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

In his last testament, after a devout introduction, and bequeathing eight pounds to the poor of the parish in which he should happen to die, he bequeaths to sir Fulke Grevile, lord Brooke, who preferred him gratis to his office, a piece of plate of ten pounds; to the company of painter stainers of London, he gave sixteen pounds to buy them a piece of plate, upon which he directed this inscription, “Gul. Camdenus Clarenceux filius Sampsonjs, Pictoris Londinensis, dono dedit;” he bestowed the sum of twelve pounds on the company of cordwainers, or shoemakers of London, to purchase them a piece of plate, on which the same inscription was to be engraved. Then follow the legacies to his private friends. As to his books and papers, he directs that sir Robert Cotton of Conington, should take out such as he had borrowed of him, and then he bequeaths to him all his printed books and manuscripts, excepting such as concern arms and heraldry, which, with his ancient seals, he bequeaths to his successor in the office of Clarenceux, provided, because they cost him a considerable sum of money, he gave to his cousin John Wyat, what the kings at arms Garter and Norroy for the time being should think fit, and agreed also to leave them to his successor. But notwithstanding this disposition of his books and papers, Dr. John Williams, then dean of Westminster, and bishop of Lincoln, afterwards archbishop of York, procured all the printed books for the new library erected in the church of Westminster. It is understood, that his collections in support of his History, with respect to civil affairs, were before this time deposited in the Cotton library; for as to those that related to ecclesiastical matters, when asked for them by Dr. Goodman, son to his great benefactor, he declared he stood engaged to Dr. Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury. They came afterwards to archbishop Laud, and are supposed to have been destroyed when his papers fell into the hands of Mr. Prynne, Mr. Scot, and Hugh Peters; for upon a diligent search made by Dr. Sancroft, soon after his promotion to that see, there was not a line of them to be found, as we have already mentioned. His body was removed to his house in London, and on the 19th of November, carried in great pomp to Westminster abbey, and after a sermon preached by Dr. Christopher Sutton, was deposited in the south aile, near the learned Casaubon, and over against Chaucer. Near the spot was erected a handsome monument of white marble, with an inscription, erroneous as to his age, which is stated to be seventy-four, whereas he wanted almost six months of seventy-three. At Oxford, Zouch Townley, of Christ Church, who was esteemed a perfect master of the Latin tongue in all its purity and elegance, was appointed to pronounce his funeral oration in public, which is printed by Dr. Smith. The verses written on his death were collected and printed in a thin quarto, entitled “Insignia Camdeni,” Ox. 1624, and his name was enrolled in the list of public benefactors.

, a poet and dramatic writer of considerable note, was the son of John Davenant, who kept the Crown tavern or inn at Oxford, but owing to an obscure ins nuation in Wood’s accountof his birth, ithas been supposed that he was the natural son of Shakspeare; and to render this story probable, Mrs. Davenant is represented as a woman of beauty and gaiety, and a particular favourite of Shakspeare, who was accustomed to lodge at the Crown, on his journies between Warwickshire and London. Modern inquirers, particularly Mr. Steevens, are inclined to discredit this story, which indeed seems to rest upon no very sound foundation. Young Davenant, who was born Feb. 1605, very early betrayed a poetical bias, and one of Iris first attempts, when he was only ten years old, was an ode in remembrance of master William Shakspeare: this is a remarkable production for one so young, and one who lived, not only to see Shakspeare forgotten, but to contribute, with some degree of activity, to that instance of depraved taste. Davenant was educated at the grammarschool of All Saints, in his native city, under Mr. Edward Sylvester, a teacher of high reputation. In 1621, the year in which his father served the office of mayor, he entered of Lincoln-college, but being encouraged to try his success at court, he appeared there as page to Frances duchess of Richmond, a lady of great influence and fashion. He afterwards resided in the family of the celebrated sir Ftilke Greville, lord Brooke, who was himself a poet and a patron of poets. The murder of this nobleman in! 628 depriving him of what assistance he might expect from his friendship, Davenant had recourse to the stage, on which he produced his first dramatic piece, the tragedy of Albovine, king of the Lombards.

