LIVES OF
                              THE FOUNDERS
                                 OF THE
                            BRITISH MUSEUM;
                                  WITH
         NOTICES OF ITS CHIEF AUGMENTORS AND OTHER BENEFACTORS.
                               1570–1870.


                           BY EDWARD EDWARDS.




                                PART I.


                                LONDON:
                 TRÜBNER AND CO., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW.
                                 1870.
                        (_All rights reserved._)




              PRINTED BY J. E. ADLARD, BARTHOLOMEW CLOSE.




    LIVES OF THE FOUNDERS, AND NOTICES OF SOME CHIEF BENEFACTORS AND
                   ORGANIZERS, OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM.


         _COTTON—ARUNDEL—HARLEY—COURTEN—SLOANE—HAMILTON—CHARLES
        TOWNELEY—PAYNE-KNIGHT—LANSDOWNE—BRIDGEWATER—KING GEORGE
   III—BANKS—CRACHERODE—GRENVILLE—FELLOWS—LAYARD—CURETON—&c. &c. &c._




                       WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.


  MEMOIRS OF LIBRARIES: INCLUDING A HANDBOOK OF LIBRARY ECONOMY. 2 vols.
    8vo. [With 8 steel plates; 36 woodcuts; 16 lithographic plates; and
    4 illustrations in chromo-lithography.] 48s.

  LIBRARIES, AND FOUNDERS OF LIBRARIES. 8vo. 18s.

  COMPARATIVE TABLES OF SCHEMES WHICH HAVE BEEN PROPOSED FOR THE
    CLASSIFICATION OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. Fol. 5s.

  SYNOPTICAL TABLES OF THE RECORDS OF THE REALM. WITH AN HISTORICAL
    PREFACE. Fol. 9s.

  CHAPTERS OF THE HISTORY OF THE FRENCH ACADEMY, &c. 8vo. 6s.

  LIBER MONASTERII DE HYDA; _comprising a Chronicle of the Affairs of
    England from the Settlement of the Saxons to Cnut; and a
    Chartulary_; A.D. 455–1023. Edited by the Authority of the Lords
    Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury, under the Direction of the
    Master of the Rolls. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

  THE LIFE OF SIR WALTER RALEGH; BASED ON CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENTS
    PRESERVED IN THE ROLLS HOUSE, THE PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE, HATFIELD
    HOUSE, THE BRITISH MUSEUM, AND OTHER MANUSCRIPT REPOSITORIES,
    BRITISH AND FOREIGN. Together with his LETTERS, now first Collected.
    2 vols. 8vo. 32s.

  EXMOUTH AND ITS NEIGHBOURHOOD, ANCIENT AND MODERN; BEING NOTICES,
    HISTORICAL, BIOGRAPHICAL, AND DESCRIPTIVE, OF A CORNER OF SOUTH
    DEVON. Crown 8vo. 5s.

  FREE TOWN LIBRARIES, THEIR FORMATION, MANAGEMENT, AND HISTORY; IN
    BRITAIN, FRANCE, GERMANY, AND AMERICA. Together with brief Notices
    of Book-Collectors, and of the Respective Places of Deposit of their
    Surviving Collections. 8vo. 21s.

[Illustration:

  DALLASTYPE.

  The first British Museum; formerly the residence of the Duke of
    Montagu.
]




                               LIVES OF
                             THE FOUNDERS
                                OF THE
                           BRITISH MUSEUM;
     WITH NOTICES OF ITS CHIEF AUGMENTORS AND OTHER BENEFACTORS.
                              1570–1870.


                           BY EDWARD EDWARDS.

[Illustration:

  The old “Townley Gallery.”
]

                                LONDON:
                 TRÜBNER AND CO., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW.
                                 1870.
                        (_All rights reserved._)

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                            PREFATORY NOTE.


For the materials of the earlier of the ‘Lives’ contained in this volume
I have been chiefly indebted to the Collection of State Papers at the
Rolls House; to the Privy-Council Registers at the Council Office; and
to many manuscripts in the Cottonian, Harleian, Sloane, and Lansdowne
Collections at the British Museum.

 HIGHGATE; _6th May, 1870_.

      _The liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things
      shall he stand._

                                                 ISAIAH, xxxii, 8.

                _Man’s only relics are his benefits;
            These, be there ages, be there worlds, between,
            Retain him in communion with his kind._

                                    LANDOR (_Count Julian_).




                               CONTENTS.


                             BOOK THE FIRST.

    _EARLY COLLECTORS:—THE GATHERERS OF THE FOUNDATION COLLECTIONS._


                               CHAPTER I.

                             _INTRODUCTION._
                                                                    PAGE

 _Chronological Epochs in the Formation of the British Museum_         5


                               CHAPTER II.

                 _THE FOUNDER OF THE COTTONIAN LIBRARY._

 _The Personal and Public Life of Sir Robert Cotton.—His Political
   Writings and Political Persecutions.—Sources and Growth of the
   Cottonian Library.—The Successors of Sir Robert Cotton.—History
   of the Cottonian Library, until its union with the Manuscript
   Library of Harley, and with the Museum and Miscellaneous
   Collections of Sloane.—Review of some recent Aspersions on the
   Character of the Founder_                                          48


                              CHAPTER III.

   _THE CHIEF COLLECTOR AND THE AUGMENTORS OF THE OLD ROYAL AND PUBLIC
                         LIBRARY AT ST. JAMES’._

 _Life of Henry, Prince of Wales, son of James I, and virtual
   Founder of the ‘Royal Library.’—Its Augmentors and its
   Librarians.—Acquisition of the Library of the
   Theyers.—Incorporation with the Collections of Cotton and of
   Sloane_                                                           153


                               CHAPTER IV.

                 _THE COLLECTOR OF THE ARUNDELIAN MSS._

 _Political Exile and Foreign Travel under Elizabeth and under
   James.—Life of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel.—The Consolations
   of Connoisseurship.—Vicissitudes of the Arundel Museum.—The
   gifts of Henry Howard to the Royal Society_                       172


                               CHAPTER V.

                  _THE COLLECTOR OF THE HARLEIAN MSS._

 _The Harley Family.—Parliamentary and Official Career of Robert
   Harley, Earl of Oxford.—The Party Conflicts under Queen
   Anne.—Robert Harley and Jonathan Swift.—Harley and the Court of
   the Stuarts.—Did Harley conspire to restore the
   Pretender?—History of the Harleian Library.—The Life and
   Correspondence of Humphrey Wanley_                                203


                               CHAPTER VI.

                  _THE FOUNDERS OF THE SLOANE MUSEUM._

 _Flemish Exiles in England.—The Adventures, Mercantile and
   Colonial Enterprises, and Vicissitudes of the Courtens.—William
   Courten and his Collections.—The Life and Travels of Sir Hans
   Sloane.—His acquisition of Courten’s Museum.—Its Growth under
   the new Possessor.—History of the Sloane Museum and Library, and
   of their purchase by Parliament_                                  247


                            BOOK THE SECOND.

                 _THE ORGANIZERS, AND EARLY AUGMENTORS._


                               CHAPTER I.

                             _INTRODUCTORY._

 _Househunting.—The Removal of the Sloane Museum from
   Chelsea.—Montagu House, and its History.—The Early Trustees and
   Officers.—The Museum Regulations.—Early Helpers in the
   Foundation and Increase of the British Museum.—Epochs in the
   Growth of the Natural History Collections.—Experiences of
   Inquiring Visitors in the years 1765–1784_                        317


                               CHAPTER II.

           _A GROUP OF CLASSICAL ARCHÆOLOGISTS AND EXPLORERS._

 _Sir William Hamilton and his Pursuits and Employments in
   Italy.—The Acquisitions of the French Institute of Egypt, and
   the capture of part of them at Alexandria.—Charles Towneley and
   his Collection of Antiquities.—The Researches of the Earl of
   Elgin in Greece.—The Collections and Writings of Richard Payne
   Knight_                                                           346


                              CHAPTER III.

            _A GROUP OF BOOK-LOVERS AND PUBLIC BENEFACTORS._

 _Notices of some early Donors of Books.—The Life and Collections
   of Clayton Mordaunt Cracherode.—William Petty, first Marquess of
   Lansdowne, and his Library of Manuscripts.—The Literary Life and
   Collections of Dr. Charles Burney.—Francis Hargrave and his
   Manuscripts.—The Life and Testamentary Foundations of Francis
   Henry Egerton, Ninth Earl of Bridgewater_                         413


                               CHAPTER IV.

    _THE KING’S OR ‘GEORGIAN’ LIBRARY;—ITS COLLECTOR, AND ITS DONOR._

 _Notices of the Literary Tastes and Acquirements of King George
   the Third.—His Conversations with Men of Letters.—History of his
   Library and of its Transfer to the British Nation by George the
   Fourth_                                                           464


                               CHAPTER V.

            _THE FOUNDER OF THE BANKSIAN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY._

 _The Life, Travels, and Social Influence, of Sir Joseph Banks.—The
   Royal Society under his Presidency.—His Collections and their
   acquisition by the Trustees of the British Museum.—Notices of
   some other contemporaneous accessions_                            487


                             BOOK THE THIRD.

                   _LATER AUGMENTORS AND BENEFACTORS._

                               1829–1870.


                               CHAPTER I.

      _GENERAL VIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM, UNDER THE
       ADMINISTRATION, AS PRINCIPAL-LIBRARIAN, OF JOSEPH PLANTA._

 _Notices of the Life of Joseph Planta, third
   Principal-Librarian.—Improvements in the Internal Economy of the
   Museum introduced or recommended by Mr. Planta.—His labours for
   the enlargement of the Collections—and on the Museum
   Publications and Catalogues.—The Museum Gardens and the Duke of
   Bedford_                                                          515


                               CHAPTER II.

  _INTRODUCTION TO BOOK III (continued):—GROWTH, PROGRESS, AND INTERNAL
  ECONOMY, OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM, DURING THE PRINCIPAL-LIBRARIANSHIP OF
                            SIR HENRY ELLIS._

 _Internal Economy of the Museum at the time of the death of Joseph
   Planta.—The Literary Life and Public Services of Sir Henry
   Ellis.—The Candidature of Henry Fynes Clinton.—Progress of
   Improvement in certain Departments.—Introduction of Sir Antonio
   Panizzi into the Service of the Trustees.—The House of Commons’
   Committee of 1835–36.—Panizzi and Henry Francis Cary.—Memoir of
   Cary.—Panizzi’s Report on the proper Character of a National
   Library for Britain, made in October, 1837.—His successive
   labours for Internal Reform.—And his Helpers in the work.—The
   Literary Life and Public Services of Thomas Watts.—Sir A.
   Panizzi’s Special Report to the Trustees of 1845, and what grew
   thereout.—Progress, during Sir H. Ellis’s term of office, of the
   several Departments of Natural History and of Antiquities_        527


                              CHAPTER III.

  _INTRODUCTION TO BOOK III (continued):—GROWTH, PROGRESS, AND INTERNAL
  ECONOMY, OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM DURING THE PRINCIPAL-LIBRARIANSHIP OF
                          SIR ANTONIO PANIZZI._

 _The Museum Buildings.—The New Reading-Room and its History.—The
   House of Commons’ Committee of 1860.—Further Reorganization of
   the Departments.—Summary of the Growth of the Collections in the
   years 1856–1866, and of their increased Use and Enjoyment by the
   Public_                                                           583


                               CHAPTER IV.

  _ANOTHER GROUP OF ARCHÆOLOGISTS AND EXPLORERS.—THE SPOILS OF XANTHUS,
       OF BABYLON, OF NINEVEH, OF HALICARNASSUS, AND OF CARTHAGE._

 _The Libraries of the East.—The Monasteries of the Nitrian Desert,
   and their Explorers.—William Cureton and his Labours on the MSS.
   of Nitria, and in other Departments of Oriental Literature.—The
   Researches in the Levant of Sir Charles Fellows, of Mr. Layard,
   and of Mr. Charles Newton.—Other conspicuous Augmentors of the
   Collection of Antiquities_                                        608


                               CHAPTER V.

                 _THE FOUNDER OF THE GRENVILLE LIBRARY._

 _The Grenvilles and their Influence on the Political Aspect of the
   Georgian Reigns.—The Public and Literary Life of the Right
   Honourable Thomas Grenville.—History of the Grenville Library_    670


                               CHAPTER VI.

                   _OTHER BENEFACTORS OF RECENT DAYS._

 _Recent Contributors to the Natural History Collections.—The Duke
   of Blacas and his Museum of Greek and Roman Antiquities.—Hugh
   Cuming and his Travels and Collections in South America.—John
   Rutter Chorley, and his Collection of Spanish Plays and Spanish
   Poetry.—George Witt and his Collections illustrative of the
   History of Obscure Superstitions.—The Ethnographical Museum of
   Henry Christy, and its History.—Colonial Archæologists and
   British Consuls: The History of the Woodhouse Collection, and of
   its transmittal to the British Museum.—Lord Napier and the
   Acquisition of the Abyssinian MSS.—The Art Collections and
   Bequests of Felix Slade.—The Travels and the Japanese Library of
   Von Siebold_                                                      686


                              CHAPTER VII.

                    _RECONSTRUCTORS AND PROJECTORS._

 _The Plans and Projects for the Severance and Partial Dispersion
   of the Collections which at present form ‘The British Museum,’
   and for their re-combination and re-arrangement_                  721

 INDEX                                                               763




                         LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.


                                                                    PAGE
    I. VIEW OF THE GARDEN-FRONT OF OLD MONTAGU HOUSE,
         THE FIRST ‘BRITISH MUSEUM;’ as it appeared at
         the opening of the Institution to the Public in
         1759                                            _Frontispiece._

   II. VIEW OF THE OLD TOWNELEY GALLERY (built for the
         reception of the Towneleian Marbles in 1805,
         and pulled down on the erection of the existing    _Vignette on
         Museum)                                            Title-page._

  III. GROUND-PLAN OF THE PRINCIPAL FLOOR OF THE
         ORIGINAL BRITISH MUSEUM OF 1759                             325

   IV. GROUND-PLAN OF THE SECONDARY FLOOR OF THE SAME                327

    V. SUGGESTIONS MADE IN 1847 FOR THE ENLARGEMENT OF
         THE LIBRARY OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM; being the
         facsimile of a Plan inserted in a Pamphlet
         (written in 1846) entitled ‘_Public Libraries      _To face p._
         in London and Paris_’                                       556

   VI. REDUCED COPY OF BENJAMIN DELESSERT’S ‘_PROJET
         D’UNE BIBLIOTHÈQUE CIRCULAIRE_,’ 1835                       587

  VII. GENERAL BLOCK-PLAN OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM, as it
         was in 1857                                                 589

 VIII. GROUND-PLAN OF THE NEW OR ‘PANIZZI’ READING-ROOM,
         and of the adjacent Galleries, 1857                         590

   IX. INTERIOR VIEW OF THE NEW READING-ROOM, 1857                   591

    X. COLOURED PLAN OF THE GROUND-FLOOR OF THE BRITISH
         MUSEUM, as it was in 1862. _Copied from the        _To face p._
         Parliamentary Return, No. 97 of Session 1862_               750

   XI. COLOURED PLAN OF THE GROUND-FLOOR &C., (as
         above); TOGETHER WITH THE ALTERATIONS PROPOSED
         TO THE LORDS OF THE TREASURY BY THE TRUSTEES OF
         THE BRITISH MUSEUM; in their Minutes of
         December, 1861, and January 21st, 1862, and in
         their Letter to the Treasury of 11th February,     _To face p._
         1862. _Copied from the same Return_                         752

  XII. COLOURED PLAN OF THE UPPER FLOOR OF THE BRITISH
         MUSEUM, as it was in 1862. _Copied from the        _To face p._
         same Return_                                                754

 XIII. COLOURED PLAN OF THE UPPER FLOOR, &C. (as above);
         TOGETHER WITH THE ALTERATIONS PROPOSED TO THE
         TREASURY BY THE TRUSTEES; in their Minutes of
         December, 1861, and January, 1862, and in their
         Letter of 11th February, 1862. _Copied from the    _To face p._
         same Return_                                                756




                            BOOK THE FIRST.
    _EARLY COLLECTORS:—THE GATHERERS OF THE FOUNDATION COLLECTIONS._




                         _CONTENTS OF BOOK I._


 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.

        II. THE FOUNDER OF THE COTTONIAN LIBRARY.

       III. THE COLLECTORS AND AUGMENTORS OF THE OLD ROYAL AND PUBLIC
              LIBRARY AT ST. JAMES’.

        IV. THE COLLECTOR OF THE ARUNDELIAN MSS.

         V. THE COLLECTOR OF THE HARLEIAN MANUSCRIPTS.

        VI. THE FOUNDERS OF THE SLOANE MUSEUM.




... “The reverence and respect your Petitioners bear to the memory of
the most learned Sir ROBERT COTTON are too great not to mention, in
particular, that from the liberal use of his Library sprang (chiefly)
most of the learned works of his time, for ever highly to be valued. The
great men of that age constantly resorted to and consulted it to shew
the errors and mistakes in government about that period. And, as this
inestimable Library hath since been generously given and dedicated to
the Public use for ever, to be a National Benefit, your Petitioners
presume that no expression of gratitude can be too great for so valuable
a treasure, or for doing honour to the Memory and Family of Sir ROBERT
COTTON.”—‘_Petition to the Honourable House of Commons from the
Cottonian Trustees_’ (drawn up antecedently to the Foundation Act of the
British Museum); 1752.




                               CHAPTER I.
                             INTRODUCTION.


     _Chronological Epochs in the Formation of the British Museum._

In two particulars, more especially, our great National Museum stands
distinguished among institutions of its kind. The collections which
compose it extend over a wider range than that covered by any other
public establishment having a like purpose. And, if we take them as a
whole, those collections are also far more conspicuously indebted to the
liberality of individual benefactors. [Sidenote: THE PUBLIC DEBT TO
PRIVATE COLLECTORS.] In a degree of which there is elsewhere no example,
the British Museum has been gradually built up by the munificence of
open-handed Collectors, rather than by the public means of the Nation,
as administered by Parliament, or by the Governments of the day.

The real founders of our British Museum have been neither our British
monarchs nor our British legislators, as such. They have been, commonly,
individual and private British subjects; men loyal both to the Crown and
to the People. Often, they have been men standing in direct lineal
descent from the great Barons who dictated the Charter of our liberties,
in the meadow near Windsor, and from those who led English knights and
English bowmen to victory, on the wooded slopes near Poitiers.
Sometimes, they have been men of very lowly birth; such as could point
to no ancestral names appended to _Magna Charta_, or to the famous
letter written from Lincoln to Boniface the Eighth; such as may, indeed,
very well have had ancestors who gave their lives, or their limbs, for
England at Poitiers or at Cressy, but who certainly could point to no
heraldic memorials of feats of arms done on those bloody fields of
France. Not a few of them, perhaps, would have been vainly asked to tell
the names of their grandfathers. One boast, however, is common to both
of these groups of our public benefactors. They were men who had alike a
strong sense of gratitude to those who had gone before them, and a
strong sense of duty to those who were to come after them. To nearly all
of the men whose lives will be told in this volume are applicable, in a
special sense, some words of Julius HARE:—‘They wrought in a magnanimous
spirit of rivalry with Nature, or in kindly fellowship with her....
[Sidenote: J. & A. Hare, _Guesses at Truth_, vol. ii, p. 18.] When they
planted, they chose out the trees of longest life—the Oak, the Chestnut,
the Yew, the Elm,—trees which it does us good to behold, while we muse
on the many generations of our Forefathers, whose eyes have reposed
within the same leafy bays.’ They were men whose large impulses and deep
insight led them to work, less for themselves than for their successors.
It is by dint of what men of that stamp did—and did, not under the
leading of the Gospel according to Adam SMITH, but of a Gospel very much
older than it—that upon us, whose day is now passing, Posterity, so to
speak, ‘has cast her shadow before; and we are, at this moment, reposing
beneath it.’ Of Public Benefactions, such as those which this volume
very inadequately commemorates, it is true, with more than ordinary
truth, that we owe them, mainly, to a generous conviction in the hearts
of certain worthies of old days that they owed suit and service to
Posterity. This may, indeed, be said of public foresight, when evidenced
in material works and in provisions to smooth some of the asperities of
common life and of manual toil. But it may be said, more appropriately
still, of another and a higher kind of public foresight;—of that
evidenced in educational institutions, and in the various appliances for
raising and vivifying the common intellect; for enlarging its faculties;
diffusing its enjoyments; and broadening its _public_ domain. As it has
been said (by the same acute thinker who has just been quoted) in better
words than any of mine:—‘The great works that were wrought by men of
former times; the great fabrics that were raised by them; their mounds
and embankments against the powers of evil; their drains to carry off
mischief; the wide fields they redeemed from the overflowings of
barbarism; the countless fields they enclosed and husbanded for good to
grow and thrive in; ... all this they [mainly] achieved _for
Posterity_.... [Sidenote: J. & A. Hare, _Guesses at Truth_, vol. ii, p.
13.] Except for Posterity; except for the vital magnetic consciousness
that while men perish, Man survives, the only principle of prudent
conduct must have been, “_Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die_.”’


The pages which follow have been written in the belief that they
afford—whatever the defects of their Writer—useful illustrations of this
great and pregnant truth. To him it has not been given to work ‘_for
Posterity_,’ otherwise than as a Chronicler of some of the workings of
other men. But he owns to a special delight in that humble function. Its
charm,—to his mind,—is enhanced, on the present occasion, by the very
fact that so much of the work now about to be narrated is the work of
men who only rarely have been labouring with other means, or with other
implements, than those which were personal to themselves, as
individuals.

In the chief countries of the Continent of Europe—on the other
hand—great national Museums have, commonly, had their origin in the
liberality and wise foresight either of some sovereign or other, or of
some powerful minister whose mind was large enough to combine with the
cares of State a care for Learning. In Britain, our chief public
collection of literature and of science originated simply in the public
spirit of private persons.


The BRITISH MUSEUM was founded precisely at that period of our history
when the distinctively national, or governmental, care for the interests
of literature and of science was at its lowest, or almost its lowest,
point. As regards the monarchs, it would be hard to fix on any, since
the dawn of the Revival of Learning, who evinced less concern for the
progress and diffusion of learning than did the first and second princes
of the House of Hanover. As regards Parliament, the tardy and languid
acceptance of the boon proffered, posthumously, by Sir Hans SLOANE,
constitutes just the one exceptional act of encouragement that serves to
give saliency to the utter indifference which formed the ordinary rule.

Long before SLOANE’s time (as we shall see hereafter), there had been
zealous and repeated efforts to arouse the attention of the Government
as well to the political importance as to the educational value of
public museums. Many thinkers had already perceived that such
collections were a positive increase of public wealth and of national
greatness, as well as a powerful instrument of popular education. It had
been shewn, over and over again, that for lack of public care precious
monuments and treasures of learning had been lost; sometimes by their
removal to far-off countries; sometimes by their utter destruction.
Until the appeal made to Parliament by the Executors of Sir Hans SLOANE,
in the middle of the eighteenth century, all those efforts had uniformly
failed.

[Sidenote: THE REAL FOUNDERS OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM.]

But Sir Hans SLOANE cannot claim to be regarded, individually or very
specially, as the Founder of the British Museum. His last Will, indeed,
gave an opportunity for the foundation. Strictly speaking, he was not
even the Founder of his own Collection, as it stood in his lifetime. The
Founder of the Sloane Museum was William COURTEN, the last of a line of
wealthy Flemish refugees, whose history, in their adopted country, is a
series of romantic adventures.

[Sidenote: THE ACQUISITION, BY THE NATION, OF THE COTTON LIBRARY.]

Parliament had previously accepted the gift of the Cottonian Library, at
the hands of Sir John COTTON, third in descent from its Founder, and its
acceptance of that gift had been followed by almost unbroken neglect,
although the gift was a noble one. [Sidenote: (T. Carte to Sir Thomas
Hanmer, Speaker of the House of Commons; _Hanmer Corresp._, p. 226.)]
Sir John, when conversing, on one occasion, with Thomas CARTE, told the
historian that he had been offered £60,000 of English money, together
with a _carte blanche_ for some honorary mark of royal favour, on the
part of LEWIS THE FOURTEENTH, for the Library which he afterwards
settled upon the British nation. It has been estimated that SLOANE
expended (from first to last) upon his various collections about
£50,000; so that, even from the mercantile point of view, the COTTON
family may be said to have been larger voluntary contributors towards
our eventual National Museum than was Sir Hans SLOANE himself. That
point of view, however, would be a very false, because very narrow, one.

Whether estimated by mere money value, or by a truer standard, the
third, in order of time, of the Foundation-Collections, that of the
‘Harleian Manuscripts,’—was a much less important acquisition for the
Nation than was the Museum of SLOANE, or the Library of COTTON; but its
literary value, as all students of our history and literature know, is,
nevertheless, considerable. Its first Collector, Robert HARLEY, the
Minister of Queen Anne and the first of the Harleian Earls of Oxford, is
fairly entitled to rank, after COTTON, COURTEN, and SLOANE, among the
virtual or eventual co-founders of the British Museum.


Chronologically, then, Sir Robert COTTON, William COURTEN, Hans SLOANE,
and Robert HARLEY, rank first as Founders; so long as we estimate their
relative position in accordance with the successive steps by which the
British Museum was eventually organized. But there is another
synchronism by which greater accuracy is attainable. Although four years
had elapsed between the passing—in 1753—of ‘_An Act for the purchase of
the Museum or Collection of Sir Hans Sloane, and of the Harleian
Collection of Manuscripts, and for providing one general repository for
the better reception and more convenient use of the said Collection, and
of the Cottonian Library and of the additions thereto_,’ and the gift—in
1757—to the Trustees of those already united [Sidenote: THE OLD ROYAL
LIBRARY, formed by PRINCE HENRY (son of James I) at St. James’.]
Collections by King GEORGE THE SECOND, of the Old Royal Library of the
Kings his predecessors, yet that royal collection itself had been (in a
restricted sense of the words) a Public and National possession soon
after the days of the first real and central Founder of the present
Museum, Sir Robert COTTON. But, despite its title, that Royal Library,
also, was—in the main—the creation of subjects, not of Sovereigns or
Governments. Its virtual founder was HENRY, Prince of Wales. It was
acquired, out of his privy purse, as a subject, not as a Prince. He,
therefore, has a title to be placed among the individual Collectors
whose united efforts resulted—after long intervals of time—in the
creation, eventually, of a public institution second to none, of its
kind, in the world.

Prince HENRY’s story is not the least curious of the many life-stories
which these pages have to tell. That small span of barely eighteen years
was eventful, as well as full of promise. And it may very fitly be told
next, in order, after that of COTTON, who was not only his contemporary
but his friend.

[Sidenote: THE MSS. OF LORD ARUNDEL.]

As the Royal Library was, in a certain degree, a Public Collection
before the foundation of the Museum, so also was the Arundelian Library
of Manuscripts. It did not become part of the British Museum until
nearly eighty years after the amalgamation of the Cottonian, Harleian,
Sloanian, and Royal Collections into one integral body. But the
munificent Earl who formed it had often made it public, for the use of
scholars, in his own lifetime. One or two of his descendants allowed it
to fall into neglect. Before it left old Arundel House, in the Strand,
it was exposed, more than once, to loss by petty thefts. But when, by
another descendant, the injury was repaired, and the still choice
collection given—at the earnest entreaty of another of our English
worthies, John EVELYN—to the Royal Society, the Arundelian MSS., like
the Library at Saint James’ Palace, became (so far as a circle of
literary men and of the cultivators of scientific inquiry were
concerned) a public possession. Many of the Arundelian marbles had also
become—by other acts of munificence worthy of the time-honoured name of
HOWARD—to the Public at large, and without restriction, ‘things of
beauty,’ and ‘joys for ever.’ Others of them, indeed, are—even in these
days—shut up at Wilton with somewhat of a narrow jealousy of the
undistinguished multitude. But, by the liberality of the Dukes of
MARLBOROUGH, the choice gems gathered by the Earl of ARUNDEL during his
long travels on the Continent, and his widespread researches throughout
the world, have long been made available to public enjoyment, in more
ways than one. The varied narrative of that famous Collector’s life may,
perhaps, not unfitly be placed next after that of the best of the Stuart
princes. ARUNDEL, like HENRY, was the friend of Sir Robert COTTON, and
was proud of that distinction.


Undoubtedly, there is more than one point of view from which we may
regard the preponderating share borne by private collectors in the
ultimate creation of our national repository as matter of satisfaction,
rather than matter of shame. It testifies to the strength amongst
us—even at times deeply tinged with civil discord—of public and
patriotic feeling. Nor is this all. It testifies, negatively, but not
less strongly, to a conscientious sense of responsibility, on the part
of those who have administered British rule in conquered countries, and
in remote dependencies of the Crown. Few readers of such a book as this
are likely to be altogether unacquainted with national museums and
national libraries which have been largely enriched by the strong hand
of the spoiler. Into some such collections it is impossible for portions
of the people at whose aggregate expense they are maintained to enter,
without occasional feelings of disgust and humiliation. There are, it is
true, a few trophies of successful war in our own Museum. But there is
nothing in its vast stores which, to any visitor of any nationality
whatever, can bring back memories of ruthless and insolent spoliation.

That narrowness of conception, however, which has made some publicists
to regard the slenderness of the contributions of the Nation at large,
when contrasted with the extent of those of individuals, as if it were a
cause for boasting, is visibly, and very happily, on the decline. It is
coming to be recognised, more implicitly with every year that passes,
that whatever can be done by the action of Parliament, or of the
Government, for the real promotion of public civilisation,—in the
amplest and deepest meaning of that word,—is but the doing of the People
themselves, by the use of the most effective machinery they have at
hand; rather than the acceptance of a boon conferred upon them,
extraneously and from above.


If that salient characteristic in the past history of our BRITISH MUSEUM
is very far from affording any legitimate cause of boasting to the
publicist, it affords an undeniable advantage to the narrator of the
history itself. It not only broadens the range of his subject, by
placing at its threshold the narrative of several careers which will be
found to combine, at times, romantic adventure and political intrigue
with public service of a high order; but it binds up, inseparably, the
story of the quiet growth of an institution in London with occasional
glimpses at the progress, from age to age, of geographical and
scientific discovery, of archæological exploration, and of the most
varied labours for the growth of human learning, throughout the world.

As an organized establishment, the BRITISH MUSEUM is but little more
than a century old. The history of its component parts extends over
three centuries. That history embraces a series of systematic
researches,—scientific, literary, and archæological,—the account of
which (whatsoever the needful brevity of its treatment in these pages)
must be told clumsily, indeed, if it be found to lack a very wide and
general interest for all classes of readers—one class only excepted.


[Sidenote: THE DIVERSITY OF THE MUSEUM COLLECTIONS.]

Even the least thoughtful among those visitors who can be said to
frequent the Museum—as distinguished from the mere holiday guests, who
come only in crowds, little favourable to vision; to say nothing of
thought—will occasionally have had some faint impression or other of the
great diversity and wonderful combination of effort which must have been
employed in bringing together the Collections they look upon. Every part
and almost every age of the world has contributed something; and that
something includes the most characteristic productions and choicest
possessions of every part. Almost every man of British birth who,—during
many centuries,—has won conspicuous fame as a traveller, as an
archæologist, or as a discoverer, has helped, in one way or other, to
enrich those collections. They bear their own peculiar testimony to
nearly every step which has been taken either in the maritime and
colonial enterprise, or in the political growth, of the British empire.
Nor is their testimony a whit less cogent to the power of that feeling
of international brotherhood, in matters of learning and science, which
grows with their growth, and waxes stronger with their strength.


To the remarkable career of the first of those four primary Collectors,
whose lifelong pursuits converged, eventually, in the foundation of an
institution, of the full scope of which only one of the four had even a
mental glimpse—and SLOANE’s glimpse was obviously but a very dim one—the
attention of the reader has now to be turned. Sir Robert COTTON’s
employments in political life (unofficial as they were), and the
powerful influence which he exerted upon statesmen much abler than
himself, will be found, it is hoped, to give not a little of historical
interest to his biography, quite additional to that which belongs to his
pursuits as a studious Collector, and as the most famous of all the
literary antiquaries who occur throughout our English story.

To the conspicuous merits which belong to Sir Robert COTTON as a
politician of no mean acumen, and as,—in the event,—the real Founder of
the British Museum, are added the still higher distinctions of an
eminently generous spirit and a faithful heart. His openhandedness in
giving was constant and princely. His firmness in friendship is
testified by the fact that although (in a certain point of view) he was
the courtier both of JAMES THE FIRST and of CHARLES THE FIRST, he
nevertheless stood persistently and unflinchingly by the side of ELIOT,
and of the men who worked with ELIOT, in the period of their deepest
court disgrace. By the best of the Parliamentarian leaders he was both
reverenced and loved. And he reciprocated their feeling.

[Sidenote: RECENT ATTACKS ON SIR ROBERT COTTON’S MEMORY.]

My personal pleasure in the task of writing the life of such a man as he
was is much enhanced by a strong conviction that certain recent attacks
upon his memory are based upon fallacious evidence, shallow
presumptions, and hasty judgments. It is my hope to be able to shew to
the Reader, conclusively, that COTTON was worthy of the cordial regard
and the high esteem in which he was uniformly held by men who stood free
of all bias from political and party connexion—such, for example, as
William CAMDEN, who spoke of him, almost with dying lips, as ‘the
dearest of all my friends,’—as well as by those great Parliamentarian
leaders whose estimate of him may, perhaps, be thought—by hasty
readers—to rest partly, if not mainly, on the eminent political service
which he was able to render them.


When these pages shall come from the Press just three hundred years will
have elapsed since Sir Robert COTTON’s birth. Our English
proto-collector was born in the year 1570. The year 1870 will, in all
probability, witness the definite solution of a knotty problem as to the
future of the great institution of which he was the primary and central
founder.


COTTON may be regarded as the English ‘proto-collector,’ in a point of
view other than that which concerns the British Museum. No Library in
the United Kingdom can, I think, shew an _integral_ ‘Collection,’ still
extant, the formation of which—as a Collection—can be traced to an
earlier date than that of the collection of the Cottonian Manuscripts.


Whether the BRITISH MUSEUM shall continue to be the great national
repository for Science, as well as for Literature and Antiquities, is a
question which is fast ripening for decision; and it is one which ought
to be interesting to all Britons. It is also, and very eminently, one of
those questions of which it is literally—and not sarcastically—to be
affirmed that ‘there is much to be said on both sides.’

Personally I have a very strong conviction on that subject. But in
treating of it—in the ‘Postscript’ which closes the present volume—it
has been my single and earnest aim to state, with the utmost
impartiality I am able to attain, the leading arguments for maintaining
the Museum in its full integrity; and also the leading arguments for
severing the great Natural History Collections from the rapidly growing
Libraries and from the vast Galleries of marbles, bronzes, pottery,
medals, and prints. It is the business of writers to state and marshal
the evidence. It is the business of Parliament to pronounce the
judgment.


The main epochs in the History of the British Museum afford what may be
looked upon almost as a ‘table of contents’ to the present volume. And
they may be brought under the Reader’s eye in a way which will much
facilitate the correct apprehension of the author’s plan. I exhibit them
thus:—

[Sidenote: EPOCHS OF BRIT. MUSEUM GROWTH AND INCREASE.]

 ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
 │  CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE DATES, FOUNDERS, AND CHARACTER, OF THE   │
 │   COMPONENT COLLECTIONS, OUT OF WHICH THE BRITISH MUSEUM HAS BEEN   │
 │                        FORMED OR ENLARGED:—                         │
 ├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────┬─────────────┤
 │     CLASS I.—=Foundation Collections, 1570–1762=.     │             |
 │                                                       │             |
 │  I. COTTONIAN MANUSCRIPTS, COINS, MEDALS, AND OTHER   │             │
 │                     ANTIQUITIES.                      │             │
 │                                                       │             │
 │_Collected_ by =Sir Robert Cotton=, Baronet (born in   │             │
 │the year 1570; died 6 May, 1631). _Given_ to the Nation│             │
 │by =Sir John Cotton= in 1700. _Augmented_ during the   │             │
 │Collector’s lifetime by the gifts of =Arthur Agarde=   │             │
 │(1615), =William Camden= (1623), =John Dee= (1608),    │             │
 │=William Lambarde= (1601), and others; and, after his  │             │
 │death, by the acquisitions of Sir Thomas COTTON and Sir│INCORPORATED │
 │John COTTON, his descendants; and also by the Printed  │by the Act   │
 │Library of =Major Arthur Edwards=, given in 1738.      │(A.D. =1753=)│
 │                                                       │26 Geo. II,  │
 │               II. OLD ‘ROYAL LIBRARY.’                │c. 22,       │
 │                                                       │entitled,    │
 │Re-founded, or restored, by =Henry, Prince of Wales=   │‘_An Act for │
 │(born in 1594; died 6 November, 1612). [See CLASS II, §│the Purchase │
 │1.]                                                    │of the Museum│
 │                                                       │or Collection│
 │             III. ARUNDELIAN MANUSCRIPTS.              │of Sir Hans  │
 │                                                       │Sloane and of│
 │_Collected_ by =Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel and of  │the Harleian │
 │Norfolk=; Earl Marshal of England; K.G. (Born in 1586; │Collection of│
 │succeeded as XXIII^{rd} Earl of Arundel in 1603; died 4│MSS.; and for│
 │October, 1646.) [See CLASS II, § 33.]                  │providing one│
 │                                                       │General      │
 │  IV. THOMASON TRACTS (Printed and Manuscript). [See   │Repository   │
 │                    CLASS II, § 3.]                    │... for the  │
 │                                                       │said         │
 │               V. HARLEIAN MANUSCRIPTS.                │Collections  │
 │                                                       │and for the  │
 │_Collected_ by =Robert Harley, Earl Of Oxford= (born in│Cottonian    │
 │1661; died 21 May, 1724). _Augmented_ by incorporation,│Library and  │
 │at various times, of the Collections, severally, or of │additions    │
 │considerable portions of the Collections of =Sir       │thereto_;’   │
 │Humphrey Gilbert= (died 1584), =John Foxe= (1581),     │             │
 │=Daniel Rogers= (1590), =John Stowe= (1605), =Sir Henry│Opened, for  │
 │Savile= (1622), =Sampson Lennard= (1633), =Sir Henry   │Public Use,  │
 │Spelman= (1641), =Sir Symonds D’Ewes= (1650), =Sir     │on Monday the│
 │James Ware= (1666), =William Sancroft=, Archbishop of  │15th January,│
 │Canterbury (1693), =Peter Séguier=, Chancellor of      │=1759=; and  │
 │France (1696), =John Bagford= (1716); and others. [See │subsequently │
 │BOOK I, c. 5.]                                         │AUGMENTED,   │
 │                                                       │from time to │
 │     VI. ‘SLOANE MUSEUM’ OF NATURAL HISTORY AND OF     │time, by     │
 │  ANTIQUITIES; AND LIBRARY OF MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED  │numerous     │
 │                        BOOKS.                         │additional   │
 │                                                       │Collections; │
 │_Collected_ by =William Courten= [known during part of │and, MORE    │
 │his life as ‘William CHARLETON’] (born in 1642; died 26│PARTICULARLY,│
 │March, 1702); _continued_ by =Sir Hans Sloane=, Baronet│by the       │
 │(born in 1660; died 11 January, 1752); _bequeathed_, by│following—   │
 │the Continuator, to the British Nation,—conditionally  │             │
 │on the payment to his executors, by authority of       │             │
 │Parliament, of the sum of £20,000,—in order that those │             │
 │his Collections—to use the words of his last Will—being│             │
 │things ‘tending many ways to the Manifestation of the  │             │
 │Glory of God, the Confutation of Atheism and its       │             │
 │consequences, the Use and Improvement of the Arts and  │             │
 │Sciences, and benefit of Mankind, may remain together  │             │
 │and not be separated, and that chiefly in or about the │             │
 │City of London, where they may by the great confluence │             │
 │of people be of most use.’... [See BOOK I, c. 6.]     │             │
 └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────┴─────────────┘


               CLASS II.—=Primary Accession Collections.=

=1757–1831=:—


                                  (I)

=1757.= Old ‘ROYAL LIBRARY.’

[Sidenote: EPOCHS OF BRIT. MUSEUM GROWTH AND INCREASE.]

_Restored_, by =Henry, Prince of Wales=, in the year 1609, by the
purchase—and incorporation with the remnants of an ancient collection—of
the Library of =John de Lumley, Lord Lumley= (Born _circa_ 1530;
Restored in blood, as VIth Baron Lumley, in 1547: Died 1609);
_Continued_ by =Charles I= and =Charles II=, =Kings of England, &c.=,
from 1627 to 1683; _Given_ to the Nation by =King George the Second= in
1757.

    This OLD ROYAL LIBRARY, although, as above mentioned, it still
    contains fragments of the more ancient Collection of the Kings of
    England—and among them books which undoubtedly belonged to King
    HENRY THE SIXTH, if not to earlier Plantagenet kings—may fairly be
    regarded as of Prince HENRY’s foundation in the main. Lord LUMLEY’s
    Library (which the Prince bought in bulk) contained that of his
    father-in-law, Henry =Fitzalan=, Earl of Arundel, into which had
    passed a part of Archbishop =Cranmer’s= Library. But this conjoined
    Collection has not wholly passed to the British Museum. It suffered
    some losses after Prince HENRY’s death. On the other hand, it had
    acquired the collection of MSS. formed by the THEYERS (John and
    Charles), in which was included another part of the Library of
    CRANMER; as I shall shew hereafter.

                        [See BOOK I, Chapter 3.]


                                  (II)

=1759.= HEBREW LIBRARY (Printed and Manuscript) of DA COSTA.

_Collected_ by =Solomon Da Costa=, formerly of Amsterdam, and chiefly
between the years 1720 and 1727; _Given_ by the Collector, in 1759, to
the Trustees of the British Museum ‘for inspection and service of the
Public, as a small token of my esteem, reverence, love, and gratitude to
this magnanimous Nation, and as a thanksgiving offering ... for
numberless blessings which I have enjoyed under it.’ (From DA COSTA’s
Letter to the Trustees.)

    A collection, small in extent, but of great intrinsic worth; and
    very memorable, both as the generous gift of a good man; and as
    instancing the co-operation (at the very outset) of the love of
    learning in a foreigner—and a Jew—with a like love in Britons, for a
    common object; national, indeed, but also much more than national.


                                 (III)

=1762.= The THOMASON COLLECTION OF ENGLISH BOOKS and TRACTS, Printed and
Manuscript.

_Collected_ by =George Thomason= (Died 1666); _Purchased_ by =King
George the Third=, in 1762, for presentation to the British Museum.

    This Collection—the interest of which is specially but by no means
    exclusively political and historical—was formed between the years
    1641 and 1663 inclusive, and it contains everything printed in
    England during the whole of that period which a man of great
    enterprise and energy could bring together by daily watchfulness and
    large outlay. It also contains many publications, and many private
    impressions, from printing-presses in Scotland, Ireland, and the
    Continent of Europe, relating to or illustrating the affairs of the
    United Kingdom and of the Commonwealth. In his lifetime, the
    Collector refused £4000 for his library, as insufficient to
    reimburse his costs, charges, and labour. His heirs and their
    assigns kept it for a century and then sold it to King George III
    for £300. It includes many political MSS., which no printer dared to
    put to press.


                                  (IV)

=1766.= The SOLANDER FOSSILS.

_Collected_ by =Daniel Charles Solander= (Died 16 May, 1782); Purchased
by =Gustavus Brander= and by him _presented_ to the Museum (of which he
was one of the first Trustees) in 1766.

    The ‘Solander Fossils’—so called from the name of the eminent
    naturalist who found and described them—formed the primary
    Collection on which by gradual accessions the present magnificent
    collection of fossils has been built up.


                                  (V)

=1766.= The BIRCH LIBRARY OF PRINTED BOOKS and MANUSCRIPTS.

_Collected_ by =Thomas Birch, D.D.=, a Trustee of the British Museum
(Died 1766), and _bequeathed_ by the Collector.


                                  (VI)

=1772.= The HAMILTON VASES, ANTIQUITIES, and DRAWINGS.

_Collected_ by =Sir William Hamilton= (Died 6 April, 1803); _Purchased_
by Parliament from the Collector in 1772 for £8400.

                       [See BOOK II, Chapter 2.]


                                 (VII)

=1790–1799.= The MUSGRAVE LIBRARY.

_Collected_ by =Sir William Musgrave=, a Trustee (Died 1799);
_Acquired_, partly by gift in 1790; partly by bequest in 1799.

                       [See BOOK II, Chapter 1.]


                                 (VIII)

=1799.= The CRACHERODE LIBRARY and MUSEUM.

_Collected_ by the Reverend =Clayton Mordaunt Cracherode=, a Trustee of
the British Museum (Died 1799), and _bequeathed_ by the Collector.

                       [See BOOK II, Chapter 3.]


                                  (IX)

=1799.= The HATCHETT MINERALS.

_Collected_ by =Charles Hatchett=, and _purchased_ for £700.


                                  (X)

=1802.= The ALEXANDRIAN COLLECTION of EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES.

_Collected_ by the =French Institute of Egypt= in 1800; _Transferred_ to
the Crown of England by the terms of the Capitulation of Alexandria in
1801; _Given_ to the Museum in 1802 by =King George the Third=.

                       [See BOOK II, Chapter 2.]


                                  (XI)

=1802.= The TYSSEN ANGLO-SAXON COINS.

_Collected_ by =Samuel Tyssen=; _Purchased_ by the Trustees (for £620).


                                 (XII)

=1805–1814.= The TOWNLEY MARBLES, COINS, and DRAWINGS.

_Collected_ by the Townley Family, and chiefly by =Charles Townley=, of
Townley in Lancashire; and acquired by Parliament, by successive
_purchases_, in the years 1805 and 1814, for the aggregate sum of
£28,200.

                       [See BOOK II, Chapter 2.]


                                 (XIII)

=1807.= The LANSDOWNE MANUSCRIPTS.

_Collected_ by =William Petty Fitzmaurice=, Marquess of Lansdowne (Died
1805), who _incorporated_ in it from time to time parts of the Libraries
and Manuscript Collections of =William Cecil, Lord Burghley= (Died
1598); of =Sir Julius Cæsar= (Died 1636); of =White Kennet=, Bishop of
Peterborough (Died 1728); of =John Strype= (Died 1737); of =Philip
Carteret Webb= (Died 1770); and of =James West= (Died 1772). _Purchased_
by Parliament for the sum of £4925.

                       [See BOOK II, Chapter 3.]


                                 (XIV)

=1810.= The GREVILLE MINERALS.

_Collected_ by =Charles Greville=. _Purchased_ by Parliament for the sum
of £13,727.

                       [See BOOK II, Chapter 2.]


                                  (XV)

=1810.= The ROBERTS ENGLISH COINS.

_Collected_ by =Edward Roberts=, of the Exchequer; _Purchased_ by
Parliament for the sum of £4200.

    This Collection extended from the Norman Conquest to the reign of
    George the Third. It was purchased for the Collector’s heir.


                                 (XVI)

=1811.= The DE BOSSET GREEK COINS.

_Collected_ by =Colonel De Bosset=. _Purchased_ by the Trustees for the
sum of £800.


                                 (XVII)

=1813.= The HARGRAVE LIBRARY.

_Collected_ by =Francis Hargrave=. _Purchased_ by Parliament for the sum
of £8000.

                       [See BOOK II, Chapter 3.]


                                (XVIII)

=1815.= The PHIGALEIAN MARBLES.

_Discovered_, in 1812, amongst the ruins of Ictinus’ Temple of Apollo
‘the Deliverer’ at Phigaleia, in Arcadia, built about B.C. 430.
_Purchased_ in 1815, for the sum of £15,000.

                       [See BOOK II, Chapter 2.]


                                 (XIX)

=1815.= The VON MOLL LIBRARY and MUSEUM.

_Collected_ by the =Baron Von Moll= (Died ...). _Purchased_ (at Munich)
for the sum of £4768 (including the contingent expenses), out of the
Fund bequeathed by =Major Edwards=.

    The Library of BARON VON MOLL comprised nearly 20,000 volumes, and a
    considerable Collection of Portraits and other Prints. His Museum
    consisted of an extensive Herbarium and a Collection of Minerals.
    The purchase was completed in 1816.


                                  (XX)

=1816.= The BEROLDINGEN FOSSILS.

    Acquired by _purchase_; and the only considerable acquisition, made
    in this department, between BRANDER’S gift of Fossils (gathered from
    the London Clay) in 1766, and the purchase of HAWKINS’ fine
    Collection, in 1835.


                                 (XXI)

=1816.= The ELGIN MARBLES.

_Collected_, under firman of the Ottoman Porte, between the years 1801
and 1810—and chiefly in the years 1802 and 1803—by =Thomas Bruce, Earl
of Elgin= (Died 14 October, 1841). _Purchased_ by Parliament in 1816 for
the sum of £35,000.

                       [See BOOK II, Chapter 2.]


                                 (XXII)

=1816.= The MONTAGU ZOOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS.

_Collected_ by =Colonel George Montagu= (Died 20 June, 1815), and
arranged, as a Museum of British Zoology—and especially of
Ornithology—at Knowle, in Devonshire. _Purchased_ at a cost of £1100.


                                (XXIII)

=1818.= The BURNEY LIBRARY.

_Collected_ by =Dr. Charles Burney= (Died 28 December, 1817).
_Purchased_ by a Parliamentary vote for the sum of £13,500.

                       [See BOOK II, Chapter 3.]


                                 (XXIV)

=1818.= MRS. BANKS’ ARCHÆOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS.

Collected by =Mrs. S. S. Banks=, and by =Lady Banks=; comprising a
valuable series of coins, medals, prints, &c., and _presented_ to the
Museum by the Survivor.


                                 (XXV)

=1823–1825.= The KING’S LIBRARY.

_Collected_ by =King George the Third= (Died 1820); inherited by King
George the Fourth, and by him transferred, on terms, to the British
Museum.

                       [See BOOK II, Chapter 4.]


                                 (XXVI)

=1824.= The PAYNE-KNIGHT CABINETS, LIBRARY, and MUSEUM.

_Collected_ by =Richard Payne Knight= (Died 24 April, 1824), a Trustee;
comprising Marbles, Bronzes, Vases, Prints, Drawings, Coins, Medals, and
Books. _Bequeathed_ by the Collector.

                       [See BOOK II, Chapter 3.]


                                (XXVII)

=1825.= The PERSEPOLITAN MARBLES.

                       [See BOOK II, Chapter 2.]


                                (XXVIII)

=1825.= The ORIENTAL COLLECTIONS of CLAUDIUS JAMES RICH.

=Claudius Rich= was British Consul at Bagdad (Died 5 Oct., 1821). He
made an extensive gathering of Persian, Turkish, Syriac, and Arabic
MSS., and of Coins, &c. These were purchased by a Parliamentary vote.


                                 (XXIX)

=1825.= SIR RICHARD COLT HOARE’S ITALIAN LIBRARY.

_Given_, by the Collector, in 1825, and subsequently increased, by
another gift.

                       [See BOOK II, Chapter 3.]


                                 (XXX)

=1827.= The BANKSIAN LIBRARY, HERBARIA, and MUSEUM.

_Collected_ by =Sir Joseph Banks=, P.R.S. (Died 19 June, 1820), and a
Trustee. _Bequeathed_ by the Collector, with a prior life interest, to
=Robert Brown= (Died 1858); and by him _transferred_ to the British
Museum in 1827.

    Sir Joseph’s botanical Collections included the Herbaria, severally,
    of =Cliffort=; of =Clayton= (the basis of the ‘_Flora Virginica_’);
    of =John Baptist Fusée d’Aublet= (Died 6 May, 1728); of =Nicholas
    Joseph Jacquin=, author of the ‘_Floræ Austriacæ_’ (Died 24 October,
    1817); and of =Philip Miller=, author of ‘_The Gardener’s
    Dictionary_’ (Died 18 December, 1771); with portions of the
    Collections of =Tournefort=, =Hermann=, and =Loureiro=.


                                 (XXXI)

=1829.= The HARTZ-MOUNTAINS MINERALS.

_Collected_ at various periods and by several mineralogists. This fine
Cabinet was for a considerable period preserved at Richmond. _Presented_
by =King George the Fourth=.


                                (XXXII)

=1829.= The EGERTON MANUSCRIPTS.

_Collected_ by =Francis Henry Egerton, Earl of Bridgewater= (Died 11
February, 1829). _Bequeathed_ by the Collector; together with a sum of
£12,000, to be invested, and the yearly income to be applied for further
purchases of MSS. from time to time; and with other provision towards
the salary of an ‘Egerton Librarian.’

                       [See BOOK II, Chapter 5.]


                                (XXXIII)

=1831.= The ARUNDELIAN MANUSCRIPTS.

_Collected_, between the years 1606 and 1646, by =Thomas Howard, Earl of
Arundel=, &c. (Died 4 Oct., 1646); _Given_ in 1681 by his eventual heir,
=Henry Howard=, Esquire (afterwards XIIth Duke of Norfolk—Died in 1701),
and at the request of John Evelyn, to the Royal Society; _Transferred_
by the Council of that Society, in 1831,—partly by purchase, and partly
by exchange—to the Trustees of the British Museum. The Collection
includes the bulk of the Library of =Bilibald Pirckheimer=, purchased at
Nuremberg, by LORD ARUNDEL, in 1636.

                        [See BOOK I, Chapter 4.]




   _COLLECTIONS OF PICTURES BELONGING TO THE TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH
            MUSEUM, BUT DEPOSITED IN THE NATIONAL GALLERY._


                                (XXXIV)

=1823.= The BEAUMONT GALLERY.

_Collected_ by =Sir George Howland Beaumont= (Died 7 February, 1827);
_Given_ by the Collector in 1823 to the British Museum, on condition of
its usufructuary retention, during his lifetime. Deposited in the
National Gallery, under terms of arrangement, after the Collector’s
death.


                                 (XXXV)

=1830.= The HOLWELL-CARR GALLERY.

_Collected_ by the Reverend =William Holwell Carr= (Died 24 December,
1830), and by the Collector _bequeathed_ to the British Museum.
_Deposited_ under arrangements similar to those adopted for the Beaumont
Pictures in the National Gallery.


These are the primary Accession-Collections that came to the British
Museum, during the first seventy years which elapsed after its public
opening (January, 1759). They form a noble monument alike of the
liberality and public spirit of individual Englishmen, and of the
fidelity of the Trustees to the charge committed to them as a body. And
the reader will hardly have failed to notice how remarkable a proportion
of the most munificent of the Benefactors of the institution were,
previously to their gifts, numbered amongst its Trustees.

If the liberality of Parliament failed to be elicited in due
correspondency—in respect either to the amount or the frequency of its
grants—to that of individuals, the failure is rarely, if ever,
ascribable to oversight or somnolency on the part of the Trustees. If,
during the lapse of those seventy years, they obtained grants of public
money which amounted, in the aggregate, to but £151,762—little more, on
an average, than two thousand pounds a year—they made not a few
applications to which the Treasury, or the House of Commons, refused to
respond. Meanwhile, the gifts of Benefactors probably much more than
trebled the public grants.

At the outset, the Museum was divided into three ‘Departments’ only: (1)
_Manuscripts_; (2) _Printed Books_; (3) _Natural History_.

The acquisition, in 1801, of the Alexandrian monuments, was the first
accession which gave prominence to the ‘Antiquities’—theretofore
regarded as little more than a curious appendage to the Natural History
Collections. Four years later came the Townley Marbles. It was then
obvious that a new Department ought to be made. This change was effected
in 1807. The Marbles and minor Antiquities, together with the Prints,
Drawings, Coins, and Medals (formerly appended to the Departments of
Printed Books and of MSS.) were formed into a separate department.
Twenty years afterwards the ‘Botanical Department’ was created, on the
reception of the Banksian herbaria and their appendant Collections. The
division into five departments continued down to the date of the
Parliamentary inquiry of 1835–36 [Book III, Chapter 1]. Soon afterwards
(1837), the immediate custody of the ‘Prints and Drawings’ was severed
from that of the ‘Antiquities’ and made a special charge. In like
manner, the Department of ‘Natural History’ was also (1837) subdivided;
but in this instance the one department became, eventually, three: (1)
Zoology; (2) Palæontology; (3) Mineralogy. The two last-named divisions
were first separated in 1857. How the eight departments of 1860 have
become _twelve_ in 1869 will be seen hereafter.

It will also, I think, become apparent that this subdivision of
Departments has contributed, in an important measure, to the enlargement
of the several Collections; as well as to their better arrangement, and
to other exigencies of the public service.


We have now to enumerate the more salient and important among the many
successive acquisitions of the last forty years. Taken collectively,
they have so enlarged the proportions of the national repository as to
make the ‘British Museum’ of 1831 seem, in the retrospect, as if, at
that time, it had been yet in its infancy.

In 1831 there were still living—here and there—a few ancient Londoners
whose personal recollections extended over the whole period during which
the Museum had existed. One or two of them could, perhaps, still call to
mind something of the aspect which the gaily painted and decorated rooms
of old Montagu House presented when—as children—they had been permitted
to accompany some fortunate possessor of a ticket of admission to ‘see
the curiosities;’ and were hurried by the Cerberus in charge for the day
from room to room; the Cerberus aforesaid (unless his memory has been
libelled) seeming to count the minutes, if a visitor chanced to show the
least desire for a closer inspection of anything which caught his eye.
And, in some points—although certainly not in that point—the Museum of
1831 was not very greatly altered, much as it had been enlarged, from
the Museum of 1759. Cerberus had long quitted his post; but many
portions of the Collections he had had in charge retained their wonted
aspect, much as he had left them.

Such octogenarian survivors—if endowed with a good memory—would see, in
their latest visits to Great Russell Street much more to remind them of
what they had seen in the first, than a new visitor of 1831 could now
see,—in 1869,—were he, in his turn, striving to recall the impressions
of _his_ earliest visit.


The period now to be briefly outlined—in order to a fair preliminary
view of our subject—is marked, like that of 1759–1831, by continued
munificence on the part of private donors; but it is also marked—unlike
that—by some approach towards proportionate liberality from the keepers
of the public purse; as well as by energetic and persistent efforts for
internal improvement, on the part both of Trustees and of Officers. It
forms a quite new epoch. It may be said, unexaggeratedly, to have
witnessed a re-foundation of the Museum, in almost everything that bears
on its direct utility to the public.

In regard to this last period, however—no less than in regard to the
foregoing one—only the more salient Collections can here be enumerated.
Many minor ones have been passed over already, notwithstanding their
intrinsic value. Many others—equally meriting notice, were space for it
available—will have, in like manner, to be passed over now.


         CLASS III.—=Recent Accession-Collections. 1833–1869.=


                                (XXXVI)

=1833.= The BORELL CABINET of GREEK and ROMAN COINS.

_Collected_ by the late =H. P. Borell=, of Smyrna. _Purchased_ by the
Trustees for £1000.


                                (XXXVII)

=1834.= SAMS’ COLLECTION of EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES.

_Collected_ by =Joseph Sams=. _Purchased_, by a Parliamentary grant, for
£2500.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 3.]


                               (XXXVIII)

=1834= (and subsequent years). The HAWKINS FOSSILS.

_Collected_ by =Thomas Hawkins=, of Glastonbury. _Purchased_, by
successive grants of Parliament, in the years 1834 and 1840.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 3.]


                                (XXXIX)

=1835.= The HARDWICKE ORNITHOLOGICAL MUSEUM.

_Collected_ by =Major-General Hardwicke=. _Bequeathed_ by the Collector.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                                  (XL)

=1835.= The SALT MUSEUM of EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES.

_Collected_ by =Henry Salt=, British Consul at Alexandria (Died 30
October, 1827). _Purchased_ (at various times) by Parliamentary grants.

    Of Mr. Salt’s successive Collections of Egyptian antiquities the
    most valuable portions have come to the Museum; chiefly in the years
    1823 and 1835.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 3.]


                                 (XLI)

=1836.= The MARSDEN CABINET of ORIENTAL COINS.

_Collected_ by =William Marsden= (Died 6 October, 1836). _Bequeathed_ by
the Collector.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 3.]


                                 (XLII)

=1836.= The SHEEPSHANKS COLLECTION of ETCHINGS, PRINTS, &C.

_Collected_ by =John Sheepshanks= (Died October, 1863); and _Given_ by
the Collector.


                                (XLIII)

=1837–43.= The CANINO VASES.

A selection from the superb Museum of the Prince of =Canino= (Died 29
June, 1840); acquired by successive purchases before and after the
Collector’s death.


                                 (XLIV)

=1839.= The MANTELL FOSSILS.

_Collected_ by =Gideon Algernon Mantell= (Died November 10, 1850).
_Purchased_ by a Parliamentary grant.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                                 (XLV)

=1841–1847.= SYRIAC MANUSCRIPTS from the NITRIAN MONASTERIES.

_Collected_ by the Reverend =Henry Tattam= and by =M. Pachot=.
_Purchased_ by the Trustees, by three successive bargains, in the years
1841–1847.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 3.]


                                 (XLVI)

=1842.= The HARDING PRINTS and DRAWINGS.

_Purchased_, for the Trustees, by selection at the Collector’s sale. The
selection comprised 321 very choice specimens of early German and
Italian masters; and was acquired for the sum of £2390.


                                (XLVII)

=1843.= The RAPHAEL MORGHENS PRINTS.

_Purchased_ by the Trustees, by a like selection, at a public sale in
1843.


                                (XLVIII)

=1845.= The LYCIAN or XANTHIAN MARBLES.

_Discovered_ by =Sir Charles Fellowes= (Died 1860) in the years
1842–1844. _Transferred_ to the Museum at the cost of the Trustees in
1845.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 3.]


                                 (XLIX)

=1847.= The GRENVILLE LIBRARY.

_Collected_ by the Right Hon. =Thomas Grenville= (Died 17 December,
1846). _Bequeathed_ by the Collector.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 2.]


                                  (L)

=1847.= The MICHAEL HEBREW LIBRARY.

_Collected_ by =H. J. Michael=, of Hamburgh. _Purchased_ by the Trustees
from his Executors.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                                  (LI)

=1847.= JOHN ROBERT MORRISON’S CHINESE LIBRARY.

_Collected_ by =J. R. Morrison= (son of the eminent Christian Missionary
and Lexicographer—Died 1843). _Purchased_ from his Executors by a
Parliamentary grant.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                                 (LII)

=1848.= The CROIZET FOSSIL-MAMMALS.

_Collected_ by =M. Croizet= in Auvergne. _Purchased_ by the Trustees.


                                 (LIII)

=1851–1860.= The ASSYRIAN ANTIQUITIES.

Partly _discovered_ by =Austen Henry Layard=. Excavated at the public
charge, and under the joint direction of the Trustees of the British
Museum and of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in 1851 and
subsequent years by the Discoverer, and by =H. Rassam=, and =W. K.
Loftus=.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 3.]


                                 (LIV)

=1853.= The GELL DRAWINGS.

_Drawn_ and _Collected_ by =Sir William Gell= (Died 4 February, 1836).
_Bequeathed_ by the Honorable =Keppel Craven= (Died 1853).

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 3.]


                                  (LV)

=1853.= The STEPHENS CABINET of BRITISH ENTOMOLOGY.

_Collected_ by =James Francis Stephens= (Died 22 December, 1852).
_Purchased_ by the Trustees.

    Although this Collection contained about 88,000 specimens, it cost
    the Trustees only £400.


                                 (LVI)

=1854.= The DES-HAYES TERTIARY FOSSILS.

_Collected_, in France, by =M. Des Hayes=. _Purchased_ by the Trustees.


                                 (LVII)

=1855–1860.= The HALICARNASSIAN and CNIDIAN MARBLES.

_Discovered_ and excavated by =C. T. Newton= (then Vice-Consul at
Mitylene) and other Explorers (earlier and later). In part _Presented_
by =Lord Canning= of Redcliffe (then Ambassador at Constantinople); and
in part excavated and transported by the Trustees, with the aid of
Parliamentary grants made in 1855 and subsequent years.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 3.]


                                (LVIII)

=1856.= The TEMPLE MUSEUM of ITALO-GREEK and ROMAN ANTIQUITIES.

_Collected_ by =Sir William Temple= (Died 1856) during his Embassy at
Naples. _Bequeathed_ by the Collector.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 3.]


                                 (LIX)

=1857.= The CAUTLEY FOSSILS from the Himalayas.

_Collected_ by =Major Cautley=, during his service in India. _Purchased_
by the Trustees.


                                  (LX)

=1858.= The BRUCHMANN FOSSIL PLANTS.

_Collected_ by =Bruchmann= at and near Œningen. _Purchased_ by the
Trustees.


                                 (LXI)

=1859.= The CARTHAGINIAN ANTIQUITIES.

_Discovered_,—and excavated (partly at the cost of the Trustees),—by
=Nathan Davis= and others, during the year 1856 and subsequent years.
The Davis Collection includes a series of Phœnician Inscriptions, some
of which are of great antiquity. _Purchased_ from the Collector.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 3.]


                                 (LXII)

=1860.= The ALLAN-GREG CABINET of MINERALS.

_Collected_, mainly, by =R. H. Greg=, of Manchester. _Purchased_ by the
Trustees.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                                (LXIII)

=1860.= The GARDNER HERBARIUM of BRAZIL.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                                 (LXIV)

=1860.= The CYRENE MARBLES.

_Discovered_, and excavated by Lieutenants =R. M. Smith= and =Porcher=,
under firmans from Constantinople, and at the charge of the Trustees, in
1860 and subsequent years.

             [See also No. LXVI under the year ‘1863,’ and

BOOK III, Chapter 3.]


                                 (LXV)

=1862.= The HAEBERLEIN FOSSILS.

_Collected_ by =Haeberlein=. Brought from Solenhofen; and _Purchased_ by
the Trustees.


                                 (LXVI)

=1863.= The SICILIAN ANTIQUITIES.

_Discovered_ and excavated by =George Dennis= (Her Majesty’s Consul at
Benghazi), under direction from the Foreign Office, in 1862 and
subsequent years. _Presented_ by =Earl Russell=.


                                (LXVII)

=1863.= The BOWRING COLLECTION of FOREIGN INSECTS.

_Collected_ by =John Bowring=. _Presented_ by the Collector.

    The Collector obtained a large portion of this fine Cabinet of
    Entomology during his own travels in India, Java, and China. It
    consists chiefly of Coleopterous insects.


                                (LXVIII)

=1864.= The WIGAN CABINET of COINS.

_Collected_ and _Presented_ by =Edward Wigan=.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 3.]


                                 (LXIX)

=1864.= The RHODIAN MARBLES.

_Excavated_, at the charge of the Trustees, by =MM. Salzmann= and
=Biliotti=, in 1863 and subsequent years.


                                 (LXX)

=1864.= The CURETON ORIENTAL MANUSCRIPTS.

_Collected_ by the late =William Cureton, D.D.= (Died 17 June, 1864).
_Purchased_ by the Trustees from his Executors.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 3.]


