginia and the same year took a brave part in the destruction of the Spanish armada, sent to invade England. About this time he made an assignment to divers gentlemen and merchants of London, of all his rights in the colony of Virginia. This assignment is dated March 7, 1588-9.
to be found in Hakluyt. The same year, sir Walter had a chief command in the Cadiz action, under the earl of Essex, in which he took a very able and gallant part. In
About the same time, 1593, Ralegh had an illicit amour
with a beautiful young lady, Elizabeth, daughter of sir
Nicolas Throgmorton, an able statesman and ambassador
which so offended the queen, that they were both confined
for several months and, when set at liberty, forbidden the
court. Sir Walter afterwards made the most honourable
reparation he could, by marrying the object of his affection; and he always lived with her in the strictest conjugal
harmony. The next year he was so entirely restored to the
queen’s favour, that he obtained a grant from her majesty
of the manor of Sherborne, in Dorsetshire, which had been
alienated from the see of Salisbury by bishop Caldwell,
and was doubtless one of those church- lands, for accepting
which he was censured, as mentioned above. During his
disgrace he projected the discovery and conquest of the
large, rich, and beautiful empire of Guiana, in South
America; and, sending first an old experienced officer to
collect information concerning it, he went thither himself
jn 1595, destroyed the city of San Joseph, and took the
Spanish governor. Upon his return, he mote a discourse
t)f his discoveries in Guiana, which was printed in 1596,
4to, and afterwards inserted in the third volume of Hakluyt’s voyages, in Birch’s works of Ralegh, and in Mr.
Cayley’s late “Life of Ralegh.
” His second attempt on
Guiana was conducted by Lawrence Keymis, who sailed in
Jan. 1596, and returned in June following. An account
of this also is to be found in Hakluyt. The same year,
sir Walter had a chief command in the Cadiz action, under
the earl of Essex, in which he took a very able and gallant
part. In the “Island Voyage,
” in Ralegh, in this dreadful letter, is pressing forward for a
rival that snare by which he afterwards perished himself.
He urges Cecil to get rid of Essex! By that riddance he
himself became no longer necessary to Cecil, as a counterppise to Essex’s power.
” “Then, I have no doubt it was,
”
adds sir Egerton, “that Cecil, become an adept in the
abominable lesson of this letter, and conscious of his minor
talents, but more persevering cunning, resolved to disencumber himself of the ascendant abilities, and aspiring and
dangerous ambition of Ralegh.
” But whatever share \ftalegh had in defeating the designs of Essex, his sun set
at queen Elizabeth’s death, which happened March 24,
1602-3.
een assigned for this strange reverse of fortune. In the first place, it has been observed, that the earl of Essex, in his life-time, had prejudiced king James against
Upon the accession of king James, he lost his interest at
court; was stripped of his preferments, and even accused,
tried, and condemned for high treason. Various causes have
been assigned for this strange reverse of fortune. In the
first place, it has been observed, that the earl of Essex, in
his life-time, had prejudiced king James against him and,
after the earl’s death, there were circumstances implying,
that secretary Cecil had likewise been his secret enemy.
For, though Cecil and Ralegh joined against Essex, yet,
when he was overthrown, they divided; and when king
James came to England, sir Walter presented to him a
memorial, in which he reflected upon Cecil in the affair of
Essex ', and, vindicating himself, threw the whole blame
upon the other. He farther laid open, at the end of it,
the conduct of Cecil concerning Mary queen of Scots, his
majesty’s mother and charged the death of that unfortunate
princess on him which, however, only irritated Cecil the
more againstRalegh, without producingany efFecton the king.
But, what seems alone sufficient to have incensed the king
against Ralegh was, his joining with that party of Englishman, who, jealous of the concourse of Scotchmen who came
to court, wished to restrict his majesty in the employment
of these his countrymen. We are toid, however, that the
king received him for some time with great kindness; but
this time must have been short, for on July 6, 1603, he was
examined before the lords of the council at Westminster,
and returned thence a private prisoner to his own house.
He was indicted at Staines, September 21, and not long
after committed to the Tower of London; whence he was
carried to Winchester, tried there November 17, and condemned to die. That there was something of a treasonable
conspiracy, called “Ralegh’s plot,
” against the king was
generally believed yet it never was proved that he was
engaged in it and perhaps the best means to prove his
innocence may be found in the very trial upon which he
was condemned; in which the barbarous partiality and foul
language of the attorney-general Coke broke out so glaringly, that he was exposed for it, even upon the public
theatre. After this, Ralegh was kept near a month at Winchester, in daily expectation of death; and that he expected nothing less, is plain from an excellent letter he
wrote to his wife, which is printed among his Works.
nduct. He had by this time produced on the stage, “The Fashionable Lady,” an opera, “The Fall of the Earl of Essex,” a tragedy and afterwards, “The Lawyer’s Feast,” a
Such is Warburton’s account, heightened a little, unqaestionnbly, by his regard for Pope, but, except where
he calls him illiterate, not much beyond the truth for
Ralph’s pen was completely venal, and both his principles
and his distresses prevented any consideration on the moral
part of his conduct. He had by this time produced on the
stage, “The Fashionable Lady,
” an opera, “The Fall of
the Earl of Essex,
” a tragedy and afterwards, “The
Lawyer’s Feast,
” a farce, and “The Astrologer,
” a comedy,
none of which had much success. He was a writer, iff
1739, in the “Universal Spectator,
” a periodical paper;
but from his letters to Dr. Birch* in the British Museum,
it appears that he was no great gainer hy any of his performances. There is an excellent pamphlet, however*
attributed tp him, which was published about 1731, a
“Review of the Public Buildings of London
” but from
the style and subject, we should suppose his name borrowed. In 1735 he commenced a managing partner with
Fielding- in the Haymarket theatre but, as Davies says,
“he had no other share in the management than viewing
and repining at his partner’s success.
”
her he had any additional preferment, except that of chaplain to his patron lord Capel whenhe became earl of Essex; and when thrit nobleman was lord-lieutenant, of Ireland
, a puritan divine, the son of
Henry Roberts of Aslake, in Yorkshire, was born there or
in that county in 1609, and entered a student of Trinity
college, Oxford, in 1625. In 1632 he completed his degrees in arts, and was ordained. Where he first officiated
does not appear but on the breaking out of the rebellion
he went to London, took the covenant, and wns appointed
minister of St. Augustine’s, Watlirtg-street, in room of
Ephraim Udal, ejected for his loyalty. In 1649 he was
presented to the rectory of WriiHTton in Somersetshire by
his patron Arthur lord Capel, son of the beheaded lord
Capel. While on this living he was appointed one of the
commissioners for the “ejectment of those
” who were
called “ignorant and insufficient ministers and schoolmasters.