, lord Brooke, an ingenious writer, was the eldest son of sir Fulk Greville, of Beauchamp-court (at Alcaster) in Warwickshire, and born there in 1554. It is conjectured, that he was educated at the school in Shrewsbury; whence he was removed to Cambridge, and admitted a fellow-commoner at Trinitycollege; and some time after, making a visit to Oxford, he became a member of that university, but of what college is not certain. Having completed his academical studies, he travelled abroad to finish his education and Upon his return, being well accomplished, was introduced to the court of queen Elizabeth by his uncle Robert Greville, where he was esteemed a most ingenious person, and particularly favoured by the lovers of arts and sciences. He was soon nominated to some beneficial employment in the court of marches of Wales by his kinsman, sir Henry Sidney, then lord-president of that court and principality.

During the life of the treasurer Cecil, he obtained no advancement in the court or state; but, in 1615, some time after his death, was made under-treasurer and chancellor of the exchequer; in consequence of which he was called to the board of privy-council. In 1617 he obtained from the king a special charter, confirming all such liberties as had been granted to any of his ancestors in behalf of the town of Alcester, upon a new reserved rent of ten shillings a year; and, in 1620, was created lord Brooke of Beau* champ-court. He obtained this dignity as well by his merit and fidelity in the discharge of his offices as by his noble descent from theNevils, Willoughbys de Brook, and Beauchamps. In September 1621, he was made one of the lords of the king’s bed-chamber; and on this, resigning his post in the exchequer, he was succeeded therein by Richard Weston, afterwards earl of Portland. After the demise of king James, he continued in the privy-council of Charles I. in the beginning of whose reign he founded a historylecture in the university of Cambridge, and endowed it with a salary of lOOl. per annum. He did not long survive this last act of generosity; for, though he was a munificent patron of learning and learned men, he at last fell a sacrifice to the extraordinary outrage of a discontented domestic. The account we have of this fatal event is, that his lordship, neglecting to reward one Ralph Heywood, who had spent the greatest part of his life in his service, this attendant expostulated thereupon with his lordship in his bed-chamber, at Brook-house in Holborn; and, being severely reproved for it, presently gave his lordship a mortal stab in the back with a knife or sword; after which he withdrew into another room, and, locking the door, murdered himself with the same weapon. He died September 30, 1628, and his corpse being wrapt in lead, was conveyed from Brook-house, Holborn, to Warwick; where it was interred on the north side of the choir of St. Mary’s church, there, in his own vault, which had formerly been a chapter-house of the church; and where, upon his monument, there is this inscription: “Fulke Greville, servant to queen Elizabeth, counsellor to king James, and friend to sir Philip Sidney. Tropheum peccati.” He made that dear friend the great exemplar of his life in every thing; and Sidney being often celebrated as the patron of the muses in general, and of Spenser in particular, so we are told, lord Brooke desired to be known to posterity under no other character than that of Shakspeare’s and Ben Jonson’s master, lord-chancellor Egerton and bishop Overal’s patron. His lordship also obtained the office of clarencieux at arms for Mr. Camden, who very gratefulty acknowledged it in his life-time, and at his death left him a piece of plate in his will. He also raised John Speed from a mechanic to be an historiographer.

Notwithstanding lord Orford’s flippant and detracting estimate of lord Brooke’s talents and character, he appears to have cherished a taste for all kinds of polite learning, though, as just noticed, his inclination led him more particularly to poetry and history. Phillips, or Milton, remarks, that in all his poems is observable a close, mysterious, and sententious way of writing, but without much regard to elegance of style or smoothness of verse. His principal works are, 1. “The Life of the renowned sir Philip Sidney,” London, 1652, 12mo, rather a kind of dissertation than a life, but sufficiently expressive of his connection with, and attachment to that eminent character. 2. “Certaine learned and elegant workes of the right hon. Fulke lord Brooke, written in his jouth, and familiar exercise with sir Philip Sidney,” Lond. 1633; all the copies extant of this work want twenty-two pages at the beginning. These pages are said to have contained “A treatise on Religion,” and were cancelled, as Mr. Malone (in his History of the Stage) surmises, by order of archbishop Laud. The rest of the volume consists of poetical treatises and letters, and the tragedies of Alaham and Mustapha. 3. “The Remains of sir Fulk Greville, lord Brooke; being poems of Monarchy and Religion, never before printed,” Lond. 1670, 8vo*.