                                 (LXXI)

=1864.= The WRIGHT HERBARIUM of CUBA and NEW MEXICO.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                                (LXXII)

=1864.= The TRISTRAM CABINET of the ZOOLOGY of the HOLY LAND.

_Collected_ by the Reverend =H. B. Tristram, M.A.= _Presented_ by the
Collector.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                                (LXXIII)

=1865.= The HEBREW LIBRARY of ALMANZI.

This valuable series of Hebrew Manuscripts, &c. was _collected_ by the
late =Joseph Almanzi=, of Padua; and was _purchased_ by the Trustees of
his Executors.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                                (LXXIV)

=1865.= The ERSKINE ORIENTAL MANUSCRIPTS.

_Collected_ by =William Erskine=, during his residence in India.
_Purchased_ by the Trustees.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                                 (LXXV)

=1865.= The MALCOLM PERSIAN MANUSCRIPTS.

_Collected_ by =Sir John Malcolm= (Died 31 May, 1833) during his Embassy
to Persia. _Purchased_ by the Trustees.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                                (LXXVI)

=1865.= The KOKSCHAROW MINERALS.

_Collected_ by =Colonel de Kokscharow=. _Purchased_ by the Trustees.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                                (LXXVII)

=1865.= The EPHESIAN MARBLES.

Excavated, at the charge of the Trustees, by Vice-Consul =Wood=.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 3.]


                               (LXXVIII)

=1865.= The CHRISTY PRE-HISTORIC and ETHNOLOGICAL MUSEUM.

_Collected_ and _Bequeathed_ by =Henry Christy= (Died 4 May, 1865).

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                                (LXXIX)

=1865.= The BANK of ENGLAND CABINET of COINS and MEDALS.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 1.]


                                 (LXXX)

=1865.= WITT’S ETHNIC MUSEUM.

_Collected_ and _Presented_ by =Henry Witt=.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                                (LXXXI)

=1866.= The BLACAS MUSEUM.

_Collected_ by the =Dukes of Blacas= (The elder Collector died in 1839;
the younger, in 1865). _Purchased_, by the Trustees, of the heirs of the
Survivor.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                                (LXXXII)

=1866.= The WOODHOUSE MUSEUM.

_Collected_ by =James Woodhouse=, Her Majesty’s Treasurer at Corfu (Died
February, 1866). _Bequeathed_ by the Collector.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                               (LXXXIII)

=1866.= The CUMING CONCHOLOGICAL COLLECTION.

_Collected_ by =Hugh Cuming= (Died 1866). Acquired by the Trustees in
1866, partly by gift, and partly by purchase, under the directions of
the Collector’s Will.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                                (LXXXIV)

=1867.= The HAWKINS COLLECTION OF ENGLISH POLITICAL AND HISTORICAL
PRINTS.

_Collected_ by =Edward Hawkins= (Died 1867). _Purchased_ by the
Trustees.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 1.]


                                (LXXXV)

=1868.= The ABYSSINIAN ANTIQUITIES and MANUSCRIPTS.

    Acquired by the Trustees during and after the Abyssinian War; partly
    by gift from the British Government, and partly by the researches of
    the Representative of the Trustees in the British Camp. Another and
    a very valuable portion of the Abyssinian Manuscripts came to the
    India Office, by the gift of =Lord Napier= of Magdala; and by the
    Secretary of State for India was given to the British Museum.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                                (LXXXVI)

=1868.= The SLADE ARCHÆOLOGICAL COLLECTION.

_Collected_ by =Felix Slade= (Died 1868). _Bequeathed_ by the Collector.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


                               (LXXXVII)

=1869.= The HAYS COLLECTION of EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES.

                       [See BOOK III, Chapter 4.]


As I have had occasion to observe in a former paragraph, the preceding
list is, of necessity, an abridged list. It is by no means a complete or
exhaustive one. The prescribed bounds—those of a single volume for a
very wide and multifarious subject—compel the writer to treat his
subject by way of selection. The reader is solicited to keep that fact
in mind; as well for its bearing on the chapters which follow, as on the
introductory chapter now under his eye. And in regard both to this brief
enumeration of the successive component parts of the Museum, and to the
biographical notices of which it is the preliminary, the cautionary
remark here repeated applies to _every_ Department of the national
repository. It holds good of the Natural History Collections, and of the
Collections of Antiquities, no less than of the Collections of Printed
Books and of Manuscripts.

Among the many minor, but intrinsically important, Collections
thus—compulsorily—passed over, in the present volume, are some of which
brief notices have been given (by the same hand) in a preceding work,
published in 1869. Those ‘Notices,’ however, relate exclusively to
collectors and collections of Printed Books, of Engravings, of Drawings,
and of Manuscripts. Thus,—to give but a few examples,—important
collections, now forming part of the British Museum, and gathered
originally by =Thomas Rymer= (1713); =Thomas Madox= (1733); =Brownlow
Cecil, Earl of Exeter= (1739); =David Garrick= (1779); =Peter Lewis
Ginguene= (1816); the =Abate Canonici= (_circa_, 1818); =John Fowler
Hull= (1825); =Frederick North=, sixth =Earl of Guildford= (1826);
=Count Joseph de Puisaye= (1827); the =Marquess Wellesley= (1842); =D.
E. Davy= (_circa_ 1850),—are all noticed in an Appendix headed
‘Historical Notices of Collectors’ to the volume entitled ‘_Free Town
Libraries_’ published in 1869. Of that Appendix the notices above
referred to form, respectively, Nos. ‘848’ (_Rymer_); ‘570’ (_Madox_);
‘186’ (_Cecil_); ‘351’ (_Garrick_); ‘372’ (_Ginguene_); ‘165’
(_Canonici_); ‘462’ (_Hull_); ‘683’ (_North_); ‘781’ (_Puisaye_); ‘1049’
(_Wellesley_); and ‘249’ (_Davy_).


The existing constitution of the Board of Trustees of the British Museum
has been on many occasions, and by several writers, somewhat freely
impugned. More than once it has been the subject of criticism in the
House of Commons. With little alteration that Board remains, in 1869,
what Parliament made it in 1753. Obviously, it might be quite possible
to frame a new governing Corporation, in a fashion more accordant with
what are sometimes called the ‘progressive tendencies’ of the period.

But I venture to think that the bare enumeration of the facts which have
now been briefly tabulated, in this introductory chapter, gives a proof
of faithful and zealous administration of a great trust, such as cannot
be gainsaid by any the most ardent lover of innovation. Both the
Collections given, and the Collections purchased, afford conclusive and
splendid proofs that the Trustees and the Officers have alike won the
confidence and merited the gratitude of those whose acquirements and
pursuits in life have best qualified them to give a verdict on the
implied issue.


If, of late years, the public purse has been opened with somewhat more
of an approach to harmony with the openhandedness of private Englishmen,
that result is wholly due to unremitting effort on the part both of the
Trustees who govern, and of the Officers who administer, or have
administered, the British Museum. And, to attain their end, both
Trustees and Officers have, very often, had to fight hard, as the later
chapters of this volume will more than sufficiently show.




                              CHAPTER II.
                =THE FOUNDER OF THE COTTONIAN LIBRARY.=


  ‘Est in hac urbe nobilis Eques, homo pereruditus rerum vetustarum et
  omnis historiæ, sive priscæ, sive recentis, studiossisimus, qui ex
  ipsis monumentis publicis et epistolis duarum reginarum Angliæ et
  Scotiæ veram eorum quæ gesta sunt, historiam didicit, et jam regis
  jussu eandem componit, digeritque in ordinem.’

    CASAUBON to DE THOU (London, 5 Kal. Mart., 1611). _Epistolæ_, 373.

  _The Personal and Public Life of Sir Robert_ COTTON.—_His Political
      Writings and Political Persecutions.—Sources and Growth of the
      Cottonian Library.—The Successors of Sir Robert_ COTTON.—_History
      of the Cottonian Library, until its union with the Library of
      Harley, and with the Museum and Miscellaneous Collections of_
      SLOANE.—_Review of some recent Aspersions on the Character of the
      Founder._


[Sidenote: BOOK I, Chap. II. LIFE OF SIR ROBERT COTTON.]

Sir Robert COTTON was the eldest son of Thomas COTTON of Conington and
of Elizabeth SHIRLEY, daughter of Francis SHIRLEY of Staunton-Harold in
Leicestershire. He was born on the 22nd of January, 1570, at Denton, in
the county of Huntingdon. Denton was a sort of jointure-house attached
to that ancient family seat of Conington, which had come into the
possession of the Cottons, about the middle of the preceding century, by
the marriage of William COTTON with Mary WESENHAM, daughter and heir of
Robert WESENHAM, who had acquired Conington by his marriage with Agnes
BRUCE.[1]

[Sidenote: PARENTAGE AND ANCESTRY OF SIR ROBERT COTTON.]

The Cottons of Conington were an offshoot of the old Cheshire stock.
They held a good local position in right of their manorial possessions
both in Huntingdonshire and in Cambridgeshire, but they had not, as yet,
won distinction by any very conspicuous public service. Genealogically,
their descent, through Mary WESENHAM, from Robert BRUCE, was their chief
boast. Sir Robert was to become, as he grew to manhood, especially proud
of it. He rarely missed an opportunity of commemorating the fact, and
sometimes seized occasions for recording it, heraldically, after a
fashion which has put stumbling-blocks in the way of later antiquaries.
But the weakness has about it nothing of meanness. It is not an
unpardonable failing. And with the specially antiquarian virtues it is
not less closely allied than with love of country. In days of court
favour, JAMES THE FIRST was wont to please Sir Robert COTTON by calling
him cousin. Sir Robert’s descendants became, in their turn, proud of his
personal celebrity, but they too were, at all times, as careful to
celebrate, upon the family monuments, their Bruce descent, as to claim a
share in the literary glories of the ‘Cottonian Library.’

This cousinship with King James—and also a matter which to Sir Robert
was much more important, the descent to the Cottons of the rich Lordship
of Conington with its appendant manors and members—will be seen, at a
glance, by the following—

 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                      PEDIGREE OF COTTON, OF CONINGTON.              |
 |                                                                     |
 |           EDMUND, called _Ironside_,----King of England.            |
 |             |                                                       |
 |         Edward = Agatha, Daughter of the Emperor Henry III.         |
 |                |                                                    |
 |                +-----------------+                                  |
 |                                  |                                  |
 |                    MALCOLM, = Margaret (Saint).                     |
 | Cean-mohr, King of Scotland.|                                       |
 |          +------------------+                                       |
 |          |                                                          |
 |        DAVID, King of Scotland = Maud,[2] daughter, and heir        |
 |                                |  of Waltheof, Earl                 |
 |                                |  of Huntingdon.                    |
 |                +---------------+                                    |
 |                |                                                    |
 |              Henry, = Ada, daughter of the     William de COTTON    |
 | Prince of Scotland. |  Earl of Warren.     (of Cotton, in Cheshire).|
 |                     +----+                             |            |
 |                          |                             |            |
 |                        David, = Margaret, daughter     |            |
 | Earl of Huntingdon and Angus, |  and heir of Ralph,    |            |
 |      Lord of Conington.       |  Earl of Chester.      |            |
 |                               |                        |            |
 |                       +-------+                        |            |
 |                       |                                |            |
 |     Robert BRUCE, = Isabel, heiress of                 |            |
 | Lord of Conington |  Conington.                William de COTTON    |
 |  (_jure uxoris_). |                          (of Hampstall-Ridware  |
 |       +-----------+-------------+              in Staffordshire).   |
 |       |                         |                      |            |
 | Robert BRUCE,         Sir Bernard de BRUCE,           [*]           |
 |  Earl of Carrick,    Lord of Conington                              |
 | Competitor for the  [‘by the gift of his Mother,                    |
 | Crown of Scotland.   37 Henry III,[3]-_Sir R._                      |
 |     |                _Cotton’s Note in MS._ Harl.]                  |
 |     +-------+                                                       |
 |             |                                                       |
 |           ROBERT, = . . . .                                         |
 | King of Scotland. |                                                 |
 |       +-----------+-----+                                           |
 |       |                 |                                           |
 |     DAVID,         Marjory BRUCE = Walter STUART.                   |
 | King of Scotland.                |                                  |
 |               +------------------+                                  |
 |               |                                                     |
 |             ROBERT (Stuart) II,                                     |
 |             King of Scotland.                                       |
 |                 |                                                   |
 |            JAMES I, King of Scotland.                               |
 |                 |                                                   |
 |                                                                     |
 |                 |                                                   |
 |              JAMES VI, of Scotland,                                 |
 |               and I, of Britain.                                    |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |          Sir Bernard de BRUCE                                       |
 |          Lord of Conington.                                         |
 |                 |                                                   |
 |         Sir John de BRUCE, = Margaret Beauchamp.                    |
 |         Lord of Conington. |                                        |
 |            +---------------+----------+                             |
 |            |                          |                             |
 |    Agnes BRUCE, = Sir Hugh de   Joan BRUCE = Sir Nicholas           |
 | eldest daughter | WESENHAM.   2nd daughter | Greene.                |
 |    and co-heir. |             and co-heir. |                        |
 |                 |                          +------------+           |
 |               +-+--------------------+                  |           |
 |               |                      |                  |           |
 |        Thomas WESENHAM        Robert WESENHAM        _a quo_        |
 |        (d. 39 Hen. VI,       (died 17 Edw. IV).      Culpeper       |
 |        without issue).               |                 and          |
 |                                      +-------+      Harington.      |
 |                      [*]                     |                      |
 |                       |                      |                      |
 |         William de COTTON (2nd son = Mary WESENHAM                  |
 |              of Richard de COTTON),   | (heir of Conington).        |
 |              (of Hampstall Ridware)   |                             |
 |              slain at the Battle of   |                             |
 |              St. Albans, 33 H. VI.    |                             |
 |                         +-------------+                             |
 |                         |                                           |
 |                 Thomas COTTON = Eleanor Knightley.                  |
 |          (Lord of Conington). |                                     |
 |                         +-----+                                     |
 |                         |                                           |
 |                 Thomas COTTON = Jane Paris.                         |
 |                               |                                     |
 |                         +-----+                                     |
 |                         |                                           |
 |                 Thomas COTTON = Lucy Harney.                        |
 |                               |                                     |
 |                         +-----+                                     |
 |                         |                                           |
 |                 Thomas COTTON = Elizabeth Shirley.                  |
 |                               |                                     |
 |                         +-----+                                     |
 |                         |                                           |
 |                    SIR ROBERT (BRUCE) COTTON,                       |
 |           Knight and Bart., Lord of Conington, &c., and             |
 |              FOUNDER OF THE COTTONIAN LIBRARY (Born                 |
 |                     1570; Died 6 May, 1631).[3]                     |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

  [From the COTTON ROLL XIV, 6 [by SEGAR, CAMDEN, and ST. GEORGE];
    compared with MS. Hark 807, fol. 95, and with MS. LANSD., 863,
    containing the heraldic Collections of R. ST. GEORGE, Norroy, Vol.
    III, fol. 82 verso.]

  [For the continuation of the COTTON PEDIGREE, showing (1) the descent
    from Sir Robert of the subsequent possessors of the COTTONIAN
    LIBRARY, up to the date of the gift to the Nation made by Sir John
    COTTON, and (2) the relationship of the Cottonian Trustees of the
    British Museum, see the concluding pages of the present Chapter.]

Robert COTTON was educated at Trinity College in Cambridge, where he
took the degree of B.A. towards the close of 1585.[4] Of his collegiate
career very little is discoverable, save that it was an eminently
studious one. [Sidenote: COTTON’S EARLY FRIENDSHIPS.] Long before he
left Trinity, he had given unmistakeable proofs of his love for
archæology. Some among the many conspicuous and lifelong friendships
which he formed with men likeminded took their beginnings at Cambridge,
but most of them were formed during his periodical and frequent sojourns
in London. John JOSCELINE, William DETHICK, Lawrence NOWELL, William
LAMBARDE, and William CAMDEN were amongst his earliest and closest
friends. Most of them were much his seniors. Whilst still in the heyday
of youth he married Elizabeth BROCAS, daughter and eventually coheir of
William BROCAS of Thedingworth in Leicestershire. Soon after his
marriage he took a leading part in the establishment of the first
Society of Antiquaries. Some of COTTON’S fellow-workers in the Society
are known to all of us by their surviving writings. Others of them are
now almost forgotten, though not less deserving, perhaps, of honourable
memory; for amongst these latter was—

                 ‘that good Earl, once President
             Of England’s Council and her Treasury;
             Who liv’d in both unstain’d with gold or fee,’

at a time when such praise could seldom be given truthfully. It was as a
contributor towards the common labours of that Society that COTTON made
his earliest appearance as an author. The subjects chosen for his
discourses at the periodical meetings of the Elizabethan antiquarians
indicate the prevalent bias of his mind. Nearly all of them may be said
to belong to our political archæology.

[Sidenote: GROWTH OF THE COTTONIAN LIBRARY AND GALLERY.]

Before the close of the sixteenth century, his collections of
Manuscripts and of Antiquities had already become so large and important
as to win for him a wide reputation in foreign countries, as well as at
home. His correspondence indicates, even at that early period, a
generous recognition of the brotherhood of literature, the world over,
and proves the ready courtesy with which he had learned to bear somewhat
more than his fair share of the obligations thence arising. In later
days he was wont to say to his intimates: ‘I, myself, have the smallest
share in myself.’ From youth, onwards, there is abundant evidence that
the saying expressed, unboastingly, the simple facts of his daily life.

[Sidenote: FRIENDSHIP WITH CAMDEN.]

CAMDEN was amongst the earliest of those intimates, and to the dying day
of the author of the _Britannia_ the close friendship which united him
with COTTON was both unbroken and undiminished. The former was still in
the full vigour of life when COTTON had given proof of his worthiness to
be a fellow-labourer in the field of English antiquities. In 1599 they
went, in company, over the northern counties; explored together many an
old abbey and many a famous battle-field. When that tour was made, the
evidences of the ruthless barbarism with which the mandates of HENRY THE
EIGHTH had been carried out by his agents lay still thick upon the
ground, and may well have had their influence in modifying some of the
religious views and feelings of such tourists. Not a few chapters of the
_Britannia_ embody the researches of COTTON as well as those of CAMDEN;
and the elder author was ever ready to acknowledge his deep sense of
obligation to his younger colleague. For both of them, at this time, and
in subsequent years, the storied past was more full of interest than the
politics, howsoever momentous or exciting, of the day. But,
occasionally, they corresponded on questions of policy as well as of
history. There is evidence that on one stirring subject, about which
men’s views were much wont to run to extremes, they agreed in advocating
moderate courses. In the closing years of the Queen, COTTON, as well as
CAMDEN, recognised the necessity that the Government should hold a firm
hand over the emissaries of the Church and Court of Rome, whilst
refusing to admit that a due repression of hostile intrigues was
inconsistent with the honourable treatment of conscientious and peaceful
Romanists.

It was, in all probability, almost immediately after COTTON’S return
from the Archæological tour to the North which he had made with his
early friend, that he received a message from the Queen. ELIZABETH had
been told of his growing fame for possessing an acquaintance with the
mustiest of records, and an ability ‘to vouch precedents’ such as few
students, even of much riper years, had attained to. He was now to be
acquainted with a dispute about national precedency which had arisen at
Calais between Sir Henry NEVILLE and the Ambassador of Spain. [Sidenote:
THE TRACTATE ON ENGLISH PRECEDENCY OVER SPAIN.] It was Her Majesty’s
wish that he should search the records which bore upon the question, and
send her such a report as might strengthen NEVILLE’S hands in his
contest for the honour of England.

Such a task could not fail to be a welcome one; and COTTON found no lack
of pertinent evidence. The bent and habit of his mind were always
methodical. He begins his abstract of the records by tabulating his
argument. Precedency, he says, must have respect either to the nation or
to the ruler of the nation. A kingdom must rank either (1) according to
its antiquity, or (2) according to ‘the eminency of the throne royal,’
by which phrase he means the complete unity of the dominion under one
supreme ruler. On the first title to precedency he observes that it may
be based either upon the date of national independence, or upon that of
the national recognition of Christianity. He claims for England that it
was a monarchy at least four hundred and sixty years before Castile
became one; that Christianity had then been established in it, without
break or interruption, for a thousand years; [Sidenote: _Cottoni
Posthuma_, pp. 76, 77.] whereas in Spain Christianity was ‘defaced with
Moorish Mahumetisme,’ until the expulsion of the Moors by FERDINAND,
little more than a century before the time at which he was writing.

His assertion of the greater ‘eminency of the throne royal’ in England
than in Spain is mainly founded on the union in the English sovereignty
alone of supreme ecclesiastical with supreme civil power; and on the
lineal descent of the then sovereign ‘from Christian princes for 800
years,’ whereas the descent of the Kings of Spain ‘is chiefly from the
Earls of Castilia, about 500 years since,’ and the then King of Spain
was ‘yet in the infancy of his kingdom.’

Two minor and ancillary arguments in this tract are also notable: The
Spanish throne, says COTTON, hath not, as hath the English and French,
‘that virtue to endow the king therein invested with the power to heal
the king’s evil; for into France do yearly come multitudes of Spaniards
to be healed thereof.’ And he further alleges that ‘absolute power of
the King of England, which in other kingdoms is much restrained.’ The
time was to come when the close friend and fellow-combatant of ELIOT and
the other framers of the great ‘Petition of Right’ would rank himself
with the foremost in ‘much restraining’ the kingly power in England, and
would discover ample warrant in ancient precedents for every step of the
process. But, as yet, that time was afar off.


[Sidenote: MS. Cott. Vesp. C. xiii, ff. 158; 160, seqq. (B. M.)]

Immediately on the accession of King JAMES, Sir Robert COTTON greeted
the new monarch with two other and far more remarkable tractates on a
subject bearing closely on our relations with Spain. Their political
interest, as contributions to the history of public opinion, is great.
Their biographical interest is still greater. But I postpone the
consideration of them until we reach a momentous crisis in Sir Robert’s
life on which they have a vital bearing. He also wrote,—almost
simultaneously,—a much more courtierlike ‘_Discourse of his Majesty’s
descent from the Saxon Kings_,’ which was graciously welcomed.
[Sidenote: _Domestic Correspondence_, James I, vol. i, f. 3 (R. H.).] In
the following September he received the honour of knighthood. [Sidenote:
RETURNED TO PARLIAMENT.] In JAMES’ first Parliament he sat for the
County of Huntingdon, in fellowship with Sir Oliver CROMWELL, uncle of
the future Protector. There is no evidence that at this period he took
any active part in debate. Nor did he, at any time, win distinction as a
debater. But in the labours of Committees he was soon both zealous and
prominent. Two classes of questions, in particular, appear to have
engaged his attention:—questions of Church discipline, and questions of
administrative reform. [Sidenote: _Dom. Cor._ as above; vol. xix, pp. 37
seqq.; vol. xxvii, pp. 44 seqq. (R. H.); MS. Cott. Jul. C., iii, p. 10.
(B. M.)] He also assisted Bacon in the difficult attempt to frame
acceptable measures for a union with Scotland.

The fame of his library and of his museum of antiquities continued to
spread farther and wider. He had many agents on the Continent who sought
diligently to augment his collections. His correspondence with men who
were busied in like pursuits both at home and abroad increased. Much of
it has survived. On that interesting point at which a glance has been
cast already, its witness is uniform. He was always as ready to impart
as he was eager to collect. Few, if any, important works of historical
research were carried on in his day to which he did not, in some way or
other, give generous furtherance. At a time when he was most busy in
forming his own library, he helped BODLEY to lay the foundation of the
noble library at Oxford.

[Sidenote: FURTHER GROWTH AND SOURCES OF THE COTTONIAN LIBRARY.]

Readers who can call to mind even mere fragments of that superabundant
evidence which tells of the neglect throughout much of the Tudor period
of the public archives of the realm, can feel little surprise that Sir
Robert COTTON should have been able to collect a multitude of documents
which had once been the property of the nation, or of the sovereign.
Those who are most familiar with that evidence ought to be the first to
remember that, under the known circumstances of the time, the
presumption of honest acquisition is stronger than that of dishonest,
whenever conclusive proof of either is absent. English State Papers had
passed into the possession not only of English antiquarians, but of
English booksellers—and not a few of them into that of foreigners—before
COTTON was born. Other considerations bearing on this matter, and
tending as it seems in a like direction, belong to a later period of Sir
Robert’s life. There is, however, a very weighty one which stands at the
threshold of his career as a collector.

Almost the earliest incident which is recorded of COTTON’S youthful
days, is his concurrence in a petition in which Queen ELIZABETH was
entreated to establish a Public and National Library, and to honour it
with her own name. [Sidenote: ATTEMPT OF COTTON AND CAMDEN TO ESTABLISH
A NATIONAL LIBRARY.] Its especial and prime object was to be the
collection and preservation, as public property, of the monuments of our
English history. The proposal was not altogether new. It was a much
improved revival of a project which Dr. John DEE had once submitted, in
an immature form, to Queen MARY. It was the reiteration of an earnest
request which had been made to Queen ELIZABETH by Archbishop PARKER, at
a time when COTTON was still in his cradle. The joint petition of COTTON
and CAMDEN met with as little success as had attended the entreaties of
those who had taken the same path before them. [Sidenote: _Petition,
&c._ (undated) in Cotton MS. Faustina, E. V, ff. 67, 68.] The
petitioners were willing to bind themselves, and others like-minded, to
incur ‘costs, and charges,’ for the effectual attainment of their
patriotic object, on the condition of royal patronage and royal
fellow-working with them in its pursuit. When COTTON, upon bare
presumptions, is charged to be an embezzler of records, this Petition
comes to have a very obvious relevancy to the matter in question. The
relevancy is enhanced by the fact that two, at least, of those who had
(at various times) concurred in promoting its object, gave to the
Library of their fellow-labourer in the field of antiquity, manuscripts
and records which, had the issue of their project been otherwise, they
would have given to the ‘Public Library of Queen ELIZABETH,’ in express
trust for their fellow-countrymen at large.

Indirectly, this same petition has also its bearing on a curious passage
relating to Sir Robert COTTON which occurs among the Minute-books of the
Corporation of London, and which has recently been printed by Mr. RILEY,
in his preface to _Liber Custumarum_.

On the 10th of November, 1607, the Court of Aldermen of London recorded
the following minute: [Sidenote: COTTON AND THE CITY RECORDS OF LONDON.]
‘It is this day ordered, that Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Town Clerk, Mr.
EDMONDS, and Mr. Robert SMITH, or any three of them, shall repair to Sir
Robert COTTON, from this Court, and require him to deliver to the City’s
use three of the City’s books _which have been long time missing_—the
first book called _Liber Custumarum_; the second, called _Liber Legum
Antiquorum_; and the thirde, called _Fletewode_, which are affirmed to
be in his custody.’ Of the results of the interview of Master
Chamberlain and his fellow-ambassadors with COTTON no precise account
has been preserved. It is plain, however, from the sequel, that they
found the matter to be one for which such extremely curt ‘requisition’
was scarcely the appropriate mode of setting to work. The Corporation
appealed in vain to the Lord Privy Seal NORTHAMPTON; and they had
afterwards to solicit the mediation with COTTON of two of their own
members—Sir John JOLLES and another—who were personally known to him.
Their interposition was alike ineffectual. Of the interview we have no
report; but Sir Robert, it is clear, asserted his right to retain the
City books (or rather portions of books) which were then in his hands,
and he did retain them. They now form part of the well-known and very
valuable Cottonian MS., ‘Claudius D. XI.’

That these London records had once belonged to the citizens is now
unquestioned. That Cotton—both in 1607 and again in the following
year—asserted a title, of some sort, to those of them which were then in
his hands, seems also to be established. Is the fair inference this:
‘Their then holder, in 1607, had obtained them wrongfully, and he
persisted, despite all remonstrance, in his wrongful possession’? Is it
not rather to be inferred that, whosoever may have been the original
wrongdoer, Sir Robert COTTON had acquired them by a lawful purchase?
[Sidenote: THE DISPUTE ABOUT CITY RECORDS.] If that should have been the
fact, he may possibly have had a valid reason for declining to give what
he had, ineffectually and rudely, been commanded to restore.

On the other hand, it is impossible to defend Sir Robert’s occasional
mode of dealing with MSS.,—some of which, it is plain, were but lent to
him,—when, by misplacement of leaves, or by insertions, and sometimes by
both together, he confused their true sequence and aspect. Of this
unjustifiable manipulation I shall have to speak hereafter.


The years which followed close upon this little civic interlude were
amongst the busiest years of COTTON’S public life. He testified the
sincerity of his desire to serve his country faithfully, by the choice
of the subjects to the study of which he voluntarily bent his powers.

[Sidenote: COTTON’S MEMORIAL ON ABUSES IN THE NAVY.]

Abuses in the management of the navy and of naval establishments have
been at most periods of our history fruitful topics for reformers,
competent or other. In the early years of JAMES there was a special
tendency to the increase of such abuses in the growing unfitness for
exertion of the Lord High Admiral. NOTTINGHAM had yet many years to
live,—near as he had been to the threescore and ten when the new reign
began. But even his large appetencies were now almost sated with wealth,
employments, and honours; and ever since his return from his splendid
embassy to Spain, he seemed bent on compensating himself for his hard
labour under ELIZABETH by his indolent luxury under JAMES. The repose of
their chief had so favoured the illegitimate activities of his
subordinates, that when COTTON addressed himself to the task of
investigating the state of the naval administration he soon found that
it would be much easier to prove the existence and the gravity of the
abuses than to point to an effectual remedy.

The abuses were manifold. Some of them were, at that moment, scarcely
assailable. To COTTON, in particular, the approach to the subject was
beset with many difficulties. He was, however, much in earnest.
[Sidenote: THE INQUIRY INSTITUTED BY COTTON INTO ABUSES IN THE ROYAL
NAVY.] When he found that some of the obstacles must, for the present,
be rather turned by evasion than be encountered—with any fair chance of
success—by an open attack in front, he betook himself to the weaker side
of the enemy. He obtained careful information as to naval
account-keeping; discovered serious frauds; and opened the assault by a
conflict with officials not too powerful for immediate encounter,—though
far indeed from being unprotected.

[Sidenote: Cotton, _Memorial on Abuses of the Navy;—Domestic Corresp._
           James I, vol. xli, p. 21. (R. H).]

Of Sir Robert’s _Memorial_ to the King, I can give but one brief
extract, by way of sample: ‘Upon a dangerous advantage,’ he writes,
‘which the Treasurer of the Navy taketh by the strict letter of his
Patent, to be discharged of all his accounts by the only vouchee and
allowance of _two_ chief officers, it falls out, strangely, at this
time—by the weakness of the Controller and cunning of the Surveyor—that
these two offices are, in effect, but _one_, which is the Surveyor
himself, who—joining with the Treasurer as a Purveyor of all
provisions—becomes a paymaster to himself ... at such rates as _he_
thinks good.’ It is a suggestive statement.

COTTON’S most intimate political friendships were at this time with the
HOWARDS. Henry HOWARD (now Earl of Northampton),—whatever the intrinsic
baseness and perfidy of his nature, was a man of large capacity. He was
not unfriendly to reform,—when abuses put no pelf in his own pocket. To
naval reforms, his nearness of blood to NOTTINGHAM, the Lord High
Admiral, tended rather to predispose him; for when near relatives
dislike one another, the intensity of their dislike is sometimes
wonderful to all bystanders. Interest made these two sometimes allies,
but it never made them friends. NORTHAMPTON gave his whole influence in
favour of Sir Robert’s plan. He began the inquiries into this wide
subject by persuading the King to appoint a Commission. On the 30th of
April, 1608, Letters Patent were issued, in the preamble of which the
pith of the Memorial is thus recited: ‘We are informed that very great
and considerable abuses, deceits, frauds, corruptions, negligences,
misdemeanours and offences have been and daily are perpetrated ...
_against the continual admonitions and directions of you, our Lord High
Admiral_, by other the officers of and concerning our Navy Royal, and by
the Clerks of the Prick and Check, and divers other inferior officers,
ministers, mariners, soldiers, and others working or labouring in or
about our said Navy;’ [Sidenote: COMMISSION FOR INQUIRY ON THE ABUSES IN
THE NAVY.] and thereupon full powers are given to the Commissioners so
appointed to make full inquiry into the allegations; and to certify
their proceedings and opinions. COTTON was made a member of the
Commission, and at the head of it were placed the Earls of NORTHAMPTON
and of NOTTINGHAM. It was directed that the inquiry should be carried at
least as far back as the year 1598. The Admiral’s share was little more
than nominal. The proceedings were opened on the 7th of May, 1608, when,
as

COTTON himself reports, an ‘elegant speech was made by Lord Northampton,
of His Majesty’s provident and princely purposes for reformation of the
abuses.’ Northampton, he adds, ‘took especial pains and care for a full
and faithful discharge of that trust.’ At his instance Sir Robert was
made Chairman of a sort of sub-committee, to which the preliminary
inquiries and general array of the business were entrusted; [Sidenote:
_Proceedings in the Commission for the Navy Royal_; MS. COTT. Julius F.
iii, fol. 1. (B. M.)] ‘Sir Robert COTTON, during all the time of this
service, entertaining his assistants at his house at the Blackfriars as
often as occasion served.’

The inquiry lasted from May, 1608, to June, 1609. COTTON was then
requested by his fellow-commissioners to make an abstract of the
depositions to be reported to the King. It abundantly justified the
Memorial of 1608. JAMES, when he had read it, ordered a final meeting of
the Commissioners to be held in his presence, at which all the
inculpated officers were to attend that they might adduce whatever
answers or pleas of defence might be in their power. ‘In the end,’ says
Sir Robert, ‘they were advised rather to cast themselves at the feet of
his grace and goodness for pardon, than to rely upon their weak replies;
which they readily did.’ The most important outcome of the inquiry was
the preparation of a ‘_Book of Ordinances for the Navy Royal_,’ in the
framing of which Sir Robert COTTON had the largest share. It led to many
improvements. But, in subsequent years, measures of a still more
stringent character were found needful.

[Sidenote: THE INQUIRY INTO CROWN REVENUES.]

In the next year after the presentation of this Report on the Navy, Sir
Robert addressed to the King another Report on the Revenues of the
Crown. The question is treated historically rather than politically, but
the long induction of fiscal records is frequently enlivened by keen
glances both at underlying principles and at practical results. Once or
twice, at least, these side glances are such as, when we now regard
them, in the light of the subsequent history of JAMES’S own reign and of
that of his next successor, seem to have in them more of irony than of
earnest. The style of the treatise is clear, terse, and pointed.

On no branch of the subject does the author go into more minute detail
than on that delicate one of the historical precedents for ‘abating and
reforming excesses of the Royal Household, Retinue, and Favourites.’ He
points the moral by express reference to existing circumstances. Thus,
for example, in treating of the arrangements of the royal household, he
says, ‘There is never a back-door at Court that costs not the king £2000
yearly;’ and again, when treating of gifts to royal favourites: ‘It is
one of the greatest accusations against the Duke of Somerset for
suffering the King [EDWARD VI] to give away the possessions and profits
of the Crown in manner of a spoil.’

Not less plainspoken are COTTON’S words about a question that was
destined, in a short time, to excite the whole kingdom. Tonnage and
poundage, he says, were granted simply for defence of the State, ‘so
they may be employed in the wars; and particular Treasurers account in
Parliament’ for that employment. [Sidenote: _Proceedings in the
Commission for the Navy Royal, &c._; as above.] ‘They are so granted,’
he adds, ‘in express words; and that they proceed of goodwill, not of
duty. Precedents of this nature are plentiful in all the Rolls.’ A final
example of this sort may be found in the pithy warning grounded upon
RICHARD THE SECOND’S grant to a minion of the power of compounding with
delinquents. It was fatal, he says, both to the king and to his
instrument. ‘It grew the death of the one and the deposition of the
other.’

COTTON’S Report on the Crown Revenues has also an incidental interest.
Out of it grew the creation of the new dignity of baronets. Were His
Majesty, says the writer, ‘now to make a degree of honour hereditary as
Baronets, next under Barons, and grant them in tail, taking of every one
£1000, in fine it would raise with ease £100,000; [Sidenote: COTTON’S
PROPOSITION FOR THE CREATION OF BARONETS, 1609.] and, _by a judicious
election_, be a means to content those worthy persons in the
Commonwealth that by the confused admission of [so] many Knights of the
Bath held themselves all this time disgraced.’ When this passage was
written that which had been, under ELIZABETH, so real and eminent an
honour as to be eagerly coveted by patriotic men, had been lavished by
JAMES with a profusion which entailed their contempt and disgust. I have
before me the fine old MS. from a passage in which COTTON borrowed the
title of the new dignity. [Sidenote: 9 R. II. Durh. 17 July, 1385.
COTTON MS., Nero D., vi, § 16. (B. M.)] The word occurs thus:—‘_Ceux
sont les estatutz, ordenances ... de n̄re très excellent souv seigneur
le Roy Richard, et Johan, Duc de Lancastre, ... et des autres Contes,
Barons, et_ Baronnetz, _et sages Chivalers_.’

Sir Robert was himself amongst the earliest receivers (June, 1611) of
the new order. Its creation led to many jealousies and discords. It gave
both to the King and to his councillors not a little trouble in settling
the precise privileges and precedencies of its holders. In those
controversies the author of the suggestion took no very active part.
King JAMES was much more anxious for the speedy receipt of the hundred
thousand pounds, than about the ‘judicious election’ of those by whom
the money was to be provided. COTTON’S satisfaction with the ultimate
working out of his plan must have had its large alloy.[5]

This is the more apparent, inasmuch as, at the first acceptance of his
project, Sir Robert had obtained the King’s distinct promise that no
future creation of a baron should be made, until the new peer had first
received the degree of baronet; unless he belonged to a family already
ennobled. Hearing of a probability that the royal promise in this
respect was likely to be broken, he wrote to Somerset:—‘If His Highness
_will_ do it, I rather humbly beg a relinquishing in the design of the
baronets, as desponding of good success.’ [Sidenote: Cotton to Somerset
(undated) MS. Harl., 7002, f. 380. (B. M.)] But to James all projects
for the opening of gold mines—whether at home or abroad—were much too
attractive to be staved off by any puritanic scruples about pledge or
promise. For him, from youth to dotage, the one thing needful was gold.


The question of the baronetcies is one of the earliest which brings us
in presence of the eventful political connection which subsisted between
COTTON and the Earl of SOMERSET. [Sidenote: THE POLITICAL INTERCOURSE OF
SIR R. COTTON WITH LORD SOMERSET. 1613–1615.] Of its first beginnings no
precise testimony seems to have survived. But there is a strong
presumption that when SOMERSET was led, by his fatal love for Lady
ESSEX, to change his early position of antagonism to the HOWARDS for one
of alliance and friendship, he came frequently into contact with Sir
Robert, who had long been familiarly acquainted with the Earl of
SUFFOLK—and also with his too well-known Countess—as well as with the
Earl of NORTHAMPTON.

The one ineffaceable stigma on SOMERSET’S memory which was brought upon
him by his disgraceful marriage has barred the way to an impartial
estimate of his standing as a politician. A man who was branded by his
peers (though upon garbled depositions) as a murderer can scarcely, by
possibility, have his pretensions to statesmanship fairly weighed in a
just balance. Such testimony, it is true, as that on which SOMERSET was
found guilty of the poisoning of OVERBURY would not now suffice to
convict a vagrant of petty larceny. It would not indeed at this day be
treated as evidence at all; it would be looked upon as a mere decoction
of surmises. But the foul scandal of the marriage itself has so tainted
SOMERSET’S very name that historians (almost with one consent) have
condoned the baseness of his prosecutors.

With some of this man’s contemporaries it was quite otherwise. Some
English statesmen whose names we have all learnt to venerate, looked
upon the murder of OVERBURY as a revengeful deed instigated by Lady
SOMERSET, wholly without her husband’s complicity; and they looked at
SOMERSET’S conviction of complicity in the crime as simply the issue of
a skilfully-managed court intrigue, for a court object. They knew that
SOMERSET’S enemies had been wont to say amongst themselves, ‘A nail is
best driven out by driving in another nail,’ and had, very effectually,
put the proverb into action. They knew, too, that to the rising
favourite the King had committed—most characteristically—the pleasing
task of communicating, on his behalf, with the Crown lawyers, as their
own task of compiling the depositions against the falling favourite went
on from stage to stage.

Sir Robert COTTON believed not only that SOMERSET was guiltless of the
murder of OVERBURY, and that the Earl’s political extinction was
resolved upon, as the readiest means of making room for a new favourite,
but he also believed that SOMERSET’S loss of power involved the loss by
England—for a long time to come—of some useful domestic reforms, as well
as its subjection to several new abuses. This belief was a favourite
subject of conversation with him to his dying day. He was in the habit
of imparting it to the famous men who, in the early years of the next
reign, joined with him in fighting the battles of parliamentary freedom
against royal prerogative. There may well have been an element of truth
in COTTON’S view of the matter, though, in these days, it seems but a
barren pursuit to have discussed the preferability to England of the
rule of a Robert CARR rather than that of a George VILLIERS.

[Sidenote: COTTON AND THE PROJECTED SPANISH MATCH.]

What is now chiefly important in the close political connection which
was formed between COTTON and SOMERSET is the fact that it eventually
thrust Sir Robert’s fortune and entire future into great peril, even if
it did not actually hazard his life itself, as well as his fair fame
with posterity. The life that was preserved to him was also to be
redeemed by future and brilliant public service. [Sidenote: 1615.] His
fortune sustained no great damage, and much of it was afterwards spent
upon public objects. His reputation as a statesman, however, suffered,
and must suffer, some degree of loss. SOMERSET led him to become an
agent in urging on the treaty for the marriage of Prince CHARLES with
the Infanta of Spain. As it seems, his agency was—for a very brief
period—even active and zealous. Neither SOMERSET nor COTTON, however,
set that intercourse with GONDOMAR afoot which presently brought Sir
Robert within the toils. It was pleasantly originated by the wily
Spaniard himself, in the character of _a lover of antiquities_, deeply
anxious to study Sir Robert’s Museum, in its owner’s company.

It is unfortunate for a truthful estimate of the _degree_ of discredit
attachable to Cotton for this agency in promoting a scheme pregnant with
dishonour to England, that little evidence of the share he took in it is
now to be derived from any English source. His own extant correspondence
yields very little, though it suffices to establish the fact of the
agency, apart from that testimony of GONDOMAR, which will be cited
presently.

Under COTTON’S own hand we have the fact that in a conversation with
himself the Ambassador of Spain on one occasion held out (by way, it
seems, more immediately, of inducement to the English Government to
shape certain pending negotiations on other matters into greater
conformity with _Spanish_ counsels) [Sidenote: Cotton to Somerset;
(undated) Harleian MS. 7002, fol. 378. (B. M.)] the threat that, if such
a course were not taken, ‘turbulent spirits—of which Spain wanteth
not—might add some hurt to the ill affairs of Ireland, or hindrance to
the near affecting of the great work now in hand;’ a threat which COTTON
transmits to SOMERSET without rebuke or comment.

Early in 1615, COTTON had an interview with GONDOMAR in relation to the
progress of the marriage negotiation in Spain. Of what passed at this
interview we have no _detailed_ account other than that which was sent
to the King of Spain by his Ambassador. The way in which COTTON’S name
is introduced, and the singular misstatement that he had the custody of
‘all the King’s archives,’ seem to imply that GONDOMAR had still but
little knowledge of the messenger now employed by JAMES and by SOMERSET
to confer with him. Throughout, the reader will have to bear in mind
that the narrative is GONDOMAR’S, and that all the material points of it
rest upon his sole authority.

[Sidenote: 1615. April 18.]

‘The King and the Earl of SOMERSET,’ writes the Ambassador, ‘have sent
in great secrecy by Sir Robert COTTON—who is a gentleman greatly
esteemed here, and with whom the King has deposited all his archives—to
tell me what Sir John DIGBY has written about the marriage of the
Infanta with this Prince. COTTON informed me that he was greatly pleased
that the negotiation had been so well received in Spain, because he
desired its conclusion and success. He enlarged upon the conveniencies
of the marriage, but said that the King considered DIGBY not to be a
good negotiator, because he was a great friend of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, and of the Earl of PEMBROKE, who were of the Puritan
faction, and was in correspondence with them.’... ‘In order to make a
beginning,’ continued COTTON, as GONDOMAR reports his conversation, ‘the
King must beg your Majesty to answer three questions: (1.) “Does your
Majesty believe that with a safe conscience you can negotiate this
marriage?” (2.) “Is your Majesty sincerely desirous to conclude it, upon
conditions suitable to both parties?” (3.) “Will your Majesty abstain
from asking anything, in matters of Religion, which would compel him to
do that which he cannot do without risking his life and his kingdom;
contenting yourself with trusting that he will be able to settle matters
quietly?” [Sidenote: Gardiner Transcripts of Simancas MSS.] When an
answer is given to these questions he will consider the matter as
settled, and will immediately give a commission to the Earl of Somerset
to arrange the points with me. [Sidenote: See also S. R. Gardiner, in
_Letters of Gondomar, giving an Account of the affair of the Earl of
Somerset_; (_Archæologia_, vol. xli.)] This Sir Robert COTTON is held
here, by many, to be a Puritan, but he told me that he was a Catholic,
and gave me many reasons why no man of sense could be anything else.’ He
afterwards adds: ‘Sir Robert COTTON, who has treated with me in this
business, tells me that after the marriage is agreed upon, [and] before
the Infanta arrives in England, matters of Religion will be in a much
improved condition.’ The writer of this remarkable despatch, it may be
well to mention, had asserted with equal roundness, but a few months
before, that JAMES himself had said, at the dinner-table: ‘I have no
doubt that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church.’

[Sidenote: Simancas MSS. 2590, 10 (Gardiner Transcripts).]

Nor is it unimportant, as bearing on the _degree_ of credibility to be
assigned to GONDOMAR’S despatches, when they chance to be
uncorroborated,—to remark that a despatch addressed by him to the Duke
of LERMA, in November, contains an express contradiction of an assertion
addressed to PHILIP, in the preceding April. To the King, as we have
just seen, he narrates COTTON’S communication of despatches written by
DIGBY. To the Minister he writes, six months later, that ‘a traitor had
given information’ against COTTON, for communicating Papers of State to
the Spanish Ambassador, and that the charge is ‘false.’ [Sidenote:
Simancas MS. 2534, 61 (Gardiner Transcripts).] Discrepancies like this
(howsoever easily explained, or explainable) suffice to show that
GONDOMAR’S testimony, when unsupported, needs to be read with caution;
and of such discrepancies there are many. Consummate as he was in
diplomatic ability of several kinds, this able statesman was
nevertheless loose (and sometimes reckless) in assertion. He was very
credulous when he listened to welcome news. It is impossible to study
his correspondence without perceiving that to him, as to so many other
men, the wish was often father of the thought.

On the 22nd of June, Sir Robert paid another visit to GONDOMAR. He told
me, says the Ambassador, that the King’s hesitations had been overcome;
that JAMES was now willing to negotiate on the basis of the Spanish
articles, with some slight modifications; that Somerset had taken his
stand upon the match with Spain, had won the co-operation of the Duke of
Lennox, and was now willing to stake his fortunes on the issue. Sir
Robert COTTON, adds GONDOMAR, ‘assured me of his own satisfaction at the
turn which things had taken, as he had no more ardent wish than to live
and die an avowed Catholic, like his fathers and ancestors.[6] Whereupon
I embraced him, and said that God would guide.’


Thus far, I have, advisedly, followed a Spanish account of English
conversations. Although believing that there exists, already ample,
evidence (both in our own archives and elsewhere) for bringing home to
the Count of GONDOMAR wilful misstatements of [Sidenote: SIR ROBERT
COTTON’S ACCOUNT OF THE FIRST INTERVIEW WITH COUNT GONDOMAR.] fact—in
the despatches which he was wont to write from London—as well as very
pardonable misapprehensions of the talk which he reports, I have
preferred to put before the reader the Ambassador’s own story in its
Spanish integrity.

The mere fact, indeed, that an English historian[7], deservedly esteemed
for his acute and painstaking research, as well as for his eminent
abilities, has honoured GONDOMAR’S story by endorsing it, is warrant
enough for citing these despatches as they stand. But they have now to
be compared with another account of the same transaction given by
authority of Sir Robert COTTON himself. It was given upon a memorable
occasion. The place was the Painted Chamber in the Palace of
Westminster. The hearers were the assembled Lords and Commons of the
Realm.[8]

The Spaniard, it seems, was far, indeed, from holding—as he says that he
held—his first conference with COTTON either in his own ambassadorial
lodging, or upon credentials given in the name and by the command of
King JAMES. That COTTON sought him he suggests, by implication. That the
visit, in which the ground was broken, was made at the King’s instance,
he states circumstantially. Both the suggestion and the assertion are
false.

As the reader has seen, Sir Robert’s openness in exhibiting his library
and his antiquities was matter of public notoriety. [Sidenote: 1614.
February.] Profiting by that well-known facility of access, the Spanish
Ambassador presented himself at Cotton House in the guise of a virtuoso.
‘Do me the favour—with your wonted benevolence to strangers—to let me
see your Museum.’ With some such words as these, GONDOMAR volunteered
his first visit; led the conversation, by and bye, to politics; found
that COTTON was not amongst the fanatical and undiscriminating enemies
of Spain at all price—outspoken, as he had been, from the first, in his
assertion both of the wisdom and of the duty of England to protect the
Netherlanders; showed him certain letters or papers (not now to be
identified, it appears), and in that way produced an impression on
COTTON’S mind which led him to confer with SOMERSET, and eventually with
the King. So much is certain. Unfortunately, the speeches at the famous
‘Conference’ on the Spanish Treaty, in 1624, are reported in the most
fragmentary way imaginable. The reporter gives mere hints, where the
reader anxiously looks for details. Their present value lies in the
conclusive reasons which notwithstanding the lacunæ—they supply for
weighing, with many grains of caution, the accusations of an enemy of
England against an English statesman—whensoever it chances that those
accusations are uncorroborated. King JAMES himself (it may here be
added), when looking back at this mysterious transaction some years
later, and in one of his Anti-Spanish moods—said to Sir Robert: ‘The
Spaniard is a juggling jack. I believe he forged those letters;’
alluding, as the context suggests, to the papers—whatever they
were—which GONDOMAR showed to COTTON at the outset of their intercourse,
in order to induce him to act as an intermediary between himself and the
Earl of SOMERSET.


At this time, the ground was already trembling beneath SOMERSET’S feet,
though he little suspected the source of his real danger. He knew, ere
long, that an attempt would be made to charge him with embezzling jewels
of the Crown. In connection with this charge there was a State secret,
in which Sir Robert COTTON was a participant with SOMERSET, and with the
King himself. And a secret it has remained. Such jewels, it is plain,
were in SOMERSET’S hands, and by him were transferred to those of
COTTON. Few persons who have had occasion to look closely into the
surviving documents and correspondence which bear upon the subsequent
and famous trials for the murder of OVERBURY, will be likely to doubt
that the secret was one among those ‘alien matters’ of which SOMERSET
was so urgently and so repeatedly adjured and warned, by JAMES’S
emissaries, to avoid all mention, should he still persist (despite the
royal, repeated, and almost passionate, entreaties with which he was
beset) in putting himself upon his trial; instead of pleading guilty,
after his wife’s example, and trusting implicitly to the royal mercy.

For the purpose of warding off the lesser, but foreseen, danger, COTTON
advised the Earl to take a step of which the Crown lawyers made
subsequent and very effective use, in order to preclude all chance of
his escape from the unforeseen and greater danger. [Sidenote: 1615.
July.] By Sir Robert’s recommendation he obtained from the King
permission to have a pardon drawn, in which, amongst other provisions,
it was granted that no account whatever should be exacted from SOMERSET
at the royal exchequer; and to that pardon the King directed the
Chancellor to affix the Great Seal. The Seal, however, was withheld, and
a remarkable scene ensued in the Council Chamber. There are extant two
or three narratives of the occurrence, which agree pretty well in
substance. Of these GONDOMAR’S is the most graphic. The incident took
place on the 20th of August. The despatch in which it is minutely
described was written on the 20th of October. There is reason to believe
that the Ambassador drew his information from an eye-witness of what
passed.

‘As the King was about to leave the Council Board,’ writes GONDOMAR,
‘SOMERSET made to him a speech which, as I was told, had been
preconcerted between them. [Sidenote: THE SCENE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER,
RESPECTING THE PARDON DRAWN BY SIR R. COTTON FOR SOMERSET.] He said that
the malice of his enemies had forced him to ask for a pardon; adduced
arguments of his innocency; and then besought the King to command the
Chancellor to declare at once what he had to allege against him, or else
to put the seal to the pardon. [Sidenote: 1615. August.] The King,
without permitting anything to be spoken, said a great deal in
SOMERSET’S praise; asserted that the Earl had acted rightly in asking
for a pardon, which it was a pleasure to himself to grant—although the
Earl would certainly stand in no need of it in his days—on the Prince’s
account, who was then present.’ Here, writes GONDOMAR, the King placed
his hand on the Prince’s shoulder, and added—‘That he may not undo what
I have done.’ Then, turning to the Chancellor, the King ended with the
words: ‘And so, my Lord Chancellor, put the seal to it; for such is my
will.’ The Chancellor, instead of obeying, threw himself on his knees,
told the King that the pardon was so widely drawn that it made SOMERSET
(as Lord Chamberlain) absolute master of ‘jewels, hangings, tapestry,
and of all that the palace contained; seeing that no account was to be
demanded of him for anything.’ And then the Chancellor added: ‘If your
Majesty insists upon it, I entreat you to grant me a pardon also for
passing it; otherwise I cannot do it.’ On this the King grew angry, and
with the words, ‘I order you to pass it, and you must pass it,’ left the
Council Chamber. His departure in a rage, before the pardon was sealed,
gave SOMERSET’S enemies another opportunity by which they did not fail
to profit. They had the Queen on their side. On that very day, too, the
King set out on a progress, long before arranged. For the time the
matter dropped. Before the Ambassador of Spain took up his pen to tell
the story to his Court, VILLIERS, ‘the new favourite,’ had begun to
supplant his rival; so that the same despatch which narrates the
beginnings of the fall of SOMERSET, tells also of the first stage in the
rapid rise of BUCKINGHAM.

[Sidenote: THE SECOND PARDON DRAWN BY COTTON. 1615, Sept.]

About a month after this wrangling at the Council Board, SOMERSET again
advised with Sir Robert COTTON on the same subject. [Sidenote: _Report
of the Trial of the Earl of Somerset._ (MS. R. H.)] COTTON recommended
him to have the Pardon renewed; saying to the Earl, ‘In respect you have
received some disgrace in the opinion of the world, in having passed’
[_i. e._ missed] ‘that pardon which in the summer you desired, and
seeing there be many precedents of larger pardons, I would have you get
one after the largest precedent; that so, by that addition, you may
recover your honour.’ Strangely as these closing words now sound, in
relation to such a matter, they seem to embody both the feeling and the
practice of the times.

In another version of the proceedings at the trial of May, 1616,
SOMERSET is represented as using in the course of his defence these
words: ‘To Sir Robert COTTON I referred the whole drawing and despatch
of the Pardon.’ And again: ‘I first sought the Pardon by the motion and
persuasion of Sir Robert COTTON, who told me in what dangers great
persons honoured with so many royal favours had stood, in former times.’
[Sidenote: MS. Report of Trial (R. H.)] Sir Robert’s own account of this
and of many correlative matters of a still graver sort has come down to
us only in garbled fragments and extracts from his examinations, such as
it suited the purposes of the law-officers of the Crown to make use of,
after their fashion. The original documents were as carefully
suppressed, as COTTON’S appearance in person at the subsequent trial was
effectually hindered. At that day it was held to be an unanswerable
reason for the non-appearance of a witness,—whatever the weight of his
testimony,—to allege that he was regarded by the Crown as ‘a
delinquent,’ and could not, therefore, be publicly questioned upon
‘matters of State.’ There is little cause to marvel that a scrutinising
reader of the _State Trials_ (in their published form) is continually in
doubt whether what he reads ought to be regarded as sober history, or as
wild and, it may be, venomous romance.


One other incident of 1615 needs to be noticed before we proceed to the
catastrophe of the Gondomar story.

[Sidenote: 1615. May 24.]

In May of this year Sir Robert wrote a letter to Prince CHARLES, which
is notable for the contrasted advice, in respect to warlike pursuits,
which it proffers to the new Prince, from that more famous advice which
had but recently been offered to his late brother. [Sidenote: Comp. MS.
Cott. Cleop. F. vi, § 1. ‘_An Answer ... to certain military men, &c._,
(April, 1609).] He had lately found, he tells Prince CHARLES, a very
ancient volume containing the principal passages of affairs between the
two kingdoms of England and France under the reigns of King HENRY THE
THIRD and King HENRY THE FIFTH, and had caused a friend of his to
abstract from it the main grounds of the claim of the Kings of England
to the Crown of France; translating the original Latin into English.
This he now dedicates to the Prince, ‘as a piece of evidence concerning
that title which, at the time when God hath appointed, shall come unto
you.’ He ends his letter in a strain more than usually rhetorical:—‘This
title hath heretofore been pleaded in France, as well by ordinary
arguments of civil and common law, as also by more sharp syllogisms of
cannons in the field. There have your noble ancestors, Kings of this
realm, often argued in arms; there have been their large chases; there,
their pleasant walks; there have they hewed honour out of the sides of
their enemies; there—in default of peaceable justice—they have carried
the cause by sentence of the sword. [Sidenote: Sir R. Cotton to Prince
Charles. (MS. Lansd. 223. fol. 7.) (Copy.) (B. M.)] God grant that your
Highness may, both in virtues and victories, not only imitate, but far
excel them.’


[Sidenote: The King to Archbishop of Canterbury, &c. _Domestic Corresp._
           James I, vol. lxxxvi, § 16. (R. H.)]

The royal commission for the first examination of COTTON was issued on
the 26th of October, 1615. Two months afterwards he was committed to the
custody of one of the Aldermen of London. His library and papers were
also searched.

COTTON’S accusation was that of having communicated papers and secrets
of State to the Spanish Ambassador. He was subjected to repeated
examinations, which (as we have seen) are extant only in part. He
maintained his innocence of all intentional offence. [Sidenote: COTTON’S
EXAMINATIONS BY COMMISSION Jan.-April, 1616.] ‘The King,’ he said, ‘gave
me instruction to speak as I did. If I misunderstood His Majesty my
fault was involuntary. I followed the King’s instruction to the best of
my belief and recollection.’ The examiners, however, were more intent by
far on extracting something from COTTON that would tell against
SOMERSET, than on the punishment of the fallen favourite’s ally and
agent. COKE, in particular, was indefatigable in the task. It was as
congenial to him as was the study of BRACTON or of LITTLETON.

What then must have been his delight when,—whilst attending a sermon at
Paul’s Cross,—word was brought to him which gave hope of a discovery of
SOMERSET’S most secret correspondence? The pending proceedings had
stirred men’s minds in city and suburb, as well as at Court. A London
merchant had been asked, a little while before, to take into his charge
a box of papers. The depositor was a woman of the middle class, with
whom his acquaintance was but slight. At that time there was nothing in
the incident to excite suspicion. But, at a moment when strange rumours
were afloat, the depositor suddenly requested the return of the deposit.
The merchant bethought himself that the circumstances now looked
mysterious. If the papers should chance to bear on matters of State, to
have had any concern with them, howsoever innocent, might be dangerous.
He carried the box to Sir Edward COKE’S chambers. Not a moment was lost
in apprising the absent lawyer of the incident. Such news was of more
interest than the sermon. Probably, the preacher had not finished his
exordium, before all the faculties of COKE and of a fellow-commissioner
were bent on the letters which had passed between SOMERSET and
NORTHAMPTON.

If GONDOMAR is to be believed, some secret papers belonging to King
JAMES himself were part of the precious spoil.[9]

As usual, there are two accounts of the original secretor of the papers
so opportunely discovered. According to one of them, the box was
delivered by SOMERSET’S own order to the woman by whom it was carried to
the London merchant. [Sidenote: COTTON’S DEALINGS WITH SOMERSET’S
CORRESPONDENCE.] [Sidenote: 1615.] According to another, SOMERSET
entrusted the papers to COTTON; and the latter, anticipating the search
and sealing up of his library, gave them to a female acquaintance with
whom he thought they would remain in safety, but whose own fears led her
to shift their custody, in her turn.

That the letters which NORTHAMPTON had received from
SOMERSET—containing, amongst many other things, numerous references to
the imprisonment of OVERBURY in the Tower—had been in Sir Robert
COTTON’S hands is unquestioned. After NORTHAMPTON’S death, COTTON, to
use his own words, had been ‘permitted to peruse and oversee all the
writings, books, &c. in the Earl’s study.’ In the course of this
examination he proceeds to say, ‘I had collected thirty several letters
of my Lord of SOMERSET to the Earl of Northampton, which, upon request,
I delivered to my Lord Treasurer [the Earl of SUFFOLK,] who sent them to
the Earl of SOMERSET.’ SUFFOLK, it is to be remembered, was
NORTHAMPTON’S heir.

Thus far, no charge rests upon COTTON in relation to this
correspondence. What he did in disposing of SOMERSET’S letters was done
by order of the representatives of their deceased owner. It is far
otherwise with respect to their treatment after they had repassed, by
SUFFOLK’S gift, into the hands of SOMERSET, their writer.

The letters were undated. That they should be so was in accordance with
the practice of a majority of the letter-writers of the time—as students
of history know to their sorrow. [Sidenote: Extracts of Examinations,
&c. (R. H.).] When suspicion was aroused and inquiry commenced about the
real cause of OVERBURY’S death, COTTON’S advice was sought by SOMERSET.
He told me, says SOMERSET himself: ‘These letters of yours may be dated,
so as may clear you of all imputation.’ Did he mean that the dates might
be forged, and so be made to bear false witness? Or did he mean that, by
putting their true dates to the letters, their contents would exculpate
an innocent man? To these questions there is absolutely no answer, save
the presumptive answer of character.[10]

Whatever may be our estimate of the difficulty attending on the
admission of such exculpation as that, in respect of a charge which
amounts (in substance) to participation, after the fact, in the crime of
murder, there is really now no alternative. That Sir Robert COTTON put
dates to SOMERSET’S undated letters is certain. It was found to be
absolutely impossible, after desperate effort, to prove that the dates
were false. It is alike impossible to prove that they are true. These
dates are in COTTON’S own hand, without any attempt to disguise it.

Upon the hypothesis of SOMERSET’S guilt, the question is beset with as
much difficulty, as upon the hypothesis of his innocence. By procuring
OVERBURY’S imprisonment—with whatever motive, or beneath whatever
influence—SOMERSET had brought himself under inevitable suspicion of
complicity in the ultimate result of that imprisonment. He was already
within the web. His struggles made it only the more tangled.

Sir Robert COTTON remained in custody until the middle of the year 1616.
He was effectually prevented from appearing in May of that year as a
witness at his friend’s trial. [Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp._ James I,
vol. lxxxvii, f. 67 (R. H.).] He was himself put to no form of trial
whatever. But he had to purchase his pardon at the price of five hundred
pounds. It received the Great Seal on the 16th July. [Sidenote: Bacon to
Villiers, Feb. 1; and April 18; 1616.] Remembering BACON’S share in each
stage of the proceedings against SOMERSET, and the lavishness of his
professions to VILLIERS of the extreme delight he felt in following the
lead of the new favourite throughout every step of the prosecution of
the old one, it is suggestive to note that the framers, five years
afterwards, of a pardon for the Lord Chancellor BACON were directed to
follow the precedent of the pardon granted in July 1616 to Sir Robert
COTTON.

Nor is it of less interest to observe that, to some of Sir Robert
COTTON’S closest friends, it seemed—at the moment when every part of the
matter was fresh in men’s minds—that it was much more needful for him to
exonerate himself from a suspicion of having stood beside SOMERSET too
lukewarmly, than to clear himself from the charge of committing a
forgery in order to cloke a murder. Very significant, for example, are
the words of one of those friends which I find in a letter addressed to
COTTON on the very day on which his pardon passed the Great Seal:—‘If I
say I rejoice and gratulate to you your return to your own house, as I
did lament your captivity, ... it will easily be credited.... The
unsureness of this collusive world, and the danger of great friendships,
you have already felt; and may truly say, with holy DAVID, _Nolite
fidere in principibus_.... As I hear, you have begun to make good use of
it, by receiving to you your Lady which God himself had knit unto you.
It is a piety for which you are commended. And, were it not for one
thing I should think my comfort in you were complete.... _It is said you
were not sufficiently sincere to your most trusting friend, the pitied
Earl. [Sidenote: E. Bolton to Sir R. Cotton; Cott. MS. Julius C., iii,
fol. 32. (B. M.)] Though I hold this a slander, yet being not able to
make particular defences, I opposed my general protestation against it
as an injury to my friend._ Yet wanting apt countermines to meet with
those close works by which some seek to blow up a breach into your
honour, I was not a little afflicted.... I leave the arming of me in
this cause to your own pleasure.’

The caution as to the danger of the friendships of grandees and great
favourites was one which COTTON took to heart. In the years to come he
had occasionally to give critical advice, in critical junctures. But, in
the true sense of the words, he learnt, at last, not to put his trust in
Princes. Long before his acquaintance with SOMERSET and his private
conferences with JAMES, a very true and dear friend had noted a
dangerous proclivity in Sir Robert’s character. [Sidenote: Arthur Agarde
to Sir R. Cotton: Cott. MS. Julius C., iii, fol. 1.] It prompted, by way
of counsel, the words: ‘Be yourself; and no man’s creature; but [only]
God’s. And so He will prosper all your designs, both to his glory and
your good.’

That ply had been taken too deeply, however, to be very easily smoothed
out. In the years to come Sir Robert COTTON approached—more than once,
perhaps—the brink of the old peril. As BUCKINGHAM clomb higher and
higher, and busied himself with many transactions of the nature of which
he had but a very insecure mental grasp, he felt his need of the
counsels of experienced men. He made occasional advances to COTTON,
amongst others. They were met; and not always so warily, as might now
have been expected.

But against the danger which over-confiding intercourse with
too-powerful courtiers was sure to bring in its train, COTTON found a
better safeguard in wounded self-esteem, than even in dearbought
experience. He soon saw that in BUCKINGHAM’S character there was at
least as much of vacillation as of versatility. The famous lines which
describe the son as

                 A man so various, that he seem’d to be
                 Not one, but all mankind’s epitome,

would have a spice of truth if applied to the father. But their
applicability is only partial; whereas the lines which follow are almost
as true—a single word excepted—of the first Duke of Buckingham as they
were of the second—

              Stiff in opinions; often in the wrong;
              He’s everything by starts, and nothing long.

When Sir Robert COTTON perceived that James’s new favourite would
listen, in the morning, to grave advice on a grave subject, and affirm
his resolution to act upon it; and yet, in the afternoon suffer himself
to be carried from his purpose by the silly jests or malicious
suggestions of youngsters and sycophants, unacquainted with affairs and
often reckless of consequences, he saw the wisdom of standing somewhat
aloof. He rarely, however, refused his advice, when it was asked. In
regard to matters of naval administration,—the authoritative value of
his opinion on which was now everywhere recognised, save in the
dockyards and their dependencies,—he gave it with especial willingness.
But henceforward, to use AGARDE’S words, he was ‘no man’s creature.’