” At the restoration, however^ he conformed,
tired out, as many other’s were, by the distractions of the
contending parties, and disappointed in every hope which
the encouragers of rebellion had held forth. It does not
appear whether he had any additional preferment, except
that of chaplain to his patron lord Capel whenhe became
earl of Essex; and when thrit nobleman was lord-lieutenant,
of Ireland in 1672, it is suppose. i he procured him the degree of D. D. from the university of Dublin. He died at
Wriugton about the end of 1675, and most probably wasi
interred in that church. He published some single sermons: “The Believer’s evidence for Eternal Life,
” &c,
Communicant instructed,
”
Chivis Bibliorum, the Key of the Bible,
” in
eluding the order, names, times, penmen, occasion, scope,
and principal matter of the Old and New Testament. This
was first printed at London and Edinburgh, 1649, in 2 vols,
8vo, and afterwards in 4to; and the fourth edition, 1675,
in folio. Wood mentions another work, “Mysterium &
Medulla Bibliorum, or the Mystery and Marrow of the
Bible,
” The True way to the Tree of Life,
”
tood their ground in good order. In 1643, he, and the earls of Holland and Clare, conferred with the earl of Essex, who became dissatisfied with the war; and they had
, was eldest son of Francis fourth earl of Bedford, by Catharine, sole daughter and heir of Giles Bridges,
lord Chandois, and was born in 1614. He was educated
in Magdalen college, Oxford, and was made knight of the
bath at the coronation of king Charles I. He was a member of the Long-parliament, which met at Westminster,
November 3, 1640; and May 9 following, upon the death
of his father, succeeded him in his honours and estate. In
July 1642, having avowed his sentiments against the measures pursued by the court, he was appointed by the parliament general of the horse, in the army raised in their
defence against the king; and the marquis of Hertford
being sent by his majesty into the West to levy forces, iti
order to relieve Portsmouth, the earl of Bedford inid the
command of seven thousand foot, and eight full troops of
horse, to prevent his success in those parts; and marched
with such expedition, that he forced the marquis out of
Somersetshire, where his power and interest were believed
unquestionable, and thus destroyed all hopes of forming an
army for the king in the West. He afterwards joined the
eari of Essex, and in the battle of Edgehill commanded
the reserve of horse, which saved the whole army, when
the horse of both wings had been defeated, and, after doing
great execution on the king’s infantry, brought off their
own foot; so that it became doubtful who had the victory,
this reserve being the only body of forces that stood their
ground in good order. In 1643, he, and the earls of Holland and Clare, conferred with the earl of Essex, who became dissatisfied with the war; and they had so much influence in the House of Lords, that, on the 5th of August
the same year, that House desired a conference with the
Commons, and declared to them their resolution of senclHig propositions for peace to the king, and hoped they
would join with him. But by the artin'ce of Pennington,
lord mayor of London, who procured a petition from the
common-council of that city against the peace, such tumults were raised to terrify these lords, that they left the
town, the Commons refusing to agree to their propositions.
The earls of Bedford and Holland resolved therefore to go
to Oxford; but their purpose being discovered or suspected, they with some difficulty got into the king’s garrison at
Wallingford, from whence the governor sent an account of
their arrival to the council at Oxford. The king was then
at the siege of Gloucester, and the council divided in their
opinions, in what manner to receive them; but his majesty upon his return determined on a middle way, by allowing them to come to Oxford, and every person to treat
them there as they thought fit, while himself would regard
them according to their future behaviour. Accordingly the
two earls came, and, together with the earl of Clare, entered into the king’s service in Gloucestershire, waited
upon his majesty throughout his march, charged in the
royal regiment of horse at the battle of Newbury with great
bravery, and in all respects behaved themselves well. Upon
the king’s return to Oxford, he spoke to them on all occasions very graciously; but they were not treated in the
same manner by others of the court, so that the earl of
Holland going away first, the earls of Bedford and Clare
followed, and came to the earl of Essex at St. Alban’s on
Christmas-day, 1643. Soon after this, by order of parliament, the earl of Bedford was taken into custody by the
black rod, and his estate sequestered, as was likewise the
earl of Clare’s, tili the parliament, pleased with their successes against % the king in 1644, ordered their sequestrations to be taken off, and on the 17th of April the year following, the earl of Bedford, with the earls of Leicester and
Ciare, and the lords Paget, Rich, and Convvay, who had
left Oxford, and joined the parliament at London, took
the covenant before the commissioners of the great-seal.
He did not, however, interpose in any public affairs, till
the House of Peers met in 1660, when the earl of Manchester, their speaker, was ordered by them to write to
him to take his place among them; which he accordingly
did, being assured of their design to restore the king and
on the 27th of April that year, he was appointed one of the
managers of the conference with the House of Commons,
“to consider of some ways and means to make up the
breaches and distractions of the kingdom
” and on the 5th
of May was one of the committee of peers “for viewing
and considering, what ordinances had been made since the
House of Lords were voted useless, which now passed as
acts of parliament, and to draw up and prepare an act of
parliament to be presented to the House to repeal what
they should think fit.
”
ear Great Hadham, in Essex. Ralph in early life gained a situation in the family of Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex, and by him was introduced to the notice of Henry VIII.
, an eminent English statesman, was born in 1507, at Hackney, in Middlesex. He was the son of Henry Sadler, who, though a gentleman by birth, and possessed of a fair inheritance, seems to have been steward or surveyor to the proprietor of the manor of Gillney, near Great Hadham, in Essex. Ralph in early life gained a situation in the family of Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex, and by him was introduced to the notice of Henry VIII. who took him into his service, but at what time is not very clear. He was employed in the great work of dissolving the religious houses, and had his full share of the spoil. In 1537, he commenced a long course of diplomatic services, byan embassy to Scotland, whose monarch was then absent in France. The objects of his mission were to greet the queen dowager, to strengthen the English interests in the councils of regency which then governed Scotland, and to discover the probable consequences of the intimate union of Scotland with France. Having collected such information as he could procure on these topics, he returned in the beginning of the following year, but went again to Scotland soon after, ostensibly to maintain a good correspondence between the two crowns, but really, as appears from his state-papers, to detach the king of Scotland from the councils of cardinal Beaton, who was at the head of the party most in the interest of France. He was instructed also to direct the king’s attention to the overgrown possessions of the church as a source of revenue, and to persuade him to imitate his uncle Henry VHIth’s conduct to the see of Rome, and to make common cause with England against France. In all this, however, he appears to have failed, or at least to have left Scotland without having materially succeeded in any part of his. mission.