The Robert Greville, whom we have mentioned as the adopted heir of lord Brooke, was educated by him as became the estate and dignity to which he was to succeed; but when the civil war commenced, he joined the parliament army, in whose cause he had written some treatises, and was killed in battle at Litchfield, in 1643, in the thirtyfilth year of his age. He wrote, i. “The Nature of Tiuth; its union and unity with the soule, which is one in its essence, faculties, acts; one with truth,” Lond. 1641, 12mo, an abstruse piece of metaphysical reasoning, which, however, Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Waliis, professor of geometry, understood so well as to be able to answer it, in 1643. 2. “A Discourse opening the nature of that Episcopacie which is exercised in England,” ibid. 1641, 4to. 3. “Two Speeches, spoken in the Guildhall, London, concerning his majesty’s refusal of a Treaty of Peace,” ibid. 1642. 4. “Answer to the Speech of Philip earl of Pembroke, concerning Accommodation, in the house of lords, Dec. 19, 1642,” printed by order of the house, and reprinted in lord Somers’s tracts; but which appears to have been drawn up by lord Clarendon, as containing the substance of lord Brooke’s sentiments. 5. “Speech at the Election of his captains and commanders at Warwick-castle,” London, 1643.

, son of the preceding, was born in 1616 at Stony-Thorp near Southam in Warwickshire, and educated in grammar learning under Mr. White at Coventry; from whence he was sent in Michaelmas term 1632, at the age of sixteen years, to Queen’s college in Oxford, where he took the degree of bachelor of arts July 5, 1636, and that of master, May 16, 1639, and became chaplain of the college. In the beginning of the civil wars, when Oxford became the seat of king Charles, and was garrisoned for his use, he was put into commission, for a captain of a foot company, consisting mostly of scholars. In this post he did great service, and had the degree of doctor of divinity conferred upon him by the favour of his majesty, though no such matter occurs in the public register of the university, which was then sometimes neglected. After the surrender of the garrison of Oxford to the parliament, he, by the name of Thomas Holyoke, without the addition of master of arts, bachelor or doctor of divinity, obtained a licence from the university to practise physic, and settling in his own country, he practised with good success till the Restoration in 1660, in which year Thomas lord Leigh, baron of Stone Leigh in Warwickshire, presented him to the rectory of Whitnash near Warwick. He was soon after made prebendary of the collegiate church of Wolverhampton tn Staffordshire. In 1674 Robert lord Brook conferred upon him the donative of Breamour in Hampshire (which he had by the marriage of his lady), worth about two hundred pounds per annum; but, before he had enjoyed it a year, he died of a fever, June 10, 1675. His body was interred near that of his father in the church of St. Mary in Warwick. His Dictionary was published after his death in 1677, in fol. and, as Wood says, “is made upon the foundation laid by his father.” Before k are two epistles, one by the author’s son, Charles Holyoake of the Inner Temple, dedicating the work to lord Brooke, and another by Dr. Barlow, bishop of Lincoln, which contains many particulars of the work and its author. He had another son, the Rev. Henry Holyoake, who was for forty years master of Rugby school in Warwickshire, and died in 1731.