Five years passed on, marked by events which stirred England to its
core, but to Sir Robert COTTON they were years of comparative quiet. He
was, indeed, very far from being a careless bystander. He observed much,
and learnt much. [Sidenote: GROWTH OF COTTON’S LITERARY AND PUBLIC
CORRESPONDENCE.] Had it not been for the lessons which those publicly
eventful years impressed on his receptive mind, he might have gone to
his grave with no other reputation than that of a profound antiquary,
and the Founder of the Cottonian Library.

Meanwhile, his pen worked as hard in the service of scholars, both at
home and abroad, as though he had been a busy proof-reader in a leading
printing-office. He supplied, at the same time, on the right hand and on
the left, precedents and formulæ, with a diligence and readiness which
would have won both fame and fortune for a long-accustomed conveyancer.
CAMDEN consults him, continually, for help in his historical labours.
Ben JONSON puts questions to him about intricate points of Roman
geography. [Sidenote: MS. Cott., Julius C., iii, fol. 239. (B. M.)]
William LISLE seeks COTTON’S aid in the prosecution of his studies of
the language and literature of the Anglo-Saxons. [Sidenote: _Ib._, fol.
288, seqq.] PEIRESC consults him on questions in Numismatics. [Sidenote:
_Domestic Corresp._, Jas. I, vol. lxxxi, § 15. (R. H.)] If great
officers of State chance to quarrel amongst themselves about their
respective claims to carry before the King the sword _Curtana_, at some
special ceremony, they agree to refer the dispute to Sir Robert COTTON
and to abide—without fighting a duel—by his momentous decision. If a
courtier obtains for a friend the royal promise of an Irish viscounty he
writes to COTTON, asking him to choose an appropriate and well-sounding
title. [Sidenote: MS. Cott., Julius C., iii, fol. 378.] Roger MAYNWARING
begs him to determine the legal amount of burial-fees. [Sidenote: _Ib._,
fol. 252.] Dr. LAMBE asks him to settle conflicting pretensions to the
advowson of a living which, in old time, belonged to an abbey.
[Sidenote: _Ib._, fol. 229.] Augustine VINCENT implores his help in a
tough question about patents of peerage. [Sidenote: _Ib._, fol. 379.]
The Lord Keeper WILLIAMS seeks advice on questions of parliamentary form
and privilege. [Sidenote: Edwards’ _Life and Letters of Ralegh_, vol.
ii, p. 321.] RALEGH writes to him, from that ‘Bloody Tower’ which he was
about to turn into a literary shrine for all generations of Englishmen
to come, by composing in it a noble ‘History of the World’—beseeching
him to supply a desolate prisoner with historical materials. [Sidenote:
MS. Julius C. iii, fol. 204.] The Earl of ARUNDEL writes to him from
Padua, begging that he would compile ‘the story of my ancestors.’
[Sidenote: _Ib._, fol. 320.] The Earl of DORSET entreats him to make out
a list of the gifts which some early SACKVILLE had piously bestowed upon
the Church—not, however, with the smallest intention of himself
increasing them. And, anon, there comes to Sir Robert, from a third
great peer, the second of the Cecil Earls of Salisbury, an
entreaty—expressed in terms so urgent that one might call it a
supplication—‘Permit me, I pray you, to see my Lord of NORTHAMPTON’S
letters.... [Sidenote: Salisbury to Cotton, in MS. Cott., Julius C.,
iii.] I will return them unread, and unseen, by anybody,’ save himself.
And then the Secretary of State writes to him in an impetuous hurry
which made his letter scarcely legible:—‘If you be not here’ [_i. e._ at
the Council Chamber] ‘with those precedents for which there is present
use, we are all undone. [Sidenote: MS. Cott., Julius C., iii, fol. 57.]
For His Majesty doth so chide, that I dare not come in his sight.’

Along with this busy correspondence—of which, in these brief sentences I
have given the reader but a very inadequate and scanty sample—the
surviving records of these years of comparative retirement supply us
with abundant notices of the growth and of the sources, from time to
time, of the Cottonian Library. It would be no unwelcome task to tell
that story at length. It would, indeed, be but the paying, in very
humble coin, of a debt of gratitude to a liberal benefactor. But within
the compass of these pages so many careers have to be narrated that the
due proportions of some of them—and even of one so interesting as
COTTON’S—must needs be closely shorn. On this point it must, for the
present, suffice to say that the acquisition of many Cottonian State
Papers, and of such as carry on their face the most irrefragable marks
of former official ownership, can be distinctly traced. The assertion is
no hasty or inconsiderate one. It is founded on an acquaintance with the
Cottonian MSS., which is now, I fear, thirty years old, and on the
strength of which (when reading some recent assaults on the fair fame of
their Collector), I have been tempted to put certain well-known lines
into Sir Robert’s mouth:—

                                   If I am
           Traduced by o’er hasty tongues—which neither know
           My faculties nor person, yet will be
           The chroniclers of my doing—let me say
           ’Tis but the fate of place, and the rough brake
           That virtue must go through.

Were it not, however, for one pregnant circumstance in Sir Robert
COTTON’S subsequent life, all this would have but a very meager
attractiveness for nineteenth-century readers. The story of the growth
of a great library has its charm, but the sphere of potency is of small
dimension. Few but those who are themselves imbued with a spice of
literary antiquarianism ever enter within the narrow circle. Just in
like manner, that active literary and political correspondence—spreading
from Exeter to Durham, and from Venice to Copenhagen—would nowadays have
but a slender interest for anybody (not belonging to the scorned
fraternity of Oldbuck and Dryasdust), were it not for that great war
between King and Parliament, Cavalier and Roundhead, of which, in one
sense, COTTON lived only long enough to see the gathering of forces, and
the early skirmishes, but in which, nevertheless, he played a part
second only to that played by ELIOT and by PYM. His close connection
with the Parliamentarian leaders of 1625–1629 lifts the whole story of
the man out of the petty circuit of mere ‘curiosities of literature,’
into the broad arena of the hard-won liberties of England.

[Sidenote: COTTON’S ALLIANCE WITH THE PARLIAMENTARIAN CHIEFS.]

All students of the deeds done in that arena now know—and their
knowledge is in no slight degree due to the persistent labours of a
living writer—that the battle of the ‘Petition of Right’ was even a
greater battle than Naseby or Marston Moor. They know that the
marshalling of the forces which, at a period antecedent to that famous
Petition, succeeded in winning a safe place on ‘the fleshy tables’ of
the hearts of Englishmen for those political immunities it
embodied—after the first written record had been vainly torn from the
Council Book—was a feat of arms not less brilliant, in its way, than was
that arraying of Ironsides, on much later days of the long strife, which
resulted in ‘Darwen stream with blood of Scots imbued,’ and placed
Worcester’s laureat wreath on the brow of CROMWELL. There are many
senses in which we have all of us (or nearly all) learnt to see the
truth of the familiar words, ‘Peace hath her victories, not less
renown’d than War,’ but in no sense have those words a deeper truth than
when we simply invert MILTON’S own application of them. By him they were
pointed at something yet to be done, and which, as he hoped, might be
done by CROMWELL. Nowadays, the historian has good ground to point them
at an earlier victory, won when the great soldier was but looking on at
the parliamentary contest, which he could not much advance, and might
very possibly have seriously impeded. The one thing which has transmuted
Robert COTTON from the status of a dead antiquary into that of a living
English worthy, is his close fellowship with ELIOT, RUDYARD, and PYM.
His rights to a place amongst our national worthies is due—more than all
else—to the fact that the services which he rendered in that strife of
heroes were services which one man, and only one, throughout broad
England had made himself capable of rendering. COTTON could no more have
led the parliamentary phalanx, than he could have led the Ironsides. To
stir men’s minds as ELIOT or PYM could stir them was about as much in
his power as it was to have invented logarithms, or to have written
‘_Lear_.’ But if he could not command the army, he could furnish the
arsenal. At that day and under the then circumstances that service was
priceless.

Sir Robert COTTON’S best and most memorable parliamentary service was
rendered under CHARLES; not under JAMES. But there is one incident in
his public career which occurred just before the change in the wearers
of the Crown that has a claim to mention, even in so brief a memoir as
this.

Among the revenges wrought by the ‘whirligigs of time’ before JAMES went
to his grave, was the necessity laid upon him to direct a search for
precedents how best to put a mark of disgrace on a Spanish Ambassador
for misconduct in his office. The man selected by the Duke of Buckingham
to make the search, and to report upon it, was Sir Robert COTTON. Some
weeks before he had been chosen to draw up, in the name of both Houses
of Parliament, a formal address to the King for the rupture of the
Spanish match.

[Sidenote: THE SEARCH FOR PRECEDENTS AGAINST AMBASSADORS.]

When BUCKINGHAM made that famous speech at the Conference of Lords and
Commons on the relations between England and Spain, to which COTTON’S
well-known _Remonstrance of the treaties of Amity and Marriage of the
Houses of Austria and Spain with the Kings of England_,[11] was to serve
as a preface, he spoke with considerable force and incisiveness.
[Sidenote: 1624. 27 April.] His arguments were not hampered by many
anxieties about consistency with his own antecedents. His words were
chosen with a view to clinch his arguments to English minds rather than
to spare Spanish susceptibilities. The ambassadors—there were then, I
think, two of them—were furious at a degree of plain-speaking to which
they had been little accustomed. They appealed to the King. They knew
that the versatile favourite, once loved, was now dreaded. They tried to
work on the King’s cowardice. The Duke, they told His Majesty, had
plotted the calling of Parliament expressly to have a sure tool with
which to keep him in control, should he prove refractory to the joint
schemes of the Duke and Prince CHARLES. ‘They will confine your
Majesty’s sacred person,’ said they, ‘to some place of pleasure, and
transfer the regal power upon the Prince.’

The framing of such an accusation, writes Sir Robert, in the Report
which he addressed to BUCKINGHAM on ‘_Proceedings against Ambassadors
have miscarried themselves_,’ would, by the laws of the realm, amount to
High Treason, had it been made by a subject. [Sidenote: _Relation of
Proceedings, &c._; MS. LANSD., 811, ff. 133–139.] He then adduces a long
string of precedents for the treatment of offending envoys; advises that
the Spaniards should first be immediately confined to their own abode;
and should then, by the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament, in
person, be exhorted and required to ‘make a fair discovery of the ground
that led them so to inform the King.’

If, says Sir Robert, they refuse—‘as I believe they will’—then are they
authors of the scandal, and His Majesty should be addressed to send a
‘letter of complaint to the King of Spain, requiring justice to be done
according to the law of nations, which claim should the King of Spain
refuse, the refusal would amount to a declaration of war.’ This advice
was given by COTTON to the Duke on the 27th of April, 1624. Its author’s
momentary favour with the favourite of the now fast-rising sun was
destined (as we shall see presently) to be of extremely brief duration.

Pen-service of this sort was eminently congenial with Sir Robert
COTTON’S powers. To his vast knowledge of precedents he added much
acumen and just insight in their application. Though never admitted to
the Privy Council as a sworn councillor of the Crown, his service as an
adviser on several great emergencies was conspicuous.


And it did not stand alone. Small as were his natural gifts for oratory,
COTTON’S earnestness in the strife of politics prompted him, more than
once, to put aside his own sense of his disadvantages, and to endeavour
himself to strike a good blow, with the weapons which he knew so well
how to choose for others. [Sidenote: COTTON’S SPEECH IN THE PARLIAMENT
AT OXFORD.] On one of these occasions he prepared a speech which proved
very effective.

[Sidenote: 1625. 10 August.]

Curiously enough, whilst the best contemporary reports of that speech
agree amongst themselves in substance; they differ as to the name of the
speaker by whom it was actually uttered within the walls of the House of
Commons. Internal evidence and external authority are also agreed that
the speech, if not spoken, was at all events prepared by Sir Robert
COTTON. On that point, all parties coincide. But according to one
account, he both wrote and uttered it. According to another, he wrote
it; but was prevented from the intended delivery,—either by an
accidental absence from the House, or by some inward and unwaivable
misgiving which led him at the eleventh hour to hand over the task to
the able and well-accustomed tongue of his comrade ELIOT.

[Sidenote: COTTON’S? OR ELIOT’S?]

If we turn, for help—in our strait—to the admirable biography of ELIOT,
by Mr. FORSTER, we shall find that its author rather accepts the doubt,
than solves it. Inclining to the opinion that Sir John ELIOT was the
actual utterer, he thinks nevertheless that the best course is to ‘let
the speech stand double and inseparable; a memorial of a fast
friendship.’ It was the friendship, I may add, of two statesmen who
fought a good fight, side by side; until one of them was violently torn
out of the arena, and thrust into a dungeon, in the hope that slow
disease might unstring the eloquent tongue which honours could not
bribe, and terrors could not silence.

In Sir Robert’s posthumous tracts (as they were published by James
HOWELL) this speech has been printed as unquestionably spoken by him who
wrote it. But that publication—as I have had occasion to show already,
in relation to the ‘_Twenty-four Arguments_’—carries no grain of
authority. Spoken or simply composed by its author, the speech is alike
memorable in English history, and in the personal life of the man
himself.

The existence of the plague in London had led to the adjournment of the
first Parliament of King CHARLES to Oxford. It was there, and on the
10th of August, 1625, that the speech which—whether it came from the
lips of John ELIOT or of Robert COTTON—made a deep impression on the
House, was spoken. It gave the key-note to not a few speeches of a
subsequent date, and it contains passages which, in the event, came to
have on their face something of the stamp of prophecy.

Retrenchment in expenditure,—Parliamentary curb on Royal favourites,—No
trust of a transcendent power to any one Minister,—Less lavishness in
the bestowal of honours and dignities won by suit, or purchase, rather
than by public meed,—Wary distrust of Spain,—Abolition of unjust
monopolies and oppressive imposts;—these are amongst the earnest
counsels which (whether it were as writer, or as speaker) Sir Robert
COTTON impressed on his fellow-members in that memorable sitting at
Oxford. Both the pith and the sting of the Speech may be found in its
concluding words: ‘His Majesty hath ... wise, religious, and worthy
servants.... In loyal duty, we offer our humble desires that he would be
pleased to advise with them _together; ... not with young and single
counsel_.’ Well would it have been for CHARLES, had he taken those
simple words to heart, in good time.

To us, and now, there is a special interest in an incidental passage of
this speech which relates to SOMERSET. The reader has seen how Count
GONDOMAR’S secret testimony—just disinterred from Simancas—against
SOMERSET, as well as against COTTON, has recently been dealt with by an
eminent historian. [Sidenote: (See, also, heretofore, the foot-note to
p. 73.)] It is worth our while to remember some other words on that
subject spoken publicly in the Parliament at Oxford almost two centuries
and a half agone. They were spoken in the ears of men whose eyes had
looked with keen scrutiny into the Spanish envoy as well as into the
English minister. SOMERSET was still living. Men who then sat in the
Parliament Chamber knew every incident in his official life, and not a
few incidents in his private life, as well as every charge by
which—publicly or privately—he had been infamed. They knew, exactly, Sir
Robert COTTON’S position towards the fallen minister. If we choose to
suppose that ELIOT was now speaking what COTTON wrote, the inference is
unchanged. To those listeners Sir John and Sir Robert were known to be
politically ‘double and inseparable.’

[Sidenote: COTTON’S EULOGY ON LORD SOMERSET’S POLICY (August, 1625).]

The facts being so, what is the course taken by the speaker when he
finds occasion to remind the House of things that happened when ‘My Lord
of Somerset stood in state of grace, and had the trust of the Signet
Seal?’ Does he take a line of apology and use words of extenuation? Not
a whit. In the presence of some of the wisest and ablest of English
statesmen, he eulogises SOMERSET as an honest and unselfish minister of
the Crown. He asserts, that the Earl had discovered ‘the double
dealings’ of Spanish emissaries, and the dangers of the Spanish
alliance; and had made some progress in dissuading even King JAMES from
putting faith in Spaniards. Then, winding up this episode, in order to
pass to the topic of the hour, COTTON says: ‘Thus stood the effect of
SOMERSET’S power with His Majesty, when the clouds of his misfortune
fell upon him. What future advisers led to we may well remember.
[Sidenote: MS. LANSD.,[12] 491, fol. 195.] The marriage with Spain was
renewed; GONDOMAR declared an honest man; Popery heartened; His
Majesty’s forces in the Palatinate withdrawn; His Highness’s children
stripped of their patrimony; our old and fast allies disheartened; and
the King our now master exposed to so great a peril as no wise and
faithful counsel would ever have advised.’


At Court, speech such as this was deeply resented, instead of being
turned to profit. A curious little incident which occurred at the
Coronation of CHARLES in the next winter testifies, characteristically,
to the effect which it produced on the minds both of the new King and of
his favourite.


At the date of that ceremony, Sir Robert’s close political connection
with the future Parliamentary chiefs was but in its infancy. His views
of public policy were fast ripening, and had borne fruit. His private
friendships were more and more shaping themselves into accordance with
his tendencies in politics. Amongst those whose intimacy he
cultivated—besides that of ELIOT and others who have been mentioned
already—were Symonds D’EWES, and John SELDEN. [Sidenote: FRIENDS AND
HOSPITALITIES.] It was at COTTON’S hospitable table, in Old Palace Yard,
that the two men last named first made acquaintance with each other.
Both were scholars; both were strongly imbued with the true antiquarian
tinge; both had an extensive acquaintance with the black-letter lore of
jurisprudence, as well as with the more elegant branches of archæology;
and both, up to a certain point, had common aims in public life; yet
they did not draw very near together. SELDEN’S more robust mind, and his
wider sympathies, shocked some of the puritanic nicenesses of D’EWES.
Precisely the same remark would hold good of the relations between
COTTON and D’EWES. But a certain geniality of manners in Sir Robert,
combined with his grandee-like openness of hand and mind, attracted his
fellow-baronet in a degree which went some way towards vanquishing
D’EWES’ most ingrained scruples. [Sidenote: Harl. MS., as above.] ‘I had
much more familiarity with Sir Robert COTTON, than with Master SELDEN,’
jots down Sir Symonds in his Autobiographic _Diary_, and then he adds:
‘SELDEN being a man exceedingly puffed up with the apprehension of his
own abilities.’ That last sentence,—as the reader, perhaps, will agree
with me in thinking,—may possibly tell a more veracious tale of the
writer, than of the man whom it reproves.

Be that as it may, the dining-room in Old Palace Yard witnessed frequent
meetings of many groups of visitors of whose tabletalk it would be
delightful could we find as good a record as we have of the tabletalk in
Bolt Court, or at Streatham Park; or even as we have of almost
contemporary talk around the board at Hawthornden. Glorious old Ben
himself was a frequent guest at Sir Robert COTTON’S table. Until late in
JAMES’ reign, CAMDEN, when his growing infirmities permitted him to
journey up from Chislehurst, would still be seen there, now and again.
During the rare sessions of Parliament, many a famous member, as he left
the House of Commons, would join the circle. And the high discourse
about Greeks and Romans, about poetry and archæology, would be
pleasantly varied, by the newest themes of politics, by occasional
threnodies on the exorbitant power of court minions, but also by
occasional and glowing anticipations of a better time to come.

At one of these festive meetings, occurring not long before the
Coronation of CHARLES THE FIRST, the talk seems to have turned on the
coming solemnity. The plague at this time was still in London, though it
was fast abating. [Sidenote: COTTON AND THE CORONATION OF CHARLES I.]
That circumstance was to abridge the ceremonies, in order to permit the
Court to leave Westminster more quickly; but it was known that great
attention had been given by the King, personally, when framing the
programme, to the strict observance of ancient forms. D’EWES was one of
Sir Robert’s guests. Like his host, he had a great love for sight-seeing
on public occasions. And they would both anticipate a special pleasure
in witnessing the revival of certain coronation observances which had
been pretermitted during two centuries. In regard to the coronation oath
COTTON had been consulted, and he expected to be present, carrying in
his hand his own famous copy of the Gospels known as the ‘_Evangeliary
of King Ethelstan_.’ It was also expected that the watergate of Cotton
House would be the King’s landing-place, and that he would cross the
garden in order that he might enter the Palace more conveniently than he
could from its usual stairs, then under repair, or in need of it. Sir
Robert invited D’EWES, with other of his guests—not privileged to claim
places in Westminster Abbey on the great occasion—that at least they
might see their new sovereign, as he passed to take his crown.

When the morning came D’EWES was early in his visit, but, he found
Cotton House already filled with ladies. The Earl Marshal had decorated
the stairs to the river and the watergate very handsomely. Sir Robert
had done his part by decorating his windows, and his garden, more
handsomely still. But to the chagrin alike of the fair spectators and of
their host, as they were standing, in all their bravery, from watergate
to housedoor, to do respectful obeisance, the royal barge, by the King’s
own commandment—given at the moment, but pre-arranged by BUCKINGHAM—was
urged onward. To our amazement, writes Sir Symonds, ‘we saw the King’s
barge pass to the ordinary stairs, belonging to the backyard of the
Palace, where the landing was dirty ... and the incommodity was
increased by the royal barge dashing into the ground and sticking fast,
before it touched the causeway.’ [Sidenote: D’Ewes; in Harl. MS., 646,
as before.] His Majesty, followed by the Favourite, had to leap across
the mud,—certainly an unusual incident in a coronation show.

When COTTON—swallowing the mortification which he must have felt, on
behalf of his bevy of fair visitors, if not on his own—presently showed
himself in the Abbey, bearing the _Evangeliary_, he and it were
contemptuously thrust aside.

As a straw tells the turn of the wind, this trivial incident points to a
policy. The insults both within the Abbey and without, had been planned,
by the King and Duke, in order to mark the royal indignation at the
close fellowship of COTTON with ELIOT and the other Parliamentary
leaders. That the insults might be the more keenly felt, the Earl
Marshal was left in ignorance of the plan. It is a help to the truthful
portraiture of CHARLES, as well as to that of BUCKINGHAM, to note that
to insult a group of English ladies was no drawback to the pleasure of
putting a marked affront upon a political opponent. Perhaps, it
increased the zest, from the probable near relationship of some among
them to the offender.

But it is more important to note that another and graver intention in
respect to Sir Robert COTTON had been already formed. It was in
contemplation to do, in 1626, what was not really done until 1629.
[Sidenote: Mede to Stuteville; MS. Harl., 383, 18 April, 1626.]
BUCKINGHAM had advised the King to put the royal seals on the Cottonian
Library. That done, he thought, there would surely be an end to the
communication of formidable precedents for parliamentary warfare. More
wary counsellors however interposed with wiser advice. A fitting pretext
was lacking. Slenderness in the pretext would be no serious obstacle to
action. But some excuse there must be. The project, though abandoned for
the time, will be seen to have its value when considering, presently,
the strange story which is told, in the Privy Council Book, of the
‘_Proposition to bridle the impertinency of Parliaments_,’ and when
narrating the sequel of that high-handed act of power, which brought
COTTON’S head—as yet scarcely gray—with sorrow to the grave.


[Sidenote: ADVICE TO PRIVY COUNCIL ON CHANGE OF COINAGE.]

Although, thus early in the reign of CHARLES, a court insult was
inflicted upon Sir Robert COTTON, after a fashion the extreme silliness
of which rather serves to set off the intended malignity than to cloke
it, only a few months passed before his advice was called for in
presence of the Council Board, on an important question of home policy.
The question raised was that of an alteration of the coinage. The Privy
Council was divided in opinion. There was a desire for the advice of
statesmen who were not at the Board, but who were known to have studied
a subject beset with many difficulties. Among these, Sir Robert COTTON
was consulted. He appeared at the Council Table on the 2nd of September,
1626, and we have a report of his speech to the Lords, which from
several points of view is notable. [Sidenote: MS. LANSD., ff. 141–152.
(B. M.)[13]] [Sidenote: _Council Registers_, James I, vols. v and vi,
_passim_. (C. O.)] But a preliminary word or two needs to be said on
what may seem the singularity that a man who, in 1625, was fighting
zealously beside the Parliamentary patriots, should, in 1626, be
speaking at the Council Table as a quasi-councillor of the Crown.

It might be sufficient to point attention to the obvious difference
between questions affecting the liberty of the subject, and questions of
mere administration, were this the only occasion—or were it a fair
sample of the only class of occasions—in which COTTON appears as an
unofficial Councillor. But the fact is otherwise. And it is best to be
explained, partly, by the unsettled character of party connection during
the political strife of CHARLES’ reign, as well as long afterwards, and
partly by peculiarities belonging to the man himself. [Sidenote: _Life
of Sir John Eliot_, vol. i, p 468.] There are not many statesmen, even
of that period, of whom it could be said as the able biographer of Sir
John ELIOT says of Sir Robert COTTON: ‘He acted warmly with ELIOT and
with the patriots in the first Parliament of CHARLES. At the opening of
the third, he was tendering counsel to the King, _of which the
obsequious forms have yet left no impression unfavourable to his
uprightness and honour_.’ The result is unusual. How came it to pass?

Perhaps the preceding pages may have already suggested to the reader’s
mind more than one possible and plausible answer to this question. Here
it may suffice to say that while Sir Robert COTTON was plainly at one
with the Parliamentarian leaders in the main points of their civil
policy, he never went to the extreme lengths of the puritanic faith,
either in things secular, or in matters pertaining to Religion. On some
religious questions he differed from them widely. In secular matters, a
tyrannic Parliament would have been as little to his liking as a
despotic king. Neither friend nor enemy—GONDOMAR excepted—ever called
him a Puritan (or pretended-Puritan) in his lifetime, any more than they
would have called him a Republican. His ultimate divergence was not
cloaked. It was no bar to the entire respect, or to the love and close
fellowship, of men like ELIOT, just because it was frankly avowed, and
had no selfish aim. COTTON,—had he lived long enough,—would probably
have ranged himself, at last, with the Cavaliers, rather than with the
Roundheads. He would have had FALKLAND’S misgivings, and FALKLAND’S
sorrow, but I think he would not have lacked FALKLAND’S self-devotion
also.

And, in another point, he resembled Lord FALKLAND. Both would have
advised CHARLES to yield much of so-called ‘prerogative.’ Neither of
them would have bade him to yield a grain of true royal honour. In later
years, some words which COTTON wrote,—in 1627,—for the King’s eye may
well have come back painfully into CHARLES’ memory:—‘To expiate the
passion of the People,’ said Sir Robert, ‘with sacrifice of any of His
Majesty’s servants, I have ever found to be no less fatal _to the
Master_ than to the Minister, in the end.’


The question of the Coinage, on which he was called into Council in
September 1626, had caused no small measure of discussion whilst JAMES
was still on the throne. [Sidenote: THE ADVICE GIVEN BY SIR R. COTTON ON
MINT AFFAIRS.] Many merchants of London had raised the old and hacknied
cry of complaint against an alleged ‘vast transportation of gold and
silver from England’ to the Continent. Others said that the complaint,
if not groundless, was misdirected. The following Minute of the Privy
Council will shew how the question stood in that early stage. It was
drawn up in November, 1618.

[Sidenote: Council to the King, 30 Nov., 1618; James I, vol. iv, p. 45.
           (C. O.)]

‘Being by Your Majesty’s commandment to take into our consideration the
state of the Mint and to advise of the way or means how to bring bullion
more plentifully into the Kingdom, and to be coined there, as also how
to stop the great exportation of treasure out of the Realm,—a matter of
which the State hath been jealous: For our better information and Your
Majesty’s satisfaction we thought it fit first to know from the Office
of your Mint what quantity of gold and silver hath been there coined in
the last seven years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth and the seven years
last past of Your Majesty. And we find that in the said seven years of
the Queen there was coined in gold and silver of all sorts £948,713
sterling, whereas in the seven late years of Your Majesty’s reign there
hath been coined of all sorts, in gold and silver, £1,603,998. So as,
comparing the one with the other, there hath been coined of both species
in the said seven years of Your Majesty’s reign £655,285 sterling, more
than in the seven years aforesaid of the Queen, the difference being
almost three parts to one. Next we required a certificate from the
Goldsmiths of London of the Plate that hath been made in those years
within the City of London; and it appeareth that there was made and
stamped in their hall the last seven years of Queen Elizabeth of silver
plate the worth of £22,187 more than in the seven later years of Your
Majesty’s reign. But upon the whole matter we cannot find and do humbly
certify the same unto Your Majesty as our opinion that there hath been
of late any such vast transportation of gold and silver into France and
the Low Countries as was supposed; neither that there is any such
notorious diminution of treasure generally in the Kingdom—at the least
of gold—since it is apparent that there hath been a far greater quantity
in the total coined within these seven years last past than in the last
seven years of the late Queen. Besides Your Majesty may be pleased to
observe that the making of so much silver plate cannot be the principal
cause of the decay of the Mint since there was more plate made in London
[in] those last seven years of the Queen,—when there came more silver to
be coined in the Mint,—than there hath been used of late years, when
silver in the Mint hath been so scarce though Gold more plentiful.... In
the mean time we do humbly offer ... that there is no necessity ... to
raise your coin, either in the one kind or in the other. [Sidenote:
_Registers of Privy Council_, as above, p. 46. (C. O.)] But rather that
the same may draw with it many inconveniences; and because the noise
thereof through the City of London and from thence to other parts of the
Realm, as we understand, hath already done hurt and in some measure
interrupted and distracted the course of general commerce, we think it
very requisite ... that some signification be forthwith made from this
Table time to raise your coins.’

The course thus recommended—and in the recommendation the Council seems
to have been well nigh unanimous—was precisely the course JAMES did not
wish to take. The Council Books abound with proof how hard it was to
dissuade the King from adopting this ‘intended project of enhancing the
coin [_i. e._ by debasing the standard], though, as COTTON afterwards
said at the Council Table, to do so would trench, both into the honour,
the justice, and the profit’ [_i. e._ the real and ultimate profit] ‘of
my royal Master very far.’

In his address at the Board, Sir Robert made an almost exhaustive
examination of the history of the English Mint. He did it with much
brevity and pith. His views about foreign trade are, of course, not free
from the fallacies which were accepted as aphorisms by very nearly every
statesman then living. But his advice on the immediate question at issue
is marked by sound common sense, by insight and practical wisdom.
[Sidenote: MS. LANSD., 811, ff. 148–152 (B. M.) [Compare the Report of
Proceedings in the House of Commons, Feby. 1621. (_Parl. Hist._, vol. i,
c. 1188–1194).]] His speech told, and he followed it up by framing, as
Chairman of a Committee, (1) an _Answer to the Propositions delivered by
some Officers of the Mint_; and (2) _Certain General Rules collected
concerning Money and Bullion out of the late Consultation at Court_.
Copies of both exist amongst the Harleian and Lansdowne MSS., and both,
together with the Speech, are printed in the _Posthuma_ (although not
without some of the Editor’s characteristic inaccuracies).

The next question which it was Sir Robert’s task to discuss before the
Privy Council was a much more momentous question than that of the
Coinage. It was, potentially, both to Sovereign and to people, an issue
of life or death.

In January, 1628 [N. S.], he delivered, at the Board, the substance of
the remarkable Discourse which has been more than once printed under the
title, ‘_The Danger wherein this Kingdom now Standeth, and the Remedy_.’
[Sidenote: DISCOURSE ON THE CALLING OF A PARLIAMENT. 1628. Jany.] The
courtliness of its tone no more detracts from its incisiveness of
stroke, than a jewelled hilt would detract from the cleaving sweep of a
Damascus blade, when wielded by well-knit sinews. It led instantly to
the calling of the Parliament. [Sidenote: MS. LANSD., 254, ff. 258,
seqq.] But neither its essential and true loyalty to the King, nor the
opportune service which it rendered to the country was to make the
fortunes of its author any exception to those which—sooner or
later—befell every councillor of CHARLES THE FIRST, who, in substance if
not in form, was wont to put Country before King.

In that third Parliament of CHARLES Sir Robert himself had no seat. In
the Parliament which preceded it he sat for Old Sarum, having lost his
seat for Huntingdonshire. But he continued to be the active ally and the
influential councillor of the leaders of opposition to strained
prerogatives. When the Parliament assailed Bishops NEILE and LAUD, the
inculpated prelates, it is said, threw upon COTTON as much of their
anger as they well could have done had he led the assault in person.

The opportunity was not very far to seek. [Sidenote: THE ‘PROPOSITION TO
BRIDLE PARLIAMENTS.’ 1629. October.] Not long after the dissolution in
March, 1629, of that Parliament of the assembling of which Sir Robert
COTTON’S patriotic effort had been the immediate occasion, and to some
of the effective blows of which he had helped to give vigour, some
courtier or other brought to CHARLES’ hands a political tract, in
manuscript, and told him that copies of it were in the possession of
several statesmen. Those—with one exception—who were then named to the
King were men wont to be held in greater regard in the country than at
Court. The pamphlet bore for its title: ‘_The Proposicion for Your
Majesties Service ... to secure your Estate and to bridle the
impertinencie of Parliaments_.’

The consequences of this small incident were destined to prove of large
moment. The earliest mention we have of it occurs in a letter written by
the Archbishop of York—himself a Privy Councillor—to Sir Henry VANE, in
November, 1629: ‘The Vice-Chancellor,’ says Archbishop HARSNET, ‘was
sent to Sir Robert COTTON to seal up his library, and to bring himself
before the Lords of the Council.’ [Sidenote: _Domest. Corresp._, Charles
I, vol. cli, § 24. (R. H.)] In the words that follow the Archbishop is
evidently speaking from what he had been told, not from his personal
knowledge. ‘There was found,’ he proceeds to say, ‘in his custody a
pestilential tractate which he had fostered as a child, containing a
project how a Prince may make himself an absolute tyrant. [Sidenote:
_Ib._] _This pernicious device he had communicated to divers Lords._’

CHARLES was presently in intense excitement about the matter. Its next
stage cannot be better or more briefly told, than in the words which the
King himself addressed to his assembled Councillors—in unusual array,
for they were twenty-one in number—and afterwards caused to be entered
upon the Council Book:

[Sidenote: 1629. 15 Nov.]

‘This day His Majestie, sitting in Counsell, was pleased to imparte to
the whole Boarde the cause for which the [Sidenote: [_Council Register_,
vol. v, p. 495.]] Erles of CLARE, SOMERSET, and BEDFORDE, Sir Robert
COTTON, and sundry other persons of inferior qualitie, had bene lately
restrained and examined by a speciall Committee appointed by him for
that purpose, which cause was this:—

‘His Majestie declared that there came to his handes, by meere accedent,
the coppie of a certain “_Discourse_” or “_The Proposicion_” (which was
then, by his commandement, read at the Boarde), pretended to be written
“for His Majesties service,” and bearing this title—”_The Proposicion
for Your Majestie’s Service conteineth twoe partes: [Sidenote:
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SIR ROBERT COTTON IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL.] The one to
secure your Estate, and to bridle the impertinencie of Parlements; the
other to encrease Your Majestie’s Revenue much more then it is_.”

‘Now the meanes propounded in this Discourse for the effecting thereof
are such as are fitter to be practised in a Turkish State then amongst
Christians, being contrarie to the justice and mildnesse of His
Majestie’s Government, and the synceritie of his intentions, and
therefore cannot be otherwise taken then for a most scandalous
invention, proceding from a pernitious dessein, both against His
Majestie and the State, which, notwithstanding, the aforesaid persons
had not onely read—and concealed the same from His Majestie and his
Counsell—but also communicated and divulged it to others.

‘Whereupon His Majestie did farther declare that it is his pleasure that
the aforesaid three Erles, and Sir Robert COTTON, shall answere this
their offense in the Court of Star Chamber, to which ende they had
alreadie bene summoned, and that now they shoulde be discharged and
freed from their restraint and permitted to retourne to their severall
houses, to the ende that they mighte have the better meanes to prepare
themselves for their answere and defense.

‘And, lastly, he commanded that this his pleasure should be signified by
the bearer unto them, who were then attending without,—having, for that
purpose, bene sent for. His Majestie, having given this Order and
direccion, rose from the Boarde, and when he was gone, the three Erles
were called in severally and the Lorde Keeper signified to each of them
His Majestie’s pleasure in that behalfe; shewing them, with all, how
gratiously he had bene pleased to deale with them, both in the maner of
the restraint, which was only during the time of the examination of the
cause (a thing usuall and requisite specially in cases of that
consequence), and in that they had bene committed to the custodie of
eminent and honorable persons by whom they were treated according to
their qualities; and lykewise in the discharge of them now from their
restraint that they may have the better convenience and meanes to
prepare themselves for the defense of their cause in that legall coursse
by which His Majestie had thought fit to call them to an account and
tryall.

‘The like was also signified by his Lordship to Sir Robert COTTON, who
was further tolde that although it was His Majestie’s pleasure that his
Studies’ [meaning, that is, his Library and Museum,] ‘shoulde, as yett,
remaine shut up, yet he might enter into them and take such writtings
wherof he shoulde have use, provided that he did it in the presence of a
Clerke of the Counsell; [Sidenote: _Council Register_, Chas. I, vol. v,
ff. 495, 496 (C. O.).] and whereas the Clerke attending hath the keyes
of two of his Studies he might put a seconde lock on either of them so
that neither dores might be opened, but by him and the said Clerke both
together.’

A reader who now looks back on this singular transaction—and who has
therefore the advantage of looking at it by the stern-lights of
history,—will be likely to believe that the chief offence of the
pamphlet lay (in a certain sense,) in its truth. [Sidenote: CHARACTER
AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE ‘PROPOSITION TO BRIDLE PARLIAMENTS.’] It was the
much too frank exposition of a policy which clung very close to CHARLES’
heart, though he could ill afford—in 1629—to have it openly avowed. The
undeniable fact that this ‘_Proposition for Your Majesty’s Service_’ was
indeed fitter for the latitude of Constantinople, than for that of
London, sounds but awkwardly on the royal lips, when connected with an
assertion (in the same breath,) of the ‘justice and mildness’ of the
King’s own government. The indictment which his Parliament brought
against CHARLES,—and which History has endorsed,—could hardly be packed
into briefer words than those which the King himself used that day at
the Council Board. His notions of kingly rule, like his father’s, were
in truth much better suited for the government of Turkey than for the
government of England.

Sir Robert COTTON, however, had no more to do with the authorship of the
‘_Proposition_’ than had CHARLES himself. The author was Sir Robert
DUDLEY. The time of its composition was at least fifteen years before
the date of the imprisonment of COTTON and his companions in disfavour.
The place of its birth was Florence. It cannot even be proved that
COTTON had any personal knowledge of the fact that the offensive tract
had been found in his own library. He had recently read it, indeed,—in
common with BEDFORD, CLARE, and Oliver SAINT-JOHN, and no doubt, like
them, had read it with many surging thoughts,—but he had read it in a
recent transcript, written by a clerk.

Of Robert DUDLEY’S motive in writing his ‘_Proposition_’ we have also no
proof. But the presumptive and internal evidence is so strong, as to
make proof almost superfluous. The tract bears witness, between the
lines, that it was composed to win the favour—or at least to arrest the
despoiling hand—of King JAMES. And there is hardly a suggestion in it
which might not be backed by some parallel passage in the writings, or
the speeches, of JAMES himself, when expatiating on kingly prerogatives
in some mood of mind a little more foolish than usual, or when
striving—only too successfully—to train up his successor to follow in
his own path. It seems like an irony of Fate to find that (in all
probability,—for here again the proof is not quite clinching,) the
King’s informer, against COTTON and the other offenders, was WENTWORTH,
who, not many years after 1629, was to sum up views of policy much akin
to Robert DUDLEY’S in the memorable word ‘_Thorough_.’

COTTON himself believed that this apparently trivial incident cost him
his life. He said not long before his death,—‘It has killed me.’ We
shall probably never know whether DUDLEY’S tract had anything to do with
bringing about in the mind of WENTWORTH that eventful change of
political views which is known to have passed over it (about the time
when the incriminated manuscript was sent so eagerly from hand to hand),
and which, in a few years more, was to work his death also. But one can
hardly avoid, in passing, a momentary thought on the curious possibility
that a pamphlet, written at Florence, in the hope that it might save,
for the writer, some wreck or remnant of a despoiled inheritance,—may
have proved fatal alike to the close political friend of ELIOT, and to
the close political friend of LAUD. A tract of such potency may well
claim a few words about its contents. They bear in every line the stamp
of mental energy, and also the stamp of moral recklessness.

[Sidenote: CAREER OF SIR R. DUDLEY, (THE TRUE AUTHOR).]

Sir Robert DUDLEY knew well enough that a rooted dislike of Parliaments
was, in JAMES’S mind, combined with a besetting dread of them. He knew
that, between hate and fear, a Parliament was like a nightmare, for ever
crouching behind the royal pillow. It is the purpose of his tract to
tell the King how to drive the nightmare away. He recommends, amongst
other and minor measures, the erection of a strong fortress in all the
chief towns of the Kingdom, to be manned by trained bands, and to be
placed in such situations as shall command the high roads. In addition
to these measures, your Majesty, he says, must set up a strict system of
passports, for travellers. Nor is all this merely a new and more
elaborate version of the old story of belling the cat. The writer of
this counsel knows, perfectly, that already the King’s poverty is the
Parliament’s power; and that to build fortresses and array soldiers
needs a full purse, not an exhausted one. But he says,—as WENTWORTH said
after him,—that soldiers can be set to work upon good hopes of the pay
to come. A resolute King, he thinks, with resolute troops at his back,
could do in England what had so often been done in Italy. He could tithe
men’s estates. He could make salt and some other things of prime
necessity a royal monopoly. He could set a tariff on dignities of
honour. He could establish sumptuary laws, such as should make the
vanity and jealousy of thriving nobodies—men with full pockets and blank
pedigrees—willing contributors to the King’s Exchequer. He could buy up
improvident leases of Crown lands, and resell them at a large profit.

The shortsightedness of such advice as this is now obvious enough. But
advice quite as shortsighted and far less plausibly couched,—for the
eyes that were to read it,—had been fruitful of result, when offered to
Stuarts. Nor was the man who now offered it to CHARLES a mere clever
talker. He was a man who had already acquitted himself with conspicuous
ability in several spheres of action, lying widely apart.


Sir Robert DUDLEY possessed many splendid accomplishments. He had been
educated by the same ripe scholar who afterwards became tutor to Prince
HENRY. At the age of one and twenty, he had put himself into the lists
with RALEGH, as navigator and discoverer, by heading an expedition to
the Oronoco. [Sidenote: THE CAREER OF SIR ROBERT DUDLEY.] In the course
of that expedition he had captured nine Spanish ships; one of them of
twice his own strength. At three and twenty, he had fought, side by side
with RALEGH, in the naval battle in the bay of Cadiz; had handled his
ship with an ability which won the praise of his rivals; and had then
fought, in the land attack, side by side with ESSEX. When his own
unbridled passions and resentments gave a fatal opening for the equally
unbridled cupidity of JAMES, and of JAMES’S courtiers, to despoil him of
a great estate, and to drive him into exile, he showed that he knew how
to snatch honour out of defeat. He laid the foundation of a new English
trade with Italy and created—it is not saying too much—the maritime
prosperity of Leghorn. He drained vast Italian marshes, and made corn to
grow where corn had never grown before. The man who, in early life, had
won fame at once as a navigator full of pluck and resource, and as an
able soldier by sea and land:—and who, on attaining full manhood, had
shown himself both a clever diplomatist and a great engineer;—did not go
to his foreign grave before he had won literary fame with the pen, and
scientific fame at the furnace of the chemist. He had, in its fullest
measure, the versatility and the energy of his race. English family
biography, I suppose, can scarcely show a stranger group of lives than
the successive lives of the last four DUDLEYS of that line:—Edmund, the
Minister of HENRY VII, and author of _The Tree of the Commonwealth_;
NORTHUMBERLAND, the subduer of EDWARD VI, and the murderer of Jane GREY;
LEICESTER, the Favourite of ELIZABETH; Sir Robert, the self-made exile,
and the maker of Leghorn. Whilst English history, in its long course,
can scarcely match the fatality which seems to have foredoomed powers of
mind and strength of will, such as are rarely repeated in four
successive generations, to teem with evil instead of good for England.


Such, in few words, was the career of the man, the forgotten production
of whose pen was to shorten the life of a statesman whose only
connection with it—so far as the evidence goes—lay in the fact that a
copy chanced to turn up in his library; fell under the keen eye of a
lawyer who thought that something might be made of it; and was then
copied—probably by some clerk, who was in the habit of making
transcripts for students to whom money was less precious than time.[14]
In some points of the story there is still considerable uncertainty. But
so much as this seems to be established. How the tract came, at the
first, into Sir Robert COTTON’S library there is no evidence whatever to
shew.


It is not the least curious point in this transaction that the Earl of
SOMERSET should have been mixed up with it. He had been released from
the Tower almost eight years before (namely, on the 28th of January,
1622), but was prohibited from living near the Court. At first, he was
ordered to restrict himself to one or other of two old mansions in
Oxfordshire—Caversham and Grey’s Court. [Sidenote: _Council Registers,
James I_, vol. v, pp. 230, 425 (C. O.).] Afterwards, his option was
enlarged, by including, in the license, Aldenham, in Hertfordshire. It
is evident that, after BUCKINGHAM’S death, he began to hope that a
political career might be still possible for him. And statesmen like
BEDFORD and CLARE—as well as COTTON—kept up with him a correspondence.

More than once or twice, coming events had cast their preliminary
shadows over Sir Robert, in relation to the very matter which so vexed
his heart in the winter of 1629. ‘Sir Robert COTTON’S Library is
threatened to be sealed up’ is a sentence which made its occasional
appearance in news-letters, long before King CHARLES hurried down to the
Council Chamber to vent his indignation on the handing about of DUDLEY’S
‘_Proposition to bridle Parliaments_.’

[Sidenote: BEN JONSON AND THE VERSES TO FELTON.]

One cause of the rumour lay doubtless in the known enmity between
BUCKINGHAM and the great antiquary. This enmity, on one occasion,
brought Ben JONSON into peril. Ben was fond of visiting Cotton House. He
liked the master, and he liked the table; and he was wont to meet at it
men with whom he could exchange genial talk. On one such occasion, just
a year before the Florence pamphlet incident, some verses went round the
table at Cotton House, with the dessert. They began, ‘_Enjoy thy
bondage_,’ and ended with the words ‘_England’s ransom here doth lie_.’
Only two months had then passed since BUCKINGHAM’S assassination, and
these verses were, or were supposed to be, addressed to FELTON. We can
now imagine more than one reason why such lines may have been curiously
glanced at, over Sir Robert’s table, without assuming that there was any
triumphing over a fallen enemy; still less any approval of murder. But
there seems to have been present one guest too many. [Sidenote:
_Domestic Corresp. Charles I_, vol. cxix, § 33.] Some informer told the
story at Whitehall, and JONSON found himself accused of being the author
of the obnoxious verses. He cleared himself; but not, it seems, without
some difficulty and annoyance.


The release from immediate restraint of the prisoner of November ’29 was
no concession to any prompting of CHARLES’ own better nature.
Fortunately for Sir Robert COTTON, his companions in the offence were
peers. Their fellow-peers shewed, quietly but significantly, that
continued restraint would need to be preceded by some open declaration
of its cause. During the course of the proceedings which followed their
release it was asserted—I do not know by whom—that not only had the
‘_Proposition_’ been copied, but that an ‘_Answer_’ to it had been
either written, or drafted. And that the reply, like the original tract,
would be found in Sir Robert’s library.

This somewhat inexplicable circumstance in the story is nowhere
mentioned, I think, except in a Minute of the Privy Council. The Minute
runs thus:—

‘A Warrant directed to Thomas MEWTAS, Esq. ... and Laurence WHITAKER,
Esq. [Clerks of Council] autorising them to accompanie Sir Robert
COTTON, Knight, to his house and assist him in searching amongst the
papers in his studie or elsewhere, for certaine notes or draughtes for
an answer to a “_Proposicion_” pretended to be made “_for His Majesties
Service_” touching the securing of His Estate, and also to seeke
diligently amongst his papers, and lykewise the trunkes and chambers of
Mr. JAMES, and [of] FLOOD, Sir Robert COTTON’S servant, as well for anie
such notes, as also for coppies of the said “_Proposicion_,” and for
other wrytings, of that nature, which may import prejudice to the
government and His Majestie’s service.’ [Sidenote: _Council Registers,
Charles I_; vol. 5, pp. 493, 495. 1629. Nov. 10. Whitehall. (C. O.).]
The new search, it seems, had not the desired, or any important, result.

A year passed away. The proceedings in the Star Chamber proved to be
almost as fruitless, as had been the vain, but repeated, searches which
wearied the legs and perplexed the minds of Clerks of Council and of
Messengers of the Secretary’s office. [Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp.
Chas. I_, clxvii, § 65, seqq. (R. H.)] But the locks and seals were
still kept on the Cottonian Library. Sir Robert and his son (afterwards
Sir Thomas) petitioned the King over and over again. But CHARLES had set
his face as a flint, and would not listen. In vain he was told that the
Manuscripts were perishing by neglect; and that, as they occupied some
of the best rooms, the continued locking up made their owner to be like
a prisoner, in his own house. In order to go into any one of them he had
to send to Whitehall, to request the presence of a Clerk of the Council.

[Sidenote: COTTON’S DECLINE OF HEALTH.—THE ARTFUL QUACK AND THE WARY
           PATIENT.]

Under such circumstances it is not surprising that his friends noticed
with anxiety his changed appearance. His ruddy countenance became sallow
and haggard. It grew, says his associate D’EWES, to be of ‘a blackish
paleness near to the semblance and hue of a dead visage.’ His somewhat
portly frame stooped and waned. Life had still some charms for him,—so
long at least as he could hope even faintly, for an opportunity of
returning, at last, to his beloved studies. He was told of the growing
repute of a certain Dr. FRODSHAM, who combined (it seems) experiments at
the retort and still of the chemist, with the clinical practice of the
physician,—when he could get it. Sir Robert sent for him and desired
that he would bring a certain restorative balsam, or other nostrum, that
had become the talk of the town. The worthy practitioner preferred to
send his answer in writing. With great frankness, he said to his
correspondent: ‘I have now an extraordinary occasion for money....
Neither is it my accustomed manner to distil for any body, without some
payment beforehand. So, noble Sir, if pleas you, send here, _by this
berer_, £17 and 12_s._, for so much the druges will cum tow. I confes
that way I worke is deare, yett must say, upon my life, that I will
make’ [you] ‘as sound and able of body, as at thirty-five,—and’ [this]
‘within five weeks.’ [Sidenote: MS. Harl., 7002, fol. 318; H. Frodsam to
Sir R. Cotton (B. M.).] But the eye for which this naïve epistle was
meant was an eye keen enough to detect the difference between corn and
chaff. [Sidenote: _Ib._] ‘I did,’ replied Sir Robert, ‘expect something
of fact, to make me confident; before I could venture either my trial or
my purse.... Promises I have often met and rejected. Error of judgment
must be, to me, of more loss than the money.’

By way of addition to the combined anxieties of failing health, and of a
bitter grief, there came now to be heaped upon COTTON’S shoulders the
heavier burden of a conspiracy to assail his moral character.

Large as had been his expenditure on his noble collections, and
openhanded as was his manner of life and of giving, Sir Robert COTTON
was still wealthy. Some persons who had benefited by his repeated
generosity thought they saw an opening, in the summer of 1630, to
increase the gain by a clever and lucrative plot. The method they took
reads, nowadays, less like a real incident in English literary
biography, than like one of those—

            ... last, best, of the ‘_Hundred Merry Tales_’
            Of how [a grave and learned sage] devised
            To carry off a spouse that moped too much,
            And cured her of the vapours in a trice;

                   ·       ·       ·       ·       ·

            For now the husband—playing Vulcan’s part,—
            ... started in hot pursuit
            To catch the lovers, and came raging up;
            Cast then his net, and call’d neighbours to see
            The convicts in their rosy impudence.

The victim of this plot was now in his sixtieth year. Whatever may have
been the sins of his youth, there was obvious risk in a contrivance to
extort money by telling such a tale as that, about a man the fever of
whose blood must needs have abated; even had he not been already broken
down under cumulative weight of the sorrow and hunger of the heart.
[Sidenote: THE CONSPIRACY OF WILCOX AND STEVENSON AGAINST SIR R.
COTTON.] The intended victim, too, was a man with troops of friends. But
the conspirators, it is evident, thought that Sir Robert’s known
disgrace at Court would tell as a good counterpoise in their favour. A
man already in circumstances of peril would, they thought, be likely to
open his pursestrings rather than incur the burden of a new accusation.

On a June morning in 1630 Sir Robert COTTON received an urgent letter
from an elderly woman—one Amphyllis FERRERS—who had the claim upon him
of distant kinship, and upon whom, in that character, he had bestowed
many kindnesses. The letter made a new appeal to his compassion; told
him of the distresses of the writer’s daughter—married not long before
to a needy man—and besought him to pay them a visit; that he might judge
of their necessities with his own eyes. Both mother and daughter lived
together in Westminster, at no great distance from Cotton House.

Sir Robert paid the invited visit; was told of various family plans
connected with the recent marriage, and, amongst other things, of a
pressing need for some household furniture. When the talk turned upon
furniture, he was asked to look, himself, at an upstairs room, and form
his own opinion about the request. Both mother and daughter went up with
him; but the three had hardly entered the room, when a loud battering
noise was heard on the other side of the thin wall which separated them
from the neighbouring house. And, presently a still greater noise was
heard from the rush of footsteps upon the stairs.

The daughter, it seems, was not in the plot. Her husband had
ostentatiously ridden away from the door on the previous morning, to go
into the country, for an absence of some days;—exactly like a hero in
BOCCACCIO. At night, he quietly returned, and took up his abode, by
preconcert with his neighbours, next door. In the morning he lay with
those neighbours in ambush. When they all tumultuously rushed up
stairs—into the man’s own abode—they were full of indignation at Sir
Robert’s wantonness; but,—unfortunately for their story—in their eager
haste they entered the room almost as soon as he himself had entered it,
with his two companions. Nevertheless, they persisted in their
accusation; permitting, however, when the first burst of virtuous wrath
had somewhat subsided, the appearance of a sufficient indication that
they were not wholly averse from listening to a reasonable proposal.
There was a way, and one way only, in which that fierce wrath might be
appeased. Sir Robert, however, was indignant in his turn. The purse of
the intended victim remained stubbornly closed.

[Sidenote: 1630. July—Decr.]

There is no need to pursue the unsavoury narrative. Nor would so much of
the story have here been told, but for the suggestion which lies within
it that the rapid breaking up of Sir Robert’s vigorous constitution was
not perhaps due, quite exclusively,—as has been commonly believed[15]—to
the malicious privation inflicted upon him by King CHARLES. For though
he was successful in extracting, from the chief accuser himself, a
confession of the falsehood of the charge, and an acknowledgment that
the object of the conspirators was to extort money, yet the matter
brought him much toil and vexation of spirit. One of the latest acts of
his life was to arrange the proofs of the conspiracy in due and formal
array.[16] [Sidenote: _Cottonian Charters_, &c., i, 3, seqq.; MS.
ADDIT., 14049, ff. 21–43. (B. M.)] When he had done that, and had once
again made an effort—as fruitless as the efforts which had been made
before—for the recovery of his library, he seems to have prepared
himself for death.

[Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp._, Charles I, vol. clxvii, § 45, seqq. (R.
           H.).]

Sir Robert’s repeated efforts to regain his Library were not unseconded
by friends powerful at Court. But the King’s stubbornness would not give
way—till concession was too late. The Lord Privy Seal (the
newly-appointed successor of WORCESTER, recently dead), was amongst
those who interceded with CHARLES. [Sidenote: COTTON’S DEATH.] A little
before Sir Robert’s death his Lordship sent to him John ROWLAND—one of
his officers—to tell him that, at length, his mediation had been
successful, and the King was reconciled to him. [Sidenote: Rowland, in
Pref. to the Political Satire entitled _Gondomar’s Transactions_, &c.]
COTTON answered, ‘You come too late. My heart is broken.’

COTTON, when he came to lie on the bed of death, had certain topics of
reflection—of a secular sort—on which he might well look back with some
measure of complacency. As a student of Antiquity he had been
conspicuously successful. [Sidenote: COTTON’S DEATHBED REFLECTIONS.] He
had won the respect and reverence of every man in Europe who had proved
himself competent to judge of such studies. And he had not been a
selfish student. He had made his own researches and collections seed
plots for Posterity. If, as a Statesman, he had missed his immediate
aims more frequently than he had reached them, he had none the less
rendered, on some salient occasions, brilliant public service. He had
shewn, incontestably, that the true greatness of England lay near his
heart.

One of his contemporaries presently said of him—when told of his
death—‘If you could look at Sir Robert COTTON’S heart “_My Library_”
would be found inscribed there;—just as Queen MARY said “_Calais_” was
printed deeply on hers.’ But the character impressed on every volume of
that large collection which he so loved is ‘England.’ To illustrate the
history, and to enlighten the policy, of Englishmen was the object which
made COTTON, from his youth, a Collector.

On the other hand, when the inevitable deathbed reflections passed from
things secular to things sacred,—and also from Past to Future,—there was
very little room for complacency of any sort. A few years before, when a
better and more famous man than COTTON lay in like circumstances, this
thought came into his mind:—‘Godly men, in time of extreme afflictions,
did comfort themselves with the remembrance of their former life, _in
which they had glorified God_. It is not so in me. I have no comfort
that way. All things in my former life have been vain,—vain,—vain.’

Those words were among Sir Robert COTTON’S own early recollections. When
he was sixteen years of age some of the dying words of Philip SYDNEY
were repeated in almost every manor-house of England, and at many a
cottage fireside. Those particular words came under his eye, at the most
impressionable period of his life. The document which has handed them
down to us was preserved by his care.[17] Did the exact thought they
embody, and the very words themselves, come into his mind, as they well
might, when he, too, lay upon his deathbed?

Be that as it may, such words in Sir Robert’s mouth would have had a
special fitness. And he knew it well. Happily, he also knew where to
look for comfort. He found it, just as Philip SYDNEY—in common with many
thousands among the nameless Englishmen who had passed away in the
interval between 1586 and 1631—had found it before him. He could say, as
SYDNEY said:—

                ‘My Faith is frail; Hope constant never,
                Yet this my comfort is, for ever,
                God saves not man for merit.’[18]

Not long before he died, COTTON said to a friend (after a long
conference which he had held with Dr. OLDISWORTH, a Divine who spent
many hours, from day to day, at his bedside) such comfort as I would not
want, to be the greatest monarch in the world.’ [Sidenote: THE LAST
SCENE.] Bishop WILLIAMS—who passed the greater part of the last night in
conversation with him—remarked, as he went his way in the morning, ‘I
came to bring Sir Robert comfort, but I carry away more than I brought.’
To the last, however, the ruling passion of COTTON’S nature asserted
itself. He could forgive his persecutors, but he could not shake off the
memory of the bitterness of the persecution. Turning to Sir Henry
SPELMAN, he said: ‘Tell the Lord Privy Seal, and the rest of the
Council, that their so long detaining my books from me has been the
cause of this mortal malady.’ SPELMAN gave his message, and the ‘Lord
Privy Seal’ himself hastened to Sir Robert’s bedside to express his
regrets. The interview was narrated to CHARLES, and presently the Earl
of DORSET was sent, from the King himself. The new comforter came half
an hour too late. The persecuted man had passed to his rest. He died,
trusting in the one, only, all-sufficient, Saviour of sinful men. His
death occurred on the 6th of May, 1631. [Sidenote: John Pory to Sir
Thomas Puckering; MS. HARL., 7000, fol. 310.] His body was removed to
Conington, and was interred with more than the usual demonstrations of
respect. The inscription on his monument is printed at the end of this
chapter.


[Sidenote: THE ROYAL MESSAGE TO SIR THOMAS COTTON, 2nd BART.]

When Lord DORSET, on his arrival at Cotton House with the royal message,
found that Sir Robert was already dead he turned to the heir. If the
Earl has been truly reported, the terms in which he expressed his
master’s condolence and good wishes were ill-chosen: ‘To you, His
Majesty commanded me to say that, as he loved your father, _so_ he will
continue his love to yourself.’ [Sidenote: Pory to Sir T. Puckering, as
above.] The comfort of the promise could not have been great. Sir
Thomas’ experiences of the rubs of life were, however, to come chiefly
from the King’s opponents; not from the King.

His life was a quiet one, up to the time of the outbreak of Civil War.
Until then, its most notable incidents grew out of the circumstance that
it fell to his lot to serve as Sheriff of Huntingdonshire, during the
busy year of ‘Shipmoney.’

Sir Thomas COTTON was in no danger of being tempted to follow the
example of HAMPDEN. The readiness with which he discharged the
troublesome task of collecting the impost throughout his county probably
laid the first foundation of a strong feeling of personal ill-will
towards him, on the part of the lower class of the adherents of the
Parliament, during subsequent years. He never ranged himself with the
King’s party. Neither would he take any prominent part on the side of
the Parliament. He had little taste for public life; and regarded the
quarrel with the aloofness of spirit natural to a man with no dominant
political convictions, and with a decided love for country sports and
for the pleasures of domesticity.

[Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp._, Charles I, vol. cccxliii, § 67; cccxlvi,
           § 115; cccxlv, § 17; cccxlviii, cccl, § 40; cccliv, § 58;
           ccclxi, § 104; ccclxvi, § 13; ccclxxi, § 58. (R. H.)]

He had sat in Parliament (for Marlow) during his father’s lifetime, and
in his father’s company. His correspondence shows considerable talent.
The extensive portion of that correspondence—in the years 1636 and
1637—which was imposed on him by the Shipmoney business, shews also
considerable power of dealing with official details, little as he could
have liked them. It exhibits an anxiety to acquit himself
conscientiously of a difficult duty, and not to shirk any of the
incidents of duty merely on account of their distastefulness. In the
‘Short Parliament’ of 1640 he sat as member for his own county. He does
not seem to have sought for any seat in the memorable Parliament which
followed.

[Sidenote: THE COMMITTEE OF SEQUESTRATIONS FOR HUNTINGDONSHIRE.]

His troubles began in 1644. Much to his disgust he was appointed to be
one of the ‘Committee of Sequestrations’ for Huntingdonshire. The duty
was one which any English gentleman might well have disliked without
incurring the reproach either of idleness or of undue fastidiousness.
Sir Thomas’ repugnance to the work was backed by a repugnance, not less
keen, to those who would fain have been his fellows in its performance.

‘This County of Huntingdon’—so he writes not long after his own
nomination to an ungenial office, which he refused to accept on the
ground of an illness, that was far from being feigned for the
occasion—‘is in an unhappy condition by Sequestrators. Only four or five
men, of mean reputation and estate, are “Committees;” and they act (all
of them) as Judges, Jury, and Executioners.’ His own experience was
destined to become a pregnant comment on that pithy text.

His avoidance of all share in the task of punishing, by fine and
imprisonment, those of his old friends and country neighbours who
thought that the duty of loyalty to the Crown was still a duty, however
glaring the faults of the man who, for the time, wore the Crown, was the
primary offence given by Sir Thomas COTTON to the busy patriots who
would fain have had him work with them as a fellow-sequestrator. His
illness (as I have said) was doubtless real enough; but he also disliked
the work, and took no pains to conceal his dislike. Medical advisers
told him that Bedfordshire—where he also had property—was a better
county than Huntingdonshire for a man who suffered from chronic ague and
low fever. But Sir Thomas needed no adviser to tell him that, under the
existing circumstances of the country and the times, Eyworth would be a
much more satisfactory abode than Conington for a quiet-loving man who
had other duties than those of a soldier, who abhorred civil war with
all his soul, and who ardently desired such a solution of the current
issues as would neither make the King a mere dependent on his
Parliament, nor make the Parliament an absolute ruler over the kingdom.
Sir Thomas went into Bedfordshire. Lady COTTON continued to abide at
Conington. Very soon after his departure she received a summons,
addressed to her husband, and couched exactly in these words: ‘You are
assessed eight hundred pounds, according to an Ordinance of Parliament.
[Sidenote: 1643. 16 August.] The King and Parliament hath present use of
these monies. Therefore, we pray you, send it up to us at Huntingdon on
Saturday next.’ Before the receipt of this very summary ‘assessment’
many of Sir Thomas COTTON’S horses, with a good deal of farm produce and
other property, had been already seized, by measures more summary still.
Meanwhile Sir Thomas had committed no act of delinquency; he had simply
removed himself into another county. Payment was refused.

[Sidenote: The Proceedings of the Huntingdonshire Sequestrators at
           Conington.]

The sequel of the story depicts, in small, what was then passing at
large over much of the length and breadth of England. The farmers on the
Conington estate were told, in the plainest of words, that if they did
not pay their rents ‘to us at Huntingdon,’ their moveables would be
seized and themselves treated as ‘delinquents.’ Execution, in those
days, followed hard on process; and little difference was made, either
in word or deed, at the farms and at the manor-house. On one morning,
Lady COTTON was visited in her bedchamber—before she could dress—by five
troopers, who, under her own eyes, broke open her drawers and trunks,
and carried off what they thought meet. On another, one of Sir Thomas’
confidential servants received a similar visit; had his papers rifled in
a like fashion, and his apparel stolen. At the stables and out-offices
scarcely any three days passed, during the entire summer of 1643—from
May to August—without some raid or other for plunder. For much of this
there was scarcely the semblance or the pretext of a legal warrant.
During those saturnalia of ‘liberty’ there was, virtually, no judge in
England, and not a few men did whatsoever seemed good in their own eyes.


Sir Thomas COTTON was old enough to remember the early stages of the
long conflict of which—in 1643—this was seemingly the upshot. In the
Parliament at Oxford he had sat beside his father and his father’s
friends. His correspondence at this time—so far as it appears to have
survived—deals merely with the passing events. It contains, I think, no
disclosure of any reflections which may have crossed his mind on the
principles which underlay them. He was probably shrewd enough to see
already that the grossness of the current abuses of popular power
carried with it no scintilla of valid blame upon the first leaders in
that conflict—the real issues of which were still far off. What he, in
common with so many of the best gentlemen in England, was now smarting
under was the consequence rather of the royal triumphs of CHARLES’
earlier years, than of the royal defeats of his later years. Had the
policy of Robert COTTON and of John ELIOT prevailed a quarter of a
century sooner, there would (very probably) have been no county
committees of sequestrators; no political scaffolds at Whitehall; no
ruling of England by brute force under artificers suddenly transformed
into generals; no wholesale massacres in Ireland, fraught with mischief
for the whole empire during centuries to come.