ester. He married Margaret Mitchell, a laundress in the family of his first patron, Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex, in the life-time, though in the absence, of her husband,
When the war with Scotland was renewed, sir Ralph so distinguished himself at the battle of Pinkie, that he was on the field raised to the degree of knight banneret; but we hear nothing more of him during the reign of Edward VI. except that in a grant, dated the 4th of that king’s reign, he is termed master of the great wardrobe. In Mary’s reigo, although he appears to have been in her favour, he retired to his estate at Hackney, and resigned the office of knight of the hamper,;-.nich had been conferred on him by Henry VIII. On the accession of Elizab^th, he again appeared at court, was called to the privy council, and retained to his death a great portion of the esteem of that princess. He was a member of her first parliament, as one of the knights of the shire for the county of Hertford, and continued to be a representative of the people during the greater part, if not the whole, of her reign. When queen Elizabeth thought proper to favour the cause of the reformation in Scotland, and to support the nobility who were for it against Mary, sir Ralph Sadler was her principal agent, and so negotiated as to prepare the way for Elizabeth’s great influence in the affairs of Scotland. He was also concerned in the subsequent measures which led to the death of queen Mary, and was appointed her keeper in the castle of Tutbury; but such was Elizabeth’s jealousy of this unfortunate princess, that even Sadler’s watchfulness became liable to her suspicions, and on one occasion, a very heavy complaint was made against him, that he had permitted Mary to accompany him to some distance from the castle of Tutbury, to enjoy the sport of hawking. Sir Ralph had been hitherto so subservient to his royal mistress, in all her measures, and perhaps in some which he could not altogether approve, that this complaint gave him great uneasiness, and he answered it rather by an expostulation than an apology. He admitted that he had sent for his hawks and falconers to divert " the miserable life'- which he passed at Tutbury, and that he had been unable to resist the solicitation of the prisoner, to permit her to see a sport in which she greatly delighted. But he adds; that this was under the strictest precautions for security of her person; and he declares to the secretary Cecil, that rather than continue a charge which subjected him to such misconstruction, were it not more for fear of offending the queen than dread of the punishment, he would abandon his present charge on coitdition of surrendering himself prisoner to the Tower for all the days of his life, and concludes that he is so weary of this life, that death itself would make him more happy. Elizabeth so far complied with his intimation as to commit Mary to a new keeper, but she did not withdraw her confidence from sir Ralph in other matters, and after the execution of Mary, employed him to go to the court of James VI. to dissuade him from entertaining thoughts of a war with England on his mother’s account, to which there was reason to think he might have been excited. In this sir Ralph had little difficulty in succeeding, partly from James’s love of ease, and partly from the prospect he had of succeeding peaceably to the throne of England. This was the last time sir Ralph Sadler was employed in the public service, for soon after his return from Scotland, he died at his lordship of Standon, March 30, 1587, in the eightieth year of his age, and was buried in the church of Standon, where his monument was decorated with the king of Scotland’s standard, which he took in the battle of Musselburgh. He left behind him twenty-two manors, several parsonages, and other great portions of land, in the several counties of Hertford, Gloucester, Warwick, Buckingham, and Worcester. He married Margaret Mitchell, a laundress in the family of his first patron, Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex, in the life-time, though in the absence, of her husband, Matthew Barre, a tradesman in London, presumed to be dead at that time, and he afterwards procured an act of parliament, 37 Henry VIII. for the legitimation of the children by her, who were three sons, and four daughters; Anne, married to sir George Horsey of Digswell, knight; Mary, to Thomas Bollys aliter Bowles Wallington, esq. Jane, toEdward Baesh, of Stanstead, esq. (which three gentlemen appear to have been sheriffs of the county of Hertford, 14, 18, and 13 Eliz.); and Dorothy, to Edward EIryngton of Berstall, in the county of Bucks, esq. The sons were, Thomas, Edward, and Henry. Thomas succeeded to Standon, was sheriff of the county 29 and 37 Eliz. was knighted, and entertained king James there two nights on his way to Scotland. He had issue, Ralph and Gertrude married to Walter the first lord Aston of the kingdom of Scotland; Ralph, his son, dying without issue, was succeeded in his lordship of Standon and other estates in the county of Hertford, by Walter, the second lord Aston, eldest surviving son of his sister Gertrude lady Aston. The burying-place of the family is in tire chancel of the church at Standon. Against the south wall is a monument for sir Ralph Sadler, with the effigies of himself in armour, and of his three sons and four daughters,' and three inscriptions, in Latin verse, in English verse, and in English prose against the north wall i& another for sir Thomas, with the effigies of himself in armour, his lady, son and daughter, and an epitaph in Ertglish prose. There are also several inscriptions for various persons of the Aston family.
urers who went against the Spaniards in their settlements in the West Indies; and on his return, the earl of Essex, with whom he was a great favourite, employed him in
, a celebrated traveller, second
son of Thomas Shirley of Weston, in Sussex, was born in
1565. He studied at Hart-hall, Oxford, where he took his
bachelor’s decree in 1581, and in the same year was elected
probationer fellow of All Souls College. Leaving the university, he spent some time in one of tru 1 inns of court, after
which he travelled on the continent, and joined the English
troops, which, at that time, were serving in Holland. In
1596 he was one of the adventurers who went against the
Spaniards in their settlements in the West Indies; and on
his return, the earl of Essex, with whom he was a great favourite, employed him in the wars in Ireland, for his services in which he was knighted. After this he was sent by
the queen into Italy, in order to assist the people of Ferrara in their contest with the pope: but finding that before
he arrived, peace had been, signed, he proceeded to Venice,
and travelled from thence to Persia, where he became a
favourite with Shah Abbas, who sent him as his ambassador
to England in 1612. By the 'emperor of Germany he was
raised to the dignity of count, and by the king of Spain he
was appointed admiral of the Levant seas. Such honours
excited the jealousy of James I. who ordered him to return,
but this he thought proper to disobey, and is supposed to
have died in Spain about the year 1630. There is an account of his West Indian expedition in the third volume of
Hakluyt’s collection, under the following title: “A true
Relation of the Voyage undertaken by Sir Anthony Shirley,
Knight, in 1596, intended for the island San Tome, but
performed to St. Jago, Dominica, Margarita, along the
Coast of Tien a Firma to the Isle of Jamaica, the Bay of
Honduras, thirty leagues up Rio Dolce, and homewards by
Newfoundland, with the memorable Exploits achieved in
all this Voyage.
” His travels into Persia are printed separately, and were published in London in 1613, 4to; and
his travels over the Caspian sea, and through Russia, were
inserted in Purchas’s Pilgrimages.
f elegiac poems, in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Italian. His widow afterwards married Robert Devereux, earl of Essex; and after his death, she married Richard de Burgh,
The concluding period of life not seldom presents us
with the most prominent features of genuine goodness;
and it may be truly said that history does not afford an incident more noble or affecting than the following. As sir
Philip was returning from the field of battle, pale, languid,
and thirsty with excess of bleeding, he asked for water
to quench his thirst. The water was brought, and had
no sooner approached his lips, than he instantly resigned
it to a dying soldier, whose ghastly countenance attracted
his notice, speaking these memorable words: “This
man’s necessity is still greater than mine.
” He languished
until Oct. 17, when he expired in the arms of his secretary and friend Mr. William Temple. He had just arrived
at the age of thirty-two years, and had attained in that
short period, more fame, more esteem, more admiration,
both at home and throughout Europe, than any man of the
sixteenth century, and for many years after employed
more pens to celebrate his excellent qualities of head and
heart. In England a general mourning was observed
among those of highest rank, “no gentleman, for many
months, appearing in a gay or gaudy dress, either in the
city or the court.
” His body being brought to England,
was interred, with great pomp, in St. Paul’s cathedral.
No memorial, however, was erected to him, except a
tablet with some very indifferent lines, but his fame did
not require aid from brass or marble. For the many testimonies to his uncommon worth and excellence, both by
his contemporaries and their successors, we must refer to
Dr. Zouch’s elaborate “Memoirs of the Life and Writings
of sir Philip Sidney.
” There also the petty objections of
lord Orford to this illustrious character are fully answered.