In our authorities are other proofs of his innocence in this matter; but we presume it cannot be denied that he had been of service to the republican government by this peculiar talent. He had always joined with them, and in 1653 he had the sequestered living of St. Gabriel, Fenchurch- street, granted to him. The same year he published in 4to, Truth tried; or, Animadversions on the Lord Brooke’s Treatise of the nature of Truth'.“His mother dying this year, he became possessed of a handsome fortune. In 1644 he was appointed one of the scribes or secretaries to the assembly of divines at Westminster, to whose conduct and views he gives a very different colouring from what we meet with in most of the publications of that time.” The parliament,“he asserts,” had a great displeasure against the order of bishops, or rather not so much against the order, as the men, and against the order for their sakes; and had resolved upon the abolition of episcopacy as it then stood, before they were agreed what to put instead of it; and did then convene this assembly to consult of some other form to be suggested to the parliament, to be by them set up, if they liked it, or so far as they should like it. The divines of this assembly were, for the generality of them, conformable, episcopal men, and had generally the reputation of pious, orthodox, and religious protestants; and (excepting the seven independents, or, as they were called dissenting brethren) I do not know of any nonconformist among them as to the legal conformity then required. Many of them were professedly episcopal, and, I think, all of them so episcopal, as to account a well-regulated episcopacy to be at least allowable, if not desirable and advisable; yet so as they thought the present constitution capable of reformation for the better. When I name the divines of this assembly, I do not include the Scots commissioners, who, though they were permitted to be present there, and did interpose in the debates, as they saw occasion, yet were no members of that assembly, nor did vote with them, but acted separately in behalf of the church of Scotland, and were zealous enough for the Scots presbytery, but could never prevail with the assembly to declare for it. On the other hand, the independents were against all united church government of more than one single congregation, holding that each single congregation, voluntarily agreeing to make themselves a church, and choose their own officers, were of themselves independent, and not accountable to any other ecclesiastical government, but only the civil magistrate, as to the public peace; admitting indeed that messengers from several churches might meet to consult in common, as there might be occasion, but without any authoritative jurisdiction* Against these, the rest of the assembly was unanimous, (and the Scots commissioners with them) that it was lawful by the word of God for divers particular congregations (beside the inspection of their own pastor and other officers) to be united under the same common government; and such communities to be further subordinate to provincial and national assemblies; which is equally consistent with episcopal and presbyterian principles. But whether with or without a bishop or standing president of such assemblies, was not determined or debated by them. When any such point chanced to be suggested, the common answer was, that this point was not before them, but was precluded by the ordinance by which they sat; which did first declare the abolition of episcopacy (not refer it to their declaration), and they only to suggest to the parliament somewhat in the room of that so abolished, And this is a true account of that assembly as to this point (and when as they were called presbyterians, it was not in the sense of anti-episcopal, but anti-independents), which I have the more largely insisted on, because there are not many now living who can give a better account of that assembly than I can. To this may be objected their agreement to the covenant, which was before I was amongst them. But this, if rightly understood, makes nothing against what I have said. The covenant, as it came from Scotland, and was sent from the parliament to the assembly, seemed directly against all episcopacy, and for setting up the Scots presbytery just as among them. But the assembly could not be brought to assent to it in those terms, being so worded as, to preserve the government of the church of Scotland, and to reform that of England, and so to reduce it to the nearest uniformity. But before the assembly could agree to it, it was thus mollified, to preserve that of Scotland (not absolutely, but) against the common enemy; and to reform that of England (not so as it is in Scotland, but) according to the word of God, and the exarnpleof the best reformed churches; and to endeavour the nearest uniformity; which might be as well by reforming that of Scotland, as that of England, or of both. And whereas the covenant, as first brought to them, was against popery, prelacy, heresy, schism, profaneness, &c. they would by no means be persuaded to admit the word prelacy, as thus standing absolute. For though they thought the English episcopacy, as it then stood, capable of reformation for the better in divers things, yet to engage indefinitely against all prelacy, they would not agree. After many days debate on this point (as I understood from those who were then present) some of the parliament, who then pressed it, suggested this expedient, that by prelacy they did not understand all manner of episcopacy or superiority, but only the present episcopacy, as it now stood in England, consisting of archbishops, bishops, and their several courts and subordinate officers, &c. And that if any considerable alteration were made in any part of this whole frame, it was an abolition of the present prelacy, and as much as was here intended in these words; and that no more was intended but a reformation of the present episcopacy in England. And in pursuance of this it was agreed to be expressed with this interpretation; prelacy, that is, church government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deans, deans and chapters, arch-deacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy. And with this interpretation at length it passed; and the Scots commissioners in behalf of their church agreed to those amendments. I know some have been apt to put another sense upon that interpretation; but this was the true intendment of the assembly, and upon this occasion."