Be that however as it may, things were not yet at so bad a pass, but
that a curb could, now and then, be put on the necks of such busy
patriots as those who sat in perpetual Committee at Huntingdon. Redress
was impossible; seeing that the plunder was dissipated almost as fast as
it was made. But, in Sir Thomas COTTON’S case, it was found practicable
to put a check on its progress. He invoked the aid of a powerful friend,
Henry, Earl of Manchester, who represented the authority of the
Parliament in Huntingdonshire. The Earl summoned the Sequestrators to
show cause for their raids on Conington. He held a court. The new
functionaries were brought—after some ineffectual bluster—to confess
that they knew of no act done by COTTON which brought him within purview
of the Parliamentary Ordinance, nor of any other legal cause to subject
him to sequestration. As the words of confession were on the lips of one
active Committee-man, another functionary blurted out—most
felicitously—‘You are wrong. [Sidenote: _Proceedings in the
Sequestration of the Estate of Sir T. Cotton_; MS. ADDIT., 5012, ff. 34,
seqq.] Master Serjeant Wilde wished it should be done.’ And, in the
sequel, ‘Master Serjeant’ proved to be strong enough to protract the
inquiry, and even to procure its adjournment to London; though his
attempt to maintain the sequestration—on a plea the falsehood of which
was conclusively proved—came at last to be entirely foiled.

When Sir Thomas COTTON came to sum up his losses he found that they
amounted to more than four thousand pounds (in the money of that day).
[Sidenote: _Ib._, ff. 71, seqq.] ‘They have had,’ he wrote, ‘£1500, in
money; besides eleven horses, worth £140; Billeting at Conington,
Eyworth, and other places, which came to £100; spoil made at Sawtrey and
at St. Germans which £300 will not make good; and besides the decay of
my rents to an amount of at least £600 a-year; ... and now the layers
and taxes will take up the whole of Ladyday’s rent.’ [Sidenote: _Ib._,
74.] Meanwhile his unlucky tenants, in Huntingdonshire alone, had been
deprived of a hundred and ninety horses, and their farms had been
stripped both of provisions and of forage.

By way of pleasant diversity to his troubles in Huntingdonshire and
Bedfordshire Sir Thomas received, presently, a letter from John
SELDEN—the old and warmly-attached friend of his family—warning him that
the capabilities of Cotton House in London had caught the eye of certain
other Committee-men, and had made a deep impression on them. [Sidenote:
THE ATTEMPT TO SEIZE ON COTTON HOUSE.] They saw that it would do
capitally both as a lodging house for the entertainment of distinguished
strangers who might come to Westminster, to wait on the Parliament, and
as a State prison for very eminent delinquents. These watchful
Committee-men were also members of the Council of State; and the time
had now come when King JAMES’ sarcastic and well-remembered jest—‘Bring
me sax chairs, for I see sax kings approaching’—was turning itself into
a very awkward fact. These Committee-men, too, (like their humbler
fellows at Huntingdon,) had their Serjeant at hand to give them advice
on elastic points of law. ‘Serjeant DENDY,’ wrote SELDEN, ‘fairly told
me that the Committee and Council were informed that, by the Patent
under which you claim, it was provided that your interest [in Cotton
House] should cease, _during the time of the Parliament_.’ [Sidenote:
Selden to Sir T. Cotton; in an Appendix to Cotton MSS. marked ‘16. l.’
fol. 50 (B. M.)] Certainly, an awkward clause to appear in a man’s
lease, in days when a Parliament, beginning its ‘time’ in 1641 had not
quite ended it until 1660. This claim of the Council of State proved, in
the sequel, to have in it no more of real validity than had that other
claim to procure the Conington rents to be paid ‘to us at Huntingdon’;
but, like that, it gave Sir Thomas COTTON a good deal of annoyance
before he succeeded in getting quit of it.

It is much to his honour that petty but cumulative misfortunes like
these did not sour Sir Thomas COTTON’S temper. When quieter times came,
he showed himself the worthy son of his eminent father, both by the
improvement of his library, at considerable charge, and by the
liberality with which he lent his choicest manuscripts, and, in many
ways, made them and his other collections serviceable to literature. The
still extant acknowledgments of service of this sort from historians and
great scholars are very numerous.[19]

By his first marriage with Margaret HOWARD, daughter of William Lord
HOWARD of Naworth, Sir Thomas had one son and two daughters. By his
second marriage with Alice CONSTABLE he had four sons, two of whom died
without issue. Alice was the daughter and sole heir of Sir John
CONSTABLE of Dromondley in Yorkshire, and the relict of Edmund ANDERSON
of Eyworth and of Stratton in Bedfordshire, and she brought with her a
considerable dowry.

Sir John COTTON, the eldest son of the first marriage, sat in Parliament
for the borough of Huntingdon in the reign of CHARLES THE SECOND, and
for Huntingdonshire in that of JAMES THE SECOND. But he took no
prominent part in public affairs. Like his father he was twice married.
And his first wife became step-daughter as well as daughter-in-law to
his father, being Dorothy, daughter and heir of Edmund ANDERSON of
Eyworth above mentioned. His second wife was Elizabeth HONYWOOD. He
seems to have resembled his father both in his tastes for a quiet
country life, and in the liberality with which he allowed (on reasonable
cause and to proper persons) access to his library. Nor did Sir John,
any more than Sir Thomas, escape animadversion, when he allowed himself
to form his own judgment of the fitness or the timeliness of any
particular application. [Sidenote: _Autobiog. and Corresp._, vol. ii, p.
40.] [Sidenote: _History of the Reformation_, vol. iii, _Introd._, p. 8.
(Edit. of 1714.)] Caustic Symonds D’EWES writes down Sir Thomas COTTON
as ‘unworthy to be master of so inestimable a library.’ Caustic Bishop
BURNET writes in his turn of Sir John COTTON: ‘A great Prelate had
possessed him with such prejudices against me that ... he desired to be
excused’ [from granting BURNET admittance to the Cottonian Library]
‘unless the Archbishop of Canterbury or a Secretary of State would
recommend me as a person fit to have access.’ Against strictures such as
these, it were easy, but is not needful, to adduce a score of
acknowledgments of deep obligation, from writers more eminent by far
than either D’EWES or BURNET.

The eldest son (also John) of Sir John COTTON, by his wife Dorothy, did
not live to inherit either the famous library or the ancestral estates.
He died in 1681, and his later days seem to have been marked by some
stormy incidents. In one point, his troubles resembled those which
disturbed the last year of his great-grandfather’s life;—in so far as
that they were caused by a lady. But whereas Sir Robert had the lady
thrust upon him, to suit the purposes of other men, the misfortunes of
his great-grandson appear to have grown out of an ardent but illicit
passion—as ardently, and not less illicitly, returned by its object.
Some scraps of their correspondence which have chanced to be preserved
read, after two centuries of dusty repose, as if they were still all
aflame with that fierce love which an experienced poet describes as
‘passion’s essence.’[20]

Sir John COTTON survived till nearly the close of the seventeenth
century. He was succeeded in the baronetcy and estates by John, the son
of the last-mentioned John COTTON, who had married Frances, daughter and
heir of Sir George DOWNING of East Hatley in Cambridgeshire. Sir John,
fourth baronet, married Elizabeth HERBERT, one of the grand-daughters of
Philip, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery. Like his ancestors of many
generations, this Sir John COTTON sat in Parliament for Huntingdonshire.
His chief claim to honourable memory is that he settled the Cottonian
Library on the British nation for ever, and thus made its founder, Sir
Robert, the virtual and first FOUNDER OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM. This was
done by Act of Parliament, in the year 1700.

This eminent public benefactor died, in 1731, without surviving issue.
The baronetcy then reverted to Robert the eldest son of the second
marriage of the first Sir John COTTON, grandson of the Founder. From Sir
Robert, fifth baronet, the dignity came, in 1749, to a fourth ‘John
COTTON’ who then became sixth baronet and who was the last surviving
male heir of his honoured line.

Sir John had lost his only son—a fifth John—many years before his
accession to the baronetcy, which, on his own death (27 March, 1752),
became extinct. Conington had long previously passed to a younger son of
Sir Thomas COTTON, second baronet; as shown in the following—

 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |               CONCLUSION OF THE PEDIGREE OF COTTON OF CONINGTON,            |
 |              SHOWING ALSO THE DESCENT OF THE COTTONIAN TRUSTEESHIP          |
 |                             OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM.                          |
 |                                                                             |
 |                                                                             |
 |        Sir Robert (BRUCE) COTTON = Elizabeth BROCAS.                        |
 |             Founder of the       |                                          |
 |           Cottonian Library.     |                                          |
 |                                  |                                          |
 |                                  |                                          |
 |         Alice CONSTABLE, = Sir Thomas COTTON,   =    Margaret HOWARD,       |
 | daughter and sole heir   |    (2nd Bart.)       |  daughter of William,     |
 | of Sir John CONSTABLE,   | of Conington, Hunts, |    Lord HOWARD of         |
 |   of Dromondley, in      |   and of Eyworth,    |  Naworth [First Wife].    |
 |   Yorkshire; Relict      |    Bedfordshire.     |                           |
 |  of Edmund ANDERSON,     |                     [X]                          |
 |   of Eyworth and of      |                                                  |
 |      Stratton, in        |                                                  |
 |     Bedfordshire.        |                                                  |
 |                          |                                                  |
 |    +-------------+-------+----------------------+---------------+           |
 |    |             |                              |               |           |
 |  Thomas    Sir Robert COTTON = Gertrude  Philip COTTON,  William COTTON,    |
 | (died in    of Hatley St.    | MORRICE.  eventually of   of Cotton Hall,    |
 | infancy).   George, County   |           Conington,      in Cheshire.       |
 |             of Cambridge,    |           died without           |           |
 |                Knight.       |           issue, leaving         |           |
 |                              |           Conington to           |           |
 |                              |           Thomas COTTON,         |           |
 |                              |           his nephew.            |           |
 |                              |                                  |           |
 |       +----------------------+      +---------------------------+           |
 |       |                             |                                       |
 |     Alice = Robert TREFUSIS.  Thomas COTTON,                                |
 |           |                   of Conington,                                 |
 |           |                devisee of Philip.                               |
 |           |                     |                                           |
 |  Robert-Cotton TREFUSIS.     Frances = Dingley ASCHAM.                      |
 |           |               (sole heir).                                      |
 |           |                                                                 |
 |       From whom                                                             |
 |      the present                                                            |
 |     Charles Henry                                                           |
 |    Rolle TREFUSIS,                                                          |
 |  18th Baron Clinton,                                                        |
 |      of Maxtoke.                                                            |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                             [X]                                             |
 |                              |                                              |
 |                              +-----------------------------+-------+        |
 |                              |                             |       |        |
 | Elizabeth HONYWOOD = Sir John COTTON = Dorothy ANDERSON, Lucy. Frances.     |
 |     [Second Wife]. |   (3rd Bart.)   | daughter and sole                    |
 |                    | of Conington,   | heir of Edmund                       |
 |                    | and of Eyworth, | ANDERSON, of                         |
 |                    | succy. M.P. for | Eyworth and of                       |
 |                    | Borough and     | Stratton [First                      |
 |                    | County of       | Wife].                               |
 |                    | Huntingdon.     |                                      |
 |                    |                [Y]                                     |
 |                    |                                                        |
 |          +---------+-----------------------------+------------+             |
 |          |                                       |            |             |
 |     Sir Robert COTTON    = Elizabeth WIGSTON.  Elizabeth.   Mary.           |
 |   of Gedding, in Hunts,  |                                                  |
 | succeeded, as 5th Bart., |                                                  |
 |  on the death, in 1731,  |                                                  |
 |    of Sir John COTTON.   |                                                  |
 |                          |                                                  |
 |           +--------------+                                                  |
 |           |                                                                 |
 |      Sir John COTTON = Jane BURDETT.                                        |
 |    Succ. as 6th Bart |                                                      |
 |      in 1749. Died,  |                                                      |
 |    without surviving |                                                      |
 |        male issue,   |                                                      |
 |      27 March, 1752. |                                                      |
 |           +----------+                                                      |
 |           |          |                                                      |
 |         John,      Jane = Thomas HART,                                      |
 |  died in infancy.         of Warfield,                                      |
 |                           Berkshire. First                                  |
 |                           Parliamentary                                     |
 |                           Trustee of the                                    |
 |                           COTTONIAN LIBRARY.                                |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                                                                             |
 |         [Y]                                                                 |
 |          |                                                                  |
 |   John COTTON     =    Frances DOWNING,                                     |
 |   Died in 1681    | daughter of Sir George                                  |
 |  in his Father’s  |    DOWNING, of East                                     |
 |     lifetime.     | Hatley, Cambridgeshire.                                 |
 |                   |                                                         |
 |                   |                                                         |
 |        +----------+----------------------+-------+                          |
 |        |                                 |       |                          |
 | Sir John COTTON = Elizabeth HERBERT,  Thomas  Frances = William HANBURY.[21]|
 |   (4th Bart.)     grand-daughter of   COTTON.         |                     |
 | M.P. for          Philip, Earl of        |            |                     |
 | Huntingdon,       Pembroke, &c.          |            |                     |
 | Donor of COTTON                          |            |                     |
 | Library to                               |            |                     |
 | the Nation.                              |            |                     |
 |                                        +-+            |                     |
 |                                        |              |                     |
 |                                     Mary,    Mary HANBURY = Martin ANNESLEY.|
 |                                   sole heir               |                 |
 |                                                           |                 |
 |                                                           |                 |
 |                                                           |                 |
 |                                          +----------------+--------+        |
 |                                          |                         |        |
 |                                  Revd. Francis ANNESLEY,    George ANNESLEY,|
 |                                          Present COTTONIAN TRUSTEES of      |
 |                                               the British Museum.           |
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The reader who glances at this pedigree will notice that some of the
COTTONS of 1600–1750 were as fortunate in getting heiress-wives as had
been their foregoers of preceding centuries. But their possessions were
scattered almost as rapidly as they had been augmented. Conington, which
was the most valued possession of Sir Robert, was less prized by his
descendants. The Council Books show that some of its appendant manors
and members—notably Glatton and Hulme—gave to the Founder himself a good
deal of trouble. The Sequestration Books show the anxieties and losses
which the busy Parliamentarians of Huntingdonshire inflicted on his next
successor. Other circumstances tended also to bring the place into
disfavour with owners who had a choice of seats. It lay so close to the
great northern road, as to be exposed to undue demands alike from the
movement of troops and from the tramping of professional vagrants. Nor
was it less exposed, from its situation, to injuries by great floods.
[Sidenote: DESERTION OF THE OLD SEAT OF CONINGTON.] Long before the
extinction of the male line, Conington was deserted, in favour of more
attractive abodes in southern counties. We learn from a passage in
Stukeley’s _Itinerary_ that the house was fast becoming a ruin, even in
the reign of GEORGE THE FIRST; although it had been solidly rebuilt by
Sir Robert himself.

‘I thought it,’ writes that antiquary, ‘a piety to turn half a mile out
of the road, to visit Conington the seat of the noble Sir Robert
COTTON,—where he and Camden have often sat in council upon the
Antiquities of Britain, and where he had a choice collection of Roman
inscriptions picked up from all parts of the kingdom. I was concerned to
see a stately old house of hewn stone, large and handsome, already
falling into ruin.’[22]

By the Statute which established the COTTON Library as a national
institution, it was enacted as follows: ‘The Cottonian Library ... shall
be kept and preserved, in the name and family of the COTTONS, for public
use and advantage. [Sidenote: THE ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 1700.] And
therefore, according to the desire of the said Sir John COTTON, and at
his request, the said Mansion House, ... and also all the said
Library, ... together with all the Coins, Medals, and other
rarities, ... shall be vested in Trustees ... with a perpetual
succession.’ The first Trustees were the Lord Chancellor SOMERS, Mr.
Speaker HARLEY (afterwards Earl of Oxford), and the Lord Chief Justice,
_ex officio_; together with Sir Robert COTTON, of Hatley St. George,
Cambridgeshire; Philip COTTON, of Conington; Robert COTTON of Gedding,
in Cambridgeshire, and William HANBURY, of the Inner Temple. [Sidenote:
12 & 13 WILL. III, c. 7.] It was provided that on the decease of any one
of the four family trustees the heir male, for the time being, of Sir
Robert COTTON, the founder, should appoint a successor.

The furious party-spirit which at this time divided the country into
hostile camps, the leaders of which were at any moment ready to fly at
each other’s throats, was eminently unfavourable both to the
guardianship and to the growth of the new institution; as it was,
indeed, to all matters of learning or of mental culture. Hardly seven
years had passed before it was found necessary to pass ‘_An Act for the
better securing of Her Majesty’s purchase of Cotton House in
Westminster_.’

This Act recites that since the preceding enactment of 1700 ‘very little
had been done in pursuance thereof to make the said Library useful to
the Public, except what had been lately done at Her Majesty’s charge;’
and that the place wherein the Library then was, being ‘a narrow little
damp room, was improper for preserving the books and papers.’ The Act
then proceeds to declare that an agreement had been made for the
purchase of Cotton House for £4,500, ‘to the intent that it might be in
Her Majesty’s power to make this most valuable collection useful to her
own subjects, and to all learned strangers.’

Within five years, however, this unfortunate Library had to be removed
from Cotton House to Essex House, in the Strand (1712); and thence
again, in 1730, to Ashburnham House, at Westminster (already containing
the Royal collection), where it had not long been lodged, when the fire
occurred by which it was so seriously injured. [Sidenote: THE FIRE AT
ASHBURNHAM HOUSE.] The account which the Parliamentary Committee of
Inquiry gave to the Public, shortly after the occurrence of this
calamity, runs thus:

‘On Saturday morning, October 23, 1731, a great smoke was perceived by
Dr. BENTLEY, and the rest of the family at Ashburnham House, which soon
after broke out into a flame. It began from a wooden mantel-tree taking
fire which lay across a stove-chimney that was under the room where the
MSS. of the Royal and Cottonian Libraries were lodged, and was
communicated to that room by the wainscoat and by pieces of timber, that
stood perpendicularly upon each end of the mantel-tree.’

‘They were in hope, at first,’ continues the Committee, ‘to put a stop
to the fire by throwing water upon the pieces of timber and
wainscoat, ... and therefore did not begin to remove the books so soon
as they otherwise would have done. But, the fire prevailing, Mr. CASLEY,
the Deputy Librarian, took care in the first place to remove the famous
Alexandrian MS. and the books under the head of Augustus’ [twelve of the
Cottonian presses, it will be remembered, were adorned by the heads of
the twelve Cæsars, whence the still existing designations or
press-marks, as for instance, that of the famous _Evangeliary of King
Ethelstan_, NERO D. vi, mentioned on page 132] ‘in the Cottonian
Library, as being esteemed the most valuable amongst the collection.
Several entire presses, with the books in them, were also removed;
but ... several of the backs of the presses being already on fire, they
were obliged to be broke open, and the books, as many as could be,
thrown out of the windows.’ All the MSS. that were saved, and the
remains of what been burnt, were removed to the Dormitory of Westminster
School.

[Sidenote: 1731 October.]

At the time of this disastrous fire, the number of MS. volumes was 958.
Of this number 114 were reported to be ‘lost, burnt, or entirely
spoiled; and 98 damaged so as to be defective.’ Mr. Speaker ONSLOW took
immediate measures, in conjunction with Dr. BENTLEY and Mr. CASLEY, for
the examination of the burnt MSS., and for the repair of such as were
then deemed alone reparable. Three months afterwards the Record Clerk to
whom the task was more particularly committed, thus reports his
progress: ‘One hundred and upwards,’ he says, ‘being volumes of Letters
and State Papers, have been quite taken to pieces, marked, and bound
again.’ [Sidenote: _Report of the Committee appointed to view the
Cottonian Library_ (1732), pp. 11–15; and Casley’s Appendix thereto.]
But he laments that ‘there having no way hitherto been found out to
extend vellum and parchment that has been shrivelled up and contracted
by fire to its former dimensions, part of several of the vellum MSS.
must remain not legible, unless the desideratum can be supplied.’

For nearly a century some of the most precious of the injured MSS.
remained as the fire had left them. But in 1824, by the care of Mr.
FORSHALL, the then Keeper of the MSS. in the British Museum, a
commencement was made towards their restoration, which his successor,
Sir F. MADDEN, zealously and successfully continued. Nearly three
hundred volumes have been repaired, and more or less completely
restored, (a considerable number of which were previously regarded as
beyond all hope of recovery) to a state of legibility.[23]


The calamity of 1731 brought about what may, in a sense, be termed a
partial compensation, by inducing Major Arthur EDWARDS to make an
important bequest, with the view of precluding its recurrence.
[Sidenote: THE BEQUEST OF ARTHUR EDWARDS.] Owing to the protraction of a
life interest in the legacy—the terms of which will be cited in
describing that eventual Act of Incorporation which created the British
Museum—it did not become available until other arrangements had made its
application to building purposes needless. It was, consequently, and in
pursuance of the Testator’s contingent instructions, appropriated to the
purchase of books in the manner, and with results, which will be spoken
of in a subsequent chapter. Major EDWARDS also bequeathed his own
collection of about 2,000 volumes of printed books, by way of addition
to the Cottonian Library of MSS. These, however, were not actually
incorporated with the Museum collections until the year 1769.


For several years, BENTLEY conjoined the Keepership of the Cottonian
with that of the Royal Library. His predecessors in the office were Dr.
Thomas SMITH (hitherto the only biographer of the Founder,) and William
HANBURY, who had married a descendant of the Founder. [Sidenote: THE
KEEPERS OF THE COTTONIAN LIBRARY.] Dr. SMITH was less eminent as a
scholar—though his learning was great—but far more estimable as a man,
than was his successor in the Keepership, the imperious and covetous
Master of Trinity. For conscience sake, SMITH had given up both a good
fellowship and a good living, at the Revolution. Literature profited by
the loss of Divinity. He died in May, 1710. HANBURY—by a very
undesirable plurality—was a Trustee as well as Keeper. That he was not,
in either capacity, strictly faithful to the spirit of the Trust
confided to him seems to be established by incidents which I find
recorded in the MS. Diary of Humphrey WANLEY. The reader will observe
that it is possible to reconcile WANLEY’S statement with the supposition
that the MSS. alienated had never actually been made part of the
Cottonian Library, though it is as plain as sunlight that a really
faithful trustee would have made them part of it. As it turned out, the
sale of them did no actual and eventual mischief. On December 2nd, 1724,
says WANLEY, ‘I had a conversation with Mr. HANBURY, who owned that he
hath still in his possession many original and valuable papers given him
by his wife’s brother, Sir John COTTON, which now lie in different
places. These papers and whatever else happens to be among them—as
books, rolls, &c.—he hath agreed to put into my hands for my Lord’s
[OXFORD’S] use. [Sidenote: _Wanley’s Diary_, MS., ii, 40 (B.M.).] I have
promised that he shall be very well paid and considered for the same.’

WANLEY had already recorded a previous visit in which HANBURY had
delivered ‘for my Lord OXFORD’S use, a small but curious parcel of old
letters,’ adding: ‘I believe he expects a gratuity for them.’ On the
last day of December he received another parcel; and on the 4th January,
1725, he again writes: ‘Mr. HANBURY gave me another parcel of letters
written to Sir Robert COTTON.’

Without endorsing the violent diatribe of Lord OXFORD (the second of the
Harleian Earls) against HANBURY’S successor—as the almost wilful
destroyer of part of the Cotton MSS.—it must be admitted that there is
conclusive evidence that neglect of duty on Dr. BENTLEY’S part was a
moving agent in the disaster. Under his nominal keepership the practical
duties of Cottonian Librarian were discharged by an industrious and
otherwise meritorious deputy, David CASLEY.


[Sidenote: THE PROJECT OF 1707 FOR UNITING THE COTTONIAN, ROYAL, AND
           ARUNDEL, LIBRARIES.]

There were many projects for making Sir Robert COTTON’S noble
collections, both in literature and antiquities, the foundation of a
‘British Museum,’ before a feasible and successful project was hit upon.
[Sidenote: Sloane to Charlett, 7 April, 1707. (Bodleian Library,
Oxford).] It is curious to note that one of these schemes embraced, as
the groundwork of the projected national Museum, the collections of Sir
Robert COTTON, of Prince HENRY, and of Lord ARUNDEL; and that some
particulars of the plan were narrated—to a country correspondent—by Sir
Hans SLOANE, almost fifty years before his own conditional bequest gave
occasion and means for the eventual union of the collections so spoken
of with the vast gatherings of all kinds, in literature and in science,
to the procuring of which so large a portion of his own useful and
laborious life was to be devoted.

When that occasion came, two of the then Cottonian Trustees framed a
Petition to Parliament in which they expressed their acknowledgments for
‘seasonable and necessary care’ of the Cotton Library. They alleged that
it had remained ‘almost useless’ to the Public, during many years, for
want of a fixed and convenient building to receive it; that it had been
exposed to many dangers by frequent removals, and had once run the
hazard of ‘a total destruction by fire.’ If, said they, the loss which
the Public then sustained proved to be less than had been feared, the
Public owed the obligation ‘to a great member of this House’ [of
Commons] ‘who powerfully interposed and assisted in its preservation.’
The allusion is to the Right Hon. Arthur ONSLOW, the then Speaker, who
afterwards became one of the first Trustees of the Museum established by
the Act of 1753.

[Sidenote: Petition of Samuel Burroughs and Thos. Hart; MS. in Cottonian
           ‘Appendix’ (B. M.).]

The Petitioners proceed to state that their most earnest wishes are
accomplished by seeing a Library, famed throughout Europe, with the
generous gifts of Major EDWARDS annexed thereto, placed out of all
further dangers from neglect, and that they rejoice to perceive that the
Museum of their own Founder is about to be enlarged by other rare and
valuable collections. ‘We are,’ say they, ‘fully persuaded that an
edifice raised upon such a stately plan will, by degrees, be stored with
benefactions and become a common Cabinet for preserving with safety all
curiosities and whatsoever is choice or excellent in its kind. Moreover,
being a new institution for the service of the learned world it will be
an honour to the Nation, an ornament long wanted in this great city, and
a distinguished event in the history of our times.’ [Sidenote:
Heretofore, p. 3.] Then follows the passage which I have prefixed, by
way of motto, to this first division of the volume now in the reader’s
hands.


When these Petitioners went on to state to Parliament that ‘no
expression of gratitude can be too great ... for doing honour to the
memory of Sir Robert COTTON,’ their assertion gave rise to no utterance
of hostile feeling. [Sidenote: RECENT CHARGES AGAINST THE CHARACTER AND
FAME OF SIR R. COTTON.] They were not even charged with undue laudation
of their ancestor. People who at that time troubled themselves to think
of such matters at all, were agreed in regarding Sir Robert COTTON as
unquestionably one of the worthies of England. Nowadays—as I have had
occasion to show already—there are many gainsayers. A distinguished
historian (Mr. GARDINER) asperses COTTON’S character both for
statesmanship and for truthfulness; whilst a distinguished archæologist
(Mr. BREWER) charges him with embezzling records.

The first charge has been partly met, in these pages, by the simple
apposition and collation of contemporary evidence. The reader has his
choice between the cumulative testimony of several English peers and
statesmen; and the unsupported testimony of one foreign diplomatist, who
made it his boast to be the enemy of Englishmen, and whose hostility was
graduated in tolerably exact accordance with the qualities and the deeds
which have made England proud of them. The home witnesses gave their
testimony whilst the events were still fresh in men’s minds. They gave
it in broad daylight, and with open doors. The foreign witness put his
evidence into a secret dispatch, to be seen by no human eye, out of the
Spanish Cabinet, until our own historian disinterred it, at Simancas,
two centuries and a half after date. Nor is this quite all.

If GONDOMAR’S account be true, not only was Sir Robert COTTON’S life as
a statesman a protracted lie, but his duplicity was so superbly cloaked
as to deceive the most keen-sighted of his contemporaries. The men who
sat habitually at his board in his days of health, and who ministered at
his bedside in all the offices of tender friendship in his days of
sickness and of death, were all wrong about his character. [Sidenote: _A
Discours wether yt be fitt for Inglande to make peace with Spaine._ MS.
Cott. Vespas. C. xiii, ff. 160, seqq. (B. M.).] And there is this other
little fact to boot: Sir Robert COTTON began his public life by as open
a declaration of anti-Spanish policy in relation to the great question
of the Netherlands as ever came from the lips of our RALEGH. He ended
his public life with as staunch an adherence to the principles, both in
Church and State, which the rulers of Spain abhorred as that which had
been shown by RALEGH on the scaffold in Old Palace Yard, or by ELIOT in
the dungeon of the Tower of London. Meanwhile, just in the mid-channel
of his career, and in the prime of his faculties, Sir Robert COTTON
threw himself, gratuitously, at the feet of GONDOMAR. He humbly asked
leave to take Spanish service in the guise of a political slave. The
historian’s proposition is a bold one. And its evidence needs to be
cogent. English readers now know quite enough about GONDOMAR to judge
whether or not his sole testimony is sufficient to damn the fame of such
a man as COTTON;—to degrade him from the rank of an English worthy;—to
brand him as a criminal virtually convicted of apostacy in religion, and
of treason to his avowed convictions in politics?[24]

From the nature of things the second charge cannot be so directly, so
compactly, or so effectively met. Almost a third of the manuscripts
which form the most important section of the Cotton Library consist of,
or contain, Papers of State. Of these a very considerable proportion
once belonged to the State. How came they to pass into the hands of Sir
Robert COTTON?

[Sidenote: MR. BREWER’S ACCOUNT OF SIR R. COTTON’S ACQUISITION OF STATE
           PAPERS.]

By Mr. BREWER the question has been answered, unhesitatingly and
exhaustively. Large portions of the Diplomatic Correspondence of HENRY
THE EIGHTH were, he says, ‘carried off in 1614, if not before, by Sir
Robert COTTON.... The original bundles appear to have been broken up
under the keepership of AGARDE, when the Treasury of the Exchequer was
rifled of its most precious contents to augment the collections of Sir
R. COTTON.... [Sidenote: _Calendar of the State Papers_; Reign of Henry
VIII, Pref., pp. viii, ix.] For the early years of HENRY, his [Sir
Robert’s] collections are more numerous, and even more interesting, than
the documents in the English, the French, or the Spanish Archives. They
are equally authentic.... By what fraud or negligence they found their
way into the possession of Sir Robert COTTON it is not for me to
inquire.’

No writer can be better qualified to speak with authority on such a
topic as this than is Mr. BREWER. Familiar with State Papers and with
records of all kinds for a very long period, he has won the deep respect
of all students of our history by the uses to which his knowledge has
been applied. But the ablest writer will sometimes write hastily. The
most impartial inquirer will now and then reach a conclusion by
overleaping part of the evidence.

The sweeping passage which I have quoted, like other passages in Mr.
RILEY’S preface to _Liber Custumarum_, previously noticed, leaves
altogether out of view three or four whole classes of testimony—chains
not links—having a vital bearing on the issue. For example—

[Sidenote: Sir T. Wilson to King James I, _Domestic Corresp._, vol.
           xcvi, § 41*, seqq. (R. H.)]

I. It disregards the fact that certain bundles of State letters and
papers were given by the King’s order to Sir Robert COTTON, during the
reign of JAMES THE FIRST. These, indeed, were commanded to be
‘subscriptions and signatures of Princes and great men, attached to
letters _otherwise unimportant_.’ But who is to tell us what was the
estimate of ‘importance’ in papers of State formed, two centuries and a
half ago, by JAMES, who gave the order, or by Sir Thomas WILSON, who
received it?

II. It disregards the fact that long before, as well as long after, that
known order of 1618, Sir Robert’s possession of papers once the property
of the Government was so published and so recognized as to imply, by
fair induction, that the possession must have been—as far as he was
concerned—a lawful one. In his own writings, he iterates and reiterates
reference to national documents then in his own collection. His
references are specific and minute. Secretaries of State write to him,
asking leave to inspect original Treaties (sometimes in order to lay
them before the King in person) and promising to return them promptly.
[Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp._, as above, 1621, March; and _passim_;
also _Council Books_ (C. O.).] Law Officers of the Crown desire him
kindly to afford them opportunities for collating public instruments,
preserved at Cotton House, with public instruments still in the
repositories of the Crown.

III. It leaves out of sight the fact that in the correspondence of Sir
Edward COKE with Sir Robert COTTON there is a passage which also
_implies_—though it does not expressly assert—that Sir Robert had
received from King JAMES a permission to select records, of some kind or
other, from the Tower of London, anterior to the qualified permission,
[Sidenote: Sir E. Coke to Sir R. Cotton; MS. Cott. Julius, ciii
(Undated; probably 1612). (B. M.)] above mentioned, given in 1618, to
select ‘autographs’ from the Paper Office;

IV. It disregards that strong implication of a lawful possession—so far
as Sir Robert COTTON, individually, is concerned—which necessarily
arises out of the fact that at two several periods the Cottonian Library
was under the sole control and custody of Crown officials; [Sidenote:
_Registers of Privy Council_, 1616; 1629; 1630; _passim_ (C. O.)] that
it remained under such control for an aggregate period of more than two
years; that COTTON’S bitter enemies were then at the head of affairs;
that in 1630 a Royal Commission was actually issued [Sidenote: _Signs
Manual_, Charles I, vol. xii, § 15 (R. H.).] ‘to search what Records or
other Papers of State in the custody of Sir Robert COTTON properly
belong to His Majesty, and thereof to certify;’ and that the existing
Cottonian MSS., together with those burned in 1732, were, one year after
the issue of that Commission, restored by the Crown to Sir Robert
COTTON’S heirs;

[Sidenote: _e. g._ MS. Harl., 7002, ff. 120, 122, &c., MS. Cott. Julius
           ciii, _passim_ (B. M.).]

V. It overlooks the circumstance, vital to the issue now raised, that
amongst the MSS. which most indubitably were once Crown property many
can still be minutely traced from possessor to possessor, prior to their
reception into the Cottonian Library;

And VI. It disregards the fact, hardly less important, that a patriotic
statesman conversant both with the arcana of government at large, and
with the special arcana of the State Paper Office and Secretary’s
offices, under King JAMES THE FIRST and King CHARLES THE FIRST, might
have cogent reasons for believing that some important classes of State
Papers would be likely to remain much more truly and enduringly the
property of the English nation if stored up at Cotton House—even had no
‘British Museum’ ever been created—than if stored up at Whitehall.


Inferences and implications such as these are far from amounting to
conclusive proof. But most readers, I think, will assent to the
assertion that, cumulatively, they amount to a very strong presumption
indeed that the stigma which has been impressed on Sir Robert COTTON’S
memory is both precipitate and unjust. Precipitate it plainly is, for a
confident verdict has virtually been pronounced—upon a grave
issue,—before hearing any evidence for the accused. Unjust I, for one,
cannot but think it, inasmuch as circumstances which at most are but
grounds of mere suspicion of the greater offence charged, have been so
huddled up with proofs of a minor and (comparatively) venial offence,
that readers giving but ordinary attention to the allegations and their
respective evidence are almost certain to be misled.

For, undoubtedly, Sir Robert COTTON stands convicted of dealing, more
than once, with manuscripts which he had borrowed very much as though
they had been manuscripts which he possessed. Mr. RILEY’S testimony is,
on this point, conclusive. An independent witness, Dr. Sedgwick
SAUNDERS, the able Chairman of the Library Committee of the Corporation
of London, tells me that both the _returned_ MS. of _Liber Custumarum_,
and also that of _Liber Legum Antiquorum_, bear as unmistakable marks of
a claim to ownership on Sir Robert’s part, as those of which the return
was refused.

To such proofs as these I can myself add a new instance. Archbishop LAUD
had procured, from the Principal and Fellows of St. John’s, the loan to
Sir Robert COTTON of a certain ancient Beda MS. of great value. Many
years passed, and the MS. had not returned to St. John’s. The Fellows
cast severe blame on their eminent benefactor. [Sidenote: Archbp. Laud
to Sir R. Cotton, MS. Cott. Julius C., iii, f. 232.] LAUD had to
petition his friend COTTON for the return of Beda, in terms almost
pathetic; and he was so doubtful whether pathos would suffice that he
added bribe to entreaty. If, he said, ‘anything of worth in like kind
come to my hands, I will freely give it you in recompense.’


The reader has seen the abounding proofs of that generous furtherance of
every kind of literary effort which COTTON gave, throughout life, with
an ungrudging heart and an open hand. [Sidenote: Bolton to Camden; MS.
Harl., 7002, f. 396.] Sir ROBERT’S openness made his library—to use the
words of an eminent contemporary—the ‘Common treasury’ of English
antiquities. The reader now sees also the drawback. It remains for him
to strike a true balance; and to strike it with justice, but also with
charity.




                              CHAPTER III.
   THE CHIEF COLLECTOR AND THE AUGMENTORS OF THE OLD ROYAL AND PUBLIC
                         LIBRARY AT ST. JAMES’.

  ‘Death never makes such effectual demonstration of his power, as
  when he singles out the man who occupies the largest place in public
  estimation;—as when he seizes upon him whose loss is felt, by
  thousands, with all the tenderness of a family bereavement;—puts a
  sudden arrest, ... before the infirmities of age had withdrawn him
  from the labours of usefulness;— ... and sends the fearful report of
  this his achievement through the streets of the city, where it runs,
  in appalling whispers, among the multitude.’—

                                                      THOMAS CHALMERS.

  _Life of_ HENRY, _Prince of Wales, son of_ JAMES I, _and virtual
      Founder of the ‘Royal Library.’—Its Augmentors and
      its Librarians.—Acquisition of the Library of the_
      THEYERS.—_Incorporation with the Collections of_ COTTON _and of_
      SLOANE.


[Sidenote: BOOK I, Chap. III. LIFE OF HENRY, PRINCE OF WALES.]

HENRY, Prince of Scotland, and afterwards of Wales, was born at Stirling
Castle on the 19th of February, 1594. King JAMES had married ANNE of
Denmark more than four years before the Prince’s birth, but a certain
grotesqueness which had marked some of the characteristic circumstances
of the marriage in Norway (in 1589) was not without its counterpart
among the incidents that came to be attendant on the subsequent event at
home. One of these incidents is thus narrated in the quaint narrative of
a Scottish courtier who made it his business to chronicle the movements
of the Court with newsmanlike fidelity:—‘Because the chappell royal was
ruinous and too little, the King concluded that the old chappell should
be utterly rased, and a new [one] erected in the same place that should
be more large, long, and glorious, to entertain the great number of
strangers’ who were expected to be present at the baptism. The interval
demanded for the restoration of this decayed chapel at Stirling entailed
an unusual delay between the child’s birth and his baptism, but it
gratified the King by enabling him to send invitations far and wide. Had
all of them met with acceptance they would have resulted in the presence
of a cloud of witnesses, such as had rarely been seen in Scotland upon
any the most famous occasion of courtly rejoicing.

[Sidenote: PRINCE HENRY’S BAPTISM AT STIRLING.]

For the presence of two guests in particular JAMES was anxious. He
wished to see an ambassador extraordinary from the Court of ELIZABETH,
and another from that of HENRY THE FOURTH. HENRY would not gratify his
wish, and the omission was much resented. ELIZABETH, on the other hand,
was ostentatiously swift to comply, but her willingness was well nigh
defeated by one of the common accidents of life. She had fixed her
choice on the brilliant Earl of CUMBERLAND, whose love of magnificence
was scarcely less prominent than was his love of adventure. He could
grace a royal festivity, as conspicuously as he could lead a band of
eager soldiers, or a crew of daring navigators. Just as the Earl’s
costly preparations for his embassy were completed, he fell sick. Some
days were lost in the hope of his speedy recovery, but the Queen was
soon obliged to nominate the Earl of SUSSEX in his stead. SUSSEX had
then to make preparations in turn. The day fixed for the ceremony in
Scotland had to be more than twice postponed, in order to ensure his
presence. In all, more than six months elapsed before the babe was
really baptized. We will hope that the Court Chronicler exaggerates a
little when he tells us that ‘the time intervening was spent in
magnificent banquetting and revelling.’ [Sidenote: _True Reportarie of
the baptisme of the Prince of Scotland_, MS. ADDIT., 5795 (B. M.).] If
so, the potations at Stirling must have vied with those of Elsinore.

When the long-expected day arrived (30 August, 1594) the child lay ‘on a
bed of estate richly decored ... with the story of HERCULES.’ The old
Countess of MAR lifted him into the arms of LENNOX, and by him the babe
was transferred to those of the English ambassador who held him during
baptism. Then Patrick GALLOWAY, we are told, learnedly entreated upon a
text from the 21st chapter of Genesis.

The Bishop of ABERDEEN taught, in his turn, upon the Sacrament of
Baptism—first in the vulgar tongue and then in Latin—and his discourse
was followed by the twenty-first Psalm, ‘sung to the great delectation
of the noble auditory,’ and also by a panegyric upon the Prince,
delivered in Latin verse, from the pulpit. Then came a banquet, at which
‘six gallant dames’ had the cruel task assigned them of performing ‘a
silent comedy.’ To the banquet succeeded a ‘desart of sugar,’ drawn in
upon a triumphal chariot. The original programme had provided that this
richly-laden chariot should be drawn by a lion, for whose due tameness
the projector had pledged himself. But to King JAMES a lion, like a
sword, was at all times an unpleasant object. He said that it would
affright the ladies, and that ‘a black-moore’ would be a more safe
propeller. Banquet and dessert together lasted from eight o’clock in the
evening until three of the following morning. At intervals, the cannon
of Stirling Castle roared, until, says our chronicler, ‘the earth
trembled therewith.’

Thus was ushered in a brief but remarkable life. It lasted less than
nineteen years. [Sidenote: _Ibid._, pp. 6–17, verso.] Then to the cradle
which had been so richly emblazoned with the labours of HERCULES, in all
the colours of embroidery, there succeeded the hearse of black velvet
thickly set with its plumes of sombre feathers. One half, however, of
those nineteen years that stood between cradle and hearse were years
passed upon an arena to which the course of events had given almost
world-wide importance and conspicuousness. The Prince’s career was, by
the necessity of his position still more than by reason of his youth, a
career of promise, not of performance. But every year which passed after
the removal from Scotland seems to have intensified the promise in the
eyes of those who watched it, as well as to have deepened a conviction
in the minds of nearly all thoughtful bystanders that to a grand
ambition there were about to be proffered, in GOD’S due time, means and
appliances more than usually large, and a grand field of action. So it
seemed to human expectation. And because, in those long-past years, it
reasonably seemed so, there is still somewhat of a real human interest
attaching to incidents which, otherwise, would be trivial and barren.


EARLY DISSENTIONS AT COURT.

One unhappy circumstance which occurred before HENRY was eighteen months
old testified to the existence, even at that date, of unhappy domestic
relations of the kind which on many subsequent occasions brought
bitterness into his daily life. Queen ANNE was deprived of the care of
her child very soon after his baptism. The Earl of MAR was appointed to
be his governor, and the Earl’s mother assumed that place in the
upbringing of the royal infant which, in most cases, custom no less than
nature would have assigned to the Queen herself. Her natural resentment
brought about more than one angry discussion at Court. After one of
those scenes of turbulence, JAMES gave to MAR, in writing, this
characteristic command: ‘Because in the surety of my son consisteth my
surety, I have concredited unto you the charge of his keeping.... This I
command you out of my own mouth, _being in the company of those I like_.
Otherwise, for [_i. e._ notwithstanding] any charge or necessity that
can come from me, you shall not deliver him.’

In 1599, Adam NEWTON became Prince HENRY’S tutor; and the choice seems
to have been a happy one. The boy had a most towardly inclination to
learn. The tutor had both a genuine love of letters and a real delight
in teaching. He had also the wisdom which shuns extremes. Under NEWTON’S
care the child remained, in spite of an obliging offer from Pope CLEMENT
THE EIGHTH to have him educated at Rome under the papal eye.

At the death of ELIZABETH, and after receiving the news of his own
proclamation as her successor, the delighted father wrote to his
son—then just entering on his tenth year—a letter which depicts its
writer in a way as lifelike as does the warrant addressed to MAR.
[Sidenote: JAMES’ LETTER TO PRINCE HENRY ON THE ACCESSION TO THE ENGLISH
CROWN.] I quote it, literally, from the hurriedly-written original, as
it now lies before me: ‘My Sonne, That I see you not before my pairting,
impute it to this greate occasion, quhairin tyme is so precious. But
_that_ I[25] shall, by Goddes grace, shortlie be recompenced by your
cumming to me shortlie, and continuall residence with me ever after.
Lett not this news make you proude or insolent. For a Kings sonne and
heire was ye before, and na maire are ye yett. The augmentation that is
heirby lyke to fall unto you is but in caires and heavie burthens. Be
therefore merrie, but not insolent. Keepe a greatness, but _sine fastu_.
Be resolute, but not willfull. Keeye your kyndness, but in honorable
sorte. Choose none to be your play fellowis but thaime that are
well-borne. And above all things, give never good countenance to any but
according as ye shall be informed that thay are in estimation with me.
Looke upon all Englishmen that shall cum to visit you as among youre
loving subjects; not with that ceremonie as towardis straingers, and
yett with such hartines as at this tyme they deserve.’ And so forth.
For, notwithstanding the King’s haste to set out on his journey, his pen
ran on. But all his advice is in one strain. The variations are for
ornament. In me, he says (only not so briefly), you see a model king.
Mould yourself after that pattern, and you will be a model prince. ‘I
send you my booke,’ he adds—referring to Βασιλικον δωρον— ... ‘ye must
level everie mannis opinions or advices unto you, as ye finde thaime
agree or discorde with the rules thaire sett down.’ Near as they
commonly were in person, in the after years, JAMES still found occasion
to write to HENRY a good many letters. This one theme runs through them
all. But no amount of hortatory discourse could hinder the new metal
from overrunning the worn and antiquated mould.

[Sidenote: PRINCE HENRY IN ENGLAND.]

Prince HENRY came into England in the June of 1603. He was invested with
the Garter on the 2nd of July at Windsor. Sir Thomas CHALONER (son of
ELIZABETH’S well-known ambassador to the Emperor) succeeded MAR in the
office of Governor. He was a man of many accomplishments, and had a
strong bias for some of the physical sciences. But it does not seem that
he possessed that force of character which in the elder Sir Thomas
CHALONER was a conspicuous quality.

From a very early age, HENRY showed that in him were combined in happy
proportions a strong relish for the pleasures of literature with a
relish not less keen for the pursuits and employments of an active and
out-of-doors life. He could enjoy books thoroughly, without being
absorbed by them. He had a manly delight in field sports, without
falling under the temptation to become a slave to his pastime. If in
anything his enjoyments tended to excess, as he grew towards maturity,
it was seen in his devotion to warlike exercises. So that even the
excess testified to that real manliness of spirit which keeps the body
in subjection, instead of pampering its pleasures and its aptitudes. He
seems to have learnt, unusually early in life, that the natural
instincts of youth will have their truest gratification, and will retain
their fullest zest, when made, by deliberate choice, steps towards a
conscious fitness for the duties of manhood. Alike in what we have from
his own pen, and in the testimonies of those who were the closest
observers of his brief career, we see evidence that he had formed a due
estimate of the responsibilities that, to human view, lay close before
him. Of his thoughts about kingship we possess only fragments. Of his
father’s thoughts on that subject we enjoy an exhaustive exposition. The
contrast in the thinking is curiously significant.

Some of the best known anecdotes of HENRY’S life exhibit the interest he
felt in naval matters. That tendency may, perhaps, have taken its birth
in a London incident of March, 1604. The Earl of NOTTINGHAM, Lord High
Admiral, was then in the flush of Court favour. The Prince had been but
for a few months in England, and his sight-seeing had not, as yet,
included the baptism[26] of a ship. [Sidenote: ORIGIN OF HENRY’S
INTEREST IN NAVAL AFFAIRS.] The Admiral prepared that novelty to please
him. It was at the Tower that the Prince first examined the ‘_Disdain_’
(15 March, 1604). Whether at the same time he made his first
acquaintance with the most famous inhabitant of the Tower is matter of
mere conjecture. [Sidenote: _Life of Pett_, MS. HARL., vol. 6279 (B.
M.). (Cited by Birch, p. 39.)] RALEGH, at all events, was there[27] on
the day when Phineas PETT moored his new vessel off Tower Wharf, for the
Prince’s delight. Before any long time had passed, RALEGH was busy in
the composition of a _Discourse of a maritimal voyage, and of the
passages and incidents therein_, with a like object. The acquaintance,
however began, was improved with every passing year. Of the many hopes
which came to a sudden end eight years afterwards, few, it is probable,
were more sanguine or more far-reaching than those of the King’s keenly
watched and dreaded prisoner. [Sidenote: HENRY AND RALEGH.] For England,
RALEGH saw in Prince HENRY a wise and brave king to come. For himself,
he saw not only a generous friend, but a man who might be the means of
giving shape and substance to many patriotic schemes with which a brain
that could not be imprisoned had long been teeming.

There is evidence that on more than one topic of public policy RALEGH’S
counsel made a deep impression on HENRY. One instance of it will be seen
presently. But apart altogether from such positive results as admit of
testimony, their intercourse is memorable. It must have been by virtue
of some congeniality of nature that a youth in HENRY’S position so
quickly leapt—across many obstacles—to an appreciation, alike of the
circumstances and of the character of RALEGH, which still commends
itself to those who have looked into them most searchingly. The estimate
has been many times confirmed by the investigations of history, long
afterwards, but it was strongly opposed to the broad current of
contemporary opinion. A heart larger than the average may have its
divinations, as well as the intellect that is more acute and better
furnished than the average.

[Sidenote: THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE NAVAL DOCKYARDS.]

But the generous heart is often allied with a hasty temper. The
impression made on the Prince by RALEGH’S writings on naval matters had,
amongst other results, that of increasing both his interest in the
management of the royal dockyards, and his familiar intercourse with
Phineas PETT. PETT was master shipwright at Chatham, and, as we have
seen, the designer of the prince’s first vessel _Disdain_. [Sidenote:
1608. April. See Chap. ii, pp. 62, 63.] When Sir Robert COTTON had
induced the King to issue that Commission of Inquiry into the Navy, of
the results of which some account has been given in the preceding
Chapter, PETT was one of the persons whose official doings were brought
into question. HENRY took a warm interest in the inquiry and testified
openly his anxiety on PETT’S behalf. A specific charge about an alleged
disproportion between timber paid for and the vessels built therewith
was investigated at Woolwich. Both the King and the Prince were present.
HENRY stood by PETT’S side. [Sidenote: MS. Life of Phineas Pett, in MS.
HARL. 6279 (B. M.) p. 45.] When the evidence was seen to disprove the
charge, the Prince cried with a loud voice—disregarding alike the royal
presence and the forms of law—‘Where be now those perjured fellows that
dare thus abuse His Majesty with false informations? Do they not
worthily deserve hanging?’

The warmth of HENRY’S friendship seems to have suffered little
diminution by the absence of its objects. [Sidenote: HENRY’S FOREIGN
CORRESPONDENCE.] When his friends went to far-off countries he
encouraged them to be active correspondents by setting them a good
example. He welcomed all sorts of real and worthy information. About the
government and affairs of foreign countries his curiosity was
insatiable. When important letters came to him he not only read them
with care but made abstracts of their contents. When the labour-loving
Lord Treasurer SALISBURY noticed, with regret, in his son CRANBORNE
certain indications of a turn towards indolence, it was by an appeal to
Prince HENRY’S example that he strove to correct the failing. HENRY
evinced eagerness to learn by all methods. Books, letters, conversation,
personal insight into notable things and new inventions,—were alike
acceptable to him.

[Sidenote: HIS PURCHASE OF LORD LUMLEY’S LIBRARY.]

In April, 1609, the death of John, Lord LUMLEY, without issue, enabled
the Prince to gratify his love of books by purchasing a Library which
probably was more valuable than any other collection then existing in
England, with the exception of that of Sir Robert COTTON.

Thirty years before, Lord LUMLEY had inherited the fine library of his
father-in-law, Henry FITZALAN, Earl of ARUNDEL, who had been a collector
of choice manuscripts at a time when the reckless dispersion of monastic
treasures impoverished the nation, but gave, here and there, golden
opportunities to openhanded private men. When the estates of the
FITZALANS came to LUMLEY—in virtue of an entail made by the Earl of
ARUNDEL during Lady LUMLEY’S lifetime—the splendid succession had lost
its best charm. The wife who had thus enriched him was dead, and he was
childless. His wife’s sister, the Duchess of NORFOLK, was also dead, but
had left a son. [Sidenote: Muniments at Norf. House (Sussex, Box 7), as
cited in Tierney’s _Arundel_, p. 19.] LUMLEY sold his life interest in
the broad lands, and forests, and in the famous castle of Arundel, to
the next heir, but he kept the library and found one of the chief
pleasures of his remaining term of life in liberally augmenting it.
HENRY’S first care, after his purchase, was to have a careful catalogue
made of the collection. And he soon gave evidence that he had bought the
books for use; not for show. [Sidenote: _Privy Purse Book_; in _Domestic
Correspondence_, JAMES I, vol. lvii, § 87, p. 4. (R. H.)] He also made
many important additions, from time to time, during his three years’
ownership.

Perhaps the most festive days of that brief span were the sixth of
January, 1610, and the sixth of June of the same year, on both of which
Whitehall again witnessed a gay tournament. [Sidenote: THE TOURNAMENTS
OF 1610.] On twelfth-day, at the head of a band of knights which
included LENNOX, ARUNDEL, SOUTHAMPTON, HAY, Sir Thomas SOMERSET, and Sir
Richard PRESTON, HENRY kept his barriers against fifty-six assailants,
and before a brilliant court, for whose pleasure the long mimic fight
was diversified by the gay devices of Inigo JONES, and the graceful
verses of Ben JONSON. Next day the jousting was followed by a banquet
not less splendid. [Sidenote: _Chronicle of England_, p. 898. _The
Speeches at Prince Henries Barriers_; and _Oberon, a Masque_. (Jonson’s
_Works_, vol. v, pp. 965–974, 1st edit.)] At Whitehall,—as at Stirling
sixteen years before,—the banquetting lasted seven hours, but it was
enlivened by a comedy in which the ladies were not condemned to silence.
In the following June, HENRY’S creation as Prince of WALES was
celebrated by tiltings on a more extensive scale, as well as by masques
and dances, and by an elaborate naval battle upon the Thames. But the
prince himself seems to have taken more pleasure in witnessing from time
to time, at Woolwich or at Chatham, the launching of real ships fitted
for real warfare. Nor are indications wanting that during his ponderings
on the many advices which he received of the course of public events in
Europe, he had occasional presentiments that a crisis was drawing near
which would make the adoption of a warlike policy to be alike the duty
of the King, and the recognized interest of the nation.

Be that as it may, the broad contrasts of character which existed
between the wearer of the crown and its heir apparent became
increasingly obvious during the long negotiations and correspondence
about the projects of marriage for the prince himself and for his
sister. [Sidenote: THE PROJECTS FOR ROYAL MARRIAGES.] [Sidenote:
1611–1612.] Something, indeed, of the difference in character between
JAMES and HENRY was indicated when, in 1611, the prince directed RALEGH
to draw up, in his prison, a paper of advice on the scheme of a double
marriage with Savoy and on the relations between Savoy and Spain. It
came out more forcibly when, on occasion of the proposal from France for
his own marriage with CHRISTINA (the elder sister of HENRIETTA MARIA),
he wrote to his father in these words: ‘The cause which first induced
your Majesty to proceed in this proposition by your Ambassador was the
hope which the Duke of BOUILLON gave your Majesty of breaking their
other match with Spain. If the continuance of this treaty hold only upon
that hope, and not upon any desire to effect a match with the second
daughter, in my weak opinion I hold that it stands more with your
Majesty’s honour to stay your Ambassador from moving it any more than to
go on with it. Because no great negotiation should be grounded upon a
ground that is very unsure and uncertain, and depends upon their wills
who were the first causers of the contrary.’ For this letter the Prince
was rebuked. Two months afterwards, it was found indispensable to desire
him to express again his opinion upon a new stage of the negotiation. He
did so in words to which the events of the next few years were destined
to give significance. I quote from the original letter, preserved (with
a large mass of other letters from the same hand) amongst the Harleian
MSS.[28]

‘As for the exercise of the princess’ religion,’ wrote HENRY, on the 5th
of October, 1612, ‘your Majesty may be pleased to make your Ambassador
give a peremptory answer that you will never agree to give her greater
liberty in the exercise of it than that which is agreed with the
Savoyeard, which is—to use his own word—_privatemente_; or, as Sir Henry
WOTTON did expound it, “in her most private and secret chamber.”’ Then
he touches on the delicate question of dowry, and the relative
preferability of the alliance proffered by France and that proffered by
Savoy; adding,—with an obvious mental reference, I think, to the advice
given him by RALEGH in the preceding year,—these pregnant words: ‘If
your Majesty will respect rather which of these two will give the
greatest contentment to the general body of the Protestants abroad, then
I am of opinion that you will sooner incline to France than to Savoy.’

[Sidenote: 1612. Oct. 5. Henry to James; MS. HARL., 6986, f. 180.]

The writer then hints a fear that he may, unwittingly, have incurred a
renewal of the paternal displeasure which some expressions of opinion in
his former letter on the same subject had excited. Let his father kindly
remember, he entreats, that his own special part in the business,—‘which
is to be in love with any of them, is not yet at hand.’


Death, not love-making, was at hand. One month afterwards, the arm that
penned this letter was stretched out,—still and rigid.

The Prince was seized with sudden illness on the 10th of October, five
days after its date. [Sidenote: DEATH. 1612. November.] The first
appearances were such as are wont to follow upon a great chill, after
excessive exercise—to which HENRY was always prone. In spite of much
pain and some alarming symptoms, he persisted in removing from Richmond
to St. James’ on the 16th, in order to receive the Elector Palatine,
soon to become the husband of his sister. Within very few days it was
apparent that his illness was of the most serious nature. He left his
apartment at St. James’ on the morning of the 25th, to hear a sermon at
the Chapel Royal. The text was from the fourteenth of Job, ‘_Man, that
is born of a woman, is of short continuance_.’ Afterwards he dined with
the King, but was obliged to take his leave, being seized with faintness
and shivering fits. These continued to recur, at brief intervals, until
his death, on the evening of the sixth of November. Almost the only
snatch of quiet sleep which he could obtain followed upon the
administration of a cordial, prepared for him in the Tower by RALEGH, at
the Queen’s earnest request. It was not given until the morning of the
last day.

HENRY died calmly, but under total exhaustion. For many hours before his
death he was unconscious, as well as speechless. The last words to which
he responded were those of Archbishop ABBOT:—‘In sign of your faith and
hope in the blessed Resurrection, give us, for our comfort, a sign by
the lifting up of your hands.’ HENRY raised both hands, clasped
together. It was his last conscious act.


Here, to human ken, was a life all seed-time. The harvest belonged to
the things unseen. Contemporaries who had treasured up, in memory, many
of those small matters which serve to mark character, were wont
sometimes to draw contrasts between the prince and his brother. And many
have been the speculations—natural though unfruitful—as to the altered
course of English history, had HENRY lived to ascend the throne. One
fact, observable in the correspondence and documentary history of the
times, will always retain a certain interest. Some of those who were to
rank among the staunchest opponents of CHARLES were men who thought
highly of HENRY’S abilities to rule, and who held his memory in
affectionate reverence.

[Sidenote: DISPOSAL OF THE PRINCE’S LIBRARY.]

HENRY had died intestate. The library which he had purchased from the
Executors of Lord LUMLEY fell to the disposal of the King. The greater
part of it went to augment the remains of the old royal library of
England, portions of which had been scattered during JAMES’ reign, as
well as before it. By that disposal of a collection, in which the prince
had taken not a little delight during his brief possession, he became
virtually, and in the event, a co-founder of the British Museum.

[Sidenote: UNION OF THE ST. JAMES’ AND WHITEHALL LIBRARIES.]

The library remained at St. James’ under the charge, for a time, of the
prince’s librarian, Edward WRIGHT. The relics of the royal collection at
Whitehall were then in the keeping of the eminent scholar and
theologian, Patrick YOUNG. Eventually they too were brought to St.
James’, and YOUNG took the entire charge. It was by his exertions that
the combined collection was augmented by a valuable part of the library
of Isaac CASAUBON. [Sidenote: Roe, _Negotiations_, pp. 335; 618.] It was
to his hands that Sir Thomas ROE delivered the ‘Alexandrian Manuscript’
of the Greek Bible, the precious gift to King CHARLES of Cyril LUCAR,
Patriarch of Constantinople.

YOUNG survived until 1652, but he was deprived of his office in 1648. In
that turbulent time the library narrowly escaped two perils. Some of the
soldiers of the triumphant party sought to disperse it, piecemeal, for
their individual profit. Some of the leaders of that party formed a
scheme to export it to the Continent for a like purpose. It stands to
the credit of a somewhat fanatical partisan—Hugh PETERS, one of the many
men who are doomed to play in history the part of scapegoats, whatever
their own sins may have really been—that his hasty assumption of
librarianship (1648) saved the library from the first danger. [Sidenote:
Comp. _Order-Book of Council of State_, vol. v, p. 454, and vol. xxiv,
p. 604. (R. H.)] A like act on the part of Bulstrode WHITELOCKE, in the
following year (July, 1649), saved it from the second. Probably, it was
at his instance that the Council of State made or designed to make it a
Public Library. [Sidenote: WHITELOCKE’S _Embassy to Sweden_, vol. i, p.
273. (Reeve’s edit.)] Four years afterwards, WHITELOCKE held at
Stockholm a curious conversation with Queen Christina about its
manuscript treasures, of some of which, he tells us, she was anxious to
possess transcripts.

Under the Commonwealth, the librarianship had been combined, first with
the keepership of the Great Seal, and then with an Embassy to Sweden.
Under the Restoration, it was held in plurality with an active
commission in the Royal Navy. [Sidenote: ACQUISITION OF THE THEYER
LIBRARY.] CHARLES II, however, caused some valuable additions to be made
to the library. Of these the most important was the manuscript
collection which had belonged, successively, to John and Charles THEYER.
The sum given was £560. The collection came to St. James’ Palace in
1678. It was rich in historical manuscripts and in the curiosities of
mediæval science. It embraced many of the treasured book-possessions of
a long line of Abbots and Priors of Llanthony,[29] and the
common-place-books of Archbishop CRANMER.

At CHARLES THE SECOND’S death the number of works in the royal
collection had increased to more than ten thousand. No doubt, in that
reign, the books could have brought against their owner the pithy
complaint to which PETRARCH gave expression, on behalf of some of their
fellows, at an earlier day: ‘Thou hast many books tied in chains which,
if they could break away and speak, would bring _thee_ to the judgment
of a private prison.... [Sidenote: Petrarch, _De remediis utriusque
fortunæ_.] They would weep to think that one man—ostentatious of a
possession for which he hath no use—should own a host of those precious
things that many a passionate student doth wholly lack.’

No true lover of books, for their own sake, indeed, was ever to possess
that rich collection, until it passed into the ownership of the nation.
Its entail, so to speak, as a heirloom of the Crown, was cut off, just
as it was about to pass into the hands of the one English King who
alone, of all the Monarchs since CHARLES THE FIRST, cared about books.
That it should pass to the Nation had been proposed by Richard BENTLEY,
when himself royal librarian, sixty years before the proposal became a
fact. ‘’Tis easy to foresee,’ said BENTLEY, ‘how much the glory of our
Nation will be advanced by erecting a Free Library of all sorts of
books.’ In his day, he saw no way to such an establishment, otherwise
than by transfer of the royal collection.

There is a reasonable, perhaps it might be said a strong, probability
that when BENTLEY gave expression to this wish, at the close of the
seventeenth century, he was unconsciously reviving one among many
projects for the public good which had been temporarily buried in the
grave of Prince HENRY. For under the Commonwealth, the Library at St.
James’ had been ‘Public’ rather in name than in fact.

[Sidenote: THE ULTIMATE INCORPORATION OF THE ROYAL LIBRARY WITH THE
           COLLECTIONS OF SLOANE AND OF COTTON.]

When the time came, the number of volumes of the Royal Collection which
remained to be incorporated with the Museum of SLOANE and with the
Library of Sir Robert COTTON was somewhat more than twelve thousand. The
number of separate works—printed and manuscript together—probably
exceeded fifteen thousand.

Amongst the acquisitions so gained by the nation the first place of
honour belongs to the _Codex Alexandrinus_. It stands, by the common
consent of biblical palæographers, in a class of manuscripts of the Holy
Scriptures into which only two or three other codices in the world can
claim to be admitted. Of early English chronicles there is a long series
which to their intrinsic interest as primary materials of our history
add the ancillary interest of having been transcribed—sometimes of
having been composed—expressly for presentation to the reigning Monarch.
Here also, among a host of other literary curiosities, is the group of
romances which John TALBOT, Earl of Shrewsbury, caused to be compiled
for MARGARET of Anjou; and the autograph _Basilicon_, written for Prince
HENRY. Among the innumerable printed treasures are choice books which
accrued as presentation copies to the sovereigns of the House of TUDOR,
beginning with a superb series of illuminated books on vellum, from the
press of Anthony VERARD of Paris, given to HENRY THE SEVENTH. For large
as had been the losses sustained by the original royal library, and
truly as it may be said that Prince HENRY’S acquisitions amounted
virtually to its re-foundation, many of the finest books of long
anterior date had survived their varied perils. And some others have
rejoined, from time to time, their old companions, after long absence.

The royal collection has also an adventitious interest—in addition to
the main one—from another point of view. It includes results of the
strong-handed confiscations of our kings, as well as of the purchases
they made, and the gifts they received. Both the royal manuscripts and
the royal printed books contain many memorials of careers in which our
poets no less than our historians have found, and are likely to find, an
undying charm.




                              CHAPTER IV.
                  THE COLLECTOR OF THE ARUNDELIAN MSS.

  ‘The English nobles are high-spirited, active, educated men, born to
  wealth and power, who have run through every country and have kept,
  in every country, the best company; have seen every secret of art
  and nature; and—when men of any ability or ambition—have been
  consulted in the conduct of every important action. You cannot wield
  great agencies without lending yourself to them. When it happens
  that the spirit of the Earl meets his rank and his duties, we have
  the best examples.... These are the men who make England that
  strong-box and Museum it is; who gather and protect works of art,
  dragged from amidst burning cities and revolutionary countries, and
  brought hither, out of all the world.... When I saw that, besides
  deer and pheasants, these men have preserved ARUNDEL MARBLES,
  TOWNLEY GALLERIES, HOWARD and SPENCER LIBRARIES, WARWICK AND
  PORTLAND VASES, SAXON MANUSCRIPTS, MONASTIC ARCHITECTURES, AND
  MILLENIAL TREES, I pardoned their high park-fences.’—

                              R. W. EMERSON, (_English Traits_, § xi).

  _Political Exile and Foreign Travel under Elizabeth, and under
      James.—Life of Thomas_ HOWARD, _Earl of Arundel_.—_The
      Consolations of Connoisseurship.—Vicissitudes of the Arundel
      Museum.—The gifts of Henry_ HOWARD _to the Royal Society_.


[Sidenote: BOOK 1, Chap. IV. THE COLLECTOR OF THE ARUNDELIAN MSS.]