Both the universities of England lamented the death of sir
Philip Sidney in three volumes of elegiac poems, in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Italian. His widow afterwards
married Robert Devereux, earl of Essex; and after his
death, she married Richard de Burgh, the fourth earl of
Clanrickard in the kingdom of Ireland. She became a
convert to popery after the death of her second husband,
the earl of Essex. There seems little that is very estimable
in the marriages and conversion of this lady, and certainly
nothing respectful to the memory of her first husband.
were interred in Westminster Abbey, near those of Chaucer, and the funeral expenses defrayed by the earl of Essex, a nobleman very erroneous in political life, but too
Spenser’s remains were interred in Westminster Abbey, near those of Chaucer, and the funeral expenses defrayed by the earl of Essex, a nobleman very erroneous in political life, but too much a friend to literature to have allowed Spenser to starve, and afterwards insult his remains by a sumptuous funeral. His monument, however, which has been attributed to the munificence of Essex, was erected by Anne, countess of Dorset, about thirty years after Spenser’s death. Stone was the workman, and had forty pounds for it. That at present in Westminster Abbey was erected or restored in 1778.
ompany of merchant adventurers at Stade, of which he was a member; on which occasion the unfortunate earl of Essex interested himself in his favour, and wrote two letters
He was, in 1597, a candidate for the office of secretary
to the company of merchant adventurers at Stade, of which
he was a member; on which occasion the unfortunate earl
of Essex interested himself in his favour, and wrote two
letters in his behalf, dated from the court on the last of
April; a private one to Mr. Ferrers, the deputy-governor,
recommending Mr. Sylvester as an able and honest man;
and a general one to the company, to the same purpose,
in which he mentions that he had received a very good
report of his sufficiency and fitness for the post of secretary,
being both well qualified with language, and many other
good parts, and honest and of good conversation; two
especial motives of his lordship’s request in his behalf.
Sylvester’s translation of Du Bartas is dedicated to king
James;^nd among those who pay him the highest compliments appears Ben Jonson, whom tradition makes an intimate friend, and, as some think, a relation. He translated
also the Quatrains of Pibrac, and many other pieces of
French poetry; with some from the Latin of Fracastorius,
&c. One of his own pieces has the ridiculously quaint
title of “Tobacco battered, and the pipes shattered, (about their ears that idlely idolize so base and barbarous a weed; or at least-wise over-love so loathsome a vanitie:) by a volley of holy shot thundered from mount Helicon.
” This may
be supposed to have been written to please the great enemy
of tobacco, James I. Not much can now be said in favour
of his compositions, either the translations, or those that
are original, although he gained greater reputation from
the former than the latter. Dryden tells us, in the Dedication to the Spanish Fryar, that tf when he was a boy, he
thought inimitable Spenser a mean poet, in comparison of
Sylvester’s Dubartas," and ^ was wrapt into an ecstacy
when he read these lines
her pressed or went voluntarily into the naval service, for he was at the taking of Cadiz un;ler the earl of Essex, in 1596, when only sixteen years old, and was afterward*
, usually called the Water- Poet, from
his being a waterman as well as a poet, and certainly more
of the former than the latter, was born in Gloucestershire
about 1580. Wood says he was born in the city of Gloucester, and went to school there, but he does not appear to
have learned more than his accidence, as appears by some
lines of his own. From this school he was brought to London, and bound apprentice to a waterman, whence he“was
either pressed or went voluntarily into the naval service,
for he was at the taking of Cadiz un;ler the earl of Essex,
in 1596, when only sixteen years old, and was afterward*
in Germany, Bohemia, Scotland, as may be collected from
various passages in his works. At home he was many years
collector, for the lieutenant of the Tower, of the wines
which were his fee from all ships which brought them up
the Thames; but was at last discharged because he would
not purchase the place at more than it was worth. He
calls himself the
” King’s Water Poet,“and the
” Queen’s
Waterman," and wore the badge of the royal arms. While
* waterman, he very naturally had a great hatred to coaches,
and besides writing a satire against them, he fancied that
the watermen were starving for want of employment, and
presented a petition to James I. which was referred to certain commissioners, of whom sir Francis Bacon was one, to
obtain a prohibition of all play-houses except those on the
Bank-side, that the greater part of the inhabitants of London, who were desirous of seeing plays, might be compelled to go by water. Taylor himself is said to have undertaken to support this singular petition, and was prepared to oppose before the commissioners the arguments of
the players, but the commission was dissolved before it
came to a hearing.
Philip Sidney, to William Davison, esq. one of queen Elizabeth’s secretaries, and to the celebrated earl of Essex, whom he served while he was lord-deputy of Ireland.
, a very eminent statesman and writer, was the son of sir William Temple, of Sheen, in Surrey, master of the rolls and privy-counsellor in Ireland, 1 in the reign of Charles II. by a sister of the learned Dr.' Henry Hammond. His grandfather, sir William Temple, the founder of the family, was the younger son of the Temples, of Temple-hall, in Leicestershire. He was fellow of King’s college, in Cambridge, afterwards master of the free-school at Lincoln, then secretary successively to sir Philip Sidney, to William Davison, esq. one of queen Elizabeth’s secretaries, and to the celebrated earl of Essex, whom he served while he was lord-deputy of Ireland. In 1609, upon the importunate solicitation of Dr. James Usher, he accepted the provostship of Trinity college, in Dublin; after which he was knighted, and made one of the masters in chancery of Ireland. He died about 1626, aged sevetity-two, after having given proof of his abilities and learning, by several publications in Latin.
espondence with the duke of Ormond, and afterwards zealously defended him against the attempt of the earl of Essex to displace him from the government of Ireland. In
This recommendation was effectual with both these statesmen, as well as with the king, although he was not immediately employed. Sir William Templew^s nev.er forgetful of this obligation he constantly kept np a Correspondence with the duke of Ormond, and afterwards zealously defended him against the attempt of the earl of Essex to displace him from the government of Ireland. In the mean time, during his interviews with lord Arling‘ton, who seems to have had his promotion at heart, he took occasion to hint to his lordship, that if his majesty thought him worthy of any employment abroad, he should be happy to accept it; but begged leave to object to the northern climates, to which he had a great aversion. Lord Arlington expressed his regret at this, because the place of envoy at Sweden was the only one then vacant. In 1665, however, about the commencement of the first Dutch, war, lord Arlington communicated to him that his majesty wanted to send a person abroad upon an affair of great importance, and advised him to accept the offer, whether in all respects agreeable or not, as it would prove an introduction to his majesty’s service, This business was a secret commission to the bishop of Munster, for the purpose of concluding a treaty between the king and him, by which the bishop should be obliged, upon receiving a certain sum of money, to join his majesty immediately in the war with Holland. Sir William made no scruple to accept this commission, which he executed with speed and success, and in the most private manner, without any train or official character. In July he began his journey to Qoesvelt, and not long after it was known publicly, that he had in a very few days concluded and signed the treaty there, in which his perfect knowledge in Latin, which he had retained, was of no little advantage to him, the bishop. conversing in no other language. After signing the treaty, he went to Brussels, saw the first payment made, and received the news that the bishop was in the fielfl, by which this negotiation began first to be discovered;, but no person suspected ’the part he had in it; and he continued privately at Brussels till it was whispered to the marquis Castel-Rodrigo the governor, that he came upon some particular errand (-which he was then at liberty to own). The governor immediately sent to desire his acquaintance, and that he might see him in private, to which he easily consented. Soon after a commission was sent him to be resident at Brussels, a situation which he had long contemplated with pleasure, and his commission was accompanied with a baronet’s patent. Sir William now sent for his family (April 1666); but, before their arrival, was again ordered to Munster, to prevent the bishop’s concluding peace with the Dutch, which he threatened to do, in consequence of some remissness in the payments from England, and actually signed it at Cleve the very night sir William Temple arrived at Munster. On. this he returned to Brussels; and before he had been there a year, peace with the Dutch was concluded at Breda. Two months after this event, his sister, who resided with him at Brussels, having an inclination to see Holland, he went thither with her incognito, and while at the Hague, became acquainted with the celebrated Pensionary De Witt.
In 1398, when the earl of Essex came over lord- lieutenant of Ireland, and chancellor
In 1398, when the earl of Essex came over lord- lieutenant of Ireland, and chancellor of the university of Dublin, there was a solemn philosophy-act for his entertainment; and Usher, being then bachelor of arts, was appointed respondent, in which he acquitted himself with great success. But, while he was busily employed in these studies and great designs to fit himself for the ministry, his father’s inclinations lay towards the common law. He had all along designed his son for this study, and was about to send him over to the English inns of courts, in order that he might there cultivate it the better, but he died in 1588, and thus left him at liberty to pursue his own inclinations, which invariably led him to divinity. The paternal inheritance that was now fallen into his hands did not give the least interruption to his purpose; for, finding it somewhat incumbered with law-suits and sisters portions, and fearing those might prove a hindrance to his studies, which were all his care, he gave it up to his brothers and sisters; only reserving so much of it as might support him in a studious life at college.
other fast, before the Commons, March 10, 1646; and before the House of Peers, at the funeral of the earl of Essex, Oct. 22, 1646. Thirtytwo of his “Sermons” were published
Mr. Vines was frequently called forth to preach on public solemnities; particularly before the House of Commons,
at a public fast, Nov. 30, 1642; on a thanksgiving, before
both Houses, July 13, 1644; at another fast, before the
Commons, March 10, 1646; and before the House of Peers,
at the funeral of the earl of Essex, Oct. 22, 1646. Thirtytwo of his “Sermons
” were published in
determined opponent of the court. While employed at the head of the parliamentary forces, under the earl of Essex, he was deputed to the command of the expedition against
Sir Wilfem Waller was elected a member of the long
parliament for Andover; and having suffered under the
severity of the star-chamber, on the occasion of a private
quarrel with one of his wife’s relations, as well as imbibed
in the course of his foreign service early and warm prejudices in favour of the presbyterian discipline, he became a
determined opponent of the court. While employed at
the head of the parliamentary forces, under the earl of
Essex, he was deputed to the command of the expedition
against Portsmouth, when colonel Goring, returning to his
duty, declared a resolution of holding that garrison for his
majesty. In this enterprise, sir William conducted himself
with such vigour and ability, that he reduced the garrison
in a shorter time and upon better terms than could have
been expected; and afterwards obtained the direction of
several other expeditions, in which he likewise proved remarkably successful. After many signal advantages, however, he sustained some defeats by the king’s, forces, particularly at Roumlway Down near the Devizes, and at
Cropready-bridge in Oxfordshire. On each or those occasions, the blame was thrown by him on the jealousy of
other officers; and neither the spirit nor the judgment of
his own operations were ever questioned. The independents, who weie becoming the strongest party, both in
the army and the parliament, had wished him to become
their general, on terms which, either from conscience or
military honour, he could not comply with. By the famous self-denying ordinance he was removed from his
command, but still maintained so great an influence and
reputation in the army, as rendered him not a little formidable to the rising party; and he was thenceforth considered as a leader of the presbyterians against the designs
of the independents. He was one of the eleven members
impeached of high treason by the army. This forced him to
withdraw for some time; but he afterwards resumed his
seat in parliament, until, in 1648, with fifty others, he
was expelled by the army, and all of them committed to
ifferent prisons, on suspicion of attachment to the royal
cause. He was afterwards committed to custody on suspicion of being engaged in sir George Booth’s insurrection,
m Aug. 1658, but in November was released upon bail.
In Feb. 1659 he was nominated one of the council of state,
and was elected one of the representatives of Middlesex, in
the parliament which began April 25, 1660. He died at
Osterley-park in Middlesex, Sept. 19, 1668, and was buried in the chapel in Tothill-street, Westminster. Mr.
Seward very erroneously says he was buried in the Abbey-chnrch at Bath. It is his first wife who was buried
there, but there is a monumental statue of sir William, as
well as of the lady, which perhaps occasioned the mistake.
There is a tradition that when James II, visited the Abbey,
he defaced the nose of sir William upon this monument,
which Mr. Warner in his “History of Bath
” allows to be
defaced, but Mr Seward asserts that “there appear at
present no traces of any disfigurement.
” Of a circumstance so easily ascertained, it is singular there should be
two opinions. Anthony Wood gives, as the literary performances of sir William Waller, some of his letters and
dispatches respecting his victories, but the on,ly article
which seems to belong to that class is his “Divine meditations upon several occasions; with a daily directory,
” Lond.
Vindication for taking up arms against the king,
” left behind
in manuscript, in which state it remained until 17y3,
when it was published under the title of “Vindication of
the Character and Conduct of sir William Waller, knight;
commander in chief of the parliament forces in the West:
explanatory of his conduct in taking up arms against king
Charles I. Written by himself And now first published
from the original manuscript. With an introduction by the
editor,
” 8vo. The ms. came from one of the noble families descended from him. It appears to be written with
great sincerity, as well as precision, and contains many interesting particulars, relative to the democratical parties
which struggled for superiority after the king had fallen
into their power. The style seems to bear a stronger resemblance to that of the age of James the First, or his immediate predecessor, than to the mode of composition
generally practised in England about the middle of the last
century. If any thing can confirm the declaration that sir
William was actuated solely by disinterested motives, it is
the veneration which he professes to entertain for the constitution of his country. He avows himself a sincere friend
to the British form of government, consisting of king, lords,
and commons; and it appears, that, from the beginning,
his imputed apostacy from the cause of public freedom, or
rather of democratical tyranny,- ought justly to he ascribed
to the cabals of the republican leaders, and not to any
actual change which had ever taken place in his own sentiments. The volume, indeed, is not only valuable as an
ingenuous and explicit vindication, but as a composition
abounding with shrewd observation’s, and rendered interesting by the singular manner, as well as the information
of the author, who seems to have been no less a man of
vivacity and good sense, than of virtue and learning.
singular lot of being wife to three of the most accomplished men of the age, sir Philip Sidney, the earl of Essex, and the earl of Clanricard. She died at Barn-Elms,
His only surviving daughter had the singular lot of being wife to three of the most accomplished men of the age, sir Philip Sidney, the earl of Essex, and the earl of Clanricard. She died at Barn-Elms, June 19, 1602, and was buried the next night privately, near her husband in St. Paul’s cathedral.