The Collector of the Arundel Marbles and Founder of the Arundel Library
was the great-grandson of that twenty-first Earl of ARUNDEL (Henry
FITZALAN) by whom had been collected the choicest portion of the library
which passed, in 1609, from the possession of John, Lord LUMLEY, to that
of HENRY, Prince of Wales. [Sidenote: chap. iii, p. 162] That Earl had
profited by the opportunities which the dissolution of the monasteries
presented so abundantly to collectors at home. The new Earl profited, in
his turn, by larger and far more varied opportunities, offered to him
during a long course of travel abroad. For himself, his travels ripened
and expanded a somewhat crude and irregular education. He attained, at
length, and in a much greater degree (as it seems) than any of his
contemporaries, to that liberal culture which enabled him to appreciate,
and to teach his countrymen to appreciate, the arts from which Greece
and Italy had derived so much of their glory; whilst in England those
arts had, as yet, done very little either to enhance the enjoyments and
consolations of human life, or to call into action powers and aptitudes
which had long lain dormant. It is not claiming too much for the Earl of
ARUNDEL to say that of whatever, upon a fair estimate, England may be
thought to owe to its successful cultivation of the Arts of Design, he
was the first conspicuous promoter. Nor is his rank as a pioneer in the
encouragement of the systematic study of archæology—a study so fruitful
of far-reaching result—less eminent.

[Sidenote: FOREIGN TRAVEL, UNDER TUDORS AND STUARTS.]

He may also be regarded as setting, by the course he took with his own
children, the fashion of foreign travel, as a necessary complement of
the education of men of rank and social position. The example became
very influential, and in a sphere far broader than the artistic one.
Under ELIZABETH, the Englishmen best known on the Continent had been
political exiles. Most of them were men self-banished. Many of them
passed their lives in defaming and plotting against the country they had
left. The jealous restrictions upon the liberty of travel imposed by the
Government rarely kept at home the men of mischief, but were probably
much more successful in confining men whose free movements would have
been fruitful in good alike to the countries they visited and to their
own. The altered circumstances which ensued upon the accession of JAMES
notoriously gave facilities to wider Continental intercourse; and it was
by men who followed very much in Lord ARUNDEL’S track that some of the
best social results of that intercourse were won.


Thomas HOWARD, Earl of Arundel, Surrey, and Norfolk, was twentieth in
lineal descent from that William de ALBINI who, in the year 1139, had
acquired the Castle and Earldom of Arundel by virtue of his marriage
with the widow of King HENRY THE FIRST. He was born at Finchingfield, in
Essex, in 1585,—a date which nearly marks the period of lowest
depression in the strangely varied fortunes of an illustrious family.
[Sidenote: Thomas, D. of Norfolk to his son Philip, &c., MS. Harl.,
787.] Philip, Earl of ARUNDEL, the father of Earl Thomas, was already in
the Tower, and was experiencing, in great bitterness, the truth of words
written to him by his own father, when in like circumstances:—‘Look into
all Chronicles, and you shall find that, in the end, high degree brings
heaps of cares, toils in the State, and most commonly (in the end) utter
overthrow.’ Before Thomas HOWARD had reached his fifth year his
mother—co-heiress of the ‘DACRES of the North’—had to write to the Lord
Treasury BURGHLEY: ‘Extremytye inforceth me to crave succour,’ and to
illustrate her assertion by a detail of miseries.

The hopes with which the STUART accession was naturally anticipated by
all the HOWARDS, were by some of them more than realized, but the heir
of Arundel was not of that number. He was, indeed, restored in blood to
such honours as his father, Earl Philip, had enjoyed, and also to the
baronies forfeited by his grandfather, Thomas, Duke of NORFOLK, in 1572.
But the dignities were restored without the lands. His nearest relations
profited by their influence at Court to obtain grants of his chief
ancestral estates. The Earls of NOTTINGHAM, NORTHAMPTON,[30] and SUFFOLK
had each of them a share in the spoil;—salving their consciences,
probably, by the reflection that, despite his poverty, their young
kinsman had made a great marriage. For his alliance, in 1606, with Lady
Aletheia TALBOT, daughter and co-heir of Gilbert, Earl of SHREWSBURY,
had already brought to him considerable means in hand, and a vast estate
in prospect. The marriage, in higher respects, was also a happy one. But
a natural and eager desire to recover what his father had forfeited cast
much anxiety over years otherwise felicitous. He could not regain even
Arundel House in London, until he had paid £4000 for it to the Earl of
NOTTINGHAM.

[Sidenote: ARUNDEL AT COURT.]

Lord ARUNDEL made his first appearance at Court in 1605. In May, 1611,
he was created a Knight of the Garter. Thirteen years of JAMES’ reign
had passed before the Earl was admitted to the Privy Council. This
honour was conferred upon him in July, 1616. Five years more were to
pass before his restoration to his hereditary office of Earl Marshal of
England, although he had been made one of six Commissioners for the
discharge of its duties in October, 1616. The baton was at length (29th
August, 1621) delivered to him at THEOBALDS. [Sidenote: _Domestic
Corresp._, James I, 1621, 21 July. (R. H.)] ‘The King,’ wrote John
CHAMBERLAIN to Sir Dudley CARLETON, when communicating the news, ‘would
have given him £2000 a year pension withal, but—whatsoever the reason
was—he would accept but the ordinary fee, which is twenty pounds per
annum.’ It is plain, however, that this assertion was an error.
According to the ancient constitution of the Earl Marshal’s office there
were certain fees accruing from it which were now, under new
regulations, to cease. The question arose, Shall the Earl Marshal be
compensated by pension, or (according to a pernicious fashion of the
age) by the grant, or lease, of a customs duty upon some largely vended
commodity? [Sidenote: Minutes of Correspondence in Sec. Conway’s Letter
Book; (R. H.) and Council Books (C. O.).] The ‘impost of currants’ was
eventually fixed upon. But the Earl had subsequent occasion to adduce
evidence before a Committee of the Privy Council, that the rent paid to
the King sometimes exceeded the aggregate duty collected from the
merchants.[31]

There is some uncertainty as to the date of the earliest of Lord
ARUNDEL’S many visits to the Continent. According to Sir Edward WALKER,
he was in Italy in 1609. But that statement is open to doubt. There is
proof that in 1612 he passed some time in Florence and in Siena. With
Siena, as a place of residence, he was especially delighted. Of the
foundation of his collections—to which his Italian journeys largely
contributed—there are no distinct records until the following year.

[Sidenote: Arundel to Rochester, MS. Cott. Titus, B. vii, f. 463.]

The tour of 1613, followed immediately upon the marriage of the Princess
ELIZABETH with FREDERICK, Count Palatine of the Rhine. The royal pair
were escorted into Germany by both Lord and Lady ARUNDEL, who soon left
the Rhine country on a new visit to Italy, and remained there until
nearly the close of 1614. [Sidenote: BEGINNINGS OF THE ARUNDELIAN
COLLECTIONS.] During that long residence the Earl established a wide
intercourse with the most distinguished artists and archæologists of
Italy, and made extensive purchases. The fame of his princely tastes was
spread abroad. It soon became notorious that by this open-handed
collector marbles, vases, coins, gems, manuscripts, pictures, were
received with equal welcome. And from this time onwards many passages
occur in his correspondence which indicate the keen and minute interest
he took in the researches of the agents who, in various parts of the
Continent, were busy on his behalf. The pursuit did not lack the special
zest of home rivalry, as will be seen hereafter.


Not the least singular incident in the early part of Lord ARUNDEL’S life
was his commitment to the Tower, at a moment when his favour with King
JAMES was at its height.

[Sidenote: 1621, May.]

[Sidenote: THE QUARREL BETWEEN LORDS ARUNDEL AND SPENCER.]

In one of the many impassioned parliamentary debates which occurred
during the session of 1621 an allusion was made by Lord SPENCER to the
unhappy fate of two famous ancestors of the Earl of ARUNDEL, and it was
made in a way which induced the Earl to utter an unwise and unjust
retort. The matter immediately under discussion was a very small one,
but it had grown out of the exciting question of monopolies, and it was
mixed up with the yet more exciting question of the overweening powers
entrusted by the King to BUCKINGHAM. In the course of an examination at
the bar of the House of Lords about the grant of a patent for licensing
inns, Sir Henry YELVERTON had made a furious attack upon the Duke. The
attack was still more an insult to the House, than to the King’s
favourite, and it had been repeated. It was proposed, on a subsequent
day, to call YELVERTON to the bar for the third time, in order to see if
he would then offer the apology which before he had refused. ARUNDEL
opposed the motion. ‘We have his words; we need hear no more,’ he said.
Lord SPENCER rose to answer: ‘I remember that two of the Earl’s
ancestors—the Earl of SURREY, and the Duke of NORFOLK, were unjustly
condemned to death, without being heard.’ The implied parallel was a
silly one, but its weakness and irrelevancy did not restrain ARUNDEL’S
anger. ‘My Lords,’ said he, ‘I do acknowledge that my ancestors have
suffered. It may be for doing the king and the country good service; and
at such time, perhaps, as when the ancestors of the Lord that spake last
kept sheep.’ The speaker failed to see that by using such words he had
committed exactly the same offence as that for which he had, but a
moment before, censured the late Attorney-General, and had moved the
House to punish him. On all sides, he was advised to apologise. He
resisted all entreaty. When committed to the Tower, he still refused
submission. Both the King and the Prince of Wales had to intercede for
him with the House before he could regain his liberty.


With rare exception, the public incidents of LORD ARUNDEL’S life during
the remainder of the reign of JAMES are such as offer little interest,
save as illustrations of character. In that respect, many of them
testify to the failing which appears so strikingly in the story of the
quarrel with Lord SPENCER. Some noble qualities lost part of their real
lustre when pride was so plainly seen in their company. All that was
best in Lord ARUNDEL revolted at the grossness of the Stuart court. He
often increased his own disgust by contrasting what he saw at Whitehall
with the memories of his youth. His office of Earl Marshal precluded him
from very long absences. Sometimes, when forced to mingle with courtiers
for whose society he had little liking, he rebuked their want of dignity
by exaggerating his own dignity into haughtiness. Against failings of
this kind we have to set many merits, and amongst them a merit eminently
rare in that age. ARUNDEL was free from covetousness—save in that
special sense in which covetousness, it may be feared, cleaves to all
‘collectorship.’

[Sidenote: ADVENTURE OF LADY ARUNDEL AT VENICE.]

In 1622 some anxiety was occasioned to Lord ARUNDEL by a singular
adventure which befell his wife during her residence in the Venetian
territory, whither (in the course of a long Italian tour) she had gone
to watch over the education of their sons; little anticipating, it may
well be supposed, that her name and that of Lord ARUNDEL, would be made
to figure in Venetian records in connection with the strange story of
the conspirator Antonio FOSCARINI.

After making some stay in Venice, Lady ARUNDEL had taken a villa on the
Brenta, about ten miles from the City.

In April, 1622, she was on her way from this villa to the Mocenigo
Palace, her residence in Venice, when she was met by the Secretary of
Sir Henry WOTTON, English ambassador to the Republic. The secretary said
that he was sent by the ambassador to inform her that the Venetian
Senate had resolved to command her ladyship to leave their city and
territory within a few days, on the ground of a discovery that FOSCARINI
had carried on some of his traitorous intrigues with foreign
ministers—and more especially with those of the Pope and Emperor—at her
house. [Sidenote: 1622, April.] To this the messenger added, that it was
Sir Henry WOTTON’S most earnest advice that Lady ARUNDEL should not
return to Venice, but should remain at Dolo, until she heard from him
again. Having listened to this strange communication in private, she
desired the secretary to repeat it in the presence of some of the
persons who attended her. Then she hastened to the ambassador’s house at
Venice. Her interview with WOTTON is thus, in substance, narrated by
Lord ARUNDEL, when telling the story to his friend the Earl of CARLISLE,
then ambassador to the Court of France.

‘Lady ARUNDEL went immediately to my Lord Ambassador [WOTTON], telling
him she came to hear from his own mouth what she had heard from his
servant’s.’ When Sir Henry had repeated the statement of his secretary,
the Lady asked him how long the accusation and the resolution of the
Senate had been known to him. He replied that reports of the alleged
intercourse with FOSCARINI had reached him some fifteen days before, or
more; but that of the resolution of the Senate he had heard only on that
morning. ‘She asked him why he did never let her understand of the
report all that time? He said because she spake not to him of it.’ To
Lady ARUNDEL’S pithy rejoinder that it would have been hard for her to
speak of a matter of which she had never heard the least rumour until
that day, and to her further protestation that she had not even seen
FOSCARINI since the time of his visit to England, some years earlier,
Sir Henry replied, ‘I believe there was no such matter;’ but he refused
to disclose the name of the person who had first spoken to him of the
accusation. To his renewed advice that her ladyship should not stir
farther in the matter, she declined to accede. [Sidenote: MS. ADDIT.,
4176, § 156. (B. M.)] It concerned her honour, and her husband’s honour,
she said, to have public conference with the Doge and Council without
delay. From carrying out this resolve the ambassador found it impossible
to dissuade her.

That conference took place on the following day with the remarkable
result of a public declaration by the Doge that no mention had ever been
made of Lady ARUNDEL’S name, or of the name of any person nearly or
remotely connected with her, either at any stage of the proceedings
against FOSCARINI, or in any of the discussions which had arisen out of
his conspiracy.

When the audience given to Lady ARUNDEL by the Doge had been made the
subject of a communication to the Senate, that body instructed the
Venetian Ambassador in England to confer with Lord ARUNDEL. [Sidenote:
_Deliberations of the Senate of Venice_; printed by Hardy, in _Report on
Venetian Archives_, pp. 78–84 (1866).] ‘You are,’ said they, ‘to speak
to the Earl Marshal in such strong and earnest language that he may
retain no doubt of the invalidity of the report, and may remain
perfectly convinced of the esteem and cordial affection entertained
towards him by the Republic; augmented as such feelings are by the open
and dignified mode of life led here by the Countess, and in which she
hastens the education of her sons in the sciences to make them—as they
will become—faithful imitators of their meritorious father and their
ancestors.’

Sir Henry WOTTON’S motive in the strange part taken by him in this
incident is nowhere disclosed. He had to listen to several indirect
reproofs, both from the Doge and from the Senate, which were none the
less incisive on account of the courtly language in which they were
couched.

Two years afterwards, the Earl was himself hastily summoned to the
Continent to attend the death-bed of his eldest son, James, Lord
MALTRAVERS, who is described by a contemporary writer as a ‘gentleman of
rare wit and extraordinary expectation.’ [Sidenote: DEATH OF ARUNDEL’S
ELDEST SON.] The Countess and her two elder sons, James and Henry, were
then returning from Italy to England. [Sidenote: _Royal license to
travel_, July, 1624.] They passed through Belgium in order to visit the
Queen of BOHEMIA. Whilst at Ghent, upon the journey, Lord MALTRAVERS was
seized with the smallpox. He died in that city in July, 1624. The
affliction was acutely felt. [Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp._ James I,
vol. cxlix, § 67; vol. clii, § 55.] ‘My sorrow makes me incapable of
this world’s affairs,’ wrote the Earl to one of his political
correspondents, in the autumn of the year. To the outer world, reserved
manners and a stately demeanour often gave a very false impression of
the man himself. Throughout his life, ARUNDEL’S affectionate nature was
so evinced in his deeds, and in his domestic intercourse, as to stand in
little need of illustration from his words. Mainly, as it seems, to this
characteristic quality he was soon to owe a second imprisonment in the
Tower of London.

[Sidenote: THE STUART MARRIAGE AND ITS RESULTS.]

The new Lord MALTRAVERS shortly after his return to England fell in love
with the Lady Elizabeth STUART, daughter of Esme, Duke of LENNOX.
ARUNDEL had formed other wishes and plans for the son who was now his
heir, and there is evidence that he was reluctant to give his consent to
the prosecution of the suit. Nor did the kinship of the prospective
bride with King CHARLES appear to him, it seems, at all an inviting
circumstance in the matter. So long as BUCKINGHAM stood at the helm of
affairs ARUNDEL was likely to have a very small share in the new king’s
affections, so that pride and policy as well as inclination stood in the
way of his approval. He knew also that it was CHARLES’ eager wish that
his kinswoman should marry Lord LORNE, the eldest son of the Earl of
ARGYLE. But the young lover was ardent, and his entreaties
unintermitting. At length, we are told, he not only wrung from the Earl
the words ‘You may try your fortune with the lady that you seem to love
so well,’ but prevailed upon him to confer paternally on the subject
with the lady’s aunt and guardian, the Duchess of RICHMOND. MALTRAVERS,
meanwhile, had resolved to incur no risk of defeat by waiting for a
royal assent to his marriage. He had long before won his cause with the
lady, but had kept the secret. Two passionate lovers[32] went gravely
through the ceremony of a formal introduction to each other.

MALTRAVERS then induced her to consent to a private marriage. When Lord
ARUNDEL was informed of the fact he immediately disclosed his knowledge
to the King, and besought pardon for the culprits. But CHARLES’ wrath
was unbounded. He placed the new-married pair under restraint in London.
He committed ARUNDEL himself to the Tower. He commanded Lady ARUNDEL to
remain at Horsley, in Surrey, a seat belonging to the Dowager Countess,
her mother-in-law.

When Lord ARUNDEL was thus imprisoned Parliament was sitting. The Lords
declared his arrest to be an infringement of their privileges. The King
replied that ‘the Earl of ARUNDEL is restrained for a misdemeanour which
is personal to the King’s Majesty, and has no relation to matters of
Parliament.’ The Lords still insisted that it was the Earl’s
unquestionable right ‘to be admitted to come, sit, and serve in
Parliament.’ CHARLES released ARUNDEL from the Tower, and then confined
him to Horsley. Royal evasion did but provoke increased earnestness and
firmness from the Peers. At length they resolved that they would suspend
public business until the Earl presented himself in his place.
[Sidenote: _Secretary Conway’s Letter Book_, pp. 251 seqq. (R. H.)]
Nearly three months had been spent in debate and altercation before
Secretary CONWAY was directed to write to ARUNDEL in these terms: ‘It is
the King’s pleasure that you come to the Parliament, but not to the
Court.’

[Sidenote: _Lords’ Journals_, vol. iii, p. 653, &c.]

The sequel of the story, as it tells itself in the State Papers, affords
an early and eminent illustration of the qualities in CHARLES THE FIRST
which, as they ripened, brought about his ruin. The King resolved that
his concession should as far as was possible be retracted. Directly the
sitting of Parliament was suspended, the King commanded CONWAY to
apprise the Earl that his restraint to Horsley was renewed, ‘as before
the Earl’s leave to come to Parliament.’ [Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp._,
Charles I, vol. xxxv, p. 16 (R. H.).] ARUNDEL on his part made courtly
and even lavish declarations of submission. ‘I desire to implore the
King’s grace by the humblest and best ways I can.’ This was written in
September, 1626. Whenever it was indispensable that he should obtain
leave to visit the capital a petition had to be prepared. In March,
1627, he writes: ‘The King has limited my stay in London until the 12th
of March. I will obey, but I beg you to represent to His Majesty that I
have necessary business to transact ... and that I have so carried
myself as to shew my desire to give His Majesty no distastes. If now,
after a year has passed, the King will dissolve this cloud, and leave me
to my own liberty, I will hold myself to be most free when living in
such place and manner as may be most to His Majesty’s liking.’ It was
all in vain. Another whole year passes. ARUNDEL has still to write: ‘I
beseech the King to give life to my just desires, and after two years of
heavy disfavour to grant me the happiness to kiss his hands and to
attend him in my place.’ To this humble representation and entreaty it
was replied by Secretary CONWAY: ‘His Majesty’s answer is that the Earl
has not so far appeased the exceptions which the King has taken against
unkindness conceived, as yet to take off his disfavour. [Sidenote:
_Ibid._, vol. lvi, p. 86; vol. xcv, pp. 51, 85, &c. _Conway’s Letter
Book_, pp. 295, &c. (R. H.)] As for the Earl’s proffered duty and
carriage in the King’s service, the King will judge of that as he shall
find occasion.’

He found occasion ere long; but not until after BUCKINGHAM’S death.
ARUNDEL rendered useful service, on some conspicuous occasions, both at
home and abroad. If his successive diplomatic missions to Holland in
1632, and to Ratisbon in 1638, on the affairs of the Palatinate, failed
of their main object, it was from no miscarriage of the ambassador. In
the unostentatious labours of the Council Board he took during a long
series of years a very honourable share. And it is much to his honour
that by the men to whom the chief scandals of a disastrous reign are
mainly ascribable, ARUNDEL was, almost uniformly, both disliked and
feared.

[Sidenote: ARUNDEL AND STRAFFORD.]

[Sidenote: 1641. March and April.]

As Lord High Steward of England, ARUNDEL had to preside at the trial of
the Earl of STRAFFORD. He acquitted himself of an arduous task with
eminent ability, and with an impartiality which won respect, alike from
the managers of the impeachment and from the friends of the doomed
statesman. The only person who expressed dissatisfaction with ARUNDEL’S
conduct on that critical occasion was the King. The historians who have
most deeply and acutely scanned the details of that most memorable of
all our State Trials are agreed that in order to have satisfied CHARLES,
the Earl of ARUNDEL must have betrayed the duty of his high office.

Shortly after the trial of STRAFFORD, it became ARUNDEL’S duty as Earl
Marshal to attend the mother of the queen (MARY of Medicis), on her
return to Holland; and he received the King’s license to remain beyond
the seas during his pleasure. [Sidenote: LATEST EMPLOYMENTS.] He
returned however to England in October of the same year. [Sidenote:
Rushworth, vol. iv, pp. 317, 318.] In the following February, a similar
ceremonial mission was his last official employment. He then conducted
Queen HENRIETTA MARIA on her journey into France, and took his own last
farewell of England. [Sidenote: 1642. February.] It was an unconscious
farewell. [Sidenote: Sir E. Walker, in MS. Harl., as before.] Nor does
his departure appear to have been dictated by any desire to shrink from
sacrifices on behalf of the cause with which—whether rightly or
wrongly—all his personal sympathies, as well as the political views of
his whole life, were bound up. At the hands of the first STUART he had
met with capricious favour, and with enduring injustice. By the second,
during several years, he was treated with marked and causeless
indignity; and then, during several other years, rewarded grudgingly for
zealous service. In exile, his contributions in support of the royal
cause were upon a scale which impoverished both himself and his
family.[33]

Such a fact is a conclusive proof of magnanimity of spirit, whatever may
be thought of its bearings in regard to political insight. [Sidenote:
COLONIZING EFFORTS OF LORD ARUNDEL.] Opinion is less likely to differ
with respect to exertions of quite another order which occasionally
occupied Lord ARUNDEL’S mind and energies during at least twenty years
of his political life.

One of the best known incidents in his varied career is also one of its
most honourable incidents. His friendship for RALEGH grew out of a deep
interest in colonization. And the calamitous issue of that famous voyage
to Guiana in 1617 which ARUNDEL had promoted was very far from inducing
him to abandon the earnest advocacy of a resumption, in subsequent
years, of the enterprise which RALEGH had had so much at heart. His
efforts were more than once repeated, but the same influences which
ruined RALEGH foiled the exertions of ARUNDEL and of those who worked
with him.

[Sidenote: _Grant Book_, James I, pp. 307, seqq. _Domest. Corresp._,
           James I, vol. cviii, § 85.]

He then turned his attention towards the wide field of colonial
enterprise which presented itself in New England. From the autumn of
1620 until the summer of 1635 he, from time to time, actively supported
the endeavours of the ‘Council for the Planting of New England.’
[Sidenote: _Proclamation Book_, May 15, 1620. (R. H.)] The Minute in
which that Council summed up the causes which induced it, at the date
last-named, to resign its charter is an instructive one. [Sidenote:
SURRENDER OF THE NEW ENGLAND CHARTER.] It expresses, in few words, the
views of Lord ARUNDEL and of his ablest fellows at the board:—‘We have
found,’ say the Councillors, in their final Minute, ‘that our endeavours
to advance the plantation of New England have been attended with
frequent troubles and great disappointments. We have been deprived of
near friends and faithful servants employed in that work. We have been
assaulted with sharp litigious questions before the Privy Council by the
Virginia Company, who had complained to Parliament that our Plantation
was a grievance.’ They proceed to say that a promising settlement which
had been established, under the governorship of Captain GORGES in
Massachusetts Bay, had been violently broken up by a body of speculative
intruders who, without the knowledge of the Council of New England, had
found means to obtain a royal ‘grant of some three thousand miles of the
sea-coast.’ Finding it by far too great a task, for their means, to
restore what had thus been brought to ruin, ARUNDEL, and his
fellow-councillors were constrained to resign their charter.

[Sidenote: _Colonial Papers_, vol. viii, § 58. (R. H.)]

Four years later the Earl formed an elaborate plan for the colonization
of Madagascar. But the events of 1639–40 soon made its effectual
prosecution hopeless.


The latest notice we have of the Earl of ARUNDEL, from the hand of any
eminent contemporary, occurs in the Diary of John EVELYN, and is dated
six months before the Earl’s death. [Sidenote: DEATH AT PADUA, 1646.] In
June of the preceding year (1645) EVELYN had paid a visit to Lord
ARUNDEL at his house in Padua, and had then accompanied him to a famous
garden in that city known as the ‘Garden of Mantua.’ [Sidenote: Evelyn,
_Diary_, vol. 1, p. 212.] They had also explored together some ancient
ruins lying near the Palace of Foscari all’ Arena. When EVELYN renewed
his visit in March, 1646, the Earl was no longer able to leave the
house. [Sidenote: _Ibid._, pp. 218, 219.] ‘I took my leave of him,’ says
the diarist, ‘in his bed, where I left that great and excellent man in
tears, on some private discourse of crosses that had befallen his
family, particularly the undutifulness of his grandson, Philip, turning
Dominican friar; and the misery of his country, now embroiled in civil
war. He caused his gentleman to give me directions, written with his own
hand, what curiosities I should inquire after in my journey; and
so—enjoyning me to write sometimes to him—I departed.’ The Earl died at
Padua on the 24th September, 1646, having entered into the sixty-second
year of his age. In compliance with the directions of his Will his
remains were brought to England and buried at Arundel.


It remains only to add a few particulars of the character and sources of
the splendid collections which the Earl of ARUNDEL, by the persistent
labours and the lavish expenditure of more than thirty years, had
amassed. The surviving materials for such an account are, however, very
fragmentary. [Sidenote: NOTICES OF THE ARUNDELIAN COLLECTIONS.] Those
which are of chief interest occur in the correspondence which passed
between the Earl and Sir Thomas ROE during the embassy of that eminent
diplomatist to the Ottoman Porte in the years 1626–1628.

The Earl’s zeal as a collector, and the public attention which his
personal successes in that character during his Italian travels had soon
attracted, naturally excited a like ambition on the part of several of
his contemporaries. Conspicuous in this respect were his brother-in-law
the Earl of PEMBROKE, and his political rival and enemy the Duke of
BUCKINGHAM. ARUNDEL’S success in amassing many fine pictures had, in
like manner, already attracted the attention of Prince CHARLES to that
peculiarly fascinating branch of collectorship.

[Sidenote: CORRESPONDENCE WITH SIR THOMAS ROE.]

When Sir Thomas ROE set out for Constantinople he was charged with
commissions to search for antiquities on BUCKINGHAM’S behalf, as well as
on Lord ARUNDEL’S. He was himself a novice in such inquiries. He had to
encounter excessive difficulties from the jealousy, and sometimes the
dishonesty, of the Turkish and other agents whom he was obliged to
employ. Most of them were stubborn in their belief that a search for old
marbles did but mask the pursuit of buried treasure of greater currency.
And to difficulties of this sort was added a standing fear that every
service rendered to the Earl Marshal might be esteemed an offence to the
powerful favourite at Whitehall.

To an urgent letter which he had received from ARUNDEL just as he was
embarking, Sir Thomas replied, from Constantinople, in January, 1622. ‘I
moved our Consul, Richard MILWARD, at Scio, whom I found prepared and
ready,’ he reports. ‘We conferred about “the Maid of Smirna” which he
cannot yet obteyne, without an especiall command [from the Porte]. I
brought with mee from Messina the Bishop of Andre, one of the islands of
the Arches, a man of good learning and great experience in these parts.
Hee assured mee that the search after old and good authors was utterly
vaine.... The last French ambassador had the last gleanings. Only of
some few he gave mee notice as of an old Tertullian, and a piece of
Chrisostome ... which may be procured to be copied, but not the
originall.... Concerning antiquities in marbles, there are many in
divers parts, but especially at Delphos, unesteemed here, and, I doubt
not, easy to be procured for the charge of digging and fetching, which
must be purposely undertaken. It is supposed that many statues are
buried to secure them from the envy of the Turks, and that, leave
obteyned, [they] would come to light, which I will endeavour as soon as
I am warm here.’ After mentioning that he had already procured some
coins, he adds, with amusing naïveté, ‘I have also a stone, taken out of
the old pallace of Priam in Troy, cutt in horned shape, but because I
neither can tell of what it is, nor hath it any other bewty but only the
antiquity and truth of being a peece of that ruined and famous building,
I will not presume to send it you. [Sidenote: Sir T. Roe to Lord
Arundel, 27 Jan., 1621 [O. S.]; _Negotiations_, p. 16.] Yet I have
delivered it to the same messenger, that your Lordship may see it and
throw it away.’

Two years afterwards the ambassador has to tell Lord ARUNDEL a mingled
story of failure and success: ‘The command you required for the Greeke
to be sent into Morea I have sollicitted [of] two viziers, one after the
other, butt they both rejected mee and gave answere, that it was no tyme
to graunt such priviledges. Neare to the port they have not so great
doubt and therefore I have prevailed with another, and [have] sent Mr.
MARKHAM, assisted with a letter from the Caplen Bassa, whose
jurisdiction extends to all the islands and sea-ports.... On Asia side,
about Troy, Zizicum, and all the way to Aleppo, are innumerable pillars,
statues, and tombstones of marble, with inscriptions in Greeke.
[Sidenote: _Ibid._, 10 May, 1623, _Negotiations_, p. 154.] These may be
fetcht at charge, and secrettly; butt yf wee ask leave it cannot be
obteyned; therefore Mr. MARKHAM will use discretion rather then power,
and so the Turks will bring them for their proffitt.’

ROE’S report encouraged Lord ARUNDEL to send an agent, named PETTY, on a
special exploring mission into various parts of the Ottoman Empire. The
agent thus selected was eminently fitted for his task, and showed
himself to be a man of untiring industry. Very soon after PETTY’S
arrival at Constantinople, Sir Thomas ROE wrote to the Duke of
BUCKINGHAM an account of his successful researches, and he prefaced it
with an acknowledgement that ‘by conference with Mr. PETTY, sent hither
by my Lord of ARUNDELL, I have somewhat bettered my sckill in such
figures. We have searched all this cyttye,’ he proceeds to say, ‘and
found nothing but upon one gate, called anciently _Porta Aurea_, built
by CONSTANTINE, bewtifyed with two mighty pillars, and upon the sides
and over it, twelve tables of fine marble cutt into historyes,—some of a
very great relevo, sett into the wall with small pillars as supporters.
Most of the figures are equall; some above the life some less.
[Sidenote: Roe to the Duke of Buckingham, 11 May, 1625, _Negotiations_,
pp. 386–7.] They are—in my eye—extremely decayed, but Mr. PETTY doth so
prayse them, as that he hath not seene much better in the great and
costly collections of Italye.... The fower to which I have most
affection ... are both brave and sweete.... The relevo so high that they
are almost statues, and doe but seeme to sticke to the ground.’

In October of the same year Sir THOMAS sent an elaborate account to the
Earl of ARUNDEL of the progress made by PETTY, and of his own exertions
to provide him with every possible facility. [Sidenote: THE PROPOSED
PARTITION OF ANCIENT MARBLES BETWEEN ARUNDEL AND BUCKINGHAM.] He told
the Earl of the difficulty of his own position towards the Duke of
BUCKINGHAM, and besought him to admit of an arrangement by which the
product of the joint exertions of ambassador and agent should be divided
between the competitors. PETTY, he reports, ‘hath visited Pergamo,
Samos, Ephesus, and some other places, where he hath made your Lordship
great provisions.... I have given him forceable commands, and letters of
recommendation from the Patriarch. I have bene free and open to him in
whatsoever I knewe, and so I will continue for your Lordship’s command.
But your Lordship knowing that I have received the like from the Duke of
BUCKINGHAM, and engaged my word to doe him service hee might judge it
want of witt, or will, or creditt, if Mr. PETTY, who could doe nothing
but by mee, should take all things before or from mee. Therefore to
avoid all emulation, and that I might stand clear before two so great
and honourable patrons, I thought I had made agreement with him for all
our advantages. Therefore we resolved to take down those sixe mentioned
relevos on _Porta Aurea_, and I proceeded so far as I offered 600
dollars for four of them, to bee divided between his Grace and your
Lordship by lotts. And if your Lordship liked not the price, Mr. PETTY
had his choice to forsake them. But now, I perceave, he hath entitled
your Lordship to them all by some right that, if I could gett them, it
were an injury to divide them.... But I am sorry wee strive for the
shadowe. Your Lordship may beleeve an honest man, and your servant, I
have tried the bassa,—the capteyne of the Castle,—the overseer of the
Grand Signor’s works,—the soldiours that make that watch,—and none of
them dare meddle. They [the sculptures] stand between two mighty pillars
of marble, on other tables of marble supported with less pillars, uppon
the cheife port of the Citty, the entrance by the Castle called “The
Seaven Towres,” which was never opened since the Greeke Emperour lost
it, but a counterscarfe and another wall built before it.... There is
butt one way left in the world, which I will practice.... [Sidenote: Roe
to Arundel, 30 Oct, 1625; _Negotiations_, pp. 444–446.] If I gett them
not, I will pronounce [that] no man, no ambassadour, shall ever bee able
to doe it;—except, also, the Grand Signor, for want, will sell the
Castle.’

Just before the date of this letter PETTY had suffered shipwreck on the
coast of Asia, when returning from Samos. Together with his papers and
personal baggage, he lost the fruits of long and successful researches.
But his inexhaustible energies enabled him to recover what, to the men
about him, seemed to have hopelessly perished. He found means to raise
the buried marbles from the wreck. [Sidenote: _Ibid._, 7 April, 1626, p.
495.] ‘There was never man,’ wrote Sir Thomas ROE, with the frank
admiration of a congenial spirit, ‘so fitted to an employment; that
encounters all accidents with so unwearied patience; eates with Greekes
on their worst dayes; lyes with fishermen on plancks, at the best; is
all thinges to all men, that he may obteyne his ends, which are your
Lordship’s service.’

To Dr. GOADE, one of the chaplains of Archbishop ABBOT, Sir Thomas ROE
continued the narrative of PETTY’S zealous researches, and of the
success which attended them. ‘By my means,’ he wrote, ‘Mr. PETTY had
admittance into the best library known of Greece, where are loades of
old manuscripts, and hee used so fine arte, with the helpe of some of my
servants, that hee conveyed away twenty two. I thought I should have had
my share, but hee was for himselfe. Hee is a good chooser; saw all, or
most, and tooke, I thincke, those that were and wilbe of greate esteeme.
Hee speaketh sparingly of such a bootye, but could not conteyne sometyme
to discover with joy his treasure.... I meant to have a review of that
librarye, but hee gave it such a blow under my trust that, since, it
hath been locked up under two keys, whereof one kept by the townsmen
that have interest or oversight of the monastery, so that I could do no
good.... [Sidenote: _Ib._, p. 500.] My hope is to deale with the
Patriarch, and not to trust to myselfe, and to chances.’

In November, 1626, Sir Thomas further informed the Duke of BUCKINGHAM
that ‘Mr. PETTY hath raked together two hundred peices [of sculpture],
all broken, or few [of them] entyre.... Hee had this advantage, that hee
went himselfe into all the islands, and tooke all he saw, and is now gon
to Athens.’ [Sidenote: _Ib._, p. 570; comp. pp. 619; 647; 692, and 764.]
In subsequent letters and despatches the diplomatist returns often to
this unofficial branch of his duties, and makes it very apparent that
PETTY’S zeal had, for a time, spoiled the market of the agents who
followed in his track.

[Sidenote: LORD ARUNDEL’S RESEARCHES IN ITALY.]

Lord ARUNDEL was not less ably served by the factors and representatives
whom he employed in Italy, in Germany, and in the Netherlands. But the
story is far too long to be told in detail. [Sidenote: MSS. at Norfolk
House; printed, in Tierney’s _Arundel_, p. 489.] Their success in
collecting choice pictures and other works of art was so conspicuous
that when one of them had an interview with RUBENS at Antwerp, to give a
commission from Lord ARUNDEL, the great painter—himself, it will be
remembered, an eminent collector also—said to him: ‘I regard the Earl in
the light of an evangelist to the world of art, and as the great
supporter of our profession.’ In these artistic commissions and
researches William TRUMBULL, Edward NORGATE, Sir John BOROUGH, and Sir
Isaac WAKE, especially distinguished themselves. Their correspondence
with Lord ARUNDEL is spread over a long series of years, and it abounds
with curious illustrations of ‘the world of art,’ as it lived and moved
in the earlier part of the seventeenth century.

Among those entire collections which the Earl purchased in bulk, two are
more particularly notable—the museum, namely, of Daniel NICE, and the
library of the family of PIRCKHEIMER of Nuremberg.

NICE’S Museum was especially rich in medals and gems. [Sidenote: Evelyn
to Pepys; _Diary and Corresp._, vol. iii, p. 300.] If EVELYN’S
information about the circumstances of that acquisition was accurate, it
cost the Earl the sum—enormous, at that date—of ten thousand pounds. I
cannot, however, but suspect that into that statement some error of
figures has crept.

The acquisition of the PIRCKHEIMER Library was made by the Earl himself,
during his diplomatic mission into Germany on the affairs of the
Palatinate. In this collection some of the choicest of the Arundelian
MSS. which now enrich the British Museum were comprised. Its foundation
had been laid more than a hundred and thirty years before the date of
the Earl’s purchase. But part of the library of the first founder had
passed into the possession of the City of Nuremberg. The collection
which Lord ARUNDEL acquired was rich both in classical manuscripts and
in the materials of mediæval history.

The liberality with which these varied treasures, as they successively
arrived in London, were made accessible to scholars was in harmony with
the open-handedness by means of which they had been amassed. For a few
years Arundel House was itself an anticipatory ‘British Museum.’ Then
came the civil war. But the injury which the ARUNDEL collections
sustained from the insecurity and commotions of a turbulent time is very
insignificant, in comparison with that sustained, after the Restoration,
through the ignorance and the indolence of an unworthy inheritor.

[Sidenote: THE SUCCESSORS OF LORD ARUNDEL.]

The immediate heir and successor of Earl Thomas survived his father less
than six years. He died at Arundel House in April, 1652, leaving several
sons, of whom the two eldest, Thomas and Henry, became successively
Earls of Arundel and Dukes of Norfolk. The first of these was restored
to the dukedom in 1660. But the whole of his life, after attaining
manhood, was passed in Italy and under the heavy affliction of impaired
mental faculties, following upon an attack of brain-fever which had
seized him at Padua, in 1645. He never recovered, but died in the city
in which the disease had stricken him, lingering until the year 1677. It
was in consequence of this calamity that the inheritance of a large
portion of the Arundelian collections, and also the possession of
Arundel House in London, passed from Earl Henry-Frederick to his second
son, Henry.


We learn from many passages both in the Diary and in the Letters of John
EVELYN that, under the new owner, Arundel House and its contents were so
neglected as, at times, to lie at the mercy of a crowd of rapacious
parasites. In one place he speaks of the mansion as being infested by
‘painters, panders, and misses.’ In another he describes the library as
suffering by repeated depredations. He remonstrated with the owner, and
at length obtained from him a gift of the library for the newly-founded
Royal Society, and a gift of part of the marbles for the University of
Oxford. In his Diary he thus narrates the circumstances under which
these benefactions were made:—

[Sidenote: GIFT OF THE ARUNDEL LIBRARY TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY;]

Having mentioned that on the destruction of the meeting-place of the
Royal Society, its members ‘were invited by Mr. HOWARD to sit at Arundel
House in the Strand,’ he proceeds to say that Mr. HOWARD, ‘at my
instigation, likewise bestowed on the Society that noble library which
his grandfather especially, and his ancestors, had collected. This
gentleman had so little inclination to books that it was the
preservation of them from embezzlement.’ [Sidenote: Evelyn, _Diary,
&c._, vol. ii, p. 20.] Elsewhere he says that not a few books had
actually been lost before, by his interference, the bulk of the
collection was thus saved. The gift to the Royal Society was made at the
close of the year 1666.

[Sidenote: AND THAT OF THE MARBLES TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.]

In September of the following year this entry occurs in the same
Diary:—‘[I went] to London, on the 19th, with Mr. Henry HOWARD of
Norfolk, of whom I obtained the gift of his Arundelian Marbles,—those
celebrated and famous inscriptions, Greek and Latin, gathered with so
much cost and industry from Greece by his illustrious grandfather the
magnificent Earl of ARUNDEL.... When I saw these precious monuments
miserably neglected, and scattered up and down about the garden and
other parts of Arundel House, and how exceedingly the corrosive air of
London impaired them, I procured him to bestow them on the University of
Oxford. This he was pleased to grant me, and now gave me the key of the
gallery, with leave to mark all those stones, urns, altars, &c., and
whatever I found had inscriptions on them, that were not statues. This I
did, and getting them removed and piled together, with those which were
encrusted in the garden-walls, I sent immediately letters to the
Vice-Chancellor of what I had procured.’ [Sidenote: _Ib._, p. 29. (edit.
1850.)] On the 8th of October he records a visit from the President of
Trinity, ‘to thank me, in the name of the Vice-Chancellor and the whole
University, and to receive my directions what was to be done to show
their gratitude to Mr. HOWARD.’

Ten months later, EVELYN records that he was called to London to wait
upon the Duke of NORFOLK. The Duke, he says, ‘having, at my sole
request, bestowed the Arundelian Library on the Royal Society, sent to
me to take charge of the books and remove them.... Many of these books
had been presented by Popes, Cardinals, and great persons, to the Earls
of ARUNDEL and Dukes of NORFOLK; and the late magnificent Earl of
ARUNDEL bought a noble library in Germany which is in this collection.
[Sidenote: _Ib._, pp. 122, 123.] I should not, for the honour I bear the
family, have persuaded the Duke to part with these, had I not seen how
negligent he was of them; suffering the priests and everybody to carry
away and dispose of what they pleased, so that abundance of rare things
are irrecoverably gone.’

A curious narrative communicated, almost a century afterwards, to the
Society of Antiquaries, by James THEOBALD, proves that in this respect
the gallery of antiquities—notwithstanding the noble benefaction to
Oxford—was even more unfortunate than the library of books. At the time
when these gifts were obtained for Oxford and for the Royal Society,
another extensive portion of the original collections had already passed
into the possession of William HOWARD, Viscount Stafford, and had been
removed to Stafford House. Lord STAFFORD was a younger son of the
collector, and appears to have received the choice artistic treasures
which long adorned his town residence by the gift of his mother.
[Sidenote: DISPERSION OF PART OF THE ARUNDEL MARBLES.] According to
EVELYN, Lady ARUNDEL also ‘scattered and squandered away innumerable
other rarities, ... whilst my Lord was in Italy.’ But in this instance
he appears to speak by hearsay, rather than from personal knowledge.
TIERNEY, the able and painstaking historian of the family, asserts that
its records contain no proof whatever of the justice of the charge.
[Sidenote: _History of Arundel_, p. 509.] And he traces the origin of
EVELYN’S statement to a passage in one of the letters of Francis JUNIUS,
in which it is said of Lady ARUNDEL that she ‘carried over a vast
treasure of rarities, and convaighed them away out of England.’ Even to
JUNIUS, notwithstanding his connection with the family, the charge may
have come but as a rumour.

Be that as it may, the subsequent dispersion of many treasures of art
which the Earl had collected with such unwearied pains and lavish
expenditure is unquestionable.

Lord Henry HOWARD, it has been shown, excepted the ‘statues’ from his
gift to the University. They remained at Arundel House, but so little
care was bestowed upon their preservation that when the same owner
afterwards obtained an Act of Parliament empowering him to build streets
on part of the site of Arundel House and Gardens, many of these statues
were broken by the throwing upon or near them of heaps of rubbish from
the excavations made, in the years 1678 and 1679, for the new buildings.
These broken statues and fragments retained beauty enough to attract
from time to time the admiration of educated eyes when such eyes chanced
to fall upon them. Those which long adorned the seat of the Earls of
POMFRET, at Easton Neston, in Oxfordshire, were purchased by Sir William
FERMOR, and were given to the University of Oxford by one of his
descendants. Others which are, or were, at Fawley Court, near Henley,
were purchased by Mr. FREEMAN. Others, again, were bought by Edmund
WALLER, the poet, for the decoration of Beaconsfield.

Still more strange was the fate which befell certain other marbles which
Lord Henry (by that time Duke of NORFOLK) caused to be removed from
Arundel House to a piece of waste ground belonging to the manor of
Kennington. These the owner seems to have regarded as little better than
lumber. It is therefore the less surprising that his servants took so
little care of them as to suffer them to be buried, in their turn,
beneath rubbish which had been brought to Kennington from St. Paul’s,
during the rebuilding of that cathedral. By-and-bye, precious marbles,
excavated amidst so many difficulties arising from Turkish barbarism in
Asia Minor, had to be re-excavated in England. Many years after their
second burial, some rumour of the circumstance came to the knowledge of
the Earl of BURLINGTON, and by his efforts and care something was
recovered. But the researches then made were, in some way, interrupted.
They were afterwards resumed by Lord PETRE. [Sidenote: Narrative by
Theobald; printed in ANECDOTES OF HOWARD FAMILY, pp. 101–120.] ‘After
six days’ of excavation and search, says an eye-witness, ‘just as the
workmen were going to give over, they fell upon something which gave
them hopes. Upon further opening the ground they discovered six
statues, ... some of a colossal size, the drapery of which was thought
to be exceeding fine.’ These went eventually to Worksop.

Some Arundelian marbles were, it is said, converted into rollers for
bowling-greens. The fragments of others lie in or beneath the
foundations of the houses in Norfolk Street and the streets adjacent.

The Stafford-House portion of the collections—which included pictures,
drawings, vases, medals, and many miscellaneous antiquities of great
curiosity—was sold by auction in 1720. At the prices of that day the
sale produced no less a sum than £8852.

The Arundelian cabinet of cameos and intaglios, now so famous under the
name of ‘The Marlborough Gems,’ was offered to the Trustees of the
British Museum for sale, at an early period in the history of the
institution. The price asked by the then possessor, the Duchess Dowager
of NORFOLK, was £10,000. But at that time the funds of the nascent
institution were inadequate to the purchase.


It affords conspicuous proof of the marvellous success which had
attended Lord ARUNDEL’S researches to find that the remnants, so to
speak, of his collections retain an almost inestimable value, after so
many losses and loppings. They are virtually priceless, even if we leave
out of view all that is now private property.

When the Arundelian MSS. were transferred, in the years 1831 and 1832,
to the British Museum, their money value—for the purposes of the
exchange as between the Royal Society and the Museum Trustees—was
estimated (according to the historian of the Royal Society) at the sum
of £3559. [Sidenote: Weld, _History of the Royal Society_, vol. ii, pp.
448, 449.] This sum was given by the Trustees, partly in money, and
partly in printed books of which the Museum possessed two or more than
two copies. The whole of the money received by the Royal Society was
expended by its Council in the purchase of other printed books. So that
both Libraries were benefited by the exchange.

It may deserve remark that a somewhat similar transfer had been
contemplated and discussed during the lifetime of the original donor.
The project, at that period, was to make an exchange between the Royal
Society and the University of Oxford. The University induced EVELYN to
recommend Lord Henry HOWARD to sanction an exchange of such MSS. ‘as
concern the civil law, theology, and other scholastic learning, for
mathematical, philosophical, and such other books as may prove most
useful to the design and institution of the Society.’ [Sidenote: Evelyn
to Howard; 14 March, 1669.] But at that time, after much conference, it
was otherwise determined.

The heraldical and genealogical books belonging to the original ARUNDEL
Library were given, at the date of the first transfer of the bulk of the
collection to the Royal Society, to the Heralds’ College. They still
form an important part of the College Library, and they include valuable
materials for the history of the family of HOWARD.




                               CHAPTER V.
                   THE COLLECTOR OF THE HARLEIAN MSS.

      ‘A soul supreme, in each hard instance tried,
      Above all pain, all passion, and all pride,
      The rage of power, the blast of public breath,
      The lust of lucre, and the dread of death.—
          POPE, _Epistle to Robert, Earl of Oxford, in the Tower_.

  ‘Whether this man ever had any determined view besides that of
  raising his family is, I believe, a problematical question in the
  world. My opinion is that he never had any other.... Oxford fled
  from Court covered with shame, the object of the derision of the
  Whigs and of the indignation of the Tories.’—BOLINGBROKE, _Letter to
  Sir W. Wyndham_.

  _The_ HARLEY _Family.—Parliamentary and Official Career of Robert_
      HARLEY, _Earl of Oxford.—The Party Conflicts under Queen_
      ANNE.—_Robert_ HARLEY _and Jonathan_ SWIFT.—HARLEY _and the Court
      of the Stuarts.—Did_ HARLEY _conspire to restore the
      Pretender?—History of the Harleian Library.—The Life and
      Correspondence of Humphrey_ WANLEY.


[Sidenote: BOOK I, Chap. V. THE COLLECTOR OF THE HARLEIAN MSS.]

Robert HARLEY was the eldest son of Sir Edward HARLEY, of Brampton
Bryan, in Herefordshire, by his second wife, Abigail, daughter of
Nathaniel STEPHENS, of Essington, in Gloucestershire. He was born at his
father’s town-house in Bow Street, Covent Garden, in the year 1661.

[Sidenote: THE HARLEY FAMILY.]

The HARLEYS had been a family of considerable note in Herefordshire
during several centuries. Many generations of them had sat in the House
of Commons, sometimes for boroughs, but not infrequently for their
county. Sir Edward sided with the Parliamentarians during the Civil
Wars. He was, however, one of those moderate statesmen who, in the words
of a once-celebrated clerical adherent and martyr of their party,
Christopher LOVE, judged it ‘an ill way to cure the body politic, by
cutting off the political head.’ In due time he also became one of those
‘secluded members’ of the Long Parliament who published the
‘Remonstrance’ of 1656, and who were then as strenuous—though far less
successful—in opposing what they deemed to be the tyranny of the
Protector, as they had formerly been in opposing the tyranny of the
King. Sir Edward HARLEY promoted the restoration of CHARLES THE SECOND,
and sat in all the Parliaments of that reign. He distinguished himself
as a defender of liberty of conscience in unpropitious times; and he
won, in a high degree, the respect of men who sat beside him in the
House of Commons, but were rarely counted with him upon a division.

The first public act of Robert HARLEY of which a record has been kept is
his appearance with his father, in 1688, at the head of an armed band of
tenantry and retainers, assembled in Herefordshire to support the cause
of the Prince of ORANGE, when the news had come of the Prince’s arrival
in Torbay.

[Sidenote: HARLEY’S PARLIAMENTARY CAREER.]

In the first Parliament of WILLIAM and MARY Robert HARLEY sat for
Tregony. To the second he was returned by the burgesses of New Radnor.
The first reported words of his which appear in the debates were spoken
in the course of a discussion upon the heads of a ‘Bill of Indemnity.’
‘I think,’ said he on this occasion, ‘that the King in his message has
led us. He shews us how to proceed for satisfaction of justice. There is
a crime [of which] God says, He will not pardon it. [Sidenote: Grey’s
_Debates_, vol. ix, p. 247.] ’Tis the shedding of innocent blood. A
gentleman said that the West was “a shambles.” What made that shambles?
It began in law. It was a common discourse among the Ministers that “the
King cannot have justice.”’ The debate on the Bill of Indemnity of 1690
may be looked upon as, in some sort, the foreshadowing of a long spell
of political conflict, in which Robert HARLEY was to take a conspicuous
share. Twenty seven years afterwards the strife of parties was to enter
on a new stage. Some of the men who acted as the political Mentors of
the new member of 1689–90 were to live long enough to clamour for his
execution as a traitor, and, on their failure to produce any adequate
proof that he was guilty, were to console themselves by insisting on his
exclusion from the ‘Act of Grace’ of 1717.


HARLEY won his earliest distinctions in political life by assiduous,
patient, and even drudging labour on questions of finance. [Sidenote:
MS. Harl. 7524, f. 139, seqq.] During six years, at least, he worked
zealously as one of the ‘Commissioners for stating the Public Accounts
of the Kingdom.’ In parliamentary debates on the public establishments
and expenditure he took a considerable share. As a speaker he had no
brilliancy. His usual tone and manner, we are told, were somewhat
listless and drawling. But occasionally he would speak with a certain
pith and incisiveness. [Sidenote: Grey’s _Debates_, vol. x, p. 268.]
Thus, in November, 1692, in a discussion on naval affairs, he said—‘We
have had a glorious victory at sea. But although we have had the honour,
the enemy has had the profit. They take our merchant ships.’ Again, in
the following year, when supporting the Bill for more frequent
Parliaments, he spoke thus:—‘A standing Parliament can never be a true
representative. Men are much altered after they have been here some
time. They are no longer the same men that were sent up to us.’

Of the truth of that saying, in one of its senses, HARLEY became himself
a salient instance. Bred a Whig, and during his early years acting
commonly with the Whigs, his party ties were gradually relaxed. By
temper and mental constitution he was always inclined to moderate
measures. As the party waxed fiercer and fiercer, and as its policy came
to be more and more obviously the weapon of its hatreds, HARLEY soon lay
open to the reproach of being a trimmer. The growing breach became
evident enough in the course of the debates on the treason of Sir John
FENWICK, in November, 1696. [Sidenote: HIS SPEECH ON THE ATTAINDER OF
FENWICK.] He then argued, with force and earnestness, that atrocity in a
crime is no justification or excuse for violence and unscrupulousness in
a prosecutor. Some of his applications of that sound doctrine are very
questionable. But it is to his honour that he preached moderation with
consistency. He did not bend it to the exigencies of the party he was
approaching, any more than to those of the party from which he was
gradually withdrawing himself.

Meanwhile he had signalised his powers in another way. By long study he
had acquired a considerable knowledge of parliamentary law and
precedent. He had taken his full share in the work of committees. In
February, 1701, he was proposed for the Speakership, in opposition to
Sir Thomas LITTLETON. He had a large body of supporters, nor were they
found exclusively in the Tory ranks. The King sent for LITTLETON, and
told him that he thought it would be for the public service that he
should give way to the choice of Mr. HARLEY in his stead. But the
election was carried by a majority of only four votes. ‘It is a great
encouragement to his party,’ wrote TOWNSHEND to WALPOLE, who was then in
the country, ‘and no small mortification to the Whigs.’ HARLEY retained
the Speakership until the third session of the first Parliament of Queen
ANNE.

Whatever may have been the ‘mortification of the Whigs’ at his
elevation, it is certain that at this time HARLEY laboured zealously for
the establishment of the Protestant succession to the throne. [Sidenote:
HARLEY AND THE ACT OF SUCCESSION.] [Sidenote: 1701. March.] In the
preparation, facilitating, and passing of that measure he took so
influential a part that, afterwards, he was able to say, in the face of
his opponents, when they were most numerous and most embittered, ‘I had
the largest hand in settling the succession of the House of Hanover.’
The assertion met with no denial.

It is evident, too, that the qualities for which he was already reviled
by extreme partisans on both sides were—in their measure—real
qualifications, both for the office of Speaker and for the special task
of that day. The party leaders who were then most eagerly followed were
men bent on crushing their adversaries as well as conquering them. It
was inevitable that by such men HARLEY’S moderation towards opponents
should be regarded as more cajolery. And of that unhappy quality he was
destined, at a later day, to acquire but too much.


[Sidenote: THE SECRETARYSHIP OF STATE, 1704.]

On the 27th of April, 1704, Mr. Speaker HARLEY was sworn of the Privy
Council. On the 18th of May he received the seals as one of the
Principal Secretaries of State. [Sidenote: _Privy Council Register_,
Anne, vol. ii, p. 102.] He had scarcely entered on the duties of his
office before he was busied with precautionary measures in Scotland
against an anticipated Jacobite insurrection, as well as with a large
share of the foreign correspondence. But just at that busy time he found
means to begin—though he could not then complete—an act of charity which
is memorable both on the recipient’s account and on the score of some
well-known political consequences which eventually grew thereout.

At the time when HARLEY became a member of the GODOLPHIN administration
Daniel DE FOE lay in Newgate, under a conviction for seditious libel,
committed in the publication of his famous tract, _The Shortest Way with
the Dissenters_. [Sidenote: HARLEY’S PROTECTION OF DE FOE, 1704.] The
new Secretary sent a confidential person to the prison with instructions
to visit DE FOE, and to ask him, in the Minister’s name, ‘What can I do
for you?’ DE FOE’S characteristic reply must be given in his own
words:—‘In return for this kind and generous message I immediately took
pen and ink, and writ the story of the blind man in the Gospel, ... to
whom our blessed Lord put the question, “What wilt thou that I should do
unto thee?” who—as if he had made it strange that such a question should
be asked, or as if he had said, “Lord, dost thou see that I am blind,
and yet ask me what thou shalt do for me?”—my answer is plain in my
misery, “Lord that I may receive my sight.” I needed not to make the
application.’

[Sidenote: De Foe, _Appeal to Honour and Justice_, p. 11.]

DE FOE then adds:—‘From this time, as I learned afterwards, this noble
person made it his business to have my case represented to Her Majesty,
and methods taken for my deliverance.’ But the bigots who had caused a
malicious prosecution succeeded in delaying the successful issue of the
Secretary’s efforts during four months. With HARLEY the sufferer had had
no previous acquaintance. The one designation under which he ever
afterwards spoke of him was ‘my first benefactor.’ And the gratitude was
lifelong.

In part, HARLEY owed his new office to the personal credit which he had
won with the Queen during his Speakership; and in part, also, to the
friendship of MARLBOROUGH. On receiving the news of his appointment the
Duke wrote to him, from the Camp:—‘I am sensible of the advantage I
shall reap by it, in having so good a friend near Her Majesty’s person
to present in the truest light my faithful endeavours for her service.’
[Sidenote: Marlborough to Harley; 13 June, 1704.] But their intercourse,
if it ever attained to true cordiality at all, was cordial for a very
short time. Brief confidence was followed by long distrust. HARLEY
strove to strengthen himself by the use of channels of Court influence
which were utterly inimical to the MARLBOROUGH connection. His efforts
to make himself independent of that connection did not, however, lessen
the prodigality of his assurances of friendship and fidelity.

His political position thus became that of a man who was exposed to the
attacks of many bitter enemies among the statesmen with whom he had
begun his career, without being able to rely upon any hearty support
from those with whom he now shared the conduct of affairs. He might
count, indeed, on assailants from the ranks both of the extreme Whigs
and the extreme Tories, whilst from most of his own colleagues of the
intermediate party he would have to meet the greater danger of a
lukewarm defence. In such a position the attack was not likely to be
long waited for.

Easiness of nature, and a tendency to alternate fits of close
application with fits of indolence, always characterised him. And those
qualities had an incidental consequence which opened to his opponents a
tempting opportunity. HARLEY was habitually less careful of official
papers than it behoved a Secretary of State to be.[34] He was also at
all times prone to place a premature and undue confidence in his
dependants. In 1707, William GREGG, one of the clerks in his office,
abused his confidence by secretly copying some letters of the highest
importance and by selling the copies to the Court of France.

[Sidenote: THE CRIME OF WILLIAM GREGG, AND THE USE MADE OF IT BY
           HARLEY’S ENEMIES.]

The treachery was discovered by the Secretary himself, and such steps
were taken to lessen the mischief as the case admitted. Much excitement
naturally followed upon the publicity of the crime. The least scrupulous
of HARLEY’S enemies conceived a hope that the traitor who had served the
public enemy for a bribe might also be tempted to ruin his master for
another and greater bribe. Means were found to convey to GREGG strong
assurances of a certain escape, and of a wealthy exile, if he would but
declare that he had copied the despatches, and forwarded the
transcripts, by the Secretary’s direction. Pending the attempt, they
circulated throughout the country a report that such a declaration had
actually been made, and that the Secretary was to be impeached. But the
clerk, instead of betraying his master, exposed his temptors. [Sidenote:
Appendix to Gregg’s Trial, &c., in _State Trials_, vol. xii, pp. 694
seqq.] His first emphatic declaration of HARLEY’S innocence was repeated
immediately before his death in these words:—‘As I shall answer it
before the judgment seat of Christ, the gentleman aforesaid [_i. e._
HARLEY] was not privy to my writing to France, neither directly nor
indirectly.’

HARLEY himself, and also his nearest friends, were wont to speak of this
affair as one that had brought his life into real peril. It is certain
that the incident and its consequences helped materially to make his
continuance in office impossible. But he struggled hard.

Meanwhile, the dissensions in the Ministry were daily increasing.
[Sidenote: DISMISSED FROM OFFICE. Feb., 1708.] They became so bitter as
to lead to personal altercations at the Council Board, even when the
Queen herself was present. On one such occasion (February, 1708)
GODOLPHIN and MARLBOROUGH went together to the Queen a little before the
hour at which a Cabinet Council had been summoned. They told her they
must quit her service, since they saw that she was resolved not to part
with HARLEY. ‘She seemed,’ says Bishop BURNET, ‘not much concerned at
the Lord GODOLPHIN’S offering to lay down; and it was believed to be a
part of HARLEY’S new scheme to remove him. But she was much touched with
the Duke of MARLBOROUGH’S offering to quit, and studied, with some soft
expressions, to divert him from that resolution; but he was firm; and
she did not yield to them.’ [Sidenote: Burnet, _History of his own
Time_, vol. v, pp. 343, 344 (edit. 1823).] So they both went away,
without attending the Council, ‘to the wonder of the whole Court.’

When the Council met, it became part of HARLEY’S duty as Secretary to
deliver to the Queen a memorial relating to the conduct of the war. The
Duke of SOMERSET rose, as the Secretary was about to read it, and with
the words ‘If Your Majesty suffers that fellow’ (pointing to HARLEY) ‘to
treat affairs of the war without the General’s advice, I cannot serve
you,’ abruptly left the Council. [Sidenote: Swift to Archbishop King, 12
Feb. 1708. Comp. Burnet, as above.] ‘The rest,’ according to BURNET,
‘looked so cold and sullen that the Cabinet Council was soon at an end.’

Whilst a result which—for the time—had thus become so plainly
inevitable, remained still doubtful, HARLEY had imposed on himself the
humiliating task of assuring the Duke of MARLBOROUGH of the honesty of
his former professions of attachment. [Sidenote: HARLEY’S DISMISSAL FROM
THE SECRETARYSHIP. Feb., 1708.] ‘I have never writ anything to you,’
said he, ‘but what I really thought and intended.’ And then he went on
to say:—‘I have for near two years seen the storm coming upon me, and
now I find I am to be sacrificed to sly insinuations and groundless
jealousies.’ These words were written in September, 1707. On the 10th of
February in the following year, MARLBOROUGH had, at length, the
satisfaction of writing from St. James’ to a foreign correspondent:—‘Mr.
Secretary HARLEY has this afternoon given up the seals of office to the
Queen. Between ourselves he richly deserves what has befallen him.’[35]
[Sidenote: Marlborough to Count Wratislaw, 10 Feb., 1708.] Among the two
or three friends who went out with HARLEY was Henry ST. JOHN.

For the next two years and a half, HARLEY’S principal occupation was to
prepare the way for a return, in kind, of the defeat thus inflicted upon
him. [Sidenote: THE INTRIGUE AGAINST THE GODOLPHIN MINISTRY. 1708–1710.]
Some of the steps by which he achieved his end are among the most
familiar portions of our political history. But from the necessities of
the case it has been, and probably it must continue to be, one of those
portions in which the basis of truth can scarcely, by any researches
that are now possible, be separated from the large admixture of
falsehood built thereon by party animosities.

His own correspondence shows that strong hopes of success in the effort
were entertained within eight months of his dismissal. It shows also
that the channel employed, unsuccessfully, in 1708, was that which
became an effectual one in 1710.

Early in October, HARLEY received from the Court an unsigned letter in
which these passages occur:—‘The Queen stands her ground and refuses to
enter into any capitulation with the [Whig Lords]. She has not hitherto
consented to offer or hear of any terms. The Lord T[reasure]r desired
she might allow him to treat with ’em, and the Duke of S[OMERSE]T was
employed to persuade her, but she was inflexible. The Lord Treasurer
offered to resign the Staff, but she would neither take the Staff nor
advice from him, and he went to Newmarket without getting any powers or
leave to treat.... [Sidenote: Harley Corresp. in MS. Harl. 7526, f.
237.] Your friend cannot answer for the event.... I will add no more but
that your friend thinks your being here is very necessary, and that Her
Majesty ... would be the better of assistance and good advice.’

It was not, however, until the 8th of August, 1710, that the GODOLPHIN
Ministry was dismissed. Two days afterwards, HARLEY was made Chancellor
of the Exchequer; the Treasury being put into commission.

[Sidenote: THE CHANCELLORSHIP OF THE EXCHEQUER. 1710, August.]

He entered upon that office amidst enormous obstacles. His enemies were
unable to deny that his exertions to overcome the difficulties in his
path were marked by financial ability, and by a large measure of
temporary success. But as little can it be denied that the immediate
triumph laid the groundwork of public troubles to come.

His own account of the situation of affairs, and of the methods taken to
improve it, must, of course, be read with the due allowance. The pith of
it lies in these sentences:—‘The army was in the field. There was no
money in the Treasury. None of the remitters would contract again. The
Bank had recently refused to lend the Lord Treasurer GODOLPHIN a hundred
thousand pounds. The Army and Navy Services were in debt nearly eleven
millions. The Civil List owed £600,000. The annual deficit was, at
least, a hundred and twenty-four thousand pounds. The new Commissioners
of the Treasury, nevertheless, made provision, within a few days of
their appointment, for paying the Army by the greatest remittance that
was ever known. [Sidenote: _Letter to the Queen_, June 9, 1714. (_Parl.
Hist._, vol. vii, App.)] When Parliament met, on the 27th of November,
funds had been prepared for the service of the year, and a plan was
submitted for easing the nation of nine millions of debt.’

HARLEY was scarcely warm in his new office before he made the
acquaintance of SWIFT, then full of ambitious though vague schemes for
the future, and very angry with the leaders of the Whig party for the
coolness with which his proffers, both of counsel and of service, had
lately been received.

[Sidenote: EARLY INTERCOURSE WITH SWIFT. 1710–1711.]

At the time of his introduction to HARLEY, SWIFT’S immediate business in
London consisted in soliciting from the Government a remission of
first-fruits to the clergy of Ireland. His nominal colleagues in that
trust were the Bishops of Ossory and Killaloe, but the whole weight of
the negotiations rested upon SWIFT’S shoulders. His treatment of it soon
displayed his parts. The Minister saw that he was both able and willing
to render efficient political service. To the intercourse so begun we
owe a life-like portraiture of HARLEY, under all his aspects, and in
every mood of mind. Nor is the depicter himself anywhere seen under
stronger light than in those passages of his journal which narrate, from
day to day, the rise and fall of the Government founded on the unstable
alliance between HARLEY and ST. JOHN.