ch he inherited, together with a ring, famous in history, as the one given by queen Elizabeth to the earl of Essex, and which in the hour of impending danger he entrusted
, an eminent surgeon, was born in
the island of Antigua, in 1717, on the family estate, which
he inherited, together with a ring, famous in history, as
the one given by queen Elizabeth to the earl of Essex, and
which in the hour of impending danger he entrusted to the
countess of Nottingham, who never delivered it to the
queen, and this, according to the story, was the cause of
Essex’s losing his life. By some means this ring had regularly descended, together with the estate, in the Warner
family. Mr. Warner was sent to England at an early age,
and educated at Westminster school. At the age of seventeen he was apprenticed to the celebrated surgeon, Samuel
Sharpe, and after residing seven years with him, was admitted joint lecturer in anatomy at St. Thomas’s hospital
with Mr. Sharpe, after whose resignation Mr. Warner continued the lectures for several years. In 1746, during the
rebellion in Scotland, he volunteered his professional services, and joined the royal army under the duke of Cumberland, In the course of that campaign he was recalled
to London to fill the office of surgeon to Guy’s hospital, a
situation which he held, with increasing reputation, and
great professional success, for the long period of forty-four
years. During this time his private practice became extensive, and his fame was increased by his valuable treatises
on the cataract, the hydrocele, &c. and his still more va-r
luable volume of “Cases in Surgery,
”
e author’s death by John Allenson. 13.” A lecture on 1 Tim. ii. 4. read on Feb. 27, 1594, before the earl of Essex, and other honourable persons.“14.” Lectures concerning
His works, besides the translations already noticed,
were, 1. “Answer to Edmund Campian his ten Reasons.
”
2. “A defence of his answer against John Durye.
” 3. “A
refutation of Nicolas Sannders his Demonstration, whereby
he would prove that the Pope is not Antichrist.
” 4. “A
collection thereto added of ancient heresies raked up again
to make the popish apostacy.
” 5. “A thesis propounded
and defended at the commencement in 1582. that the Pope
is the Antichrist spoken of in Scripture.
” 6. “Answer to
William Rainolds against the Preface to that against Saunders in English.
” 7. “A disputation concerning the
Scripture against the Papists of these times, particularly
Bellarminc and Stapleton.
” 8. “A defence of the authority of the Scriptures, against Thomas Stapleton his defence
of the authority of the Church.
” 9. “Lectures on the
Controversies concerning the Bishop of Rome/' 10
” Lectures on the Controversie concerning the Church.“11.
” Lectures on the Controversie concerning Councils.“12.
” A treatise of Original Sin, against Slapleton’s three
former books of Justification.“The last four articles were
published after the author’s death by John Allenson. 13.
” A lecture on 1 Tim. ii. 4. read on Feb. 27, 1594, before
the earl of Essex, and other honourable persons.“14.
” Lectures concerning the Sacraments in general, and the
Eucharist and Baptism in particular." This last was taken
down by John Allenson, and published by Dr. Samuel
Ward. Whitaker’s works were afterwards collected and
published in Latin, at Geneva, in 1610, 2 vols. fol.
the usual fees. In order to procure this lenity, Dodsley drew up a petition to the House, which the earl of Essex, one of the noble personages libelled in the poem,
Accordingly, in the House of Peers, lord Delawar, after
expatiating on the gross falsehoods and injurious imputations contained in a poem against many noblemen and prelates of high character, moved that the author and publisher should attend at the bar of the house. On the day
appointed, Dodsley appeared as the publisher, Whitehead
having absconded. Dodsley pleaded that he did not look
into the contents of the poem, “but that imagining there
might be something in it, as he saw it was a satire by its
title-page, that might be laid hold of in law, he insisted
that the author should affix his name to it, and that then
he printed it.
” In consequence of this confession he was
taken into the custody of the usher of the black rod, but
released after a short confinement and payment of the usual
fees. In order to procure this lenity, Dodsley drew up a
petition to the House, which the earl of Essex, one of the
noble personages libelled in the poem, had the generosity
to present. Victor, in one of his letters, informs us that
he had the boldness to suggest this measure to the earl.
Sir Charles left by his wife two daughters; Frances, first wife of William Anne, late earl of Essex, and Charlotte, who espoused the honourable Robert
Sir Charles left by his wife two daughters; Frances, first wife of William Anne, late earl of Essex, and Charlotte, who espoused the honourable Robert Boyle Walsingham, youngest son of the earl of Shannon, a commodore in the navy. On his death without issue male, the estate and mansion of Coldbrook came to his brother George, who died in 1764, and now belongs to his son John Han bury "Williams, esq. the present proprietor.
uable history. He died in London in 1595, and was buried in St. Paul’s, attended to his grave by the earl of Essex, and other officers of distinction. “He might,” says
, a brave officer in the reign of
queen Elizabeth, was the son of Thomas Williams, of Penrose in Monmouthshire, and educated at Oxford, probably
in Brasenose college. After leaving the university, he became a volunteer in the army, and served under the duke
of Alva. In 1581, he was in the English army commanded
by general Norris in Friesland, where Camden says the
enemy’s troops were defeated by sir Roger Williams at
Northern, who probably therefore was knighted for his
gailant exploits before this time, although Wood says that honour was not conferred upon him until 1586. In this lastmentioned year he appears again in the army commanded
by the earl of Leicester in Flanders. When the prince of
Parma laid siege to Venlo in Guelderland, Williams, with
one Skenk, a Frieslander, undertook to pierce through the
enemy’s camp at midnight, and enter the town. They
penetrated without much difficulty, as far as the prince of
Parma’s tent, but were then repulsed. The attempt, however, gained them great reputation in the army.* In 1591,
Williams was sent to assist in the defence of Dieppe, and
remained there beyond August 24, 1593. What other exploits he performed, we know not, but it is probable that
he continued in the service of his country during the war
in the Low Countries, of which war he wrote a valuable
history. He died in London in 1595, and was buried in
St. Paul’s, attended to his grave by the earl of Essex, and
other officers of distinction. “He might,
” says Camden,
“have been compared with the most famous captains of
our age, could he have tempered the heat of his warlike
spirit with more wariness and prudent discretion.
” Wood
calls him a colonel, but it does not clearly appear what
rank he attained in the army. From his writings, which
are highly extolled by Camden, he appears to have been
a man of strong natural parts, and sound judgment. His
principal writing is entitled “The Actions of the Low
Countries,
” Lond. A brief discourse of War, with his opinion
concerning some part of military discipline,
” ibid. Actions
of the Low Countries,
” a “Discourse of the Discipline of
the Spaniards;
” and in Rymer’s Fcedera is his “Advice
from France, Nov. 20, 1590.
” Some of his Mss. and
Letters are in the Cotton Library in the British Museum.
imself to reading and poetry for some time; and, the year after, was taken into the family of Robert earl of Essex, whom he attended into the Palatinate in 1620; to the
, an English historian, was the son
of Richard Wilson, of Yarmouth, in the county of Norfolk, gentleman; and was born in that county, 1596. In
1609 he went to France, where he continued almost two
years; and upon his return to England was placed with sir
Henry Spiller, to be one of his clerks in the exchequer
office; in whose family he resided till having written some
satirical verses upon one of the maid-servants, he was dismissed at lady Spiller’s instigation. In 1613 he took a
lodging in Holborn, where he applied himself to reading
and poetry for some time; and, the year after, was taken
into the family of Robert earl of Essex, whom he attended
into the Palatinate in 1620; to the siege of Dornick, in
Holland, in 1621 to that of Rees in 1622 to Arnheim,
in 1623 to the siege of Breda in 1624 and in the expedition to Cadiz in 1625. In 1630 he was discharged the
earl’s service, at the importunity of his lady, who had conceived an aversion to him, because she had supposed him
to have been against the earl’s marrying her. He tells us,
in his own life, that this lady’s name, before she marrie,d
the earl, was Elizabeth Paulet; that “she appeared to the
eye a beauty, full of harmless sweetness; that her conversation was affable and gentle; and, as he was firmly persuaded, that it was not forced, but natural. But the height
of her marriage and greatness being an accident, altered
her very nature; for,
” he says, “she was the true image
of Pandora’s box,
” nor was he much mistaken, for this
lady was divorced for adultery two years after her marriage. In 1631 he retired to Oxford, and became gentlman commoner of Trinity college, where he stayed almost
two years, and was punctual in his compliance with the
laws of the university. Then he was sent for to be steward
to the earl of Warwick, whom he attended in 1637 to the
siege of Breda. He died in 1652, at Felstead, in Essex,
and his will was proved in October of that year. The earl
and countess of Warwick received from him the whole of
his library, and 50l. to be laid out in purchasing a piece of
gold plate, as a memorial, particularly applying to the
Jatter, “in testimony,
” as he adds, “of my humble duty
and gratitude for all her noble and 1 undeserved favours to
me.
” Gratitude seems to have been a strong principle
with Wilson, as appears from his life, written by himself,
and printed in Peck’s “Desiderata.
” Wood’s account of
him is, that “he had little skill in the Latin tongue, less
in the Greek, a good readiness in the French, and some
smattering in the Dutch. He was well seen in the mathematics and poetry, and sometimes in the common law
of the nation. He had composed some comedies, which
were acted at the Black Friars, in London, by the king’s
players, and in the act-time at Oxford, with good applause,
himself being- present; but whether they are printed I cannot yet tell; sure lam, that I have several specimens of
his poetry printed in divers books. His carriage was very
courteous and obliging, and such as did become a wellbred gentleman. He also had a great command of the
English tongue, as well in writing as speaking; and, had
he bestowed his endeavours on any other subject than that
of history, they would without doubt have seemed better.
For, in those things which he hath done, are wanting the
principal matters conducing to the completion of that
” faculty, viz. matter from record, exact time, name, and
place, which, by his endeavouring too much to set out his
bare collections in an affected and bombastic style, are
much neglected.“The history here alluded to by Wood,
is
” The Life and Reign of king James I.“printed in London in 1653, folio; that is, the year after his death and
reprinted in the 2d volume of
” -The complete History of
England,“in 1706, folio. This history has been severely
treated by many writers. Mr. William Sanderson says, that,
” to give Wilson his due, we may find truth and falsehood
finely put together in it.“Heylin, in the-general preface
to his
” Examen,“styles Wilson’s history
” a most famous
pasquil of the reign of king James; in which it is not easy to
judge whether the matter be more false, or the style more
reproachful to all parts thereof.“Mr. Thomas Fuller, in his
” Appeal of injured Innocence,“observes, how Robert
earl of Warwick told him at Beddington, that, whenWilson’s
book in manuscript was brought to him, his lordship expunged more than an hundred offensive passages: to which
Mr. Fuller replied,
” My lord, you have done well; and
you had done better if you had put out a hundred more.“Mr. Wood’s sentence is,
” that, in our author’s history,
may easily be discerned a partial presbyterian vein, that
constantly goes through the whole work: and it being the
genius of those people to pry more than they should into
the courts and comportments of princes, they do take occasion thereupon to traduce and bespatter them. Further
also, our author, having endeavoured in many things to
make the world believe that king James and his son after
him were inclined to Popery, and to bring that religion
into England, hath made him subject to many errors and
misrepresentations.“On the other band, archdeacon
Echard tells us, that
” Wilson’s History of the life and
reign of king James, though written not without some
prejudices and rancour in respect to some persons, and too
much with the air of a romance, is thought to be the best
of that kind extant:“and the writer of the notes on the
edition of it in the
” Complete History of England“remarks, that, as to the style of our author’s history,
” it is
harsh and broken, the periods often obscure, and sometimes
without connection; faults, that were common in most writers of that time. Though he finished that history in the
year 1652, a little before his death, when both the monarchy and hierarchy were overturned, it does not appear he
was an enemy to either, but only to the corruptions of
them; as he intimates in the picture he draws of himself
before that hook."
rrors of the court or of the people. This was Thomas Cromwell, formerly Wolsey’s steward (afterwards earl of Essex), who now refuted the articles with so much spirit,
The next step to complete his ruin was taken by the duke of Norfolk and the privy counsellors, who drew up articles against him, and presented them to the king; but he still affecting to take no personal concern in the matter, remained silent. Yet these probably formed the basis of the forty-four articles presented December 1, to the House of Lords, as by some asserted, or, according to other accounts, by the lords of the council to the House of Commons. Many of them are evidently frivolous or false, and others, although true, were not within the jurisdiction of the House. The cardinal had, in fact, already suffered, as his goods had been seized by the king; he was now in a prtemunire, and the House could not go much farther than to recommend what had already taken place. The cardinal, however, found one friend amidst all his distresses, who was not to be alarmed either at the terrors of the court or of the people. This was Thomas Cromwell, formerly Wolsey’s steward (afterwards earl of Essex), who now refuted the articles with so much spirit, eloquence, and argument, that although a very opposite effect might have been expected, his speech is supposed to have laid the foundation of that favour which the king afterwards extended to him, but which, at no very distant period, proved as fatal to him as it had been to his master. His eloquence had a yet more powerful effect, for the address founded on these articles was rejected by the Commons, and the Lords could not proceed farther without their concurrence.