Of their first interview SWIFT notes:—‘I was brought privately to Mr.
HARLEY, who received me with the greatest respect and kindness
imaginable.’ Of the second:—‘We were two hours alone.... He read a
memorial I had drawn up, and put it into his pocket to show the Queen;
told me the measures he would take, ... told me he must bring Mr. ST.
JOHN and me acquainted; and spoke so many things of personal kindness
and esteem for me, that I am inclined half to believe what some friends
have told me, that he would do everything to bring me over.’ [Sidenote:
_Journal to Stella_; in Works, 2nd Edit., vol. ii, pp. 33; 37; 80.] When
the promised interview with Secretary ST. JOHN comes to be diarized in
its turn:—‘He told me,’ says SWIFT, ‘among other things, that Mr. HARLEY
complained he could keep nothing from me, I had the way so much of
getting into him.’ I knew that was a refinement.... It is hard to see
these great men using me like one who was their betters, and the puppies
with you in Ireland hardly regarding me.’ Not many weeks had passed
before SWIFT’S pen was at work in defence of the measures of the
Government with an energy, a practical and versatile ability, of which,
up to that date, there had been scarcely an example, brilliant as was
the roll of contemporary writers who had taken sides in the political
strife. SWIFT’S defects, as well as his merits, armed him for his task.

Nor had he been long engaged upon it before he marked, very distinctly,
the character both of the rewards to which he aspired, and of the
personal independence which he was determined to maintain, in his own
fashion.

One day, as he took his leave of HARLEY, after dining with him, the
Minister placed in his hand a fifty pound note. He returned it angrily.
And he met HARLEY’S next invitation by a refusal. Then comes this entry
in his diary:—‘I was this morning early with Mr. LEWIS, of the
Secretary’s office, and saw a letter Mr. HARLEY had sent to him desiring
to be reconciled; but I was deaf to all entreaties, and have desired
LEWIS to go to him and let him know I expect further satisfaction. If we
let these great Ministers pretend too much there will be no governing
them. He promises to make me easy if I will but come and see him. But I
will not, and he shall do it by message, or I will cast him off.’
[Sidenote: _Journal to Stella_, p. 169.] The desired concession was
made, and in a day or two we find our journalist recording,
characteristically enough, that he ‘sent Mr. HARLEY into the House to
call the Secretary [ST. JOHN], to let him know I would not dine with him
if he dined late.’ And then:—‘I have taken Mr. HARLEY into favour
again.... I will cease to visit him after dinner, for he dines too late
for my head.... [Sidenote: _Ib._, pp. 178; 182.] They call me nothing
but “Jonathan,” and I said I believed they would leave me Jonathan as
they found me, and that I never knew a Ministry do anything for those
whom they make companions of their pleasures.’

SWIFT was one of the first bystanders who took note of the seeds of
dissension which were already growing up between HARLEY and ST. JOHN,
and who foresaw the coming parallel between the fate of the new
Government and that of its predecessor. On the 4th of March, 1711, he
wrote:—‘We must have a Peace, let it be a bad or a good one; though
nobody dares talk of it. The nearer I look upon things the worse I like
them. I believe the Confederacy will soon break to pieces, and our
factions at home increase. The Ministry is upon a very narrow bottom,
and stands like an isthmus between the Whigs on one side, and the
violent Tories on the other. They are able seamen, but the tempest is
too great, the ship too rotten, and the crew all against them....
[Sidenote: _Ib._, p. 196.] Your Duchess of SOMERSET, who now has the
key, is a most insinuating woman, and I believe they [the Whigs] will
endeavour to play the same game that has been played against them.’

The game was suddenly interrupted, though only for a while. An attempt
to assassinate HARLEY gave him a renewed hold upon power and popularity.
But its unexpected consequences embittered the jealousies which already
menaced his administration with ruin.

[Sidenote: GUISCARD’S ATTEMPT ON THE LIFE OF HARLEY. 1711, March.]

Antoine de GUISCARD was a French adventurer, whose private life had been
marked by great profligacy. He had taken an obscure part in the
insurrection of the Cevennes—rather as a recruiting agent than as a
combatant. In that character he had met with encouragement to raise a
refugee regiment in England. Hopes had also been held out to him that a
British auxiliary contingent would be landed on the southern coast of
France. In the course, however, of some preliminary inquiries into the
position of the insurrectionists, it was found that such an invasion
would have little chance of any useful result, and the project was
abandoned. Meanwhile, a pension of £400 a year had been bestowed on the
emissary.

But ere long it was discovered that GUISCARD had profited by
opportunities, afforded him in the course of the discussions about the
proposed expedition, to make himself conversant with many particulars of
military and naval affairs, and that it was his habit to send advices
into France. Some of his letters were seized. Their writer was arrested
on the 8th of March, 1711, and was taken, immediately, before a
Committee of the Privy Council.

When examined as to his illicit intercourse with France he persisted in
mere denials. At length, one of his letters was shown to him by HARLEY,
and he was closely pressed as to his motives in writing it. He then
addressed himself to Secretary ST. JOHN, and begged permission to speak
with him apart. The Secretary answered, ‘You are here before the Council
as a criminal. Whatever you may have to say must be said to all of us.’
The man persisted in refusing to reply to any further questions, unless
his request was granted. Seeing that nothing more could then be obtained
from him, the Lord President rose to ring the bell for a messenger, that
the prisoner might be removed in custody.

At that moment the prisoner pulled a penknife from his pocket, turned
towards HARLEY, near to whom he stood, and stabbed him in the breast. He
repeated the stroke, and then rushed towards ST. JOHN. But between the
prisoner and the Secretary there stood a small table, over which he
stumbled. ST. JOHN drew his sword, and, with the words ‘The villain has
killed Mr. HARLEY,’ struck at him, as did also the Duke of ORMOND and
the Duke of NEWCASTLE. Lord POWLETT cried out ‘Do not kill him.’
Presently the assassin was in the hands of several messengers, with
whom, notwithstanding his wounds, he struggled so desperately that more
than one of them received severe injuries. When at length overpowered,
he said to ORMOND, ‘My Lord, why do you not despatch me?’ ‘That,’
replied the Duke, ‘is not the work of gentlemen. ’Tis another man’s
business.’

HARLEY’S wound was so severe that for several days there was a belief
that it would prove mortal. It entailed a lingering illness.[36] Before
his recovery, his assailant died in prison. The coroner’s inquest
ascribed GUISCARD’S death to bruises received from one of the messengers
who strove to bind him, but SWIFT tells us that he died of the
sword-wounds.

[Sidenote: _Journal to Stella_, pp. 202–214.]

That keen observer had seen, long before this attempted assassination,
the latent personal jealousies between HARLEY and ST. JOHN. [Sidenote:
HARLEY BECOMES LORD HIGH TREASURER.] He had recognised in those
jealousies the gravest peril of HARLEY’S government. GUISCARD’S crime
had now made HARLEY the most popular man in the country, and it had
doubled his favour with the Queen. On his recovery, he received the
congratulations of the House of Commons, expressed with more than usual
emphasis. [Sidenote: _Journals of H. of Commons_, 1711. 27 April.] By
the Queen he was raised to the peerage (24 May, 1711) as Earl of OXFORD
and Earl MORTIMER. Five days afterwards (29 May) he was made Lord High
Treasurer. [Sidenote: _Council Register_, Anne, vol. v, p. 249.] His
elevation intensified the jealousy of ST. JOHN into something which
already closely resembled hatred, although years were to elapse before
the mask could be quite thrown aside. It is amusing to read the
philosophical reflection with which the Secretary sent the news to Lord
OSSORY:—‘Our friend Mr. HARLEY is now Earl of OXFORD and High Treasurer.
This great advancement is what the labour he has gone through, the
danger he has run, and the services he has performed, seem to deserve.
[Sidenote: St. John to Lord Ossory; 1711, 12 June (_Corresp._ i, 148).]
But he stands on slippery ground, and envy is always near the great to
fling up their heels on the least trip which they make.’

The Earl of OXFORD had not long obtained the Treasurer’s staff before he
received some characteristic exhortations from the Jacobite section of
his Tory supporters of the use which he ought to make of it. ATTERBURY
came to him, on the part of some of the Treasurer’s ‘particular
friends,’ to acquaint him how uneasy they were that he had neither
dissolved the Parliament, nor removed from office nearly so many Whigs
as those particular friends wished to see removed. ‘I know very well,’
replied the Earl, ‘the men from whom that message comes, and I am also
very sensible of the difficulties I have to struggle with. If, in
addition, I must communicate all my measures, it will be necessary for
me to assure Her Majesty that I can no longer do her any service.’

[Sidenote: OXFORD AND THE OCTOBER CLUB.]

These hot-headed politicians had already formed their famous ‘October
Club.’ They were about a hundred and fifty in number, and for a few
months their proceedings made a great noise. The Treasurer found means
to deal with them in a more effectual fashion than that in which they
had endeavoured to deal with the administration. ‘By silent, quiet
steps, in a little time,’ says a writer who watched the process and
aided it, ‘he so effectually separated these gentlemen, that in less
than six months the name of “October Club” was forgotten in the
world.... [Sidenote: De Foe, _Secret History of the White Staff_.] With
so much address was this attempt overthrown, that he lost not the men,
though he put them by their design.’

Those brief sentences indicate, I think, the fatality of the position in
which OXFORD now placed himself. He had ardently desired to gain the
control of affairs, at a period of exceptional difficulty. And, at the
best, his capacity and energies would have been barely equal to the task
in times of exceptional ease. Some of the very qualities, both of mind
and heart, which made him beloved by those who lived with him, weakened
him as a statesman. He was surrounded by adepts in political intrigue,
some of whom combined with an experience not less than his own, far
greater powers of mind, an unbending will, and an utter unscrupulousness
as to the use of means. He vainly flattered himself that he could beat
these men at their own weapons. His temporary success laid a foundation
for his eventual ruin.

[Sidenote: OXFORD AND THE COURT OF THE STUARTS.]

To gain the aid of the Jacobite Tories in Parliament he held out hopes
which it was never his intention to realise. He carried on an indirect
correspondence with the Stuart Court in a way sufficiently adroit to
induce that Court to instruct its adherents to support the negotiations
for the Peace with France. He would commit himself to nothing until
Peace was made. The conclusion of a Peace was the one measure on which
he was firmly bent. He had contended that the true interests of Britain
demanded the ending of an exhausting war many years before. And whatever
the demerits and shortcomings of the Treaty of Utrecht, it had at least
the merit of making the quiet succession of the House of Hanover
possible.

In March, 1713, the French agent in England, the Abbé GAUTIER, wrote to
the Marquis de TORCY an account of an interview he had obtained with the
Lord Treasurer:—‘M. Vanderberg’ [_i. e._ Lord OXFORD], he says, ‘sent
for me, seven or eight days ago, to tell me something of importance.
Indeed, he opened his mind to me, making me acquainted with his feelings
towards Montgourlin [_i. e._ the Pretender], and the desire he had to do
him service, as soon as the Peace shall be concluded.... It will not be
difficult, because the Queen is of his opinion. But, in the mean time,
it is essential that Montgourlin should make up his mind; that he should
declare that it is not his intention to continue to reside where he now
is. He must say, publicly, and especially before his family, that when
the Peace is made he means to travel in Italy, in Switzerland, in
Bavaria, even in Spain. [Sidenote: Gautier to De Torcy; 1713, March.
[Printed in _Edin. Review_, from notes of Mackintosh.]] This is to be
done, that it may be believed in England that his choice of a residence
is not dictated by a mere desire to be near his relatives, and to be
close at hand should measures have to be taken on an emergency.’

After the communication of this statement to the Pretender he made
repeated attempts to enter into correspondence with Queen ANNE. By
OXFORD these attempts were uniformly and effectually foiled.

To the insincerity of OXFORD’S advances—such as they were—to the
Jacobite emissaries, there can be no witness more competent, none more
unexceptionable, than the Duke of BERWICK. His testimony runs thus:—‘We
wrote,’ he says, ‘to all the Jacobites to support the government; a step
which had no small share in giving to the Court party so large a
majority in the House of Commons that it carried everything its own
way.... After the Peace, the Treasurer spoke with not a whit more of
clearness or precision than before it.... [Sidenote: _Mémoires du
Maréchal Duc de Berwick_ (in Petitot’s _Collection_, tom. lxvi, pp. 219
seqq.)] He was merely keeping us in play; and it was very difficult to
find a remedy. To have broken with him would have spoiled all; for he
had the reins in his hand. He governed the Queen at his will.’
[Sidenote: _Ib._, pp. 224, 225.] In all his advances, adds the Duke, in
another passage, ‘OXFORD’S only motive had been to win over Jacobites to
side with the Tories, and to get a sanction for the Peace.’

Whilst these intrigues were still in action, one, at least, of the
Jacobite agents was clear-sighted enough to detect the secret of the
Treasurer’s scheme. [Sidenote: Original in Nairne MSS., vol. 4.
(Macpherson, _Original Pagers_, vol. ii, p. 269.)] A confidential agent
of the Earl of MIDDLETON, Secretary to the Pretender, wrote in February,
1712—‘[The Earl of OXFORD] is entirely a friend to [the Elector of
HANOVER], notwithstanding the disobliging measures that spark has
taken.... [OXFORD’S] head is set on shewing that he is above resentment,
and that he [the Elector] has been put into a wrong way.’

In matters of Church policy at home the Earl followed like indirect
courses, and with the like result—a momentary success which prepared the
way for final defeat.

[Sidenote: HARLEY’S CONDUCT ON THE CONFORMITY BILL.]

No measure could possibly be more repugnant to OXFORD’S declared
convictions than the famous ‘Bill against Occasional Conformity,’
brought into the House of Lords by the Earl of NOTTINGHAM, at the close
of the year 1711. It was part of a policy to which his very nature was
antagonistic. But he was in vain entreated, by men who had been his
life-long adherents, to oppose it. The passage of that Bill was the
price, and, as it seems, the only price for which NOTTINGHAM and his
band of followers would give their support to the foreign policy of the
Government.

The growth of the internal dissensions in the administration kept pace
with the growth of its external perils. Personal objects of the pettiest
kind were made occasions of quarrel. In the summer of 1712, ST. JOHN,
who had set his heart on the restoration in himself of that family
Earldom of BOLINGBROKE which in the previous year had become extinct on
the death of a distant relative, was made a Viscount. On the
announcement of his creation he burst into open menaces of vengeance
against the Treasurer, and renewed them with greater violence towards
the close of the year, when he found himself excluded from another
coveted dignity. An election of Knights of the Garter made, to use Lord
OXFORD’S own words about it, ‘a new disturbance which is too well
remembered.’ Just as the breach with BOLINGBROKE had become plainly
irreconcilable, the Treasurer found a new and equally bitter enemy in
another old friend. He defeated a rapacious attempt made by Lady MASHAM
on the Treasury. The first offence in that kind would never have been
forgiven. But ere long it was repeated.

In both Houses of Parliament, OXFORD’S veiled and vacillating policy was
fast alienating men who had long supported him, and who to the last
retained more confidence in him than in his brilliant rival. The crisis,
however, was brought about, not by the increased strength of
Parliamentary opposition, but by bed-chamber intrigues, such as those
which he had himself stooped to employ six years before against
GODOLPHIN and MARLBOROUGH.

Meanwhile the Minister played into the hands of his opponents by
exhibiting great irresolution. He dallied and procrastinated with urgent
business. He relaxed in his attention to the Queen. At an unwary moment
he even gave her personal offence, the results of which were none the
less bitter for the absence of design. He showed more concern about
comparatively distant perils than about those which were close at hand.

At the beginning of 1714 the best informed of the Jacobites had become
fully convinced that OXFORD was their enemy. They saw, to repeat the
words of the Duke of BERWICK, that he had been only keeping them in
play. [Sidenote: OXFORD’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COURT OF HANOVER.] But
at the Court of Hanover he was far from being regarded as an assured
friend. Over-subtlety had been rewarded with almost universal distrust.

[Sidenote: 1714, April.]

When in April of that year he sent to Hanover renewed protestations of
fidelity, expressed in terms of unusual energy, they were looked upon by
some of the Elector’s advisers as mere professions.[37] If now read side
by side with contemporary documents, drawn up by secret emissaries of
the Pretender, they acquire a stamp of sincerity which it is hard to
doubt.

To Baron WASSENAER DUYVENWORDE Lord OXFORD wrote thus:—‘I do in the most
solemn manner assure you that, next to the Queen, I am entirely and
unalterably devoted to the interests of His Electoral Highness of
Hanover.... I am ready to give him all the proofs of my attachment to
his interest, and to set in a true light the state of this country; for
it will be very unfortunate for so great a Prince to be only Prince over
a party, which can never last long in England.’ He then goes on to add
that the one thing which would, under existing circumstances, imperil
the Hanover succession is the sending into England of any member of that
family without the Queen’s consent. Such an act would, in his judgment,
‘change the dispute to the Crown and the Successor, whereas now it is
between the House of Hanover and the Popish Pretender.’

[Sidenote: Oxford to Wassenaer; MS. Sloane, 4107. (B. M.)]

He repeated the advice in another and not less urgent letter, after the
occurrence of the visit made to the Lord Chancellor HARCOURT by the
Hanoverian Resident, to ask for a writ of summons for the Duke of
CAMBRIDGE. But he also advised Queen ANNE to consent to the issue of
such a writ. He was opposed by a majority of his colleagues, under the
leadership of BOLINGBROKE, as well as by the persistent unwillingness of
the Queen herself.

It is instructive to read the comments on the political situation in
England at this moment, of a German diplomatist resident in London (as
Minister from the Elector Palatine) who was devotedly attached to the
Hanoverian succession.

‘Some people,’ wrote Baron von STEINGHENGS to Count von der SCHULENBERG,
on the 12th of May, ‘have been at work for a whole year to deprive the
Lord Treasurer of the conduct of public affairs. I have been aware,
almost from the beginning, of the different channels which have been
made use of to carry this point. But I should never have expected that
they would fire the mine before the end of this session, and I am much
mistaken if the authors have not reason one day to regret their
over-haste. For I do not know my man, if he does not cut out a good deal
of work for them, particularly if a certain intrigue which is on the
tapis succeeds. As for the rest, you may rely upon his sentiments; and
he never succeeded in persuading those who doubted them more than by his
declaration made in a full House on the 16th of last month on the
question of danger to the Protestant succession, having in it given much
greater hold upon himself than there was any need for, if he was not
acting in good faith.... The party of the Hanoverian Tories has visibly
been strengthened by it.’ [Sidenote: Von Steinghengs to Count von der
Schulenberg, May 1⁄12 1714 (in Kemble’s _State Papers_, p. 493).] And to
this the writer adds, in a postscript, ‘It is of extreme importance both
for the Whigs and for the House of Hanover to take steps to keep him
there, and to engage him by some sort of political confidence to be
assured of his fortunes under that House.’ In another letter to the same
correspondent, Baron von STEINGHENGS notes a fact which by many of our
historians has been too much neglected. [Sidenote: Same to same, June 14
(Kemble, p. 507).] ‘To make the English Ministry,’ he wrote, ‘alone
responsible ... for the exorbitant power which the Peace of Utrecht has
given to France is ... to ignore entirely the incredible obstacles which
the enemies of that Ministry threw, both at home and abroad, in the way
of making the Peace such as it might have been.’

But although ‘the mine was fired’ before the end of May, July had nearly
ended before the effectual explosion came. [Sidenote: OXFORD’S DISMISSAL
AND THE QUEEN’S DEATH. 1714, July 27, August 1.] BOLINGBROKE’S triumph
lasted exactly four days. ‘The Earl of OXFORD was removed on Tuesday.
The Queen died on Sunday. What a world is this! And how does Fortune
banter us!... I have lost all by the death of the Queen, but my spirit.’
Such were the words in which BOLINGBROKE announced to SWIFT his
victory,—and its futility. In a few more days the spirit vanished, like
the triumph. The victor was a fugitive.

BOLINGBROKE’S hatred to OXFORD lasted to the close of his life. He
survived his old comrade twenty-seven years. The final year of that long
period brought no relenting thought, no spark of charitable feeling.


[Sidenote: DID OXFORD CONSPIRE TO BRING BACK THE PRETENDER?]

To the question ‘Did Lord OXFORD, during his tenure of office, conspire
to enthrone the Pretender?’ it ought always to have been a sufficient
answer that there was, as yet, not a tittle of _evidence_ of any such
conspiracy on his part. That accusation had never any support beyond
surmise and conjecture. Men who were in possession of every imaginable
resource and appliance to back their search failed to adduce even a
shadow of evidence in proof of the charge they would fain have fastened
upon him. And in 1869 the matter still stands, in the main, where it
stood in 1717.

After many examinations of the most secret correspondence of the Stuarts
and their adherents, and after the publishing of extensive selections
from it—made at intervals which spread over eighty years,—not a scrap of
direct and valid testimony has been found to sustain the charge. Every
passage, save one, which bears at all on OXFORD’S intercourse with
Jacobite emissaries, up to the year 1715, tends to show that what they
asserted about his intentions on the Pretender’s behalf was built on
wishes, hopes, and guesses—on anything rather than knowledge. Every
passage, save one, tends to show that he was using the Jacobites for his
own purposes, without the least idea of aiding theirs. Every passage,
save one, is in entire harmony with the terms of that incompatible
charge by means of which BOLINGBROKE justified to himself his life-long
hostility, when writing the _Letter to Sir William Wyndham_. The
significance of that charge, coming from such a source, can scarcely be
exaggerated. ‘OXFORD would not,’ wrote BOLINGBROKE, ‘or he could not,
act with us, and he resolved that we should not act without him, as long
as he could hinder it.... At the Queen’s death, he hoped ... to deliver
us up, bound as it were, hand and foot, to our adversaries. On the
foundation of this merit he flattered himself that he had gained some of
the Whigs, and softened, at least, the rest of the party to him.
[Sidenote: Bolingbroke, _Letter to Sir W. Wyndham_.] By his secret
negotiations at Hanover, he took it for granted that he was not only
reconciled to that Court, but that he should, under his present
Majesty’s reign, have as much credit as he had enjoyed under that of the
Queen.’

[Sidenote: Gautier to De Torcy; 14 December, 1713. [Printed in _Edinb.
           Review_, from the Notes of Sir James Mackintosh, in vol.
           lxii, pp. 18, seqq.]]

The solitary passage in the correspondence of the Jacobite agents which
goes directly to the issue is the assertion made by GAUTIER, in a letter
to DE TORCY, that OXFORD said to him, in December, 1713, ‘As long as I
live, England shall not be governed by a German.’ In that notable
statement lies the pith of a mass of letters which report the hopes,
beliefs, conjectures, and imaginings, of their respective writers, as to
what Lord OXFORD would do for the Pretender,—whenever that prince could
be brought to change, or, at least, to disguise his religion.


OXFORD was present, as a Privy Councillor, at the proclamation of King
GEORGE THE FIRST. [Sidenote: OXFORD’S RECEPTION BY GEORGE I.] It was
noted by some of the bystanders that his demeanour was buoyant and
joyous. When the King reached Greenwich, the Earl went thither with more
than usual pomp and retinue. He was received with marked coldness, if
not with open contempt.

There is little need, in a sketch of this kind, to tell, at length, the
story of an impeachment which was stretched over two years, and had no
result save that of breaking down, by two years of imprisonment, the
health of the defeated statesman. Few and brief words on that head will
suffice.

[Sidenote: HIS IMPEACHMENT. 1715–1717.]

Out of twenty-two articles of impeachment, fourteen accuse the Earl of
OXFORD of betrayal of duty, either in the conduct of the negotiations
for Peace, or in instructions given for handling the British
Army—pending those negotiations—in such a way as to injure the common
cause of the Allies, by promoting the conclusion of a treaty ‘on terms
fatal to the interests of the Kingdom.’ [Sidenote: 1715. June 24.] The
fifteenth article charges him with inserting false statements in the
Queen’s Speeches and Messages to Parliament; the sixteenth with
improperly advising the Queen to make a creation of Peers. [Sidenote:
_State Trials_, vol. xv, Coll. 1052, seqq.] Other articles allege
misconduct in the management of an expedition to Canada; the
appropriation of sums of ‘Secret Service Money’ to corrupt purposes; and
treasonable intercourse with ‘Irish Papists.’


Whilst these charges were still in preparation the Venetian Resident in
London wrote a despatch to his Senate in which we have an interesting
glimpse, behind the curtain, at the process:—‘The Whigs,’ he says, ‘seek
to annihilate the Tories utterly, and to place them under the yoke. They
want to impeach even the Duke of SHREWSBURY.’... After enlarging on
nascent dissensions amongst the Whigs themselves, as to the lengths to
which they might safely carry their party resentments, he proceeds to
assert that the more cautious men among them ‘have now, when it is well
nigh too late, become aware that the Tory party, recently dominant, was
a mixed party. [Sidenote: _Correspondence of Joseph Querini_; from
extracts by T. D. Hardy, in _Report on Archives of Venice_, pp. 98, 99.]
Some were in favour of the Pretender; some for the House of Hanover. Had
His Majesty made this distinction on his accession to the Crown he would
have excluded the former, but not the latter. By favouring the Whigs
alone, he lost all the others at once.’ In brief, GEORGE THE FIRST had
made himself exactly what OXFORD had warned him against becoming, the
‘King of a party.’

When the Earl at length appeared before his peers to answer to his
impeachment, he began by denying ‘that at any time or place in the
course of those negotiations,’ now incriminated, ‘he conferred
unlawfully or without due authority with any emissaries of France.’ He
affirmed that he neither promoted nor advised any private, separate, or
unjustifiable negotiation, and that he himself had no knowledge ‘that
any negotiation relating to Peace was carried on without communication
to the Allies.’

On the specific charge that he had traitorously given up Tournay to
France, his defence is twofold:—‘I used my best offices,’ he asserts,
‘to preserve that town and fortress to the States General. I believe
that at this time they are continued to the States General as part of
their barrier.’ And then he adds:—‘But I deny that for a Privy
Councillor and Minister of State to advise the yielding of any town,
fort, or territory, upon the conclusion of a Peace, is, or can be, High
Treason by any law of this realm.’

On the whole matter of the Peace, he asserts that ‘its terms and
preliminaries were communicated to Parliament. They were agreed on with
the concurrence of Parliament. The Definitive Treaty was afterwards
approved of by both Houses. Solemn thanks were rendered to God for it in
all our churches and also in the churches of the United Provinces. Her
Majesty received upon its conclusion the hearty and unfeigned thanks of
her people from all parts of her dominions.’

[Sidenote: _State Trials_, vol. xv, c. 1137 seqq.]

[Sidenote: _Commons’ Journals_, 9 June, 1715.]

It might well have been thought that even in those evil days it would be
difficult to induce a Committee of partisans to report to the House of
Commons that ‘large sums issued for the service of the war were received
by the Earl of OXFORD, and applied to his Lordship’s private use,’
without the possession of some plausible show of proof. There was not so
much as a decent presumption, or colourable inference, to back the
assertion. When the matter came to be probed, it appeared that a royal
gift of £13,000 had been received by the Earl in what were known as ‘tin
tallies,’ and that the sum had been a charge upon the revenues of the
Duchy of Cornwall.


Probably few politicians have owed quite so large a debt of gratitude to
their enemies as that incurred by the Earl of OXFORD. His ministry at
home had been marked by weaknesses which went perilously near the edge
of public calamity. The Peace which was its characteristic achievement
abroad had brought with it many real blessings, but they were won at the
cost of a large sacrifice of national pride, if not also by some
sacrifice of national honour. The wild excesses of his adversaries now
gave back to the obnoxious Minister the strength of his best days.
[Sidenote: OXFORD’S BEHAVIOUR UNDER TRIAL.] When POPE wrote of him, ‘The
utmost weight of ministerial power and popular hatred were almost worth
bearing for the glory of so dauntless a conduct as he has shown under
it,’ the praise came from a pen which is known to have been employed,
now and again, to flatter the great. But it was no flatterer who wrote
to OXFORD himself—‘Your intrepid behaviour under this prosecution
astonishes every one but me, who know you so well, and how little it is
in the power of human actions or events to discompose you. I have seen
your Lordship labouring under great difficulties and exposed to great
dangers, and overcoming both, by the providence of God, and your own
wisdom and courage.’ Those words came from one of the shrewdest and most
acute observers of human character that have ever lived. They were
written after a close and daily intimacy of four eventful years. OXFORD,
in his day of power, had disappointed SWIFT of some cherished hopes,
which now could never be renewed. The praise of SWIFT must have been
sincere. [Sidenote: Swift’s _Correspondence_, in Works, by Scott, vol.
xvi, pp. 232, 233.] When such a writer, at such a time, goes on to
add—‘You suffer for having preserved your country, and for having been
the great instrument, under God, of his present Majesty’s peaceable
accession to the throne;—this I know, and this your enemies know’—the
most prepossessed reader cannot but feel that the absence from the two
and twenty articles of impeachment of any charge of plotting against the
Hanover succession is alike intelligible and significant.


[Sidenote: THE TRIAL. 1717, July.]

When Oxford’s imprisonment could be no longer protracted without a
trial, the two Houses of Parliament were unable to agree as to the mode
of proceeding. It was obvious on all sides that the charge of ‘treason’
would fail. The Lords declared that on the articles imputing treason
judgment must be given, before the articles imputing ‘other high crimes
and misdemeanours’ could be entered upon. They declared that the attempt
of the Commons to mix up the two was ‘a new and unjustifiable
proceeding.’ [Sidenote: _Lords’ Journals_, vol. xx, p. 515, seqq.
_Commons’ Journals_, vol. xviii.] The Commons refused to adduce evidence
on the charge of treason, and to take the issue upon that.

[Sidenote: _State Trials_, vol. xv, 1164, seqq.]

On the first of July, 1717, the Earl was brought to the bar to hear from
the Lord High Steward a declaration that ‘Robert, Earl of OXFORD, is, by
the unanimous vote of all the Lords present, acquitted of the articles
of impeachment exhibited against him, by the House of Commons, for High
Treason and other high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the said
impeachment shall be and is hereby dismissed.’ Then the Steward said,
‘Lieutenant of the Tower, You are now to discharge your prisoner.’

[Sidenote: OXFORD’S RETURN TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS. 1717, July.]

On the third of July, the Earl resumed his seat as a peer of Parliament.
On the fourth, the Commons resolved to address the King, beseeching him
‘to except Robert, Earl of OXFORD, out of the Act of Grace which Your
Majesty has been graciously pleased to promise from the throne, to the
end the Commons may be at liberty to proceed against the said Earl in a
parliamentary way.’ [Sidenote: _Journals_, vol. xviii, p. 617.] No such
proceeding, of course, was taken or intended.


For several years to come Lord OXFORD took part, from time to time, in
the business of Parliament. He served often on Committees in these final
years of his public life, just as he had done during his early years of
apprenticeship in the Lower House. In the Lords, as in the Commons, he
was listened to with especial deference on points of parliamentary law
and privilege.

From time to time, also, the Jacobite agitators, both at home and
abroad, made repeated appeals to him, direct or indirect, for
countenance and help in their schemes. They had, it seems, a confident
hope that the sufferings and the humiliation inflicted on him in the
years 1715–1717 must have so entirely alienated him from the reigning
House, as now, at all events, to have prepared him to be really their
fellow-conspirator, on the first occurrence of a promising opportunity.
[Sidenote: ALLEGED RENEWAL OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE STUART AGENTS.]
How far the Earl listened to such suggestions and persuasions is still,
it will be seen, matter of great and curious uncertainty.[38]


[Sidenote: DOMESTIC LIFE OF LORD OXFORD.]

Lord OXFORD’S private life was not less chequered by rapid alternations
of sunshine and of gloom than was his political career. In August, 1713,
he gratified a cherished desire by the marriage of his son Edward, Lord
HARLEY, with the Lady Henrietta CAVENDISH HOLLES, daughter and heiress
of John, Duke of NEWCASTLE (who died in 1711). With what Lord HARLEY had
already derived under the Duke’s will, this marriage brought him an
estate then worth sixteen thousand pounds a year, and destined to
increase enormously in value. Three months afterwards the Earl lost a
dearly loved daughter, the Marchioness of CAERMARTHEN, who died at the
age of twenty-eight. It was of her that SWIFT wrote to him—‘I have sat
down to think of every amiable quality that could enter into the
composition of a lady, and could not single out one which she did not
possess in as high a perfection as human nature is capable of. But as to
your Lordship’s own particular, as it is an unconceivable misfortune to
have lost such a daughter, so it is a possession which few can boast of
to have had such a daughter. I have often said to your Lordship that “I
never knew any one by many degrees so happy in their domestics as you;”
and I affirm that you are so still, though not by so many degrees....
[Sidenote: Swift to Oxford; 21 Nov., 1713. (_Works_, vol. xvi, pp.
78–80.)] You began to be too happy for a mortal; much more happy than is
usual with the dispensations of Providence long to continue.’

Under the sorrows both of public and of private life it was his wont to
find a part of his habitual consolations in the use, as well as in the
increase, of his splendid library. [Sidenote: HISTORY OF THE HARLEIAN
LIBRARY.] He began the work of collection in youth, and to add to his
treasures was one of the matters which, at intervals, occupied his
latest thoughts.

Among the famous Englishmen whose manuscripts passed, either wholly or
partially, into the Harleian Library are to be counted Sir Thomas SMITH;
John FOX, the martyrologist; John STOWE, the historian; Edward, Lord
HERBERT of Cherbury; and Archbishop SANCROFT. Among famous foreigners,
Augustus LOMENIE DE BRIENNE; Peter SÉGUIER, Chancellor of France; and
Gerard John VOSSIUS. Perhaps the most extensive of the prior collections
which it had absorbed, in mass, was the assemblage of manuscripts that
had been gathered by Sir Symonds D’EWES, whose acquisitions included a
rich series of the materials of English history.

The inquiries which led to the purchase of the D’EWES’ Collection were
the occasion of making fully known to Robert HARLEY a model librarian in
the person of Humphrey WANLEY. [Sidenote: HUMPHREY WANLEY; HIS LIFE,
LETTERS, AND JOURNAL.] The latter portion of WANLEY’S life was wholly
devoted to the service of the Harleian Library, and his employment there
was a felicity, both for him and for it. His journal of the incidents
which occurred during the growth of the collection given to his care is
the most curious document in its kind which is known to exist. That
journal illustrates the literary history and the manners of the time,
not less amusingly than it exhibits the personal character of its
writer, and the fidelity with which he worked at his task in life.

WANLEY was the son of a country parson, little known to fame, but
possessing some tincture of learning, and was born at Coventry, on the
21st of March, 1673. In his youth he attracted the favourable notice of
his father’s diocesan, William LLOYD, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry
(and afterwards of Worcester), by whom he was sent to Edmund Hall at
Oxford. That hall he soon exchanged for University College, on the
persuasion of Dr. Arthur CHARLETT, by whose influence he was afterwards
made an Underkeeper of the Bodleian Library. He took no degree, but won
some distinction, whilst at Oxford, by the services which he rendered to
Dr. MILL in collating the text of the New Testament.

On leaving the University, WANLEY went to London, where he became
Secretary to the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge. He
translated OSTERVALD’S _Grounds and Principles of the Christian
Religion_; and compiled a valuable Catalogue of the Anglo-Saxon
Manuscripts preserved in the chief libraries of Great Britain. The
last-named labour gave proof of much ability. It was a sample of the
work for which its writer was best fitted.

As Speaker of the House of Commons, HARLEY took a considerable part in
organizing the Cottonian Library, when it became a public institution
under the Act of Parliament. WANLEY proffered to the Speaker, on this
occasion, some advice about the necessary arrangements; became well
acquainted with HARLEY’S bookishness, and saw how eagerly he would
welcome opportunities for the improvement of his own library, as well as
of that newly acquired by the Public.

[Sidenote: THE D’EWES COLLECTIONS AND THEIR HISTORY.]

The Sir Symonds D’EWES of that generation was the grandson of the
diligent antiquary and politician who has been heretofore mentioned in
this volume as the close friend of Sir Robert COTTON, and to whose
labours, in a twofold capacity, students of our history owe a far better
acquaintance with parliamentary debates, in the times both of ELIZABETH
and of CROMWELL, than, but for him, would have been possible. The
grandson of the first Sir Symonds had inherited from his ancestor a
valuable library; but its possession had no great charm for him. He was
willing to part with it, for due consideration, yet aware that he was
under an obligation, moral if not legal, not so to part with his books
as to lead to their dispersion.

On that head, the original collector had thus expressed himself in his
last Will:—‘I bequeath to Adrian D’EWES, my young son yet lying in the
cradle, or to any other of my sons, hereafter to be born, who shall
prove my heir (if God shall vouchsafe unto me a masculine heir by whom
my surname and male line may be continued in the ages to come), my
precious library, in which I have stored up, for divers years past, with
great care, cost, and industry, divers originals and autographs, ... and
such [books] as are unprinted; and it is my inviolable injunction and
behest that he keep it entire, and not sell, divide, or dissipate it.
Neither would I have it locked up from furthering the public good, the
advancing of which I have always endeavoured; but that all lovers of
learning, of known virtue and integrity, might have access to it at
reasonable times, so that they did give sufficient security to restore
safely any original or autograph ... borrowed out of the same, ...
without blotting, erasing, or defraying it. But if God hath decreed now
at last to add an end to my family in the male line, His most holy and
just will be done!’ In that case, the testator proceeds to declare, it
is his desire that the library should pass to his daughter and her
heirs, on like conditions as to its perpetual preservation, so ‘that not
only all lovers of learning ... may have access to it at seasonable
times, but also that all collections which concern mine own family, or
my wife’s, may freely be lent ... to members thereof,’ &c. [Sidenote:
D’Ewes, _Autobiography_, in MS. Harl. (B. M.)] Then the testator adds—in
relation to the last-named clause—an averment that he had ‘only sought
after the very truth, as well in these things as in all other my
elucubrations, whilst I searched amongst the King’s records or public
offices.’

[Sidenote: WANLEY’S ACCOUNT OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE D’EWES LIBRARY.]

It having come to WANLEY’S knowledge or belief, in the year 1703, that
possibly arrangements might be made to obtain this library, for the
Public, from the then possessor, he wrote to HARLEY in these terms:—‘Sir
Symonds D’EWES being pleased to honour me with a peculiar kindness of
esteem, I have taken the liberty of inquiring of him whether he will
part with his library, and I find that he is not unwilling to do so. And
that at a much easier rate than I could think for. I dare say that it
would be a noble addition to the Cotton Library; perhaps the best that
could be had anywhere at present.... If your Honour should judge it
impracticable to persuade Her Majesty to buy them for the Cotton
Library—in whose coffers such a sum as will buy them is scarcely
conceivable—then, Sir, if you shall have a mind of them yourself I will
take care that you shall have them cheaper than any other person
whatsoever. I know that many have their eyes upon this collection.’
[Sidenote: Wanley to Harley; MS. Lansd. 841, fol. 63. (B. M.)] ‘I am
desirous,’ he goes on to say, ‘to have this collection in town for the
public good, and rather in a public place than in private hands; but, of
all private gentlemen’s studies, first in yours. I have not spoken to
anybody as yet, nor will not till I have your answer, that you may not
be forestalled.’

HARLEY welcomed the overture thus made to him, and WANLEY, on his
behalf, entered upon a negotiation which ended in the eventual
acquisition of the whole of the D’EWES Manuscripts for the Harleian
Collection. Soon afterwards, WANLEY became its librarian.

In the course of this employment he watched diligently for other
opportunities of a like sort; established an active correspondence with
booksellers, both at home and abroad; and induced Lord OXFORD to send
agents to the Continent to search for manuscripts. [Sidenote: HISTORY OF
THE HARLEIAN LIBRARY, CONTINUED.] But the Earl had soon to meet an eager
rival in the book-market, in the person of Lord SUNDERLAND, who in
former years had been, by turns, his colleague and his opponent in the
keener strife of politics. In their new rivalry, Lord SUNDERLAND had one
considerable advantage. He cared little about money. If he succeeded in
obtaining what he sought for, he rarely scrutinised the more or less of
its cost. WANLEY was by nature a bargainer. He felt uneasy under the
least suspicion that any bookseller or vendor was getting the better
hand of him in a transaction. And he seems, in time, to have inoculated
Lord OXFORD with a good deal of the same feeling. Some of the entries in
his diary put this love of striking a good bargain in an amusing light.

Thus, for example, in telling of the acquisition of a valuable monastic
chartulary which had belonged to the ‘Bedford Library’ at Cranfield, he
writes thus:—‘The said Chartulary is to be my Lord’s, and he is to
present to that library _St. Chrysostom’s Works_, in Greek and Latin,
printed at Paris, for which my Lord shall be registered a benefactor to
the said library. Moreover, Mr. FRANK will send up a list of his
out-of-course books, out of which my Lord may pick and choose any twenty
of them gratis.... I am also to advise that he is heartily willing and
ready to serve his Lordship in any library matters; ... particularly
with [Sir John] OSBORNE of Chicksand Abbey, where most part of the old
monastical library is said yet to remain.’ [Sidenote: Wanley’s _Diary_,
vol. i, pp. 13, 21. 1720, February.] And again, on another occasion:—‘My
Lord was pleased to tell me that Mr. GIBSON’S last parcel of printed
books were all his own as being gained into [the bargain with] the two
last parcels of manuscripts bought of him.’ [Sidenote: _Ib._, vol. ii,
f. 24.] GIBSON’S protest that he was entitled to an additional thirty
pounds was quite in vain.

Of the innumerable skirmishes between librarian and bookseller which
WANLEY’S pages record with loving detail, two passages may serve as
sufficient samples:—‘VAN HOECK, a Dutchman’ he writes in 1722, ‘brought
to my Lord a small parcel of modern manuscripts, and their lowest
prices,—which proved so abominably wicked that he was sent away with
them immediately.’ And, in February, 1723:—‘BOWYER, the bookseller, came
intreating me to instruct him touching the prices of old editions, and
of other rare and valuable books, pretending that thereby he should be
the better able to bid for them; but, as I rather suppose, to be better
able to exact of gentlemen. I pleaded utter inexperience in the matter,
and, without a quarrel, in my mind rejected this ridiculous attempt with
the scorn it deserved. [Sidenote: Wanley’s _Diary_, vol. i, f. 73,
verso. MS. Lansd., 771. (B. M.)] This may be a fresh instance of the
truth of TULLIE’S paradox, “that all fools are mad.”’

In the year 1720, large additions were made, more especially to the
historical treasures of the Harleian Library, by the purchase of
manuscripts from the several collections of John WARBURTON (Somerset
Herald), of Archdeacon BATTELY, and of Peter SÉGUIER (Chancellor of
France). Another important accession came, in the same year, by the
bequest of Hugh THOMAS. [Sidenote: _Ibid._, pp. 35, 42, 48.] In 1721
purchases were made from the several libraries of Thomas GREY, second
Earl of STAMFORD; of Robert PAYNELL, of Belaugh, in Norfolk; and of John
ROBARTES, first Earl of RADNOR.


Lord OXFORD died on the 21st May, 1724, at the age of sixty-three.
[Sidenote: DEATH OF LORD OXFORD.] WANLEY records the event in these
words: ‘It pleased God to call to His mercy Robert, Earl of OXFORD, the
founder of this Library, who long had been to me a munificent patron.’

[Sidenote: Corresp., in _Works_, vol. xvi, p. 438.]

When condoling with the new Earl upon his father’s death, SWIFT wrote to
him:—‘You no longer wanted his care and tenderness, ... but his
friendship and conversation you will ever want, because they are
qualities so rare in the world, and in which he so much excelled all
others. It has pleased me, in the midst of my grief, to hear that he
preserved the greatness, the calmness, and intrepidity, of his mind to
his last minutes; for it was fit that such a life should terminate with
equal lustre to the whole progress of it.’ It is honourable alike to the
man who was thus generously spoken of, and to the friend who mourned his
loss, that the testimony so borne was a consistent testimony. The
failings of HARLEY were well known to SWIFT. In the days of prosperity
they had been freely blamed; and face to face. When those days were
gone, the good qualities only came to be dwelt upon. To the unforgiving
enemy, as to the bereaved son, SWIFT wrote about the merits of the
friend he had lost. ‘I pass over that paragraph of your letter,’ said
BOLINGBROKE, in reply, ‘which is a kind of an elegy on a departed
minister.’


When the Harleian Library was inherited by the second Earl of OXFORD (of
this family) it included more than six thousand volumes of Manuscripts,
in addition to about fourteen thousand five hundred charters and rolls.
By him it was largely augmented in every department. [Sidenote: INCREASE
OF THE HARLEIAN LIBRARY BY EDWARD, EARL OF OXFORD. 1724–1741.]
[Sidenote: See MS. ADDIT., 5338. (B. M.)] He made his library most
liberally accessible to scholars; and when, by a purchase made in
Holland, he had acquired some leaves of one of the most precious
biblical manuscripts in the world—leaves which had long before been
stolen from the Royal Library at Paris—he sent them back to their proper
repository in a manner so obliging as made it apparent that his sense of
the duties of collectorship was as keen as was his sense of its
delights. At his death, on the 16th of June, 1741, the volumes of
manuscripts had increased to nearly eight thousand. The printed books
were estimated at about fifty thousand volumes, exclusive of an
unexampled series of pamphlets, amounting to nearly 400,000, and
comprising, like the manuscripts, materials for our national history of
inestimable value.

The only daughter and heiress of the second Earl, Margaret, by her
marriage with William, Duke of PORTLAND, carried her share in a remnant
of the fortunes of the several families of CAVENDISH, HOLLES, and
HARLEY, into the family of BENTINCK. The magnificent printed library
which formed part of her inheritance was sold and dispersed. [Sidenote:
Johnson, _Account of the Harleian Library_; _Works_, vol. v, p. 181.] It
was of that collection that JOHNSON said, ‘It excels any library that
was ever yet offered to sale in the value as well as in the number of
the volumes which it contains.’

The Manuscripts were eventually purchased by Parliament for the sum of
ten thousand pounds. [Sidenote: THE PURCHASE OF THE HARLEIAN MSS. FOR
THE NATION.] With reference to this purchase the Duchess of PORTLAND
wrote as follows, in April, 1753, to the Speaker of the House of
Commons:—‘As soon as I was acquainted with the proposal you had made in
the House of Commons, in relation to my Father’s Collection of
Manuscripts I informed my Mother [the then Dowager Countess of OXFORD]
of it, who has given the Duke of PORTLAND and me full power to do
therein as we shall think fit.

‘Though I am told the expense of collecting them was immense, and that,
if they were to be dispersed, they would probably sell for a great deal
of money, yet, as a sum has been named, and as I know it was my Father’s
and is my Mother’s intention that they should be kept together, I will
not bargain with the Publick. I give you this trouble therefore to
acquaint you that I am ready to accept of your proposal upon condition
that this great and valuable Collection shall be kept together in a
proper repository, as an addition to the Cotton Library, and be called
by the name of the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts.

‘I hope you do me the justice to believe that I do not consider this as
a sale for an adequate price. [Sidenote: Duchess of Portland to Arthur
Onslow; MS. ADDIT., 17521, f. 30. (B. M.)] But your idea is so right,
and so agreeable to what I know was my Father’s intention, that I have a
particular satisfaction in contributing all I can to facilitate the
success of it.’


If it were possible to give, in few words, any adequate view of the
obligations which English literature, and more especially English
historical literature, owes to the Collectors of the Harleian
Manuscripts, there could be no fitter conclusion to a biographical
notice of Robert HARLEY. Here, however, no such estimate is practicable.
Nor, in truth, can it be needed in order to convince the reader that
‘some tribute of veneration’—to use the apposite words which JOHNSON
prefixed to the Harleian Catalogue—is due to the ardour of the two
HARLEYS for literature; and ‘to that generous and exalted curiosity
which they gratified with incessant searches and immense expense; and to
which they dedicated that time and that superfluity of fortune which
many others, of their rank, employ in the pursuit of contemptible
amusements or the gratification of guilty passions.’


                           NOTE TO CHAPTER V.

  _EXTRACTS FROM THE STUART PAPERS, REFERRING TO INTERCOURSE OF ROBERT
      HARLEY, EARL OF OXFORD, WITH THE JACOBITES, AFTER THE ACCESSION OF
      GEORGE I._


1. [1717?] A document which, could it be recovered, would go far towards
clearing up some of the uncertainties which exist as to Lord Oxford’s
intercourse with the Pretender and his agents, subsequently to the death
of Queen Anne, was seen by Sir James Mackintosh among the Stuart Papers
acquired by George the Fourth. It was afterwards vainly searched for by
Lord Mahon, when engaged upon his _History of England, from the Peace of
Utrecht_. [Sidenote: _Edin. Rev._, vol. lxii, pp. 18, 19.] It is still
known only from the cursory notes made by Mackintosh, and referred to by
a writer in the _Edinburgh Review_ in these words: ‘During Oxford’s
confinement in the Tower there is a communication from him to the
Pretender, preserved among the Stuart Papers, offering his services and
advice; recommending the Bishop of Rochester as the fittest person to
manage the Jacobite affairs,—the writer himself being in custody; and
adding that he should never have thought it safe ‘_to engage again_ with
His Majesty if Bolingbroke himself had been still about him.’

2. 1717. September 29. Bishop ATTERBURY to Lord MAR:—

‘Your accounts of what has been said here concerning some imaginary
differences abroad have not so much foundation as you may suppose. At
least, if they have, I am a stranger to it.... The result of any
discourse I shall have with [the Earl of Oxford?] will be sure to reach
you by his means. [Sidenote: _Stuart Papers_, 1717.] You will, I
suppose, have a full account of affairs here from his and other hands.’

3. [1717?] The same to the same.

[Sidenote: _Ibid._]

‘Distances and other accidents have, for some years, interrupted my
correspondence with [the Earl of Oxford?] but I am willing to renew it,
and to enter into it upon a better foot than it has ever yet stood,
being convinced that my so doing may be of no small consequence to the
service. I have already taken the first step towards it that is proper
in our situation, and will pursue that by others as fast as I can have
opportunity; hoping that the secret will be as inviolably kept on your
side as it shall be on this, so far as the nature of such a transaction
between two persons who must see one another sometimes can pass
unobserved.’

[Sidenote: _Edin. Rev._, as before.]

4. 1721. ‘Among the same papers,’ says the Reviewer quoted on the
previous page, ‘there is a letter from Mrs. Oglethorpe to the Pretender
(Jan. 17, 1721), containing assurances from Lord Oxford of his eternal
respect and good wishes, which from accidental circumstances he had been
unable to convey in the usual manner.’

5. 1722. April 14. THE PRETENDER [to Lord OXFORD?]

‘If you have not heard sooner or oftener from me, it hath not, I can
assure you, been my fault. Neither do I attribute to yours the long
silence you have kept on your side, but to a chain of disappointments
and difficulties which hath been also the only reason of my not finding
all this while a method of conveying my thoughts to you, and receiving
your advice, which I shall ever value as I ought, because I look upon
you not only as an able lawyer but a sincere friend. [Sidenote: _Stuart
Papers_, 1722.] This will, I hope, come soon to your hands, and the
worthy friend by whose canal I send it will accompany it, by my
directions, with all the lights and information he or I can give, and
which it is therefore useless to repeat here.’

6. 1722. April 16. THE PRETENDER to ATTERBURY.

‘I am sensible of the importance of secrecy in such an affair, yet I do
not see how it will be possible to raise a sufficient sum, or to make a
reasonable concert in England, without letting some more persons into
the project. [Sidenote: _Ibid._] You on the place are best judge how
these points are to be compassed, but I cannot but think that [the Earl
of Oxford?] might be of great use on this occasion. [Lord Lansdowne?] is
to write to him on the subject, and I am confident that if you two were
to compare notes together you would be able to contrive and settle
matters on a more sure and solid foundation than they have hitherto
been.’

7. 1722. In a report made to the Earl of Mar by George Kelly, one of his
emissaries employed in England, it is stated that on the delivery, by
Kelly, of Mar’s letter to Atterbury, the prelate asked the messenger if
he had anything to say, in addition to the contents of the letter, and
that he replied (in the jargon of his calling): ‘It is a proposal for
joining stocks with the Earl of Oxford, and taking the management of the
Company’s business into their hands.’ Atterbury, according to this
story, required a day’s deliberation, and then told Kelly that he was
‘resolved to join both heart and hand with the Earl; and not only so,
but in the management and course of the business he would shew him all
the deference and respect that was due to a person who had so justly
filled the stations which he had been in.’ The Bishop, says Kelly, also
added that he was ‘resolved to dedicate the remainder of his days to the
King’s service, and proposed, by this reunion, to repay some part of the
personal debt which he owed to the Earl of Oxford, to whom he would
immediately write upon this subject.’ [Sidenote: _Ibid._] The messenger
goes on to assure Lord Mar that Atterbury ‘is entirely of your opinion
that there is not much good to be expected from the present managers,
and thinks it no great vanity to say that the Earl of Oxford and himself
are the fittest persons for this purpose; but the chief success of their
partnership will depend upon the secrecy of it.’


Of the genuineness of the several letters,—of the credit due to the
emissaries and their reports,—even of the accurate identification, in
some instances, of the ‘Mr. Hackets,’ ‘Houghtons,’ and numerous other
pseudonyms, under which ‘Lord Oxford’ is assumed to be veiled, there
are, as yet, no adequate means of judging.




                              CHAPTER VI.
                   THE FOUNDERS OF THE SLOANE MUSEUM.

        ... ‘He pry’d through Nature’s store,
        Whate’er she in th’ ethereal round contains,
        Whate’er she hides beneath her verdant floor,
        The vegetable and the mineral reigns.
        At times, he scann’d the globe,—those small domains
        Where restless mortals such a turmoil keep,—
        Its seas, its floods, its mountains, and its plains.’—
                                                        THOMSON.

  _Flemish Exiles in England._—_The Adventures, Mercantile and Colonial
      Enterprises, and Vicissitudes of the_ COURTENS.—_William_ COURTEN
      _and his Collections.—The Life and Travels of Sir Hans_
      SLOANE—_His acquisition of_ COURTEN’S _Museum_.—_Its growth under
      the new Possessor._—_History of the Sloane Museum and Library, and
      of their purchase by Parliament._


[Sidenote: BOOK I, Chap. VI. THE FOUNDERS OF THE SLOANE MUSEUM.]

The history of the rise and growth of our English trade is, in a
conspicuous degree, a history of the immigration hither of foreign
refugees, and of what was achieved by their energy and industry, when
put forth to the utmost under the stimulus and the stern discipline of
adversity. Other countries, no doubt, have derived much profit from a
similar cause, but none, in Europe, to a like extent. By turns almost
all the chief countries of the Continent have sent us bands of exiles,
who brought with them either special skill in manual arts and
manufactures, or special capabilities for expanding our foreign
commerce. To Flemish refugees, and more particularly to those of them
who were driven hither by Spanish persecution in the sixteenth century,
England owes a large debt in both respects. [Sidenote: FLEMISH EXILES IN
ENGLAND.] Our historians have given more prominence of late years to
this chapter in the national annals than was ever given to it before,
but there is no presumption in saying that not a little of what was
achieved by exiles towards the industrial greatness of the nation has
yet to be told.

Nor is it less evident that, over and above the political and public
interest of the things done, or initiated, by the new comers in their
adopted country, the personal and family annals of the exiles possess,
in not a few instances, a remarkable though subsidiary interest of their
own. In certain cases, to trace the fortunes of a refugee family, is at
once to throw some gleams of light on obscure portions of our commercial
history, and to tell a romantic story of real life.

One such instance presents itself in the varied fortunes of the
COURTENS. [Sidenote: THE COURTENS; THEIR ADVENTURES AND ENTERPRISES.]
That family attained an unusual degree of commercial prosperity, and
attained it with unusual rapidity. In the second generation it
seemed—for a while—to have struck a deep root in our English soil. It
owned lands in half-a-dozen English counties, and its alliance was
sought by some of the greatest families in the kingdom. In the next
generation its fortunes sank more rapidly than they had risen. In the
fourth, the last of the COURTENS was for almost half his life a
wanderer, living under a feigned name, and he continued so to live when
at length enabled to return to his country. The true name had been
preserved only in the records of interminable litigation—in England,
Holland, India, and America—about the scattered wreck of a magnificent
property. But the enterprise of the family, in its palmy days, had
planted for England a prosperous colony. It had opened new paths to
commerce in the East Indies, as well as in the West. And its last
survivor found a solace for many ruined hopes in the collection of
treasures of science, art and literature, which came to be important
enough to form no small contribution towards the eventual foundation of
the British Museum.


[Sidenote: THE FOUNDER OF THE FAMILY.]

In 1567 William COURTEN, a thriving dealer in linens and silks, living
at Menin in Flanders, was together with his wife, Margaret CASIER,
accused of heresy. COURTEN was thrown into the prison of the
Inquisition, but contrived both to make his escape into England, and to
enable his wife soon to join him. He established himself in London, in
the same business which had thriven with him at home. [Sidenote: Family
Records of the Courtens; in MS. Sloane, 3515, _passim_. (B. M.)] His
wife shared in its toils, and by skilfully adapting her exertions to
those tastes for finery in the families of rich citizens which were now
striving with some success against the rigour of the old sumptuary laws
made the business more prosperous than before. It expanded until the
poor haberdasher of 1567 had become a notability on the London Exchange.

In 1571 a son was born to the exiles. This second William COURTEN was
bred as a merchant rather than as a tradesman. He had good parts, and
seems to have started into life with a passion for bold enterprise. His
early training in London was continued at Haerlem, and there he laid a
foundation for commercial success by marrying the daughter of Peter
CROMMELINCK, a wealthy merchant. First and last, his wife brought him a
dowry of £40,000, of which sum it was stipulated by the father’s will
that not less than one half should be laid out in the purchase of lands
in England, to be settled on the eldest son that should be born of the
marriage.

[Sidenote: SIR WILLIAM COURTEN AND HIS MERCANTILE PURSUITS.]

By the time of his attaining the age of five and thirty William COURTEN
had already become—for that period—a great capitalist. He then, in 1606,
established in London a commercial house which added to the ordinary
business of merchants on the largest scale, that of marine insurers, and
also that of adventurers in the whale fishery. His partners in the firm
were his younger brother, Peter COURTEN, and John MOUNCEY. One half of
the joint stock belonged to the founder; the other half was divided
between the junior partners.

For nearly a quarter of a century this mercantile partnership prospered
marvellously. Its annual returns are said to have averaged £200,000. It
built more than twenty large ships, and kept in constant employment more
than four hundred seamen and fishermen. The head of the firm gradually
acquired a large landed property which included estates in the several
counties of Worcester, Gloucester, Leicester, Nottingham, Essex, and
Kent.

This great prosperity had, of course, its drawbacks. Amongst the
earliest checks which are recorded to have befallen it was a Crown
prosecution of COURTEN (in company with several other foreign merchants
of note, among whom occur the names of BURLAMACHI, VANLORE, and DE
QUESTER) on the frequent charge—so obnoxious to the political economy of
that age—of ‘the unlawful exportation of gold.’ [Sidenote: _Domestic
Corresp._, James I, vol. cix, § 90; 96; vol. cx, § 86; vol. cxi, § 66.
_Signs Manual_, vol. xii, § 26. (R. H.)] COURTEN was brought into the
Star Chamber and was fined £20,000; a sum so enormous as to excite a
suspicion of the accuracy of the record, but for its repeated entry. The
prosecution was instituted in June, 1619; the defendant’s discharge
bears date July, 1620. But it may fairly be assumed that only a portion
of the nominal fine was really exacted.

Another and much more serious check to the prosperity of the
enterprising merchant came from his embarking in the grand but hazardous
work of planting colonies.

[Sidenote: 1626. COLONIAL ENTERPRISES OF SIR WM. COURTEN.]

In 1626, William COURTEN—then Sir William, having received the honour of
knighthood at Greenwich, on the 31st of May, 1622—petitioned the King
for ‘licence to make discoveries and plant colonies in that southern
part of the world called _Terra Australis incognita_, with which the
King’s subjects have as yet no trade,’ and his petition was granted.
[Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp._, Charles I, vol. xiv, § 33.] What ensued
thereupon is thus told in an authoritative manuscript account preserved
in the Sloane collection:—

‘Sir William COURTEN being informed, by his correspondents in Zealand,
that some Dutch men-of-war sent out upon private commission against the
Spaniards had put into the island of Barbados, and found it uninhabited,
and very fit for a plantation, did thereupon, at his own charge, set
forth two ships provided with men, ammunition, and arms, and all kinds
of necessaries for planting and fortifying the country, who landed and
entered into possession of the same in the month of February, 1626
[1627, N.S.]... Afterwards, in the same year, he sent Captain POWELL
thither, with a further supply of servants and provisions, who, in 1627,
fetched several Indians from the mainland, with divers sorts of seeds
and roots, and agreed with them to instruct the English in planting
cotton, tobacco, indigo, &c. Sir William COURTEN having, by his partners
and servants, maintained the actual possession for the space of two
years, and peopled the island with English, Indians, and others, to the
number of eighteen hundred and fifty men, women, and children, thought
fit to make use of the Earl of PEMBROKE’S name in obtaining a patent
particularly for Barbadoes, although he had before a general grant from
the king to possess any land within a certain latitude, wherein this
island was comprehended. His Majesty having thus granted, by his Letters
Patent, dated 25 February, 1627 [1628, N.S.] the government of this
island unto the Earl of PEMBROKE, in trust for Sir William COURTEN, with
power to settle a colony according to the laws of England, Captain
POWELL had a commission to continue there as Governor, in their behalf.
The Earl of CARLISLE,’ continues the MS. narrative, ‘having, before this
Patent to the Earl of PEMBROKE, procured a grant, dated 2nd July 1627,
of all those islands lying within 10 and 20 degrees of latitude by the
name of Carliola, or Carlisle Province, with all royalties, and
jurisdictions, as amply as they were enjoyed by any Bishop of Durham,
within his bishopric or county palatine, and having also got another
patent, for the greater security of his title, dated 7th April 1628,
sent one Henry HAWLEY with two ships, who, arriving there in 1629,
invited the Governor on board, kept him prisoner, seized the forts, and
carried away the factors and servants of Sir William COURTEN and the
Earl of PEMBROKE. [Sidenote: _Ibid._ Comp. Despatches in _Colonial
Correspondence_, vol. v, §§ 1, 9, 13, 101, seqq.] The authority of the
Earl of CARLISLE being thus established was maintained.’

But it was only maintained after a long contest at the Council Board at
home, which contest seems to have been largely influenced by the
fluctuations of Court favour from time to time. A despatch in February,
written in behalf of CARLISLE, is followed in April by another despatch
written in behalf of PEMBROKE and COURTEN. The one fact that becomes
consistently evident throughout the proceedings is that grants of this
kind were made in the loosest fashion, and often in entire ignorance
even of the geographical positions of the countries given by them.[39]
Indeed, the common course of procedure under the STUARTS, when a
courtier had the happy thought of begging a territory in America,
reminds one of those earlier days of the TUDORS, when a favoured
suppliant sometimes obtained the grant of a monastery, or the lease of a
broad episcopal estate, with hardly more trouble than it cost him to win
a royal smile.

To COURTEN and his colonists the issue of this quarrel about Barbadoes
was very disastrous. To some of the latter it brought ruin. But to the
founder himself a check to enterprise in one direction seems to have
brought increased stimulus to new enterprise in another direction. He
now embarked largely in adventures to the East Indies and to China. As
usual, they were planned on a magnificent scale; excited great jealousy
in the breasts of competitors; and were attended, in the long run, with
very mixed results of good and ill.

Meanwhile, Sir William’s growing wealth—greatly exaggerated by popular
renown—and the conspicuous position into which his varied pursuits had
brought him, led to plans of enterprise by others, and of quite another
kind, at home. He had lost his first wife, and also his eldest son. He
had married a second wife,—Hester TRYON, daughter of Peter TRYON. Only
one son survived, but Sir William had three daughters, whose prospective
charms attracted many suitors. In September, 1624, King JAMES wrote a
characteristic letter in which he assured COURTEN that the son of Sir
Robert FLEETWOOD, Lord of the Scottish barony of Newton, would make a
fit match for one of the three daughters, and that the conclusion of
such a match would be very acceptable to the King himself. [Sidenote:
ALLIANCES BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COURT.] [Sidenote: James I to Sir
Willm. Courten; _Dom. Corr._, vol. clxxii, § 71.] The pretendant would
gladly, and impartially, wed any one of the three ladies, but the King
himself, continues the royal letter, ‘will regard, as a favour, any
increase of portion given to the daughter whom FLEETWOOD may marry, over
and above the portion given to, or intended for, the other daughters.’

But despite so powerful a recommendation the young Baron of NEWTON
failed in his suit. Among the aspirants with whom he stood in
competition were men much higher in social position. Eventually, the
eldest daughter married Sir Edward LYTTELTON of Staffordshire. The
second daughter married Henry GREY, eighth Earl of Kent, of that family.
And the third married Sir Richard KNIGHTLEY of Fawsley.

Royal commendations of suitors were sure, in that age, not to be the
only sample of royal letters—direct and indirect—with which a man in Sir
William COURTEN’S position became familiar. He was favoured with not a
few solicitations for advances of money on privy-seals, and in other
forms of ‘loan.’ Sometimes he complies. Sometimes he remonstrates by
specifying the large sums he contributes to the revenue in the way of
custom’s duties, and the entire incapability thence arising of the
desired response to privy-seals and the like documents. His loans,
however, to JAMES, and to CHARLES, amounted to no less a sum than
£27,000.

[Sidenote: COMMERCIAL COMPLICATIONS IN HOLLAND.]

The death in 1625 of his brother, Sir Peter COURTEN, deprived the firm
of its efficient representative in Holland, and laid a foundation for
great misfortunes by putting in his place an unworthy successor. The
partner resident at Middleburgh had the trust both of a large portion of
the capital of the Company, and of the chief share of its account
keeping.

Peter BOUDAEN was a nephew of the COURTENS, and had been to some extent
admitted as a partner. His uncle Peter made him also his executor. He
thus acquired a great control over the continental affairs of the house,
just at the time when its transactions were expanding in all directions.
[Sidenote: 1631.] He proved unfaithful to his trust, applied his large
local influence to his personal advantage and to the prejudice of his
partners; and at length failed altogether to render due accounts to the
two partners in England. MOUNCEY, the junior of these, went to Holland
in order to enforce an adjustment. He had hardly entered on his task
when he died, after a very brief illness, in BOUDAEN’S house at
Middleburgh. BOUDAEN made a Will for him; asserted that the testator had
executed it, in due form of law, immediately before his death; and found
means to get the document sanctioned by the Dutch Courts, in the face of
strong opposition and of strong presumptive evidence of fraud.

[Sidenote: ESTABLISHMENT BY SIR W. COURTEN OF THE BRITISH FISHERY
           ASSOCIATION.]

[Sidenote: _Domest. Corresp._, Charles I, vol. cclxxxvii, § 57; vol.
           ccciii, § 75; cccxiii, § 16; cccxvii, § 75.]

Sir William COURTEN, meanwhile, prosecuted with his characteristic
vigour his vast enterprises already established; made new and large
ventures in the reclaiming of waste lands in England; and established
the ‘Fishery Association of Great Britain and Ireland,’ with a view to
the rescue from the Dutch of that productive herring fishery on our own
coasts, which the growing supineness of English governments during at
least two generations had permitted to become almost a monopoly in their
hands. Of this Association COURTEN, during the closing years of his
life, was the mainspring.

The Dutch, as was natural, strove vigorously to retain the advantage
they had acquired, and were little scrupulous about the means of
opposition. English herring busses were occasionally captured. And the
captors had the great incidental advantage in the strife of dealing with
a Government already weak at home, and yearly losing ground.

[Sidenote: THE TRADE WITH INDIA.]

The East Indian adventures were, at length, attended by circumstances
still more complex than those pertaining to the fishery business at
home, or to the trading in Holland. [Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp._,
Charles I, vol. cccxxiii, p. 58; vol. cccxliii, § 19.] For, in the
former, English rivalry had to be encountered, as well as Dutch rivalry.
And the rivalry took such a shape as to make the carrying on of trade
extremely like the carrying on of war. But, as if the care of these
varied interests, in addition to all the toils and anxieties of ordinary
commerce on an extraordinary scale, were all too little to occupy the
mind of a man who had now reached his sixty-sixth year, we find Sir
William COURTEN taking, just at the close of life, a new and leading
part in the business of redeeming captives who had been taken by the
pirates of Morocco and Algiers. [Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp._, Charles
I, vol. cccxv, § 16; vol. ccclxviii, § 82.] Nor was this merely an
affair of the provision of money and the conduct of correspondence. It
involved an intimate acquaintance with the circumstances and the needs
of the Barbary States, being carried on, in part, on the principle of
barter.


But all these far-spread activities were now fast approaching their
natural close. COURTEN’S career had been, as a whole, wonderfully
prosperous, until very near its close. Already it contained, indeed, the
germ of a series of reverses, hardly less remarkable; but the growth of
that germ was to depend on the as yet unseen course of public events.
His ambition to ‘found a family’ had also been gratified by the marriage
of his only surviving son[40]—William COURTEN, third of his name—with
the Lady Katherine EGERTON, daughter of John EGERTON, Earl of
Bridgewater. [Sidenote: _Courten Papers_, in MS. Sloane, 3515.] On that
son and his heirs, Sir William COURTEN settled landed estates amounting
to nearly seven thousand pounds a year.

Sir William COURTEN died in June, 1636. The commercial enterprises of
all kinds which were in full activity at the time of his death were
continued by his son, who inherited large claims, large
responsibilities, and large perils. And it was of the perils that—after
his succession—he had earliest experience.

[Sidenote: THE THIRD WILLIAM COURTEN.]

Just before the father’s death, a complaint had been made to the Privy
Council that certain ships which he had sent to Surat and other places
had committed acts of ‘piracy near the mouth of the Red Sea.’ [Sidenote:
_Domestic Corresp._, Charles I, vol. cccxliii, § 19.] It appeared
afterwards that the ships which had given cause, or pretext, of
complaint were not COURTEN’S ships, but the accusation entailed trouble,
and was, to the heir, the beginning of troubles to come. The opposition
of the East India Company to the Indian trading of ‘interlopers’ (as
they were called already) was unremitting and bitter. [Sidenote:
_Courten Papers_, in MS. Sloane, 3515, p. 38.] In June, 1637, William
COURTEN, with a view to arm himself for the encounter, obtained from the
Crown letters patent which empowered himself and his associates to trade
with all parts of the East, ‘wheresoever the East India Company had not
settled factories or trade before the twelfth day of December, 1635.’
One of his chief associates under the new grant was Endymion PORTER, and
it appears that it was partly by PORTER’S influence at Court that the
grant had been procured.

Renewed activity was now shown in prosecuting the Eastern trade; new and
large ventures were made in it. On some occasions as many as seven
well-appointed ships were sent out by COURTEN and his associates at one
time. Instructions are still extant which were given to the chief
agents, supercargoes, and factors, for the settlement of English
factories at many important places where none had heretofore existed.
They are marked by great sagacity and breadth of view, and, in several
points, contrast advantageously with contemporary documents of a like
kind.

[Sidenote: SEIZURE BY THE DUTCH OF THE BONA ESPERANZA AND HENRY
           BONADVENTURE IN THE INDIAN SEAS.]

The enterprise was pursued, as it seems, with satisfactory results until
the year 1643, when, in the Straits of Malacca, two richly-laden vessels
of the COURTEN fleet were seized by the Dutch. Subsequent proceedings
show that the value of the ships and their cargoes, with the contingent
losses, exceeded £150,000. Along with this severe blow came the
interruptions and injuries to trade at home, which were the inevitable
accompaniment of the Civil War. Soon after it, there came indications
that the loss to Sir William COURTEN’S representatives by the misconduct
of Peter BOUDAEN at Middleburgh would but too probably prove to be a
loss without present remedy. It appears to have been established by the
evidence adduced in the course of the almost interminable litigation
which ensued that there was due from BOUDAEN to his partners a sum of
£122,000; none of which, it may be added, seems ever to have been
recovered. And the debt which had been contracted by JAMES THE FIRST and
his successor, though less grievous in amount, was at this time even
more hopeless.

Under the pressure of such a combination of misfortunes, William COURTEN
found himself practically and suddenly insolvent. He met some of the
most pressing claims upon him by the sale of available portions of his
landed property. He assigned other portions of his estates to trustees,
and became himself an exile. He survived the ruin of the brilliant hopes
and expectations to which he had been born about ten years; dying at
Florence in the year 1655. He left, by his marriage with Lady Katherine
EGERTON, one son and one daughter.


[Sidenote: WILLIAM COURTEN, FOUNDER OF THE SLOANE MUSEUM.]

The fourth William COURTEN was born in London on the 28th March, 1642.
He was baptized at St. Gabriel Fenchurch, on the 31st of that month. The
downfall of his family was therefore very nearly contemporaneous with
his own birth, and makes it explicable that no record can now be found
of the places of his education, or of the course of his early years. But
the first trace which does occur of him is in exact harmony with the one
fact which makes his existence memorable to his countrymen. [Sidenote:
_Museum Tradescantianum_, (1656).] He appears, at the age of fourteen,
in the list of benefactors to the Tradescant Museum, at Lambeth, a
collection which afterwards became the basis of the Ashendean Museum at
Oxford.

The Tradescants—father and son—hold a conspicuous place in the history
of Botanical Science in England, and they are especially notable as the
founders of the first ‘Museum’ worthy of the name, which was established
in this country. The next collection of note, after theirs, was that
formed by Robert HUBERT, in his house near St. Paul’s Cathedral. Other
collectors—as for example, John CONYERS and Dr. John WOODWARD—soon
followed the example. But in this path all of them were far outstripped
by COURTEN, who had marked his early bias, and also his characteristic
liberality, by his gift to the TRADESCANTS in 1656.

Part of COURTEN’S youth was passed at Montpelier, where he formed the
acquaintance of several men then, or afterwards, famous for their
scientific acquirements. Amongst them, and with the local advantages for
the study of the natural sciences, in particular, for the possession of
which Montpelier was already noted, his tastes for observation and study
were developed, and his character took the ply which soon became
indelible.

If he ever possessed any share at all of the qualities and
predispositions for mercantile adventure, which had marked so many
generations of his ancestors on the father’s side, that share was far
too weak an element in his composition to resist the discouragements of
adverse circumstances. But as he attained manhood, he found himself
immersed—unwittingly in part—in a sea of litigation which boded ill to
his prospective enjoyment of leisure for scientific studies, whatever
might prove to be its ultimate results upon his worldly fortunes.

[Sidenote: THE SUITS AND CLAIMS INSTITUTED BY GEORGE CAREW, ON BEHALF OF
           COURTEN AND OF THE CREDITORS.]

Some of the later enterprises of Sir William COURTEN had been carried on
in conjunction with another famous merchant, Sir Paul PINDAR, who like
himself was a large creditor of the Crown. The administration of
PINDAR’S estate had fallen into the hands of a certain George CAREW, who
seems to have imagined that the restoration of royal authority in
England would bring with it opportunities, to an energetic man, of
winning a new fortune out of the remnants of the old fortunes which the
fall of royalty had helped to ruin. [Sidenote: _Courten Papers_, in MSS.
Sloane, 3515; 3961; and 3962.] Just before CHARLES THE SECOND came back,
this man busied himself in buying up claims against COURTEN’S estate as
well as claims against PINDAR’S. He had a stock of energy. He had also
the prospect of acquiring a good standpoint at Court, in addition to his
present possession of a good training in the mysteries of English law.
He was ready to devote all his energies to the business, and to
encounter at once with the Dutch East India Company, the Dutch Republic,
the Government of Barbadoes, and a host of adversaries at home.

There had, however, been no Commission of Bankruptcy. It was necessary
that the battle should be fought as well in the name of the heir and
representative of the family, as in the name of the collective body of
creditors. CAREW used COURTEN’S name and used it, as it appears, for
some years without authority from the legal guardian. COURTEN himself
did not become of age until 1663.

The Restoration was hardly effected before CAREW besieged the King and
the Courts with Petitions, Memorials, Claims, and Bills of Plaint. He
would lose nothing for lack of asking. And he was undeterred by
difficulties or rebuffs.

[Sidenote: THE BARBADOES CLAIM.]

The case of Barbadoes was thus put before the Committee of the Privy
Council for America:—

‘COURTEN claims the whole island of Barbadoes; and, more particularly,
the Corn Plantation, the Indian Bridge Plantation, the Fort Plantation,
the Indian Plantation eastwards, and Powell’s plantation. Sir William
COURTEN’S ships discovered the island in the year 1626, and left fifty
people there. Captain Henry POWELL landed there in February, 1627, built
[houses] for COURTEN’S colony, and left more than forty inhabitants
there. John POWELL erected Plantation Fort, and remained until he was
surprised in 1628 by a force under Charles WOLVERTON, by which the fort
was captured. [Sidenote: _Colonial Correspondence_, vol. xiv, §§ 37, 39,
42.] In 1629, Sir William COURTEN sent eighty men with arms, in the
‘Peter and John,’ and they retook the fort in the name of the Earl of
PEMBROKE, Trustee for COURTEN, according to the royal grant.’ And then
the Petition recites the recapture, under the conflicting Patent of the
Earl of Carlisle, as I have described it already.

There is, of course, no foundation for the statement that Barbadoes was
‘discovered’ by the ships of COURTEN. In other respects, the details
here set forth appear to be sustained by the evidence.

[Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp._, Charles II, vol. xx, § 77; and xlviii, §
           48.]

In order to the recovery of the debt from the Crown, CAREW suggested, in
another petition, and quite in the fashion of the day, that the
Petitioners should have ‘leave to raise the money’ due to the COURTEN
Estate from the estates of John LISLE, Thomas SCOTT, Thomas ANDREWS, and
others, concerned in the murder of the late King. In a third petition,
he prayed that ‘a blank warrant for the dignity of a baronet’ might be
granted, in order to sell it to the best bidder, and to apply the
proceeds in partial satisfaction of the debt.

[Sidenote: THE CASE OF THE EAST INDIA SHIPS.]

But it was to the prosecution of the claim upon the Dutch Republic for
the unwarranted seizure, in 1643, of the rich ships of the East India
Fleet that CAREW devoted his best energies. The damages were put at
£163,400. The main facts of the case were fully substantiated. And a
royal letter was addressed to the States General on the 21st of March,
1662, claiming full satisfaction.

A Memorial was delivered at the Hague in the April following, by the
English Ambassador, Sir George DOWNING, in which, after a general
statement of the case at issue, he went on to say: ‘Whereas it may seem
strange that this matter may be set on foot at this time, whereas in the
year 1654 Commissioners were sent to England who did end several matters
relating to the East Indies, and whereas in the year 1659 several
matters of a fresher date were also ended, and thereby a period put to
all other matters of difference which had happened about the same time,
and were known in Europe before the 20th of January in the same year, it
is to be considered that the persons interested in these ships were such
as, for their singular and extraordinary activity to His Majesty, ...
father to the King my master, were rendered incapable of obtaining or
pursuing their just rights, at home or abroad. [Sidenote: _Memorial
delivered to the States General_, at the Hague, 19 April, 1662.] And
upon that account it is that the business of the two ships remains yet
in dispute, though several matters of a much fresher date have been
ended.’

When these proceedings were initiated by Sir George DOWNING at the
Hague, COURTEN himself was still in his minority. But it is probable
that he had already returned to England.

COURTEN’S first personal appearance upon the scene was also made in the
way of presenting a petition to the King. [Sidenote: MS. Sloane 3515.]
In July 1663, he thus alleged that the steps which had been taken were
without his concurrence or knowledge, ‘and, as is feared, with intention
to deprive him of his claims.’ The King referred the petition to Sir
Geoffrey PALMER, who pronounced in COURTEN’S favour.


His position was one of great embarrassment. [Sidenote: THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COURTEN AND CAREW.] Some of his family connexions had already
suffered much annoyance from litigation about the COURTEN Estates at
home, and were little inclined to incur further risk or trouble on
behalf of a relative whose inheritance was certain to yield abundance of
immediate vexation and anxiety, and very uncertain in respect to its
prospects of any better harvest in the end. [Sidenote: 1663.] He was
advised to sell the remnant of his entailed estates, to put the product
of the sale out of danger from any adverse issue of pending claims, and
to come to terms with CAREW for the prosecution of the latter—or of some
of them—on a joint account. In accordance with this advice, an agreement
was made, in the course of 1663, by which CAREW was empowered to pursue
the claims against the Netherlands, as well on COURTEN’S behalf as on
his own and that of other creditors. The remaining landed estates in
Worcestershire and other counties—or nearly all that remained of
them—were sold, and a life income was secured.

For the next half dozen years COURTEN’S life was almost that of a
recluse, save that such activities as it admitted of were devoted almost
exclusively to the study of antiquities and of the natural sciences. A
great part of those years was passed at Fawsley with his aunt, Lady
KNIGHTLEY, one of the few relatives whose affection stood the proof of
adversity.


There are several reasons for thinking that the rudimentary foundation
of COURTEN’S Museum had been laid as early as in the time of his
grandfather, Sir William, whose mercantile and colonial enterprises
presented so many opportunities for bringing into England the more
curious productions of remote countries, as well as their merchandise.
Be that as it may, the collection of a museum which should eclipse
everything of its kind theretofore known in England became, from his
attainment of manhood, the leading aim and object of William COURTEN’S
career. It was to him both an ambition and a solace.

The other of the two men who thus came into brief contact in 1663 lived
a life as different from COURTEN’S as can well be conceived. CAREW seems
to have been a glutton in his appetite for contention. [Sidenote:
_Pretentien tegens d’Oost-Indische Compagnie_, &c. (B. M.)] And the
Dutchmen, as far as they were concerned, put no stint upon its
indulgence. There was also ample time for it. Treaty followed by war,
and war leading to renewed treaty, kept the affair of the _Bona
Esperanza_ and the _Henry Bon-Adventure_ both in active historical
memory, and in full legal vigour. Towards the close of 1662 it had been
covenanted by the English government, as a necessary condition of a good
understanding between the two Powers, that there should be a prompt
satisfaction of damages. The Treaty of Commerce of that year was tossed
to and fro on that one point of the COURTEN ships with more obstinate
pertinacity than on any other. To the intrinsic merits of the claim, in
the main, there was really no answer. To the legal technicalities by
which its settlement, if left to Dutch courts of judicature, could be
indefinitely protracted, there was no end. [Sidenote: THE CLAIMS IN
HOLLAND.] When letters of dismissal had been already drawn at Whitehall
for the Dutch envoys of 1662, because they insisted on a clause
extinguishing all outstanding claims on both sides; they skilfully
contrived to substitute leave to litigate[41] for a proviso to satisfy.
And the event justified their forecast.

[Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp._, Charles II, vol. cxiii, § 143.]

During the year 1665, Letters of Marque and Reprisal were granted to
CAREW and his associates, and a special clause of continuance until the
full recovery of debt and damages,[42] notwithstanding the conclusion of
any subsequent Treaty of Peace was inserted. This was done after an
elaborate argument before the Lord Chancellor CLARENDON. Several ships
were taken by CAREW’S cruisers, but they were nearly all claimed by
Hamburghers, Swedes, and others. And at length the cost of the reprisals
exceeded their yield.

In this case, and throughout it, as in so many other and graver cases,
the policy of CHARLES THE SECOND’S ministers was a policy of the passing
exigence. Principle had always to vail to expediency. The Dutch were
permitted, after all, to insert their favorite extinction clause in the
Treaty of Breda (21 July, 1667). Five years later, the Privy Council
advised the King that ‘it is just and reasonable for your Majesty to
insist upon reparation for the debt and damages’ sustained by the
seizure, in 1643, of the _Bona Esperanza_ and her consort. New Letters
of Marque led to the capture of more vessels, duly provided with a
diversity of flag; and to the imprisonment, in England, of the captors,
before trial or inquiry. Meanwhile, CAREW himself was seized abroad, and
put into a Dutch prison. [Sidenote: _Courten Papers_, in MS. Sloane,
3515.] And, at length, in 1676, the States of Holland sent express
orders to their courts of judicature, directing that ‘no further
progress shall be made in the pending suits,’ grounding the order upon
the proviso in the treaty of 1667, as extinctive of all claims and
pretensions, whatsoever, advanced by Englishmen against Dutch citizens,
be the foundation and history of such claims what they might. This
decree, therefore, operated in bar, as well of the claims of the
representatives of Sir William COURTEN, for the debt of Peter BOUDAEN,
as of those arising out of the seizure of the ships of the East India
Fleet. It was estimated that the COURTEN claims then pending in the
Courts of Holland amounted, in the aggregate, to £380,000 sterling.[43]

In May, 1683, a petition was presented to the English government, in
which humble prayer was made that that government would be graciously
pleased ‘to perpetuate the memory of Sir William COURTEN and of Sir Paul
PINDAR, by setting up their statues in marble under the piazzas of the
Royal Exchange—Sir William COURTEN’S at the end of the “Barbadoes walk”
at the one side, and Sir Paul PINDAR’S at the end of the “Turkey walk”
of the other side—for encouragement to all merchants, in future ages,
[Sidenote: _Vox Veritatis_, 1683. (B. M.)] to take examples by them for
loyalty and fidelity to their King and country.’


[Sidenote: COURTEN’S SECOND VISIT TO FRANCE, AND HIS TRAVELS.]

COURTEN did his best to avoid any personal share in those unceasing
turmoils, and to keep in the quiet paths of a studious retirement. But
he presently found that, in order to secure his end, he must needs do as
his father had done before him. He must leave England, either for Italy
or for France. When his mind was made up to exile, it was also made up
to the relinquishment of his name. William COURTEN became, even to his
nearest relatives, ‘William CHARLETON.’

The friendships he had already formed at Montpelier, in his youth, and
the local charms of that city for a studious man, incited him to revisit
his old retreat. But he made no permanent abode there. He took long
tours, in France, in Germany, and in Italy; adding everywhere both to
the stores of his knowledge and to the presses and cabinets of his
library and museum. It was during his second stay at Montpelier that he
formed his life-long friendships with a famous Frenchman, Joseph PITTON
DE TOURNEFORT, and with a more famous Englishman, John LOCKE. Here also
began his acquaintance with Dr. (afterwards Sir) Hans SLOANE.


It was at SLOANE’S instance that he made his solitary appearance as an
author, in the shape of a communication to the Royal Society, which was
laid before them in 1679, and afterwards printed in the _Philosophical
Transactions_, [Sidenote: _Philosoph. Transact._, vol. xxvii, pp. 485,
seqq.] under the title: _Experiments and Observations of the Effects of
several sorts of Poisons upon Animals, made at Montpelier_.


Thirteen or fourteen years were thus passed. And then, to the natural
yearning of an exile, there came the strong reinforcement of the call of
large collections for a settled abode. There are few claims to fixity of
tenure better grounded than are those of a Museum or a Library.

[Sidenote: RETURN TO ENGLAND.]

The return was not easy, but the difficulties were faced. It is probable
that he came back to England in the summer of 1684. He did not then own
one acre of that land of which his father had inherited so respectable a
breadth in half a dozen counties. He had not long arrived before one of
his nearest friends wrote him a letter, which seemed to bode ill for his
prospects of a peaceable life. ‘The number of creditors,’ wrote Richard
SALWEY to him, on the 18th August, 1684, ‘is incredible, for the debts
are standing, and multiplied to children and grandchildren, who, so long
as the parchment and the wax can be preserved, will not forego their
hopes nor attempts. And I fear your late so public station[44] will
daily expose you, and that you will at every backstairs and turning be
pulled by the sleeve and provoked. [Sidenote: Salwey to ‘Charlton;’ MS.
Sloane, 3962, f. 191.] Nor yet do I know of any danger consequent in any
suit that can be commenced, except putting you to great trouble and like
expenses;—and I fear you have not a superfluous bank to defray the
charge.’

COURTEN, however, was not seriously molested. He established himself in
London as the occupant of a large suite of chambers in Essex Court,
Middle Temple. Here his collections were conveniently arranged, and they
had space to expand. [Sidenote: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COURTEN MUSEUM.]
Ere long we find mention of his Museum as filling ten rooms.

Of the cost at which it had been gathered, there are now no adequate and
authenticated materials for forming an estimate. But in those days the
man who himself travelled on such a quest had a vast advantage over the
man—howsoever better provided with what in the sixteenth century was
called purse-ability—who sent other men to travel in his stead. In
COURTEN’S days no dealers explored the Continent as an ordinary incident
of their calling. The wreck, too, of such a fortune as that of the
COURTENS was not contemptible. [Sidenote: _Courten Papers_, in MS.
Sloane, 3962; 303.] When living in France (1677–79) our collector
appears to have had an income of about fifteen hundred pounds a year,
accruing from money invested in mortgages and in annuities.

Although his chief collections were of his own gathering, he had many
helpers. Among them was the future inheritor of his Museum, Hans SLOANE.
In the year 1687, when about to set out on his voyage to the West
Indies, SLOANE wrote to him: ‘I design to send you what is curious from
the several islands we land at,—which will be most of our plantations.’
[Sidenote: Sloane to ‘Charlton;’ _Ib._, 308.] The writer was then a
young man. Probably his acquaintance with COURTEN was at that time of
not greater standing than eight or nine years, but he writes of the
obligations COURTEN had then already conferred upon him: ‘I am extremely
obliged to you, beyond any in the world.’[Sidenote: _Ibid._]

The use this Collector made of his treasures was as liberal as the zeal
with which he had amassed them was indefatigable. The friend whose
correspondence has just been quoted said, after COURTEN’S death, that he
was wont to show his Museum very freely, and to make his stores
contribute, in various ways, ‘to the advancement of the glory of God,
the honour and renown of the country, and the no small promotion of
knowledge and the useful arts.’

Many notices are extant—scattered here and there in the _Diaries_ and
among the correspondence of the day—of visits made to COURTEN’S Museum
by men who were able to judge of what they saw. Those notices confirm
the general statement made by SLOANE, and show the comprehensiveness of
the collector’s tastes as well as the geniality of his character. Two
such notices have an especial interest, which is not lessened by the
fact that both of them are to be found in diaries that are well known.
They record the visits to Essex Court of John EVELYN, and of John
THORESBY.

[Sidenote: EVELYN’S VISIT TO COURTEN’S MUSEUM.]

EVELYN paid his first visit in charming company. It was made in
December, 1686. He thus tells of it in his journal: ‘I carried the
Countess of SUNDERLAND to see the rarities of one Mr. CHARLTON, in the
Middle Temple, who showed us such a collection as I had never seen in
all my travels abroad—either of private gentlemen, or of princes. It
consisted of miniatures, drawings, shells, insects, medals, ...
minerals; all being very perfect and rare of their kind; especially his
books of birds, fishes, flowers, and shells, drawn and miniatured to the
life. He told us that one book stood him in three hundred pounds.
[Sidenote: _Diary_, &c., vol. ii, p. 260. (Edit. of 1854.)] It was
painted by that excellent workman whom the late GASTON, Duke of Orleans,
employed.[45] This gentleman’s whole collection, gathered by himself
[while] travelling over most parts of Europe, is estimated at eight
thousand pounds. He appeared to be a modest and obliging person.’

EVELYN records two other visits, which he made at subsequent times. It
is obvious that during almost the whole period which elapsed between
COURTEN’S return to England and his death, his museum was a place of
frequent and fashionable resort; notwithstanding the warning which its
owner had received as to the perils of a ‘public station,’ under his
peculiar circumstances. To the celebrated diarist himself, his visits
seem to have suggested a very natural thought of the public value of
such an institution, to be maintained by and for the country at large.
And he was very far from keeping the idea to himself. EVELYN lived to a
more than ordinary term of years, but not long enough to see his idea
carried into act. He had, however, helped to prepare the way.

His incidental statement about the estimated money value of the COURTEN
Museum does not invalidate a foregoing remark in this chapter. The
estimate can hardly have been founded upon better ground than mere
conjecture. But it is curious to note the near approach of the guess of
1686 to another guess, on the same small point, made nine years later.

THORESBY’S visit occurred in May, 1695. He records it thus: ‘Walked to
Mr. CHARLTON’S chambers at the Temple, who very courteously showed me
his Museum, which is perhaps the most noble collection of natural and
artificial curiosities, of ancient and modern coins and medals, that any
private person in the world enjoys. It is said to have cost him seven or
eight thousand pounds sterling.... [Sidenote: Thoresby, _Diary_, 1695,
May 24, vol. i, p. 299.] I spent the greatest part of my time amongst
the coins; for though the British and Saxon be not very extraordinary,
yet his [collection of] the silver coins of the Emperors and Consuls is
very noble. He has also a costly collection of medals of eminent persons
in Church and State, and of domestic and foreign Reformers. But, before
I was half satisfied, an unfortunate visit from the Countess of PEMBROKE
and other ladies from Court prevented further queries.’

The visits of the ‘ladies from Court’ may not have seemed quite so
unfortunate to the host who had to entertain them, as to the zealous
antiquary whose recondite questions they broke off. At all events, such
visits must have been to COURTEN like renewed glimpses of the gayer life
of which he had known something in his early days.

In learned leisure, and in quiet pleasures such as these, his life
passed gently to its end. He kept up his correspondence as well with
some of the surviving friends of his youth, as with two or three of the
eminent scholars and naturalists with whom he had made acquaintance
during the travel-years of middle life. Failing to raise his fortunes to
the height of his early hopes, he yet won contentment by bringing down
his desires to the level of his means. He ceased to trouble himself with
claims on the Dutch Republic, or with pretensions to a proprietorship in
the Island of Barbadoes, or even about his interest in debts contracted
by the Crown of England. He had been able, in spite of all losses, to
open to his contemporaries means of culture and of mental recreation
which, on any like scale, had been before unknown to them. Only in the
most famous cities of Italy had the like then been seen. And he had the
final satisfaction of making the secured continuance of his Museum the
means of further securing, at the same time, the comfort and prosperity
of some humble friends and dependants whose faithful attention had
helped to solace his own closing years. Nor had he neglected those
consolations which are supreme.

William COURTEN’S Will was made on his death-bed, in March, 1702. Having
bequeathed certain pecuniary legacies—increased two days afterwards by
codicil—and having provided for the payment of his debts, he made Dr.
Hans SLOANE his residuary legatee and sole executor. He forbade all
display at his funeral. He died, at Kensington, on the 26th of March,
1702, wanting two days of the completion of his sixtieth year.[46] He
was buried in Kensington churchyard, near the south-east door of the
church. By his friend and executor an altar-tomb, carved by Grinling
GIBBONS, was placed above his remains, with this inscription:—

                     Juxtà hic sub marmoreo tumulo
     jacet GULIELMUS COURTEN, cui Gulielmus pater, Gulielmus avus,
         mater, Catharina, Joannis Comitis de Bridgwater filia,
                 Paternum vel ad Indos præclarum Nomen;
               qui tantis haudquaquam degener parentibus,
                Summâ cum laude vitæ decurrit tramitem;
                 Gazarum per Europam indagator sedulus,
              quas hinc illinc sibi partas negavit nemini,
                 sed cupientibus exposuit humanissimè,
                 Non avaræ mentis pabulum, sed ingenii
                  si quid naturæ, si quid artis nobile
                Opus, id quovis pretio suum esse voluit
                  ut musis lucidum conderet sacrarium;
                     ast mortis hæc non sunt curæ!
                    Hic Musarum cultor tam eximius,
                        Hic tam insignis viator,
                 Obiit, Quievit, 7 Cal. Apr. A.D. 1702.
                  Vixit annos 62, menses xi, dies 28.
      Pompa, quam vivus fugit, ne mortuo fieret, testamento cavit,
                    sed hoc qualecumque monumentum,
                     et quam potuit immortalitatem,
                       bene merenti mœrens dedit
                           HANS SLOANE, M.D.


Sir Hans SLOANE was the seventh and youngest son of Alexander SLOANE, a
Scotchman who had married one of the daughters of Dr. George HICKES,
Prebendary of Winchester, and who had settled in Ireland on receiving
the appointment of receiver-general of the estates of the Lord CLANEBOY,
afterwards Earl of CLANRICARDE. [Sidenote: LIFE OF SIR HANS SLOANE.] He
was born at Killileagh, in the county Down, on the 16th of April, 1660.

We learn that almost from earliest youth, Hans SLOANE evinced his
possession of quick parts and of keen powers of observation. And he gave
early indications of that happy constitution of mind and will which now
and then permits the union of intellectual ambition and aspiration, with
not a little of prudential shrewdness. A special bias towards the study
of the natural sciences was—as it has often been in like cases—one of
the things that were soonest taken note of by those about him. Faculties
such as these naturally pointed to medicine as a fitting profession for
their early possessor. His home studies, however, were checked by a
severe illness which threatened his life, and from some of the effects
of which he never quite recovered. But that illness helped to qualify
him for his future profession. If it took away, for life, the likelihood
that the bright promises of the dawn would be altogether realized in his
maturity, it seems to have strengthened, in an unusual degree, both the
prudential element which already marked his character, and his
predisposition to rely mainly, for the success of his plans, upon
plodding industry. From youth to old age an unweariable power of taking
pains was his leading characteristic.

In his eighteenth year he came to London with the immediate object of
studying chemistry and botany, before he entered on other studies more
distinctively medical. [Sidenote: EARLY STUDIES IN LONDON;] [Sidenote:
1677–1682.] He learned chemistry under STAPHORST,[47] and of botany he
acquired a good deal of knowledge by frequenting, with much assiduity,
the recently founded Botanical Garden at Chelsea. In the latter pursuit
he met with assistance from the intelligent keeper of the garden, Mr.
WATTS. [Sidenote: _MS. Corresp._] And ere long he acquired the
friendship of John RAY, and of Robert BOYLE.

After six years of steady educational labours, both scientific and
medical, he went to Paris, which possessed in 1683—and long
afterwards—facilities for medical education far superior to any that
could then be found in London. [Sidenote: AND IN FRANCE.] [Sidenote:
1683–4.] His companions in the journey were Dr. Tancred ROBINSON and Dr.
WAKELEY.

SLOANE had scarcely got farther into France than the town of Dieppe,
before it was his good fortune to make the acquaintance of Nicholas
LEMERY, and to find himself able to communicate to that eminent chemist
the results of some novel experiments. [Sidenote: _Eloge_, in _Mém. de
l’Acad. des Sciences_ (1753); and _MS. Correspondence_. (B. M.)] They
journeyed together from Dieppe to Paris, and the acquaintance thus
casually formed was productive of good to both of them. The studies
begun in Ireland, and assiduously continued in London, were now matured
in Paris under men of European fame. And the young botanist who
heretofore could profit only by the infant garden established by the
London apothecaries at Chelsea, and by an occasional botanizing ramble
into the country, could now expatiate at will in the magnificent _Jardin
des Plantes_ of the King of FRANCE. In that botanical university SLOANE,
too, had TOURNEFORT—four years his senior—for his frequent companion and
fellow-student.

In July, 1683, he took his degree as Doctor of Medicine in the
University of Orange. Thence he went to Montpelier, where he resided
until nearly the end of May, 1684. After visiting Bordeaux, and some
other parts of France, he returned to Paris. There were few towns, in
which he made any stay, that had not given him some friend or other, in
addition to a valuable accession of knowledge. And the friendships he
had once formed were but rarely lost.

Towards the close of 1684 Dr. SLOANE returned to England, whither the
reputation of his increased acquirements had preceded him. In January,
1685, he was chosen a Fellow of the Royal Society, and exactly one year
afterwards he was proposed for election as Assistant-Secretary. Among
the other candidates were Denis PAPIN and Edmund HALLEY. On the first
scrutiny, SLOANE had ten votes; HALLEY sixteen. The majority was not
enough, but on a second ballot HALLEY was chosen. Early in 1687 he
became a Fellow of the College of Physicians. He had thus early laid
some foundation for a London practice that would lead him to social
eminence, as well as to fortune. And for the good gifts of fortune he
had a very keen relish.

Loving wealth well, he loved science still better. But he had already
good reason to hope that both might be won, in company. He had become
known to Christopher MONK, second Duke of ALBEMARLE, and when that
nobleman received, in 1687, the office of Governor-General of the West
India Colonies, SLOANE received an invitation to sail with him, as the
Duke’s physician and as Chief Physician to the fleet; and he was desired
to name his own conditions, if disposed to accept the appointment.

He did not take any long time to think over the offer. If it presented
no very brilliant prospect of monetary profit, it opened a large field
for scientific research. [Sidenote: THE VOYAGE TO JAMAICA.] And, in the
main, the field was new. [Sidenote: 1687.] No Englishman had ever yet
been tempted to take so long a journey in the interests of science. He
knew that he had excellent personal qualifications for turning to good
account the large opportunities of discovery that such a voyage was sure
to bring. Nor was it less certain that it would bring innumerable
occasions for enlarging his strictly professional knowledge. And he had
on his side the vigour of youth, as well as its curiosity and its
enthusiasm.

In annexing to his reply the conditions of his acceptance he wrote thus:
‘If it be thought fit that Dr. SLOANE go physician to the West Indian
Fleet, the surgeons of all the ships must be ordered to observe his
directions.... He proposes that six hundred pounds, _per annum_, shall
be paid to him quarterly, with a previous payment of three hundred
pounds, in order to his preparation for this service; and also that if
the Fleet shall be called home he shall have leave to stay in the West
Indies if he pleases.’ The proposed terms were approved. [Sidenote:
_Corresp._ in MS. Sloane, 4069, ff. 86, 87.] The Doctor embarked at
Portsmouth, in the Duke’s frigate _Assistance_, on the 12th of
September.

His work as a scientific collector began at Madeira. [Sidenote: _Ibid._,
MS. Sloane, 3962, f. 310.] To botanize in that pleasant island was an
enjoyment all the more welcome after an unusual share of suffering from
seasickness, in the midst of professional toil. For it was honourably
characteristic of SLOANE that, under all circumstances and forms of
temptation, medical duties had the first place with him. What he
achieved for science, throughout his life, was achieved in the intervals
of more immediate duty.

He reached Barbadoes in November. Thence he wrote to COURTEN: ‘This is
indeed a new world in all things. You may be sure the task I have is
already delightful to me.’ [Sidenote: Sloane to Courten; _Ib._, 1687,
Nov. 28.] Then he continues: ‘I am heartily sorry that I, being new
landed here, cannot now send [what I have collected for you] with this
letter. What I had at Madeira cannot be come at. What is here I have
not, as yet, gathered. But you may assure yourself that what these parts
of the West Indies afford is all your own, the best way I can send
them.’

The collections begun thus favourably were continued at the beginning of
December in the islands of Nevis, St. Christopher, and Hispaniola. The
fleet reached Port Royal on the 19th of that month. Jamaica was explored
with ardent enthusiasm and with minutest care. Its animals and minerals,
as well as its plants; its history, as well as its meteorology, were
thoroughly studied. [Sidenote: Medical Cases appended to _Voyage to
Jamaica_; vol. i (1708).] And the medical skill of the new-comer was put
as heartily at the service of the toil-worn negro as at that of the
wealthiest planter, or of the highest officer of the Crown.

But presently SLOANE himself needed the care and skill he so willingly
bestowed. ‘I had a great fever,’ he says, ‘though those about me called
it a little seasoning.’ He had scarcely recovered before his knowledge
of the natural history of Jamaica was suddenly and unpleasantly
increased.

‘Ever since the beginning of February,’ I find him writing to the Lord
Chief Justice HERBERT (who seems to have been one of the earliest of the
many patients who became also friends): ‘I dread earthquakes more than
heat. For then we had a very great one. Finding the house to dance and
the cabinets to reel, I looked out of window to see whether people
removed the house (a wooden structure) or no. Casting my eyes towards an
aviary, I saw the birds in as great concern as myself. Then, another
terrible shake coming, I apprehended what it was, and betook me to my
heels to get clear of the house; but before I got down stairs it was
over. If it had come the day after, it had frighted us ten times more.
[Sidenote: Sloane to Lord Chief Justice Herbert; MS. Sloane, 4069, ff.
277, 278.] For the day it happened there arrived a Spanish sloop from
Porto Bello, giving an account of the destruction of great part of the
kingdom of Peru.’

Long before this letter was written the exploring studies and expedition
had been resumed with all the activity of renewed health, and they were
carried on—at every available interval, as I have said, of pressing
medical duty—throughout the year 1688. That eventful year, during which
the thoughts and anxieties of the mass of his countrymen were so
differently engrossed, was to SLOANE the especial seedtime of his study
of Nature. All that he was enabled to effect in that attractive path may
now seem very small and dim, when viewed in the light of subsequent
achievements. But it was great for that day, when, in England, the path
was so newly opened that the possession of a taste for collecting
insects was thought, by able men of the world, to be a strong
presumption of lunacy. And it soon fired the ambition of a multitude of
inquirers who rapidly carried the good work of investigation onward, in
all directions.

Towards the close of the year, the Duke of ALBEMARLE suddenly died. The
contingency for which SLOANE had had the foresight to make provision had
arisen, but in a quite unexpected way; so that his forecast failed to
secure him that time for continued research which he had coveted and
contracted for. The Duchess of ALBEMARLE had accompanied her husband in
his voyage, and, after the first shock of his death had been borne, was
naturally desirous to leave the colony. SLOANE could not allow her to
take the return voyage without his attendance. He hastened to gather up
his collections and prepared to come home. The fleet set sail from Port
Royal on the 16th of March, 1689.

[Sidenote: THE RETURN VOYAGE OF 1689.]

The voyage was full of anxiety. Such news from England as had yet
reached the West Indies was very fragmentary. And the lack of authentic
intelligence about the outbreak of the Revolution and its results, had
been eked-out by all sorts of wild rumours. The voyagers looked daily
with intense eagerness for outward-bound ships that might bring them
news, and were especially anxious to know if war had broken out between
England and France. When they caught sight of a sail so wistfully
watched for, they commonly observed in the other vessel as great a
desire to avoid a meeting, as there was amongst themselves to ensure
one.

The Duchess of ALBEMARLE had with her a large amount of wealth in plate
and jewels, as well as a large retinue. Her anxieties were not lessened
when the captain of the frigate said to her Grace, two or three weeks
after the departure from Port Royal: ‘I cannot fight any ship having
King JAMES’ commission, from whom I received mine.’ On hearing this
assurance—which seemed to open to her the prospect, or at least the
possible contingency, of being carried into France—the Duchess resolved
to change her ship. With SLOANE and with her suite she left the
_Assistance_, and re-embarked, first in the late Duke’s yacht, and then
in one of the larger ships of the fleet.

After this separation, ‘our Admiral’ says SLOANE, ‘pretended he wanted
water and must make the best of his way for England, without staying to
convoy us home, which accordingly he did.’ The voyage, nevertheless, was
made in safety.

[Sidenote: _Voyage to Jamaica_, &c., vol. ii, p. 344.]

They learned very little of what had happened at home, until they had
arrived within a few leagues of Plymouth. Then SLOANE himself went out,
in an armed boat, with the intention of picking up such news as could be
gathered from any fishermen who might be met with near the coast. The
first fishing vessel they hailed did her best to run away, but was
caught in the pursuit. [Sidenote: _Ibid._, p. 347.] To the question,
‘How is the King?’ the master’s reply was, ‘What King do you mean? King
WILLIAM is well at Whitehall. King JAMES is in France.’

[Sidenote: EARLY YEARS IN ENGLAND.]

SLOANE landed at Plymouth on the 29th of May, with large collections in
all branches of natural history, and with improved prospects of fortune.
The Duchess of ALBEMARLE behaved to him with great liberality, and for
some years to come he continued to be her domestic physician, and lived,
for the most part, in one or other of her houses as his usual place of
residence. In 1690 much of his correspondence bears date from the
Duchess’ seat at New Hall, in Essex. In 1692 we find him frequently at
Albemarle House, in Clerkenwell. He had also made, whilst in the West
Indies, a lucky investment in the shape of a large purchase of Peruvian
Bark. [Sidenote: _Sloane Corresp._, in MSS. Sloane.] It was already a
lucrative article of commerce, and the provident importer had excellent
professional opportunities of adding to its commercial value by making
its intrinsic merits more widely known in England.

The botanists, more especially, were delighted with the large accessions
to previous knowledge which SLOANE had brought back with him. ‘When I
first saw,’ said John RAY, ‘his stock of dried plants collected in
Jamaica, and in some of the Caribbee Islands, I was much astonished at
the number of the capillary kind, not thinking there had been so many to
be found in both the Indies.’

The collector, himself, had presently his surprise in the matter, but it
was of a less agreeable kind. ‘My collection,’ he says, ‘of dried
samples of some very strange plants excited the curiosity of people who
loved things of that nature to see them, and who were welcome, until I
observed some so very curious as to desire to carry part of them
privately home, and injure what they left. This made me upon my guard.’

[Sidenote: 1693.]

On the 30th of November, 1693, SLOANE was elected to the Secretaryship
of the Royal Society. A year afterwards he was made Physician to Christ
Hospital. It is eminently to his honour that from his first entrance
into this office—which he held for thirty-six years—he applied the whole
of its emoluments for the advantage and advancement of deserving boys
who were receiving their education there. For that particular
appointment he was himself none the richer, save in contentment and good
works.

[Sidenote: THE CATALOGUE OF WEST INDIAN PLANTS, AND THE CONTROVERSY WITH
           PLUKENET.]

In 1696 he made his first appearance as an author by the publication of
his _Catalogus Plantarum quæ in insula Jamaica sponte proveniunt, vel
vulgo coluntur cum earundem synonimis et locis natalibus: Adjectis aliis
quibusdam quæ in insulis Madeira, Barbadoes, Nevis, et Sancti
Christophori nascuntur_. [Sidenote: 1696.] He had already seen far too
much of the world to marvel that his book soon brought him censure as
well as praise. By Leonard PLUKENET, a botanist of great acquirements
and ability, many portions of the Jamaica Catalogue were attacked,
sometimes on well-grounded objections; more often upon exceptions rather
captious than just, and with that bitterness of expression which is the
unfailing finger-post of envy. PLUKENET’S strictures were published in
his _Almagesti Botanici Mantissa_.[48] SLOANE made no rash haste to
answer his critic. Where the censure bore correction of real error or
oversight, he carefully profited by it. Where it was the mere cloak of
malice, he awaited without complaint the appropriate time for dealing,
both with censure and censor, which would be sure to come when he should
give to the world the ripened results of the voyage of 1687.

A passage in Dr. SLOANE’S correspondence with Dr. CHARLETT, of
Cambridge, written in the same year with the publication of the Jamaica
Catalogue, shows that even whilst he was still almost at the threshold
of his London life, he was able steadily to enlarge his museum.
[Sidenote: Charlett to Sloane, in MS. Corresp., 4043, f. 193.] At that
early date, CHARLETT, who had seen it during a visit to London, calls it
already ‘a noble collection of all natural curiosities.’[49] The
collector, when he landed its first fruits at Plymouth, had yet before
him—such was to be his unusual length of days—almost sixty-four years of
life. Not one of them, probably, passed without some valuable accession
to his museum. And those sixty-four years were the adolescent and
formative years of the study of the Physical Sciences in Britain. They
were years, too, in the course of which there was to be a great
development of British energy, both in foreign travel and in colonial
enterprise. Very many were to run to and fro in the earth, so that
knowledge might be largely increased. As a traveller, SLOANE had already
done his spell of work. But just as that was achieved, he was placed, by
his election to the secretaryship to the Royal Society, precisely in the
position where he could most extensively profit by a wide correspondence
with men of like scientific pursuits all over the world, and could
exercise a watchful observation over the doings and the opportunities of
explorers.

[Sidenote: RESUMPTION OF THE ‘PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS.’]

But the most immediate result of his secretaryship was the resumption of
the suspended _Philosophical Transactions_. The interruption of a work
which had already rendered yeoman service to Science, abroad as well as
at home, had been caused by a combination of unfavourable circumstances.
The death of its first and energetic editor, Henry OLDENBURG; some
diminution in the Society’s income; and some personal disagreements at
its Council board, seem all, in their measure, to have concurred to
impede a publication, the continuance of which the best men in the Royal
Society knew to be inseparable from the achievement of its true
purposes. SLOANE bestirred himself with the steady vigour which had been
born with him; impressed his friends into the service; profited by the
foreign connections he had formed ten years earlier at Paris, Bordeaux,
and Montpelier, and so found new channels by which to enrich the pages
of the _Transactions_, as well as to extend their circulation.

He did it, of course, in his own way, and under the necessary influence
of his habits and predispositions. One natural result of his labours, as
secretary and as editor, was a frequent prominence of medical subjects,
both at the meetings and in the subsequent selections for permanent
record. If such a prominence might now and then give, or seem to give,
fair ground of complaint to men whose thoughts were absorbed in the
calculus of fluxions, or whose eyes were wont to search the heavens that
they might learn the courses of the stars, it had at least the excuse
that it tended to the elevation—in all senses of the word—of a
profession in the thorough education and the dignified status of which
all the world have a deep interest.

If SLOANE, in his day, occasionally made scientific men somewhat more
familiar with medical themes than they cared to be, he did very much to
make medical men aware of the peculiar duty under which their profession
laid them of becoming also men of true science. And in this way he
exerted an influence upon medical knowledge, which was none the less
pregnant with good and enduring results because it was in great measure
an indirect influence. It was one of the minor, but memorable, results
of the establishment of the Royal Society that it tended powerfully to
lift medical practice out of the slough of quackery.

This frequent reading of medical papers during the Doctor’s
secretaryship could not fail to give an opening, now and again, for the
wit of the scorner. A physician, in his daily practice, is constantly
seeing the power of small things. He may well, at times, over estimate
trifles. In the year 1700, Dr. SLOANE was made the subject of a
satirical pamphlet which appeared under the title of ‘_The
Transactioneer, with some of his Philosophical Fancies_.’ The author of
the satire was Dr. William KING, but, for a considerable time, the
authorship was unknown. There was great anxiety to discover it, not only
on SLOANE’S part individually, but on the part of the Council at large.
The whole affair was trivial, and would be unworthy of memory but that
it led to some dissensions within the Society itself, which for a long
time left marks of their influence.

[Sidenote: SLOANE AND WOODWARD.]

SLOANE conceived that _The Transactioneer_ was the production of Dr.
John WOODWARD—the author of _Natural History of the Earth_—who was
himself a member of the Royal Society’s Council. WOODWARD, in denying
the imputation, endorsed the satire. ‘Whether there was not some
occasion given,’ he said to the Council, ‘may be worth your
consideration. This I am sure of: The world has been now, for some time
past, very loud upon that subject. [Sidenote: _Newton Correspondence and
Papers_; cited by Brewster, in _Memoirs_, &c. (2nd Edit.), vol. ii, ff.
185, 186.] And there were those who laid the charges so much wrong, that
I have but too often had occasion to vindicate the Society itself, and
that in public company.’ The ill feeling thus excited lasted a long
time. It seemed at length, that the Society must lose either the
services of its laborious Secretary or those of his active-tongued
opponent.

The petty dissension came to a height when SLOANE chanced to make some
passing medical comment on the words ‘the bezoar is a gall-stone,’
occurring in a paper which he was reading to the Society, from the
Memoirs of the Parisian Academy of Sciences. SLOANE’S casual remark drew
from WOODWARD the offensive words, ‘No man who understands anatomy would
make such an assertion.’ On another occasion he interrupted some
observation or other made by SLOANE, by exclaiming—‘Speak sense, or
English, and we shall understand you.’ A friend or two of WOODWARD tried
hard to back him by enlisting the illustrious President on their side.
They reminded NEWTON that he had been often himself impatient under the
medical dissertations, and they praised Dr. WOODWARD’S acquirements in
philosophy. ‘For a seat in the Council,’ replied Sir Isaac, ‘a man
should be a moral philosopher, as well as a natural one.’ [Sidenote:
Records of the Royal Society.] Eventually, it was resolved: ‘That Dr.
WOODWARD be removed from the Council, for creating a disturbance by the
said reflecting words upon Dr. SLOANE.’ The latter was of a very
forgiving temper, and he soon sought to be reconciled with his
adversary.

His professional course, meanwhile, was steadily upward. A friendship
which he had contracted in 1705 with Dr. SYDENHAM greatly aided his
progress. SYDENHAM was retiring from practice, and gave to SLOANE his
cordial recommendations. In 1712[50] he was made Physician Extraordinary
to the Queen, whom he attended, two years afterwards, on her death bed.
He filled the office of Physician-in-Chief to GEORGE THE FIRST, by whom,
on the 3rd April, 1716, he was created a Baronet. He was, I believe, the
first physician who received that dignity. In 1719 he became President
of the College of Physicians. In 1727 he received the crowning honour of
a life which, to an unusual degree, had already been replete with
honourable distinctions of almost every kind. He was placed in the chair
of the Royal Society, as the next successor of NEWTON.

Eighteen years before, he had been welcomed into the illustrious Academy
of Sciences, the establishment of which at Paris had followed so quickly
upon the foundation of the Royal Society. Both academies had worked with
conspicuous success. Both had been adorned by a long line of eminent
members. They had frequently, and in many ways, interchanged friendly
communion. To SLOANE himself, the reception at Paris had been the
prelude of many like invitations from other learned societies in various
parts of Europe. No man of his time had a worthier estimate of the
dignity involved in the freemasonry of science, nor had any a more
conscientious sense of the duties and responsibilities which it entails.

As President of the Royal Society, one of his earliest proposals to the
Council was that, for the future, no pecuniary contribution should be
received from foreign members whose fellowship it invited as an honour.
He urged this step, notwithstanding that the Society was at the time in
debt from an unusual arrear of subscriptions,—an arrear so great that he
felt it to be right that the Council should be recommended to sue their
offending brethren in the law courts. His third proposal, like both the
others, had for its object the incontestible advantage and honour of the
Society. He checked some nascent abuses in elections by making it
necessary that there should be an express approval of every new
candidate by the Council, on the recommendation of not less than three
fellows, before proceeding to a ballot in the Society at large.


[Sidenote: THE NATURAL HISTORY OF JAMAICA.]

The work by which SLOANE holds his chief place in the literature of
science, the _Natural History of Jamaica_, was the work of no less than
thirty-eight years. Its materials, as we have seen, were collected in
the years 1687 and 1688. The first volume was not published until 1708.
Seventeen additional years elapsed before the completion of the second.
The fact indicates how crowded with avocations its author’s life was, as
well as the marked conscientiousness and thoroughness which from youth
to age characterized his doings.

The Jamaica book cannot be opened without some appreciation, even at
first sight, of this faculty of thoroughness. For it is shown not more
by the elaboration and beauty of the illustrations, than by the copious
citation of authorities, on all points in relation to which authority is
valuable. That all previous labourers in his field should have their
full meed of acknowledgment is with SLOANE a prime anxiety.

[Sidenote: SLOANE’S SERVICES TO ARBORICULTURE.]

The West Indian Voyage of 1687–89 had had, it may here be remarked,
other results besides that of exciting new emulation—at home and
abroad—in the study of natural history, and in the amassing in cabinets
and presses of the dried and preserved objects of that study. It gave a
marked impulse to arboriculture, both in England and in Ireland. What
SLOANE had to show, and to tell of, led to the sending oversea of
vessels expressly prepared for the transport of living trees; and
several noble ornaments of our parks and pleasure grounds date their
introduction to English and Irish soil from the expeditions so set on
foot.


The _Natural History of Jamaica_ excited considerable interest abroad,
as well as at home. [Sidenote: Corresp. of Sloane and Briasson; in MS.
Sloane, 4039, ff. 136–140.] Bernard de JUSSIEU offered to undertake the
editorship of a French translation, and BRIASSON, a Parisian bookseller
of some eminence, wrote to SLOANE that he was willing to incur the
charges and risk of publication, on condition that the author would send
the copper plates of the original work to Paris, for use in the new
edition. Sir Hans, however, objected to incur the risk of this
transmission across the channel, but was willing to have the needful
impression worked off in London; an arrangement to which the Parisian,
in his turn, was disinclined to assent, being of opinion—perhaps not
unjustly—that, in 1743, the art of copperplate printing was better
understood in Paris than in London. On these grounds the negotiation was
broken off.

[Sidenote: GROWTH OF THE SLOANE MUSEUM.]

Amidst these varied avocations, the growth of the library and museum
went on unceasingly. Friends and foes contributed, in turn, to its
enrichment. The year 1702 saw the incorporation with the original
gatherings of the West India voyage of the splendid collections of
COURTEN, the friend of SLOANE’S youth. In 1710, Sir Hans acquired the
valuable herbaria of his old assailant, Leonard PLUKENET. In 1718 he
purchased the extensive collections, in all departments of natural
history, of another friend of early years, James PETIVER. The herbarium
of Adam BUDDLE, a botanist little remembered now but of note in his
generation, came to SLOANE, as a token of friendship, from the death-bed
of its collector. [Sidenote: MS. Sloane, 4069, _passim_.] The scientific
possessions of Dr. Christopher MERRET were purchased from his son, and
from time to time, when valuable collections were known to be on sale
upon the Continent, agents went across to buy.


Of these numerous sources of augmentation the museum of PETIVER was next
in importance to that of COURTEN—but with a considerable interval. It is
said (in the contemporary correspondence, as I think) that its cost to
SLOANE was four thousand pounds. But remembering what four thousand
pounds was a hundred and fifty years ago, there is reason to suspect
some exaggeration in the statement.

[Sidenote: THE NATURAL HISTORY COLLECTIONS OF PETIVER.]

James PETIVER, when Sir Hans first became acquainted with him, was
serving, as an apprentice, the then apothecary of St. Bartholomew’s
Hospital. He afterwards became apothecary to the Charter House. He had,
in one way or other, made for himself a singularly extensive
acquaintance amongst seafaring men; and by their help had established an
almost world-wide correspondence with people interested in natural
history, or possessed of special opportunities for gathering its
rarities. Of such rarities, SLOANE somewhere says, ‘He had procured, I
believe, a greater quantity than any man before him.’ But in course of
time his collections overpowered his means, or his industry, for the
work of preservation and arrangement. When, at the collector’s death,
they passed into the possession of his friend, choice specimens were
found, not in order, but in heaps. The due classification and ordering
occupied many hands during many months.


[Sidenote: SLOANE’S CORRESPONDENCE, AND HIS CHARITIES.]

The charities of human life were not, in the breast of Sir Hans SLOANE,
choked either by the various allurements and preoccupations of science,
or by the ceaseless toils of a busy and anxious profession. He was a
very liberal giver, and also a discriminating and conscientious giver. I
have rarely seen a correspondence which mirrors more strikingly than
does that of SLOANE, a just and equable attention to multifarious and
often conflicting claims.

The multiplicity of the claims was, indeed, as notable as was the
patience with which they were listened to. Not to dwell upon the
innumerable gropings after money of which, in one form or other, every
man who attains any sort of eminence is sure to have his share (but of
which Sir Hans SLOANE seems to have had a Benjamin’s portion) or upon
interminable requests for the use of influence, at Court, at the
Treasury, at the London Hospitals, at the Council Boards of the Royal
Society or of the College of Physicians, and elsewhere; his fame brought
upon him a mass of appeals and solicitations from utter strangers,
busied with less worldly aims and pursuits. Enthusiastic students of the
deep things of theology sought his opinion on abstruse and mystical
doctrines. Advocates of perpetual peace, and of the transformation, at a
breath, of the Europe of the eighteenth century into a new Garden of
Eden, implored him to endorse their theories, or to interpret their
dreams.

His replies are sometimes both characteristic and amusing; none the less
so for the fact that his power of writing was, at all times, far beneath
his other mental powers and attainments. Now and then, though rarely, a
touch of humour lights up the homeliness of phrase.

To one of the enthusiasts in mystic divinity, who had sent for his
perusal an enormous manuscript, he replied: ‘I am very much obliged for
the esteem you have of my knowledge, which, I am very sure, comes far
short of your opinion. [Sidenote: Sloane to Gabriel Nisbett, May, 1737,
MS. Sloane, 4069, f. 38.] As to the particular controversies on foot in
relation to Natural and Revealed Religion, and to Predestination, I am
no ways further concerned than to act as my own conscience directs me in
those matters; and am no judge for other people.... I have not time to
peruse the book you sent.’

To the worthy and once famous Abbé DE SAINT PIERRE, who would fain have
established with SLOANE a steady correspondence on the universal
amelioration of mankind, by means of a vast series of measures,
juridical, political, and politico-economical, which started from the
total abolition of vice and of war, and descended to the improvement of
road-making by some happy anticipation—a hundred years in advance—of our
own MACADAM, he wrote thus: ‘I should be very glad to see a general
Peace established, for ever. [Sidenote: Sloane to St. Pierre, MS.
Sloane, 4069, f. 44.] Rumours of war are often, indeed, found to be
baseless, and the fears of it, even when well grounded, are often
dissipated by an unlooked-for Providence. But poor mortals are often so
weak as to suffer, in their health, from the fear of danger, where there
is none!’

Letters on high themes like these had their frequent variety, in the
shape of proffers of contributions, to be made upon terms, for the
enlargement of the Museum, the fame of which had now spread into very
humble ranks of society. A single specimen in this kind will suffice: ‘I
understand,’ wrote a correspondent of a speculative turn, ‘you are a
great virtuoso, and gives a valuable consideration for novelties of
antiquity,’—on getting thus far in the perusal, one can imagine Sir Hans
murmuring ‘not willingly, I assure you,’—‘a pin has been many hundred
years in our family, and was, I am told, the pin of the first Saxon king
of the West Angles,’ and so on.


[Sidenote: ACQUISITION OF THE MANOR OF CHELSEA.]

Until the year 1741, a few months after his resignation of the chair of
the Royal Society on the score of old age, Sir Hans SLOANE continued to
live chiefly in London; though often removing, for part of the summer
months, to his Manor House in the then charming suburb of Chelsea. He
had purchased that valuable manor, from the family of Cheyne, in 1714.
The fine old House abounded in historical recollections and amongst
them, as most readers will remember, in associations connected with the
memory of Sir Thomas MORE. It had the additional attraction of a large
and beautiful garden, close to that other garden in which the now Lord
of the Manor had pursued, with all the energies of youth, the study of
botany. One of his earliest acts of lordship had been a graceful gift to
the Company of Apothecaries, of the freehold in the land of which till
then they had been tenants. In 1741 he transferred his Museum and
Library from Bloomsbury to Chelsea. His former house—situated in Great
Russell Street, near the corner of what is now Bloomsbury Square—had
been capacious, but the new one admitted of a greatly improved
arrangement and display of the collections.


[Sidenote: A ROYAL VISIT TO THE SLOANE MUSEUM AT CHELSEA.]

The state and character of the Sloane Museum, in the fullness to which
the collector had brought it during these latest years of his life, can
scarcely be exemplified better than in a contemporary account of a visit
which was paid to the Manor House at Chelsea by the Prince and Princess
of Wales, in the year 1748. I quote it, almost verbally, from the
_Gentleman’s Magazine_ of that year, but with some unimportant
omissions.

[Sidenote: G. M., vol. xviii, pp. 301, 302. (July, 1748.)]

At that date, the Manor House formed a square of above a hundred feet on
each side, enclosing a court. Three of the principal rooms were, on the
occasion of this royal visit, filled successively—as the visitors passed
from one room into another—with the finest portions of the collections
in its most portable departments. The minerals were first shown. The
tables were spread with drawers filled with all sorts of precious stones
in their natural beds, as they are found in the earth, except the first
table, which contained stones found in animals, such as pearls, bezoars,
and the like. Emeralds, topazes, amethysts, sapphires, garnets, rubies,
diamonds, ... with magnificent vessels of cornelian, onyx, sardonyx and
jasper, delighted the eye, says the attendant describer, and raised the
mind to praise the great Creator of all things.

When their Royal Highnesses, continues our narrator, had viewed one
room, and went into another, the scene was shifted. When they returned,
the same tables were covered, for a second course, with all sorts of
jewels, polished and set after the modern fashion, and with gems carved
and engraved. For the third course, the tables were spread with gold and
silver ores, and with the most precious and remarkable ores used in the
dresses of men from Siberia to the Cape of Good Hope, from Japan to
Peru; and with both ancient and modern coins in gold and silver.

The gallery, a hundred and ten feet in length, presented a ‘surprising
prospect.’ The most beautiful corals, crystals, and figured stones; the
most brilliant insects; shells, painted with as great variety as the
precious stones; and birds vying with the gems; diversified with remains
of the antediluvian world.

Then a noble vista presented itself through several rooms filled with
books; among these were many hundred volumes of dried plants; a room,
full of choice and valuable manuscripts; and the rich present sent by
the French King to Sir Hans of the engravings of his collections of
paintings, medals, and statues, and of his Palaces, in twenty-five large
atlas volumes.

Below stairs, some rooms were then shown, filled with the antiquities of
Egypt, Greece, Etruria, Rome, Britain, and even America; other rooms and
the Great Saloon were filled with preserved animals. The halls were
decorated with the horns of divers creatures. [Sidenote: G. M., vol.
xviii, pp. 301, 302. (July, 1748.)] ‘Fifty volumes in folio,’ concludes
the enthusiastic bystander who chronicled, for Mr. Sylvanus URBAN, the
royal visit of 1748, ‘would scarce suffice to contain a detail of this
immense Museum, consisting of above 200,000 articles.’

The Prince of WALES, on taking leave of his host, gave expression to a
wish which he did not live long enough to see realised. ‘It is a great
pleasure to me,’ he said, ‘to see so magnificent a collection in
England. It is an ornament to the Nation. Great honour would redound
from the establishing of it for public use, to the latest posterity.’

Plans, more or less definite, of perpetuating those collections for
public use had occasionally engaged their owner’s thoughts almost from
the date of his acquisition of the Museum of William COURTEN, in 1702.
[Sidenote: THE WILL AND CODICILS OF 1749–51.] In 1707, he had watched
with interest a scheme that had been set on foot for the formation of a
Public Library in London by combining the old Royal Collection with the
collections of Sir Robert COTTON and of the Royal Society.[51] But that
scheme failed of execution, until, almost half a century later, it was,
in the main, revived and carried out as the indirect but very natural
consequence of his own testamentary dispositions.

His Will, in its first form, was made at Chelsea in 1748, but was
replaced on the 10th July, 1749, by the following codicil:—

[Sidenote: THE TESTAMENTARY DISPOSAL OF THE COURTEN AND SLOANE MUSEUM.]

‘Whereas I have in and by my said Will given some directions about the
sale and disposition of my Museum, or collection of rarities herein more
particularly mentioned, now I do hereby revoke my said Will, as far as
relates thereto, and I do direct and appoint concerning the same in the
following manner: Having had from my youth a strong inclination to the
study of plants and all other productions of nature, and having through
the course of many years, with great labour and expense, gathered
together whatever could be procured either in our own or foreign
countries that was rare and curious; and being fully convinced that
nothing tends more to raise our ideas of the power, wisdom, goodness,
providence, and other perfections of the Deity, or more to the comfort
and well being of his creatures, than the enlargement of our knowledge
of the works of nature, I do will and desire that for the promoting of
these noble ends, the glory of God, and the good of man, my collection
in all its branches may be, if possible, kept and preserved together
whole and entire, in my Manor House in the Parish of Chelsea, situate
near the Physic Garden given by me to the Company of Apothecaries for
the same purposes; and having great reliance that the right honourable,
honourable, and other persons hereafter named, will be influenced by the
same principles and [will] faithfully and conscientiously discharge the
trust hereby reposed in them, I do give, devise, and bequeath, unto the
Rt. Hon. Charles Sloane CADOGAN ... [_and to forty-nine other persons
whose names follow_,] all that my Collection or Museum at, in, or about,
my Manor House at Chelsea aforesaid, which consists of too great a
variety to be particularly described, but ... which are more
particularly described, mentioned, and numbered, with short histories or
accounts of them, with proper references, in certain catalogues by me
made, containing thirty-eight volumes in folio, and eight volumes in
quarto,—except such framed pictures as are not marked with the word
“_Collection_”—to have and to hold to them and their successors and
assigns for ever, ... upon the trusts, and for the uses and
purposes, ... hereafter particularly specified concerning the same.

‘And for rendering this my intention more effectual that the said
Collection may be preserved and continued entire in its utmost
perfection and regularity, and being assured that nothing will conduce
more to this than placing the same under the direction and care of
learned, experienced, and judicious persons who are above all low and
mean views, I do earnestly desire that the King, H.R.H. the Prince of
WALES, H.R.H. William, Duke of CUMBERLAND, the Archbishop of CANTERBURY
for the time being ... [Sidenote: _Authentic Copies_, &c. (B. M.) 17, p.
12.] [_and twenty-eight others, being chiefly great Officers of State_]
will condescend so far as to act and be Visitors of my said Museum and
Collection; and I do hereby, with their leave, nominate and appoint them
Visitors thereof, with full power and authority for any five or more of
them to enter my said Collection or Museum, at any time or times, to
peruse, supervise, and examine, the same, and the management thereof,
and to visit, correct, and reform, from time to time, as there may be
occasion, either jointly with the said Trustees or separately—upon
application to them for that purpose, or otherwise—all abuses, defects,
neglects or mismanagements, that may happen to arise therein, or
touching and concerning the person or persons, officer or officers, that
are or shall be appointed to attend the same.

‘And my will is and I do hereby request and desire that the said
Trustees, or any seven or more of them, do make their humble application
to His Majesty, or to Parliament at the next session after my
decease,—as shall be thought most proper,—in order to pay the full and
clear sum of twenty thousand pounds unto my executors or to the
survivors of them, in consideration of the said Collection or Museum; it
not being, as I apprehend or believe, a fourth of their real and
intrinsic value; and also to obtain such effectual powers and
authorities for vesting in the said Trustees all and every part of my
said Collection, ... and also my said capital Manor-House, with such
gardens and outhouses as shall thereunto belong and be used by me at the
time of my decease, in which it is my desire that the same shall be kept
and preserved; and also the water of or belonging to my Manor of Chelsea
coming from Kensington, or right of patronage of the Church of Chelsea;
to the end the same premises may be absolutely vested in the said
Trustees for the preserving and continuing my said Museum in such manner
as they shall think most likely to answer the public benefit by me
intended, and also obtain, as aforesaid, a sufficient fund and provision
for maintaining and supporting my said Manor House, ... to be vested in
the said Trustees for ever.... [Sidenote: _Authentic Copies_, &c. (B.
M.) 17, p. 12.] And it is also my will and desire that all such other
powers ... may be added or vested as well in the said intended Trustees
as in the Visitors hereby appointed, as shall by the Legislature be
thought most proper and convenient for the better management, order, and
care, of my said Collection and premises.’