A. in 1587, and B. D. in 1594. He was also fellow of that college, and some time chaplain to Robert earl of Essex. On the death of Dr. Whitaker in 1596 he stood candidate
, ranked by Fuller among the learned writers of JCing’s-college, Cambridge, was born in London, about the latter part of the sixteenth century, and educated at Eton, whence, being elected to King’scollege, he was entered, Oct. 1, 1579, commenced B. A. in 1583, M. A. in 1587, and B. D. in 1594. He was also fellow of that college, and some time chaplain to Robert earl of Essex. On the death of Dr. Whitaker in 1596 he stood candidate for the king’s professorship of divinity in Cambridge, with Dr. John Overall of Trinity-college; but failed, by the superior interest of the latter, although he performed his probationary exercises with general applause. In March 1596 he was chosen professor of divinity in Gresham-college, upon the first settlement of that foundation, and in 1598 quitted his fellowship at Cambridge, and marrying soon after, resigned also his professorship. He was then chosen lecturer of Allhallows Barking; but in 1604 was silenced by Dr. Bancroft, bishop of London, for some expressions used either in a prayer or sermon, which were considered as disrespectful to the king; but it does not appear that he remained long under suspension; at least, in a volume of sermons printed in 1609 he styles himself minister of Allhallows.
countries through which he had passed. His wit and politeness so effectually recommended him to the earl of Essex that he first admitted him into his friendship, and
Sir Henry was the only son of the second marriage of his
father Thomas Wotton, esq. with Eleanora, daughter of
sir William Finch, of Eastwell in Kent (ancestor to lord Winchelsea), and widow of Robert Morton, of the same
county, esq. He was educated first under private tutors,
and then sent to Winchester-school whence, in 1584, he
was removed to New- college in Oxford. Here he was
entered as a gentleman-commoner, and had his chamber
in Hart-hall adjoining; and, for his chamber-fellow, Richard Baker, his countryman, afterwards a knight, and author of the well known “Chronicle
” which goes by his
name. Wotton did not continue long there, but went to
Queen’s-college, where he became well versed in logic
Uid philosophy-, and, being distinguished for his wit, was
solicited to write a tragedy for private acting in that society,
The name of it was “Tancredo
” and Walton relates,
“that it was so interwoven with sentences, and for the method and exact personating those humours, passions, and
dispositions, which he proposed to represent, so performed,
that the gravest of the society declared^ he had in a slight
employment given an early and solid testimony of his future abilities.
” In 1588 he supplicated the congregation
of regents, that he might be admitted to the reading of any
of the books of Aristotle’s logic, that is, be admitted to the
degree of bachelor of arts; but “whether he was admitted
to that or any other degree doth not appear,
” says Wood,
^from the university registers;“although Walton tells us,
that about his 20th year he proceeded master of arts, and
at that time read in Latin three lectures de oculo, on the
blessing of sight, which he illustrated by some beautiful
passages aud apt reflexions.
In 1589 he lost his father, and was left with no other
provision than a rent-charge of 100 marks a-year. Soon
after, he left Oxford, betook himself to travel, and went
into France, Germany, and Italy. He stayed but one year
in France, and part of that at Geneva; where he became
acquainted with Beza and Isaac Casaubon. Three years he
spent in Germany, and five in Italy, where both in Rome,
Venice, and Florence, he cultivated acquaintance with the
most eminent men for learning and all manner of fine arts;
for painting, sculpture, chemistry, and architecture; of all
which he was an amateur and an excellent judge. After
having spent nine years abroad, he returned to England
highly accomplished, and with a great accumulation of
knowledge of the countries through which he had passed.
His wit and politeness so effectually recommended him to
the earl of Essex that he first admitted him into his friendship, and afterwards made him one of his secretaries, the
celebrated Mr. Henry Cuff being the other. (See Cuff.)
He personally attended all the councils and employments
of the earl, and continued with him till he was apprehended
for high treason. Fearing now lest he might, from his intimate connexion, be involved in his patron’s ruin, he thought
proper to retire, and was scarcely landed in France, when
he heard that his master Essex was beheaded, and his
friend Cuff hanged. He proceeded to Florence, and was
received into great confidence by the grand duke of Tuscany. This place became the more agreeable to him, from
his meeting with signor Vietta, a gentleman of Venice,
with whom he had been formerly intimately acquainted,
and who was now the grand duke’s secretary. It was during this retreat that Mr. Wotton drew up his
” State of
Christendom, or a most exact and curious discovery of
many secret passages, and hidden myteries of the times."
This was first printed, a thin fol. in 1657, and afterwards in
1677, with a small alteration in the title. It was here also
that the grand duke having intercepted letters which discovered a design to take away the life of James VI. of
Scotland, dispatched Wouon thither to give him notice of
it. Wotton was on this account, as well as according to
his instructions, to manage this affair with all possible secrecy: and therefore, having parted from the duke, he
took the name and language of an Italian; and to avoid
the line of English intelligence and danger, he posted into
Norway, and from that country to Scotland, He found
the king at Stirling, and was admitted to him under the
name of Octavio Baldi. He delivered his message and his
letters to the king in Italian: then, stepping up and whis^
pering to his majesty, he told him he was an Englishman,
requested a more private conference with him, and that he
might be concealed during his stay in Scotland. He spent
about three months with the king, who was highly entertained with him, and then returned to Florence, where,
after a few months, the news of queen Elizabeth’s death,
and of king James’s accession to the crown of England,
arriyep!.
olio, reprinted in Lamphire’s “Monarchia Britannica,” Oxtord, 1681, 8vo. 5. “Parallel bttween Robert earl of Essex and George late duke.,of Bucks,” London, 1641, 4to,
His works separately or collectively published were, I.
“Epistola de Gaspare Scioppio,
” Amberg, Epistola ad Marcum Vc-lserum duuaivirum Augustas Vindelic. arm. 1612.
” 3. “The Elements of Architecture,
”
Lond. Parallel of the ancient architecture
with the modern.
” 4. “Plausus et Vota ad regem e Scotia reducem,
” Lond. Monarchia Britannica,
” Oxtord, Parallel bttween Robert earl of Essex and George late
duke.,of Bucks,
” London, Short View of the
life and death of George Duke of Bucks,
” London, Difference and disparity between the estates and conditions of George duke of Bucks and Robert earl of Essex.
”
8. “Characters of, and observations on some kings of England.
” 9. “The election of the new duke of Venice after
the death of Giovanni Bembo.
” 10. “Philosophical Survey of Education, or moral Architecture.
” 11. “Aphorisms of Education.
” 12. “The great Action between
Pompey and Caesar extracted out of the Roman and Greek
writers.
” 13. “Meditations on the 22d chapter of Genesis.
” 14. “Meditations on Christmas day.
” 15. “Letters to and characters of certain personages.
” 16. “Various
Poems.
” All or most of these pieces are published together in a volume entitled “Reliquiae Wotton ianae,
” at London, Letters
to sir Edmund Bacon,
” London, Reliquiae Wottonianae.
” 18. “Letters
to the Lord Zouch,
” printed at the end of “Reliquiae Wottonianae
” in the edition of The State of
Christendom; or a more exact and curious discovery of many
secret passages and hidden mysteries of the times,
” Loridon, 1657, folio, reprinted at London in 1667, folio, with
this title; “The State of Christendom, giving a perfect
and exact discovery of many political intrigues and secret
mysteries of state practised in most of the courts of Europe,
with an account of their several claims, interests, and pretensions.
” 20. He hath also several letters to George
duke of Bucks in the “Cabala, Mysteries of State,
” London, Cabala, or Scrinia sacra,
” London,
Journal of his Embassies to Venice,
”
a manuscript fairly written, formerly in the library of Edward lord Conway. 22. “Three propositions to the Count
d'Angosciola in matter of duel, comprehending (as it seems)
the latitude of that subject;
” a manuscript some time in
the library of Ralph Sheldon, esq.; and since in that of
the college of arms.