Provision is then made, in subsequent clauses of this codicil, for the
replacement, by the Trustees surviving, from time to time, of vacancies
occasioned by death in the ranks of the Trustees first appointed; and by
surviving Visitors of vacancies so occasioned in those of the original
Visitors.

[Sidenote: LATER CODICILS.]

In September, 1750, another codicil added to the list of Visitors—in
order to supply vacancies which death had already wrought—the Earls of
MACCLESFIELD and SHELBURNE, and the then Master of the Rolls, Sir John
STRANGE, with proviso of succession for the Master of the Rolls of the
time being. Sir John BERNARD, Sir William CALVERT, and Mr. Slingsby
BETHEL were, in like manner, added to the roll of Trustees. The same
codicil excepted the advowson of the Rectory of Chelsea from the bequest
of 1749, and annexed it to the lordship of the Manor.

By his marriage with the daughter and heiress of Mr. LANGLEY, an
Alderman of London, Sir Hans SLOANE had issue two daughters, but no son.
The elder of the daughters, Sarah SLOANE, married George STANLEY, of
Poultons, in Hampshire; the younger, Elizabeth, married Lord CADOGAN. By
the representatives of those co-heiresses the large inheritance was
eventually enjoyed.

A subsequent codicil of 1751, added nine other Trustees, five of whom
were distinguished foreigners. Among the four English names are those of
John HAMPDEN (‘twenty-fourth hereditary lord of Great Hampden,’ and last
lineal male descendant of that famous stock) and William SOTHEBY.


[Sidenote: THE CLOSING YEARS.]

The declining years of a man to whom had been given, not only unusual
length of days, but an unusual span both of bodily and of mental vigour,
so that he remained in the rank of busy men until he had passed his
eightieth year, were necessarily days of seclusion. He had enjoyed not
only the honours[52] and the comforts, but the troop of friends which
should accompany old age. Yet a man who reaches the age of ninety-two
must needs lose the friends of his maturity, as well as the friends of
his youth. Sir Hans SLOANE, in the old Manor House of Chelsea, had
something of the experience which made a famous statesman of our own
day, who was loth to leave the stir of London life, say—with a sigh—‘I
see all the world passing my windows, but few come in.’

His chief recreations, in those latest years, lay in the continued
examination of the stores of nature and of art which never palled upon
his capacity of enjoyment, and in the regular weekly visit of a much
younger man, who was very conversant in the busy world without; who
could talk, and talk well, alike upon public events, upon the novelties
of science, and upon the gossip of the coffee-houses and the clubs. This
friend of old age was George EDWARDS, a naturalist of considerable
acquirements, and the author of some _Essays on Natural History_ which
are still worth reading.

SLOANE’S mental vigour long outlived his power of bodily locomotion. For
years he could move from room to room, or on very bright days from room
to garden, only by the aid of an invalid chair. In other respects, his
health gave a weighty sanction to the counsel which he had been wont to
give, not infrequently, in lieu of an invited but superfluous
prescription. ‘I advise you’ he would say, ‘to what I practice myself. I
never take physic when I am well. When I am ill, I take little, and only
such as has been very well tried.’

The end of a bright, abundant, and most useful life, came at the
beginning of the year 1753. On the tenth of January, George EDWARDS
found him rapidly sinking, and suffering greatly. On the eleventh he
found him at the point of death. ‘I continued with him,’ he wrote,
‘later than any one of his relatives. But I was obliged to retire—his
last agonies being beyond what I could bear; although, under his pain
and weakness of body, he seemed to retain a great firmness of mind and
resignation to the will of God.’ He was buried at Chelsea, in the same
vault in which, twenty-eight years before, he had buried his wife.


[Sidenote: SYNOPTICAL TABLES OF THE SLOANE MUSEUM.]

This indefatigable collector had continued to enrich his Museum with new
accessions as long as he lived. We have the means of estimating its
growth—as regards mere numbers, of course—by comparing a synoptical
table drawn up in 1725—for the purpose of showing to certain grumblers
what had been the nature and aim of those avocations which had delayed
the completion of the _Natural History of Jamaica_—with another table
drawn up by his Trustees immediately after his death.

The comparison of numbers shows that the twenty thousand two hundred and
twenty-eight coins and medals of 1725 had grown, in 1752, to thirty-two
thousand. Other antiquities had increased from eight hundred and
twenty-four to two thousand six hundred and thirty-five. The minerals
and fossils had increased from about three thousand to five thousand
eight hundred and twenty-two specimens. The botanical collection which,
in 1725, had numbered eight thousand two hundred and twenty-six
specimens, together with a _Hortus Siccus_ of two hundred volumes, had
become in 1752 twelve thousand five hundred specimens, with a _Hortus
Siccus_ of three hundred and thirty-four volumes. The other natural
history collections had increased on the average by more than one half.
The details are as follows:—

 ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
 │   Volumes in                                          Volumes in    │
 │     =1725=.                                             =1753=.     │
 │                                                                     │
 │            2,686  1. MANUSCRIPTS                               3,516│
 │              136  2. DRAWINGS                                    347│
 │                   3. PRINTED BOOKS                      about 40,000│
 │              200  4. HORTUS SICCUS                               334│
 │                                                                     │
 │  Specimens in                                        Specimens in   │
 │     =1725=.                                             =1753=.     │
 │                                                                     │
 │           20,228  5. MEDALS and COINS                         32,000│
 │              302  6. ANTIQUITIES                               1,125│
 │              81*  7. SEALS, &c.                                  268│
 │             441*  8. CAMEOS and INTAGLIOS                  about 700│
 │            1,394  9. PRECIOUS STONES                           2,256│
 │                                                                     │
 │  [*See under No. 10. VESSELS OF AGATE, JASPER, &c.                  │
 │              8.]                                                 542│
 │            1,025 11. CRYSTALS, SPARS, &c.                      1,864│
 │              730 12. FOSSILS, &c.                              1,275│
 │            1,394 13. METALS and MINERAL ORES                   2,725│
 │              536 14. EARTHS, SANDS, SALTS, &c.                 1,035│
 │              249 15. BITUMENS, SULPHURS, &c.                     399│
 │              169 16. TALCS, MICÆ, &c.                            388│
 │            3,753 17. SHELLS                                    5,843│
 │              804 18. CORALS, SPONGES, &c.                      1,421│
 │              486 19. ECHINI, ECHINITES, &c.                      659│
 │              183 20. ASTERIÆ, TROCHI, &c.                        241│
 │              263 21. CRUSTACEA                                   363│
 │                  22. STELLÆ MARINÆ                               173│
 │            1,007 23. FISHES, and their parts                   1,555│
 │              753 24. BIRDS, and their parts                    1,172│
 │              345 25. VIPERS, &c.                                 521│
 │            1,194 26. QUADRUPEDS                                1,886│
 │            3,824 27. INSECTS                                   5,439│
 │              507 28. ANATOMICAL PREPARATIONS, &c.                756│
 │            8,226 29. VEGETABLES                               12,506│
 │            1,169 30. MISCELLANEOUS THINGS                      2,098│
 │              319 31. PICTURES and DRAWINGS, framed               310│
 │               54 32. MATHEMATICAL INSTRUMENTS                     55│
 └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

On the 27th January—sixteen days after Sir Hans’ death—about forty of
the Trustees named in the Will met at Chelsea, to confer with the
Executors. Lord CADOGAN produced the Will and its Codicils. By these,
should the bequest and its additions be accepted, the manor house and
land, together with the collection in its existing state and
arrangement, would be given to the Public. This, said Lord CADOGAN, will
save the hazard and expense of removal. Mr. William SLOANE then informed
the Trustees that the Executors had thought it prudent temporarily to
remove the medals of gold and silver, the precious stones, gems, and
vases, to the Bank of England, in order to ensure their present safety.

The Earl of MACCLESFIELD was then placed in the chair. A synopsis of the
contents of the Museum was read by Mr. James EMPSON, who had acted as
its curator for many years. Mr. EMPSON was appointed to act as Secretary
to the Trustees, and a form of Memorial to be addressed to the King, in
order to the carrying out of the trusts of the Will, was agreed upon.

The Memorial had—eventually—the desired effect. [Sidenote: THE ACT FOR
ESTABLISHING THE BRITISH MUSEUM.] It led, in the course of the year
1753, to the passing of an Act of Parliament—26 GEORGE II, chapter
22—which is entitled _An Act for the purchase of the_ Museum or
Collection of Sir Hans SLOANE, _and of the_ Harleian Collection of
Manuscripts, _and for providing one General Repository for the better
reception and more convenient use of the said Collections, and of the_
Cottonian Library, _and of the additions thereto_.

The Act recites the tenour of the testamentary dispositions made by Sir
Hans SLOANE. It also recites that a provisional assent had been given by
his Trustees to the removal of his Museum from the Manor House of
Chelsea ‘to any proper place within the Cities of London and
Westminster, or the suburbs thereof, if such removal shall be judged
most advantageous to the Public.’

The Act then proceeds to declare that, ‘Whereas, all arts and sciences
have a connexion with each other, and discoveries in natural philosophy
and other branches of speculative knowledge,’ for the advancement
whereof the Museum was intended, may, in many instances, give help to
useful experiments and inventions, ‘therefore, to the end that the said
Museum may be preserved and maintained, not only for the inspection and
entertainment of the learned and the curious, but for the general use
and benefit of the Public,’ it is enacted by Parliament that the sum of
twenty thousand pounds shall be paid to the Executors of Sir Hans
SLOANE, in full satisfaction for his said Museum.

In this Statute, also, the preceding original Act for the public
establishment of the Cottonian Library (12th and 13th of WILLIAM III, c.
7), together with the subsequent Act on that subject (5th ANNE, c. 30),
are severally recited, and it is declared as follows:—

[Sidenote: FURTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF INCORPORATION.]

First, ‘Although the public faith hath been thus engaged to provide for
the better reception and more convenient use of the Cottonian Library, a
proper repository for that purpose hath not yet been prepared, for the
want of which the said Library did ... suffer by a fire;’

And secondly, ‘Arthur EDWARDS, late of Saint George’s, Hanover Square,
in the county of Middlesex, Esquire, being desirous to preserve for the
public use the said Cottonian Library, and to prevent the like accident
for the future, bequeathed the sum of seven thousand pounds’—after the
occurrence of a certain contingent event—for the purpose either of
erecting, ‘in a proper situation, such a house as might be most likely
to preserve that Library from all accidents, or—in the event of the
performance by the Public, before the falling out of the contingency
above mentioned, of that duty to which it already stood pledged by Act
of Parliament, then—for the purpose of purchasing such manuscripts,
books of antiquities, ancient coins, medals, and other curiosities, as
might be worthy to increase the Cottonian Library aforesaid;’ to which
end the same public benefactor further bequeathed his own library.

In order therefore to give due effect, at length, both to the primary
donation of Sir John COTTON, and to the additional benefaction made
thereto by Major Arthur EDWARDS, Parliament now enacted that a general
repository should be provided for the several collections of COTTON,
EDWARDS, and SLOANE, and that Major EDWARDS’ legacy of money should be
paid to the Trustees created by the new Act, in accordance with the
provisions heretofore recited in Sir Hans SLOANE’S codicil of 1749.

[Sidenote: THE SERVICES OF MR. SPEAKER ONSLOW IN THE FORMATION OF THE
           BRITISH MUSEUM.]

It is to the exertions, at this time, of Arthur ONSLOW, the then Speaker
of the House of Commons, that historical students owe their debt of
gratitude for the preservation of the Harleian Manuscripts from that
dispersion,—abroad as well as at home,—which befel the Harleian printed
books.

When the Memorial of SLOANE’S Trustees was first presented to GEORGE THE
SECOND, he received it with the stolid indifference to all matters
bearing upon science and mental culture, which was as saliently
characteristic of that king as were his grosser vices. ‘I don’t think
there are twenty thousand pounds in the Treasury,’ was the remark with
which he dismissed the proposal. Money could be found, indeed, for very
foolish purposes, and for very base ones. And the bareness of the
Treasury was, very often, the natural result of the profligacy of the
Court. But, in 1753, it was a fact.

Save for Speaker ONSLOW’S exertions, the Memorial would have fared
little better in Parliament than at Court. The then Premier, Henry
PELHAM, was not unfriendly to the scheme, nor was he, like his royal
master, a man of sordid nature; but a Minister who was every now and
then obliged to write to his ambassadors abroad, even in the crisis of
important negotiations, ‘I have ordered you a part of your last year’s
appointments, but we are so poor that I can do no more,’ could hardly be
eager to provide forty or fifty thousand pounds for the purchase of a
new Museum and the safety of an old Library.

[Sidenote: 1753. _Commons’ Journals_, March 19, seqq.]

ONSLOW proposed—eventually—as a means of overcoming these difficulties,
that a sum of money should be raised by a public lottery, and that it
should be large enough to effect not only the immediate objects
contemplated by the Will of Sir Hans SLOANE, and by the prior public
establishment of Sir Robert COTTON’S Library, but to purchase for a like
purpose the noble series of Manuscripts which had passed (just eleven
years before SLOANE’S death) to the executors of the last Earl of
OXFORD, in trust for his widow, the Dowager Countess, and for his
daughter, the Duchess of PORTLAND.

Edward, Earl of OXFORD, had stood at one period of his life, in the rank
of the wealthiest of Englishmen. He was the owner of estates worth some
four or five hundred thousand pounds. He was, too, a man of highly
intellectual and studious tastes; but, in his case, a magnificent style
of living, great generosity, and excessive trust in dependants, did what
is more usually the work of huge folly or of gross sins; they brought
him into circumstances which, for his position in life, might almost be
called those of poverty. But for this comparative impoverishment, his
own act—it is more than probable—would have secured to posterity the
enjoyment, in its entirety, of the splendid library he had inherited and
increased.

To the proposal of a lottery there was much solid objection. What were
then called ‘parliamentary lotteries’ had been introduced expressly to
put down those private lotteries, common in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, which had been fraught with mischief. It was
hoped, or pretended, that a ‘regulated’ evil would be reduced within
tolerable limits, whilst bringing grist to the national mill. But the
forty years that had passed since the first parliamentary lottery of
1709 had shown that the system was essentially and incurably
mischievous. PELHAM was averse to its continuance. As First Lord of the
Treasury, it was his poverty, not his will, that consented to the
adoption of so questionable an expedient for the purchase of the SLOANE
Collections. He had not, individually, any such love of learning as
might have induced an appeal to Parliament to set, for once, an example
of liberal and far-sighted legislation. He merely stipulated that some
stringent provisos should be put into the Act, directed against the
nefarious practices of the lottery-jobbers.

[Sidenote: THE LOTTERY OF 1753 FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE SLOANE AND
           HARLEIAN COLLECTIONS.]

Eventually, it was enacted that there should be a hundred thousand
shares, at three pounds a share; that two hundred thousand pounds should
be allotted as prizes, and that the remaining hundred thousand—less the
expenses of the lottery itself—should be applied to the threefold
purposes of the Act, namely, the purchase of the SLOANE and HARLEIAN
Collections; the providing of a Repository; and the creation of an
annual income for future maintenance.


By the precautionary clauses of the Bill, provision was made for the
prolonged sale of shares; for the prevention of the purchase by any one
adventurer of more than twenty shares, or ‘tickets,’ and for other
impediments, as it was thought, to a fraudulent traffic in the combined
covetousness and ignorance of the unwary.

All these precautions proved to be vain. Mr. PELHAM’S opposition was
abundantly justified by the result. Fraud proved to be, in that age,
just as inseparable an element in a Lottery scheme, however good its
purpose, as fraud has proved to be, in this age, an inseparable element
(at one stage or other of the business) in a Railway scheme,—however
useful the line proposed to be made.

It thus came to pass that the foundation of the BRITISH MUSEUM gave rise
to a great public scandal. When evidence was produced that many families
had been brought to misery, as the first incident in the annals of a
beneficent and noble foundation, a somewhat dull Session of Parliament
was suddenly enlivened by an animated and angry debate.

[Sidenote: THE PROSECUTION OF LEHEUP FOR HIS DEALINGS WITH THE MUSEUM
           LOTTERY.]

The provident clauses in the Lottery Act of 1753 were made of no effect,
mainly by entrusting the chief share in working the Act to an
accomplished jobber. One Peter LEHEUP was made a Commissioner of the
Lottery. This man had held some employment or other at Hanover, from
which he had been recalled with circumstances of disgrace. [Sidenote:
1753. December.] It is to be inferred, from the way in which his name
points an epigrammatic phrase in one of the letters of BOLINGBROKE,[53]
and in more than one of those of Horace WALPOLE, that it had come, long
before this appointment took place, to have a sort of proverbial
currency, like the names of ‘CURLL’ or of ‘CHARTRES.’ But, be that as it
may, Mr. Commissioner LEHEUP set on foot as thriving and as flagitious a
traffic in SLOANE lottery tickets, as was ever set on foot in railway
shares by a clever promoter of our own day. He wrote circular letters
instructing his correspondents how most effectually to evade the Act. He
sold nearly three hundred tickets to a single dealer by furnishing him
with a list of ‘Roes’ and ‘Does,’ ‘Gileses’ and ‘Stileses’ at
discretion. He supplied himself, with equal liberality; and contrived to
close the subscription, after an actual publicity of exactly six
hours—for the issue of one hundred thousand tickets. In a few days, of
course, tickets in abundance were to be had, at sixteen shillings
premium upon each, and in what looked to be a still rising market. The
trap proved to be brilliantly ‘successful.’

The subsequent explosion of parliamentary anger was rather increased
than lessened by an attempt of Henry FOX (afterwards the first Lord
Holland) to extenuate LEHEUP’S offence by some arguments of the ‘_Tu
quoque_’ sort. By a great majority, the House of Commons sent up an
address praying the King to direct his Attorney General to prosecute the
chief offender, who was accordingly convicted and fined a thousand
pounds. It is not uninstructive to note that Horace WALPOLE—himself one
of the SLOANE Trustees—treats the matter in one of his letters exactly
in the offhand man-of-the-world style in which Henry FOX had treated it
in the House of Commons.[54]

By this unfortunate episode, the name of one of the best of Englishmen
was brought into a sort of momentary connection with the name of one of
the worst. But the chief discredit of the story does not really rest
upon LEHEUP. A private citizen, of moderate means, had been willing to
expend seventy or eighty thousand pounds—besides an inestimable amount
of labour and research—upon an object essentially and largely public.
Yet a British Parliament could not summon up enough of public spirit to
tax its own members, in common with their tax-paying fellow subjects
throughout the realm, to the extent of a hundred thousand pounds, in
order to meet an obvious public want, to redeem an actual parliamentary
pledge, and to secure a conspicuous national honour for all time to
come. That want of public spirit did not exhaust its results with the
ruin of the poor families, scattered here and there, whose scanty means
had been hazarded and lost by gambling, under a parliamentary
temptation. It impressed itself, so to speak, on the subsequent history
of the institution for more than forty years. The Museum had been
founded grudgingly. It was kept up parsimoniously.

Had that fact been otherwise, the story of the knavery of Peter LEHEUP
would have little merited recital a century after it, and he, had passed
into oblivion.

The value of so small an incident in the crowded story of our National
Museum lies simply in the fact that it forms a just and salient
illustration of the narrowness of spirit with which the then
representatives of the people received the liberal gift of public
benefactors. It serves to show why it was that, from the year 1753 down
to some years after 1800, the History of the British Museum casts very
little honour on Britain as a nation, whereas the precedent history of
its integral parts, as separate and infant collections, casts, and will
long continue to cast, great honour on the memory of the COTTONS, the
HARLEYS, and the SLOANES, by whom they were painfully gathered and most
liberally dispensed.


Happily, as the course of this narrative—whatever its
shortcomings—cannot fail to show, the literary and scientific treasures
which men of that stamp had collected, came, in a subsequent generation
(and, in a chief measure, by dint of the exertions of the Trustees and
Officers to whom they had been, in course of time, confided) to be more
adequately estimated by Ministers and by Parliament in their public
capacity, as well as by the more cultivated portion of the people
generally. For more than a half-century past the History of the British
Museum has been one that any Briton may take delight and pride in
telling. And such it promises to be, preeminently, in the time yet to
come. In a conspicuous sense, the men by whom it was first founded, and
the men by whom, for what is now a long time past, it has been
administered and governed, have alike been true workers for Posterity.




                            BOOK THE SECOND.

                _THE ORGANIZERS, AND EARLY AUGMENTORS._




                        _CONTENTS OF BOOK II_:—


 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY.—EARLY HISTORY OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

        II. A GROUP OF ARCHÆOLOGISTS AND CLASSICAL EXPLORERS.

       III. THE COLLECTORS OF THE CRACHERODE, LANSDOWNE, BURNEY, AND
              EGERTON LIBRARIES, AND OF THE APPENDANT COLLECTIONS.

        IV. THE KING’S LIBRARY—ITS COLLECTOR AND ITS DONOR.

         V. THE FOUNDER OF THE BANKSIAN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY.

“The King made this Ordinance:—That there should be a mission of three
of the brethren of Solomon’s House, whose errand was only to give us
knowledge of the affairs and state of those countries to which they were
designed, and especially of the Sciences ... and Inventions of all the
World; and withal to bring us books, instruments, and patterns in every
kind....

“We have also precious stones, of all kinds; many of them of great
beauty.... Also, store of fossils.... But we do hate all impostures and
lies, insomuch as we have severally forbidden it to all our fellows,
under pain of ignominy or fines, that they do not show any natural work
or thing adorned or swelling, but only pure as it is, without
affectation of showing marvels....

“We have also those who take care to consider of the former labours and
Collections, and out of them to direct new explorations ... more
penetrating into Nature than the former.... Upon every invention of
value we erect a statue to the inventor, and give him a liberal and
honourable reward.

“We have hymns and services, which we say daily, of laud and thanks to
GOD for His marvellous works, and forms of prayer imploring His blessing
for the illumination of our labours.”—BACON, ‘_New Atlantis, a Work
unfinished_.’




                               CHAPTER I.
                             INTRODUCTORY.

  ‘A Museum of Nature does not aim, like one of Art, merely to charm
  the eye and gratify the sense of beauty and of grace.

  ‘As the purpose of a Museum of Natural History is to ... impart and
  diffuse that knowledge which begets the right spirit in which all
  Nature should be viewed, there ought to be no partiality for any
  particular class, merely on account of the quality which catches and
  pleases the passing gaze. Such a Museum should subserve the
  instruction of a People; and should also afford objects of study and
  comparison to professed Naturalists, so as to serve as an instrument
  in the progress of Science.’—

  RICHARD OWEN, _On a National Museum of Natural History_, pp. 10; 11;
     115.

    _Househunting.—The Removal of the Sloane Museum from
        Chelsea.—Montagu House, and its History.—The Early Trustees
        and Officers.—The Museum Regulations.—Early Helpers in the
        Foundation and Increase of the British Museum.—Epochs in the
        Growth of the Natural History Collections.—Experiences of
        Inquiring Visitors in the years 1765–1784._


[Sidenote: BOOK II, Chap. 1 EARLY HISTORY OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM.]

The practical good sense which had always been a marked characteristic
in the life of Sir Hans SLOANE is seen just as plainly in those
clauses of his Will by which he leaves much latitude, in respect of
means and agencies, to the discretion of his Executors and Trustees.
It is seen, for example, when, after reciting some views of his own as
to the methods by which his Museum should be maintained for public
use, he adds the proviso—‘in such manner as they (the Trustees) shall
think most likely to answer the public benefit by me intended.’ He had
a love for the old Manor House at Chelsea, and contemplated, as it
seems, with some special complacency, the maintenance there of the
Collections which had added so largely to the pleasures of his own
fruitful life. But he was careful not to tie down his Trustees to the
continuance of the Museum at Chelsea, as a condition of his bounty.
They were at liberty to assent to its removal, should the balance of
public advantage seem to them to point towards removal.

Chelsea was in that day a quiet suburban village, distant from the
heart of London. As the site of a Museum it had many advantages, but
it was, comparatively and to the mass of visitors and students, a long
way off. The Trustees assented to a generally expressed opinion that
whilst the new institution ought not to be placed in any of the
highways of traffic, it ought to be nearer to them than it would be,
if continued in its then abode.

[Sidenote: Edmund, Duke of Buckingham, to Duke of Shrewsbury.]

One of the first places offered for their choice was the old
Buckingham House (now the royal palace). It was already a large and
handsome structure. The charm of its position, at that time, was not
unduly boasted of in the golden letters of the inscription conspicuous
upon its entablature—

                     ‘_Sic siti lætantur lares._’

Its prospects, as described not very long before by the late ducal
owner, ‘presented to view at once a vast town, a palace, and a
cathedral, on one side; and, on the other sides, two parks, and a
great part of Surrey.’ Its fine gardens ended in ‘a little wilderness,
full of blackbirds and nightingales.’ Yet it was close to the Court
end of the town. But the price was thirty thousand pounds.

Another offer was that of Montagu House at Bloomsbury. Less charmingly
placed, and architecturally less striking in appearance than was its
rival, both its situation and its plan were better fitted for the
purposes of a public Museum. [Sidenote: MONTAGU HOUSE AND ITS
HISTORY.] It stood, it is true, on the extreme verge of the London of
that day. Northward, there was nothing between it and the distant
village of Highgate, save an expanse of fields and hedgerows. And for
a long distance, both to the east and the west, no part of London had
yet spread beyond it, except an outlying hospital or two. But there
were already indications that the town would extend in that northerly
direction, more quickly than in almost any other. The house had seven
and-a-half acres of garden and shrubberies; and its price was but ten
thousand, two hundred and fifty pounds.

Montagu House had been built about sixty years before for Ralph
MONTAGU, first Duke of Montagu. A spacious court separated the house
from Great Russell Street, towards which it presented to view only a
screen of pannelled brickwork, having a massive gateway and cupola in
the centre, and turreted wings, masking the domestic offices, at
either end. The house itself was rather stately than beautiful, but
its chief rooms and its grand staircase were elaborately painted by
the best French artists of the day. And the appendant offices were
more than usually extensive.

It stood on the site of a structure of much greater architectural
pretensions, erected for the same owner, only twelve years before,
from the designs of Robert HOOKE. That first Montagu House had been
burned to the ground.

The offer of Montagu House was accepted by the Trustees and approved
by the Government. It was found needful to make considerable
alterations in order to adapt the building to its new uses. This
outlay increased the eventual cost of the mansion, and of its
appliances and fittings, to somewhat more than twenty-three thousand
pounds. The adaptation, with the removal and re-arrangement of the
Collections, occupied nearly five years. It was not until the
beginning of the year 1759 that the Museum was opened for public
inspection. When removed to Bloomsbury, it was but brought back to
within a few hundred yards of its first abode.


[Sidenote: CONSTITUTION OF THE MUSEUM TRUST.]

We have seen that according to the plan for the government of the
institution which SLOANE had sketched in his Codicil of July, 1749,
there would have been a Board of Visitors as well as a Board of
Trustees. But, by the foundation Statute, enacted in 1753, both of
these Boards were incorporated into one. Forty-one Trustees were
constituted, with full powers of management and control. Six of these
were representatives of the several families of COTTON, HARLEY, and
SLOANE, the head, or nearest in lineal succession, of each family
having the nomination, from time to time, of such representatives or
‘Family Trustees,’ when, by death or otherwise, vacancies should
occur. Twenty were ‘Official’ Trustees, in accordance, so far, with
SLOANE’S scheme for the constitution of his Board of Visitors; and by
these two classes, conjointly, the other fifteen Trustees were to be
elected.

The Official Trustees were to be the holders for the time being of the
following offices:—(1) The Archbishop of Canterbury, (2) the Lord
Chancellor, (3) the Speaker of the House of Commons, (4) the Lord
President of the Council, (5) the First Lord of the Treasury, (6) the
Lord Privy Seal, (7) the First Lord of the Admiralty, (8 and 9) the
Secretaries of State, (10) the Lord Steward, (11) the Lord
Chamberlain, (12) the Bishop of London, (13) the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, (14) the Lord Chief Justice of England, (15) the Master of
the Rolls, (16) the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, (17) the
Attorney-General, (18) the Solicitor-General, (19) the President of
the Royal Society, (20) the President of the College of Physicians.

[Sidenote: Act of 26 Geo. II, c. 22, Clauses 4–8.]

To the first three of these Official Trustees Parliament entrusted the
appointment, from time to time, of all the Officers of the Museum,
except the Principal Librarian, who is to be appointed by the Crown,
on the nomination of the ‘Principal Trustees,’ as the first three
Trustees—the Archbishop, Chancellor, and Speaker—have always been
called.


The following fifteen persons were the first _elected_ Trustees, under
the Act of 1753:—The Duke of Argyle, the Earl of Northumberland, Lord
Willoughby of Parham, Lord Charles Cavendish, the Honourable Philip
Yorke, Sir George Lyttelton, Sir John Evelyn, James West, Nicholas
Hardinge, William Sloane, William Sotheby, Charles Grey, the Reverend
Dr. Thomas Birch, James Ward, and William Watson. [Sidenote: Records
of British Museum, in MS. ADDIT., 6179.] The first meeting of the
Trustees under the Act was held at the Cockpit, Whitehall, on the 17th
of December, 1753.

The first ‘Principal Librarian’[55] was Dr. Gowin KNIGHT, a member of
the College of Physicians, and eminent, in his day, as a cultivator of
experimental science. Some magnetic apparatus of his construction and
gift was placed in the Museum soon after its opening, and attracted,
in its day, much attention. He received the appointment after a keen
competition with the more widely-known physician and botanist, Sir
John HILL. The first three ‘Keepers of Departments’ were Dr. Matthew
MATY, Dr. Charles MORTON, and Mr. James EMPSON. Dr. KNIGHT retained
his post until 1772.

MATY and MORTON succeeded in turn to the office of Principal
Librarian, and their respective services will have a claim to notice
hereafter. EMPSON had been the valued servant and friend of Sir Hans
SLOANE. He is the only officer whose name appears in SLOANE’S Will. He
had served him as Keeper of the Museum at Chelsea for many years.


There is, in one of the letters of Horace WALPOLE to Sir Horace MANN,
an amusing account of an initiatory meeting of the original Trustees,
held prior to their formal constitution by Parliament. It is marked by
the writer’s usual superciliousness towards all hobbies, except the
dilettante hobby which he himself was wont to ride so hard. ‘I employ
my time chiefly, at present,’ he wrote to MANN, in February, 1753, ‘in
the guardianship of embryos and cockle shells. Sir Hans SLOANE valued
his Museum at eighty thousand pounds, and so would anybody who loves
hippopotamuses, sharks with one ear, and spiders as big as geese....
We are a charming wise set—all Philosophers, Botanists, Antiquarians,
and Mathematicians—and adjourned our first meeting because Lord
MACCLESFIELD, our Chairman, was engaged in a party for finding out the
Longitude.’

‘One of our number,’ continues WALPOLE, ‘is a Moravian, who signs
himself “Henry XXVIII, Count de REUSS.” The Moravians have settled a
colony at Chelsea, in Sir Hans’ neighbourhood, and I believe he
intended to beg Count Henry the Twenty-Eighth’s skeleton for his
Museum.’ This distinguished foreigner does not appear in the
parliamentary list.

The Chairman of the preliminary meeting so airily described by
WALPOLE, continued, under the definitive constitution of the Trust, to
take a leading part in its administration. It appears to have been by
Lord MACCLESFIELD that the original ‘Statutes and Bye-laws’ of the
Museum, or many of them, were drafted.’

[Sidenote: THE REGULATIONS FOR ADMISSION AND STUDY.]

In the form in which they were first issued, in 1759, these statutes
directed that the Museum should ‘be kept open every day in the week,
except Saturday and Sunday.’ [Sidenote: 1759–1803.] For the greater
part of the year the public hours were from nine o’clock in the
morning until three o’clock in the afternoon. On certain days, in the
summer months, the open hours were from four o’clock in the afternoon
until eight—so as to meet the requirements of persons actively engaged
in business during the early part of the day. But the publicity was
hampered by a system of admission-tickets which had to be applied for
on a day precedent to that of every intended visit. The application
had first to be made, then registered; a second application had to
follow, in order to receive the ticket; and the ticket could rarely be
used at the time of receiving it. [Sidenote: MS. ADDIT., 6179, ff. 36,
seqq.] So that, in practice, each visit to the Museum had commonly to
be preceded by two visits to the ‘Porter’s Lodge.’

The visitors were admitted in parties, at the prescribed hours, and
were conducted through the Museum by its officers according to a
routine which, practically and usually, allowed to each group of
visitors only one hour for the inspection of the whole. Special
arrangements, however, were made for those who resorted to the Museum
for purposes of study. [Sidenote: _Statutes and Regulations_, part ii,
§ 3.] To such, say the statutes, ‘a particular room is allotted, in
which they may read or write without interruption during the time the
Museum is kept open.’

[Sidenote: MS. ADDIT., 6179, as above.]

The aggregate number of persons admitted as visitors—exclusive of
students—was, for some years, restricted to sixty persons, as a
maximum, in any one day.


In order to give the reader a definite and clear idea of what was
seen, in 1759, by the earliest visitors to the British Museum, in its
rudimentary state, some sort of ground plan is essential, but the
merest outline will suffice for the purpose.

There were at Montagu House two floors or stories of state apartments.
The upper floor was that which was first shown, after the formation of
the Museum.

The visitor, having ascended the superb staircase painted by LA FOSSE,
passed through a vestibule and grand saloon (_A_ _B_) furnished with
various antiquities, into the ‘Cottonian Library’ (_C_), and thence
into the ‘Harleian Library,’ which occupied three rooms (_D_, _E_, and
_F_). He then entered the ‘Medal Room’—containing the coins and medals
of the SLOANE and COTTON collections (_G_); the ‘SLOANE Manuscript
Room’ (_H_); and the room containing the chief part of the antiquities
(_I_)—

[Illustration:

  _Rough Diagram, showing Principal Floor of the original British
    Museum of 1759._
]

Then the visitor, passing again through the vestibule (_A_) and great
saloon (_B_), entered the rooms _K_, _L_, and _M_. _K_ contained the
minerals and fossils of Sir Hans SLOANE’S collection; _L_, the shells;
_M_, the plants and insects. Thence he passed into _N_, which was
devoted to the bulk of the SLOANE Zoological Collection, and into _O_,
containing artificial and miscellaneous curiosities.

Descending to the floor beneath, by the secondary staircase between
_N_ and _O_, the visitor then entered the small room _P_, which
contained the magnetic apparatus given by Dr. Gowin KNIGHT, and the
rooms, _Q_ and _R_ devoted to the reception of the greater part of the
Royal Library, restored by HENRY, Prince of Wales, and augmented—but
with extreme parsimony—by several of the Stuart monarchs, whose
additions to the shelves were, indeed, much oftener made of books
given, than of books bought. He then passed into SLOANE’S Printed
Library, which occupied the whole of the spacious and handsome suite
of rooms _S_, _T_, _V_, _W_, _X_, and _Y_, and (passing through the
Trustees’ Room _Z_,) entered the room _A A_, containing the EDWARDS
Library; ending his tour of inspection in the room _B B_, in which was
arranged the remainder of the old Royal Library, the main portion
whereof had been seen already in _Q_ and _R_.

[Illustration:

  _Rough Diagram, showing Ground Plan of the original British Museum
    of 1759._
]

When the combined Museum and Libraries, thus arranged, were first
opened to the inspection of the curious Public in 1759, the
collections enumerated in the Foundation Act of 1753 had, it is seen,
already received some notable increase by gifts. [Sidenote: EARLY
HELPERS IN THE FOUNDATION AND GROWTH OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM.] The first
donor was the House of Lords, by whose order the historical
collections of Thomas RYMER, royal historiographer, and editor of the
_Fœdera_, were given to the Trustees, immediately after their
incorporation. [Sidenote: 1755–57.] Then followed, in 1757, the gift
of the Royal Library and that of the Lethieullier Antiquities from
Egypt. [See Chapter II.]

The next donor, in order of time, was a Jewish merchant, and
stock-broker, of humble origin, but of princely disposition.
[Sidenote: 1759. DA COSTA’S HEBREW COLLECTION.—HISTORY OF THE
COLLECTOR.] Solomon DA COSTA was one of the many men who have done
honour to commerce not merely by its successful prosecution, but by
the conspicuous union of mercantile astuteness with noble tastes and
true beneficence. [Sidenote: _Correspondence of Thomas Hollis._] His
talents for business enabled him to make a hundred thousand
pounds—which in his day was more, perhaps, than the equivalent of four
hundred thousand in ours. He had made it, says a keen observer, who
knew the man well, ‘without scandal or meanness.’ When wealth made him
independent, he spent his new leisure, not in luxury but in hard
labour for the poor.

DA COSTA had come, from Amsterdam, into England, in the year 1704. His
struggling Hebrew compatriots were among the earliest sharers in his
bounty. But his heart was too large to suffer that bounty to be
limited by considerations either of race or of local neighbourhood. To
him, as to the Samaritan of old, distress made kinship. He was wont to
journey, from time to time, through thirty or forty parishes of Surrey
and of Kent, with the punctual diligence of a commercial traveller,
simply to succour the distressed by that best of all succour, the
provision of means through which, in time, self-help would be
developed and ensured. Provident loans, clothing-funds, the education
and apprenticeship of necessitous children, were the forms in which DA
COSTA’S benevolence delighted to invest not only his money, but his
personal exertion and his cordial sympathy. He devoted more than a
thousand pounds a year to the benefit of Christian Englishmen, besides
all that he gave to the poor of his own faith and race. And to both he
gave, without noise or ostentation.

He had, too, the breadth of view which enabled him to put, on their
true foot of equality, the claims of the necessitous mind, as well as
those of the necessitous body. Unlike many other men of genuine
beneficence, popular estimates of giving did not mislead him into
one-sidedness of aim.

Within a few years of DA COSTA’S arrival in England, probably about
the year 1720, and when, with youthful ardour, he was seeking to
acquire knowledge as well as to make money, he met, at a bookseller’s,
with a remarkable collection of Hebrew books, of choice editions and
in rich and uniform bindings. The collection had that sumptuousness of
aspect which invited inquiry into its origin. All that he could learn
on that score was the probability that some statesman or other of the
Commonwealth period, had collected them for a public but unfulfilled
purpose, and that they had fallen—with so much other spoil—into the
hands of CHARLES THE SECOND. By that King’s order they had received,
if not their rich binding, at least his crown and cypher as marks of
the royal appropriation, and then (in a truly Carolinian fashion) were
left in the hands of the King’s stationer for lack of payment of the
charge of what—whether binding or mere decoration—had been done to the
books by the royal command. DA COSTA prized them as among his chief
treasures, but directly he heard of the foundation of a great
repository of learning, the emotions of the Jewish broker were such as
might have been felt by ‘broad-browed VERULAM,’ could he have lived to
see that day; save only that BACON would first have scanned the
evidence about the origin of the institution, and would have
discriminated the praise.

DA COSTA wrote a letter to the Trustees. The generous heart is facile
in ascribing generosity. ‘A most stately monument’ said DA COSTA,
‘hath been lately erected and endowed, by the wisdom and munificence
of the British Legislature,’ and he accompanied his eulogy with a
prayer that the Almighty would ‘render unto them a recompense,
according to the work of their hands.’ [Sidenote: Da Costa to the
Trustees of the Brit. Museum, ‘5th of Sivan, 5519’ [1759]]. He brought
his mite of contribution, he added, not only as proof of sympathy with
the work in progress, ‘but as a thanksgiving offering, in part, for
the generous protection and numberless blessings which I have enjoyed
under the British Government.’

The gift embraced several Biblical Manuscripts of value, and a still
choicer series of early printed books, one hundred and eighty in
number. The giver has a merited place in the roll of our public
benefactors; and his devout prayer for the new Museum, ‘May it
increase and multiply ... to the benefit of the people of these
nations and of the whole earth,’ has had a more conspicuous fulfilment
than could, in 1759, have been imagined by the most sanguine of
bystanders.


[Sidenote: GIFT OF THE THOMASON COLLECTION OF ENGLISH BOOKS OF
           1641–1662, BY GEORGE III.]

Three years afterwards, and soon after his accession to the throne,
King GEORGE THE THIRD gave to the Nation that most curious assemblage
of nearly the whole English literature of two and twenty eventful
years of Civil War,—open or furtive,—which is known to the Public as
the ‘Thomason Collection,’ though its technical name within the Museum
walls continues, as of old, to be ‘the King’s Tracts.’

That name is the less appropriate from its tendency to give an
inaccurate idea of the contents of the King’s gift, as well as from
its disregard of the origin of the Collection. The ‘tracts’ include
the most ponderous theological quartos that ever came from an English
press as well as the tiniest handbill, or the fugitive circular which
called together a ‘Committee of Sequestrators’ at Wallingford House.

[Sidenote: GEORGE THOMASON AND HIS LABOURS.]

George THOMASON, its collector, was an eminent London bookseller, of
royalist sympathies, who watched intensely the progress of the great
struggle between King and Parliament, Cavalier and Roundhead, and who
had noted with professional keenness how strikingly the printing press
was made to mirror, almost from day to day, the strife of senators in
council, as well as that of soldiers in the field. He had seized, in
1641, the idea of helping posterity the better to realize every phase
of the great conflict, the oncoming of which many men had long
foreseen, by gathering everything which came out in print—as far as
vigilant industry could do so—whether belonging to literature, and to
the obvious materials of history, or merely subserving the most
trivial need of the passing moment. He failed, of course, to secure
everything; but his endeavour was wonderfully successful, on the
whole. He also gathered many manuscripts which no printer in England
dared to put into type. And he obtained a large number of political
and historical pieces, bearing on English affairs, which had issued
from foreign presses; their authors being sometimes foreign observers
of the struggle, but more frequently British refugees.

CHARLES THE FIRST congratulated THOMASON on the utility of his idea.
More than once the King was able to gratify his curiosity by borrowing
some tract or other which only our collector was known to possess. The
Parliament, meanwhile, was far from exhibiting any literary sympathies
in the undertaking. Some of its leaders loved freedom of the press
when it was seen to be a channel for urging forward their peculiar
doctrines and aims, but had the gravest doubts about its policy when
it manifestly helped their opponents and gave back blow for blow. The
‘Thomason Collection’ came to be viewed, at length, much in the light
in which soldiers view an enemy’s battery. If it could be captured and
carried off, some of the pieces might be turned against the enemy. If
the attempt at complete capture should miscarry, a sudden sally might
at least enable the assailants to destroy what they had failed to
secure.

Hence it was that the poor Collector came to be in such alarm about
the possible fate of his treasures that he had them repeatedly packed
into cases, and, as the successes of the war veered to and fro, sent
them, at one time, far to the south of London; at another time, as far
to the east; now, smuggled them, concealed between the real and false
tops of tables, into a city warehouse; and anon made a colourable sale
of them to the University of Oxford.

When the King enjoyed his own again, the Collection was offered, as
fit to be made a royal one. It contained more than thirty-three
thousand separate publications—bound in about 2,200 volumes—issued
between 1640 and 1662 inclusive. But CHARLES THE SECOND was busied
with pursuits having little to do with any kind of learning, and was
ill inclined, as we have seen already, to burden his Treasury for the
enrichment of his Library. Sir Thomas BODLEY’S Trustees at Oxford
refused the offer, in their turn, under a very different but scarcely
less obstructive pressure. Their excellent founder had formed peculiar
and stringent views about the literature worthy of a great University.
He had warned them against stuffing his library with ‘mere baggage
books.’ And so future Bodleian curators had, in another age, to buy
with large bank notes many things which their predecessors could have
bought with small silver coins;—just as in the ancient story.

The unfortunate Collection went a-begging. The books passed from hand
to hand, somewhat, it would seem, by way of pledge or mortgage. They
had cost a large sum of money, and a larger amount of toil. When his
expectations were at their best the first owner, it is said, refused
several thousands of pounds for them. [Sidenote: THE ACQUIREMENT OF
THE THOMASON COLLECTION BY GEORGE III.] His ultimate successors in the
possession were glad, in 1762, to accept, at the hands of King GEORGE
THE THIRD, three hundred pounds. The purchase was recommended to him
by Thomas HOLLIS, and also by Lord BUTE, as a serviceable addition to
the newly founded Museum. [Sidenote: 1762.] As all readers now know,
it has largely subserved our history already. It is not less certain
that the ‘Thomason Collection’ embodies a store of information yet
unused.


[Sidenote: THE BRANDER FOSSILS.]

[Sidenote: 1766.]

The next augmentor of the Museum was one of its Trustees, Gustavus
BRANDER, distinguished as a promoter of natural science, and more
especially of mineralogy and palæontology in the early stages of their
study in England. A remarkable collection of fossils found in
Hampshire, in the London Clay, was given by Mr. BRANDER to the Public,
after having been, at his cost, carefully examined and described by
Dr. SOLANDER. It was the first notable contribution to the grand
series of specimens in palæontology which, in their combination, have
made the British Museum the most important of all repositories in that
department of science.

To the Zoological Collections, the additions made, whether by gift or
by purchase—save as the result, more or less direct, of ‘Voyages of
Discovery,’ which will be noticed presently—were for many years very
unimportant. The first purchase worthy of record was a collection of
stuffed birds, formed in Holland, and acquired, in 1769, for four
hundred and sixty pounds. This purchase was made by the Trust.


The reign of GEORGE THE THIRD is marked by very few characteristics
which are more honourable, both to King and people, than is its long
series of expeditions to remote countries made expressly, or mainly,
for purposes of geographical and scientific discovery, and extending
over almost the whole of the reign.

[Sidenote: ACCESSIONS ACCRUING FROM VOYAGES OF DISCOVERY. 1760–1820.]

Scarcely one voyage of the long series failed to bring, directly or
indirectly, some valuable accession or other to the Collection of
Natural History. Sometimes such accessions came to the Museum as the
gifts of the navigators and explorers themselves. In this class of
donors the name of Captain James COOK,[56] and that of Archibald
MENZIES, occur both early and frequently. Sometimes they came as the
gifts of the Board of Admiralty. Sometimes, again,—and not
infrequently—as those of the King, who, in his best days, took a keen
interest in enterprise of this kind, and delighted in talking with the
captains of the discovery ships about their adventures, and about the
marvels of the far-off lands they had been among the first to see. Nor
did the King stand alone in his active encouragement of remote
explorations. Many of the great and wealthy nobles gave generous
furtherance to them, and were equally ready to make available for
scientific study the new specimens which the ships brought home. In
this way, for example, the Marquess of ROCKINGHAM gave to the Museum a
curious collection of reptiles gathered in Surinam.

In the same manner was furnished that minor, but very popular and
instructive, collection illustrating the rude arts and modes of life
of the newly explored countries, which some yet among us can remember
as occupying the ‘South Sea Room’ of the old house. In the course of
years it came to be eclipsed by much better collections of the same
kind elsewhere, and so to wear a meagre and somewhat obsolete aspect.
But it had rendered good service in its day, and was the germ of what
will become, it may be hoped, in due time, an ethnological collection
worthy of a seafaring people.

[Sidenote: EPOCHS IN THE GROWTH OF THE NATURAL HISTORY COLLECTIONS.]

As regards the Natural History Collections, the growth of the Museum
may be said to have been mainly dependent on the Voyages of Discovery
for more than forty years. That source of improvement seems to mark,
distinctively, the first epoch in the history of those collections.
Then came a second epoch, marked by some approach to systematic
improvement, in all branches, by means of the purchase of entire
private collections as opportunity offered. A third period may be
dated from the acquisition of the botanical and other gatherings of
Sir Joseph BANKS in 1827. Sir Joseph’s splendid gift was soon followed
by so many other gifts—sometimes as donations, more frequently as
bequests—that for many years the liberality of benefactors quite
eclipsed the liberality of Parliament. Only of late years can it be
said that the public support of the Natural History Collections has
been worthy, either of the Nation or of their own intrinsic importance
to it. By degrees, statesmen have become convinced that such
collections are much more than the implements of a knot of professed
naturalists, and the toys of the public at large. Slowly, but surely,
the economic and commercial value of a great museum of natural
history, as well as its educational value, have come saliently into
view. And a wise enlargement of the contributions from national funds
has had the excellent result of stimulating, instead of checking, the
benefactions of individuals.

Some of the particular steps by which so conspicuous an improvement
has been gradually brought about will claim our notice hereafter, in
their due order.


If, for a long series of years, the degree of liberality with which
these varied collections were shown to the Public at large scarcely
accorded, either with their origin, or with the purpose for which they
had been avowedly combined, it should be borne in mind that ‘the
Public’ of 1759 was a very different body from the Public of a century
later. It is only by degrees that indiscriminate admission to museums
has come to be either very useful or quite feasible. There was a good
deal of warrant in 1759 for the opinion recorded by one of the
Trustees when the Rules were first under discussion. [Sidenote: MS.
ADDIT., 6179, f. 61.] ‘A general liberty,’ said Dr. John WARD, the
eminent Gresham Professor, ‘to ordinary people of all ranks and
denominations, is not to be kept within bounds. Many irregularities
will be committed that cannot be prevented by a few librarians who
will soon be insulted by such people [as commit abuses], if they offer
to control or contradict them.’ But, after all, the inadequate
strength of the staff was the main cause of such of the restrictions
as were chiefly complained of.

The original regulations, with but small change, remained in force for
about forty-five years. How they worked will be best and most briefly
shown by citing the experiences of two or three notable visitors, at
various periods, during the last century.

[Sidenote: GROSLEY’S ACCOUNT OF THE MUSEUM IN 1765.]

In 1765, Peter John GROSLEY, an accomplished and keen-eyed
Frenchman, familiar with the Museums of Italy as well as with those
of his own country, visited the new Museum, and recorded his
impressions of it. With the building he was charmed. He had already
seen many parts of England, but nowhere any house that he thought
worthy to be compared with Montagu House. He calls it ‘the largest,
the most stately, the best arranged, and most richly decorated’
structure of its kind in all England. He made repeated visits. What
chiefly arrested his attention in the Natural History rooms were the
beauty of the papillonacea—comprising, he thought, ‘all that either
the old world or the new can supply in this kind’—and the
strangeness of some mineral specimens brought from the Giant’s
Causeway in Ireland. The Printed Books he thought to be ‘the weakest
part of this vast collection.’ In one of the principal rooms, ‘I
saw,’ he continues, ‘not without astonishment, a very fine bust of
Oliver CROMWELL, occupying a distinguished place!’ He praises the
courtesy with which Drs. MATY and MORTON discharged, by turns, the
duty of exhibition. ‘They show,’ he says, ‘the most obliging
readiness to explain things to the visitor, but,’ he adds, with
obvious truth, ‘their very courtesy is wont to make a stranger
content himself with hasty and unsatisfactory glances, that he may
not trespass on their politeness.’ And then he makes a wise
practical suggestion, which was carried into effect, almost half a
century afterwards.

‘In order really to carry out the intentions of Parliament,’ writes
GROSLEY, in 1765, ‘it is to be wished that the Public should be
admitted more liberally, and more easily, by placing a warder in every
room, to be continually present during the public hours.’

Ten years afterwards, the difficulty on this score had so increased
that a notification to the following effect was circulated: ‘British
Museum, 9th August, 1776. The Applicants of the middle of April are
not yet satisfied. [Sidenote: MS. ADDIT., 10,555, fol. 14.] Persons
applying are requested to send weekly to the porter to know how near
they are upon the List.’

[Sidenote: VISIT OF C. P. MORITZ IN 1782.]

In 1782, the plan had so far improved that instead of waiting from
April until August, a visitor could usually get admission within a
fortnight or so after applying for a ticket. We have an intelligent
and amusing account of a visit then made. This time the narrator is a
German,—Charles MORITZ, of Berlin. ‘In general,’ writes MORITZ, ‘you
must give in your name a fortnight before you can be admitted. But, by
the kindness of Mr. WOIDE’—a countryman of the traveller, and, at that
time, an Assistant-Librarian in the Museum,—‘I got admission
earlier.... Yet, after all, I am sorry to say that it was the room,
the glass-cases, the shelves, ... which I saw; not the Museum itself,
so rapidly were we hurried on through the departments. The company who
saw it when I did, and in like manner, was variously composed. They
were of all sorts, and some, as I believe, of the very lowest classes
of the people of both sexes, for, as it is, the property of the
Nation, every one has the same ‘right’—I use the term of the
country—to see it that another has. [Sidenote: WENDEBORN’S ACCOUNT OF
THE MUSEUM. 1780–90.] I had Mr. WENDEBORN’S book in my pocket, and it,
at least, enabled me to take more particular notice of some of the
principal things.’

The book thus referred to by MORITZ is the German original of that
account of English society and institutions which WENDEBORN himself
translated, a few years afterwards, into English, and published at
London, under the title of _A View of England_.

Its author had settled in London as the Minister of a German
Congregation. He was himself a studious frequenter of the Museum, and
says of it: ‘The whole is costly, worth seeing, and honourable to the
Nation; when taken altogether it has not its equal. When considered in
its separate branches, almost each of them singly may be surpassed by
some other collection even in England itself.’ But the only collection
which he specifies as, in this sense, superior, are the Hunterian
Museum, and that which had been formed by Sir Ashton LEVER, and which,
when the _View of England_ was written, belonged to Mr. PARKINSON.
[Sidenote: Wendeborn, _A View of England_, vol. i, 323–325.] Of the
Museum Library, WENDEBORN says, ‘though a numerous and valuable
collection, it is yet, in many respects, very deficient, and as to its
use, much circumscribed.’

When the German visitor of 1782 pulled Mr. WENDEBORN’S book from his
pocket, as he was hurried through the Museum, the action attracted the
attention of the other visitors. The more intelligent of them pressed
round him to see if the book could be made to yield any information
for their behoof also. And the stranger gratified their curiosity by
translating a passage or two in explanation of the objects they were
passing. Then came an exquisite bit of sub-officialism.

‘The gentleman who conducted us’ observes MORITZ, ‘took little pains
to conceal the contempt which he felt for my communications when he
found it was only a German description of the British Museum which I
had.’ ‘So rapid a passage,’ he continues, ‘through a vast suite of
rooms, in little more than one hour of time, with opportunity to cast
but one poor longing look of astonishment on all the vast treasures of
nature, antiquity, and literature, in the examination of which one
might profitably spend years, confuses, stuns, and overpowers the
visitor.’

Two years later, we have a similar account of the experiences of an
inquisitive Englishman, and of one who is much more outspoken in his
complaint. [Sidenote: WILLIAM HUTTON’S VISIT IN 1784.] William HUTTON,
the historian of Birmingham, came to London in December, 1784. ‘I was
unwilling to quit it,’ he writes, ‘without seeing what I had, many
years, wished to see. But how to accomplish it was the question. I had
not one relative in that vast metropolis to direct me.... By good
fortune, I stumbled upon a person possessing a ticket for the next
day, which he valued less than two shillings. We struck a bargain in a
moment and were both pleased.... I was not likely to forget Tuesday,
December 7th, at eleven.’ HUTTON, shrewd as he was, did not suspect
the real nature of his ‘bargain.’ He had met with a professional
dealer in Museum tickets; one of several who, on a humbler scale,
followed in the steps of Peter LEHEUP, but were lucky enough not to
excite the anger of the House of Commons.

He was taken through the rooms in company with about ten other
persons, at a very rapid rate. He asked their conductor for some
information about the curiosities. The reply, he says, so humbled him
that he could not utter another word. ‘The company seemed influenced.
They made haste and were silent. No voice was heard but in whispers.
If a man spends two minutes in a room, in which a thousand things
demand his attention, he cannot bestow on them a glance apiece.... It
grieved me to think how much I lost for want of a little information.
In about thirty minutes we finished our silent journey through the
princely mansion, which would well have taken thirty days.... I had
laid more stress on the British Museum, than on anything else which I
should see in London. It was the only sight which disgusted me....
[Sidenote: Hutton, _A Journey to London_, pp. 187–196.] Government
purchased this rare collection at a vast expense, and exhibits it as a
national honour.... How far it answers the end proposed this account
will testify.’

Better days were at hand. But it was not until 1805 that the rules of
admission were even so far effectively revised as to abolish the
traffic in tickets. Nor was any ‘Synopsis’ of the contents of the
Museum provided until 1808. In that year admission tickets were
abolished wholly.


Straitened means of maintenance have, at all times, had far more to do
with any inadequate provision for public usefulness of which (in days
long past) there may have been well-grounded cause of complaint, than
had neglect or oversight on the part of any officer.

The officers, too, were, for a very long period after the
establishment of the Museum, engaged, and remunerated, only for an
attendance, in rotation, for two hours daily, on alternate days. A
largely increased provision by Parliament was the essential condition
of any large increase in the accessibility of the institution.

As early as in 1776 the necessary expenditure in salaries and wages
alone (at a very low scale of payment), exceeded the annual income
(£900) accruing from the original endowment fund. After Parliament had
made an additional provision—first introduced in a clause of what was
then called a ‘hotch-potch Act’—averaging £1000 yearly, the total
annual income was still but £2448, including the yearly three hundred
pounds accruing from the ‘EDWARDS Fund,’ and the £248, paid, under the
grant of GEORGE THE SECOND, as the net yearly salary of the ‘King’s
Librarian.’ For a considerable period, the sums expended in
purchases—for all the departments collectively—had not amounted, in
any one year, to one hundred pounds.


[Sidenote: THE CAREER OF DR. MATTHEW MATY.]

On the decease of the first Principal Librarian, Dr. Gowin KNIGHT, in
1772, Dr. Matthew MATY was appointed to that office. He was born at,
or in the neighbourhood of Utrecht, in 1718, and was educated in the
University of Leyden, where he took his degrees in 1740, the subject
of his inaugural dissertation, for that of M.A. and Doctor of
Philosophy, being ‘custom,’ and its wide results and influence social
and political. His essay was published (under the title _Dissertatio
philosophica inauguralis de Usu_,) in 1740. For the degree of Doctor
in Medicine, he treated of the effects of habit and custom upon the
human frame (_De Consuetudinis efficacia in corpus humanum_). This
medical dissertation was also published at Leyden, in the usual form,
in the same year. Both essays showed much ability, along with many
faults and crudities. Some of these became matters of conversation and
correspondence between the author and his friends. The subject was
less hacknied than that of the majority of academical essays, and MATY
was induced to reconsider it. He republished the result of his
thoughts, in a greatly improved form, in the following year at
Utrecht, and, to gain a wider audience, wrote in French. The _Essai
sur l’Usage_ attracted much attention, and served to pave the way for
the establishment by its author, eight years afterwards, of the
periodical entitled, _Journal Britannique_, as editor of which he is
now best remembered. He came to England in 1741, practised as a
physician, attained considerable reputation, and distinguished himself
more especially by following in the path of Sir Hans SLOANE, and
others, as an earnest supporter of the practice of inoculation. In
this field he was able to render good service, both by his
professional influence and by his pen. In the sharp controversies
which soon, and for a time, impeded the new practice, he took a large
share, and his publications on the subject are distinguished from many
others by their union of moderation of tone with vigour of advocacy.

MATY’S predilections, however, pointed to a literary rather than to a
medical career. He had early taken that ply, and it was not easily
effaced. Within six years (1750–1756) he published eighteen volumes of
the _Journal Britannique_—edited in London but printed at the Hague—in
the toils of which he was, according to GIBBON, almost unaided.
GIBBON, too, bears testimony to the amiability of the man, as well as
to the industry of the writer. His own first and youthful achievement
in literature had MATY’S encouragement and active aid. [Sidenote:
_Memoirs of Gibbon_, p. 107.] When the _Essai sur l’Etude de la
Littérature_ was, after much filing and polishing, given to the
Public, a preliminary letter from MATY’S pen accompanied it, and by
him the essay was carried through the press.

When he succeeded Dr. Gowin KNIGHT, as Principal Librarian in 1772,
his health was already failing. He occupied the post during less than
four years. To the last, his pen was busily employed. He was a
contributor to several foreign journals, as well as to the
_Philosophical Transactions_, some volumes of which he edited, or
assisted to edit, in his capacity as one of the Secretaries of the
Royal Society, to which office he had been appointed in 1765. Among
his minor literary publications are a life of BOERHAAVE, in French,
and one of Dr. Richard MEAD, in English. At the time of his death he
was working on the _Life of Lord Chesterfield_, afterwards prefixed to
the collective edition of the Earl’s _Miscellaneous Works_. Dr. MATY
died in 1776, and was succeeded in his Librarianship by his colleague,
Dr. Charles MORTON, who had had, from the beginning, the charge of the
department of Manuscripts, and had also acted as Secretary to the
Trustees.

[Sidenote: NOTICE OF DR. CHARLES MORTON, THIRD PRINCIPAL LIBRARIAN.]

Dr. MORTON was a native of Westmoreland, and was born in 1716. Until
the year 1750 he had practised as a physician at Kendal. In 1751 he
became a Licentiate of the College of Physicians, and in the following
year a Fellow of the Royal Society. His service in the British Museum
lasted from 1756 to 1799. There are several testimonies to the
courtesy with which he treated such visitors and students as came
under his personal notice, but his long term of superior office was
certainly not marked by any striking improvement in the public economy
of the Museum. And how much room for improvement existed there the
reader has seen. Dr. MORTON, like his predecessor, was one of the
Secretaries of the Royal Society. He filled that office from the year
1760 to 1774. He contributed several papers to the _Philosophical
Transactions_, as well on antiquarian subjects as on topics of
physical science, and he was the first editor of Bulstrode
WHITELOCKE’S remarkable narrative of his embassy to Sweden during the
Protectorate. MORTON’S writings are not remarkable either for vigour
or for originality, but, on more topics than one, they had the useful
result of setting abler men awork. He was three times married: (1) to
Mary BERKELEY, the niece of SWIFT’S frequent correspondent Lady
Elizabeth GERMAINE; (2) to Lady SAVILE; (3) to Mrs. Elizabeth PRATT.
He died on the 10th February, 1799.

Of his successors in the office of Principal Librarian some account
will be found in the Introductory Chapter of Book III.




                              CHAPTER II.
           A GROUP OF CLASSICAL ARCHÆOLOGISTS AND EXPLORERS.

  ‘The Archæologist cannot, like the Scholar, carry on his researches
  in his own Library, independent of outward circumstances. For _his_
  work of reference and collation he must travel, excavate, collect,
  arrange, delineate, transcribe, before he can place his whole
  subject before his mind....

  ‘A Museum of Antiquities is to the Archæologist what a Botanic
  Garden is to the Botanist. It presents his subject compendiously,
  synoptically, suggestively, not in the desultory and accidental
  order in which he would otherwise be brought into contact with its
  details.’—

                    C. T. NEWTON, _On the Study of Archæology_, p. 26.

    _Sir William_ HAMILTON _and his Pursuits and Employments in
        Italy.—The Acquisitions of the French Institute of Egypt, and
        the capture of part of them at Alexandria.—Charles_ TOWNELEY
        _and his Collection of Antiquities.—The Researches of the Earl
        of_ ELGIN _in Greece.—The Collections and Writings of Richard_
        PAYNE KNIGHT.


[Sidenote: BOOK II, Chap. II. CLASSICAL ARCHÆOLOGISTS AND EXPLORERS.]

To the comparatively small assemblage of antiquities which originally
formed part of the Museum of COURTEN and of SLOANE, several additions
had been made—besides the coins, medals, and bronzes of Sir Robert
COTTON—prior to the opening of the British Museum to the Public in
1759. Some of those additions were the gift, severally, of three
members of the LETHIEULLIER family. Others were the gift of Thomas
HOLLIS, who became a constant benefactor to the Museum almost from the
day of Sir Hans SLOANE’S death to that of his own.

The LETHIEULLIER antiquities had been chiefly gathered in Egypt.
[Sidenote: THE EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES OF THE LETHIEULLIERS.] The first
gift was made by the Will of Colonel William LETHIEULLIER, dated 23rd
July, 1755. [Sidenote: MS. ADDIT., 6179, f. 29.] And the first
catalogue of any kind which was prepared for the British Museum, after
its acquisition by Parliament, was a list of these antiquities drawn
up by Dr. John WARD, one of the Trustees. And here it may deserve
remark that for many years after the foundation not a few of the
Trustees took a large share in the actual work of preparing the Museum
for public use, as well as in the ordinary duties of control and
administration.

To the gift of Colonel William LETHIEULLIER, his cousin, Smart
LETHIEULLIER, and his nephew, Pitt LETHIEULLIER, made several
additions between the years 1756 and 1770. The last-named of these
gentlemen, when receiving, as executor of his uncle, the personal
thanks of a Committee of the Trustees (February, 1756), for the
bequest so made, took the opportunity of augmenting it by the gift of
some antiquities which he had himself collected during his residence
at Grand Cairo.

But the first large and comprehensive addition in the archæological
department was that made in 1772 by the purchase, by means of a
Parliamentary grant, of the Museum of Antiquities, which had been
formed during seven years’ researches in Italy by Sir William
HAMILTON, our Ambassador at Naples.


[Sidenote: SIR WILLIAM HAMILTON AND HIS CAREER AT NAPLES.]

Sir William HAMILTON was among the earliest of British diplomatists
who, by a voluntary choice, turned to good account, in the interests
of learning and of the public, the opportunities which diplomatic life
so frequently offers for amassing treasures of literature and science,
and (in many cases) for saving them from peril of destruction. In that
path Frenchmen had showed the way many generations earlier.

As far, indeed, as regards a public and national care for matters of
the intellect, France is far better entitled to claim a priority in
the proud distinction of ‘teaching the nations how to live,’ than is
any other country in the world. It is to her immortal honour that from
a very early period, and even in times of sore trouble, her sovereigns
and her statesmen have known how to turn public resources to the
promotion of public culture, as well as of national power. A man may
read in French diplomatic letters of instruction of the sixteenth
century orders to collect manuscripts and antiquities, as implements
of public education, such as he would look for in vain in parallel
British documents of any century at all,—inclusive of the
present;—although it is certain that the omission has by no means
arisen from the engrossment of our diplomatists in weightier concerns.

In Sir William HAMILTON’S case the liberal tastes and the mental
energy of the individual supplied the defect of his instructions. He
set an example which not a few of our ambassadors have voluntarily
followed with like public spirit, and with results not less
conspicuous.


William HAMILTON was the fourth son of Lord Archibald HAMILTON,
youngest son of James, third Duke of HAMILTON, K.G. His mother, Lady
Jane HAMILTON, was of that illustrious family by birth, as well as by
marriage, being the daughter of James, sixth Earl of ABERCORN. He was
born in the year 1730.

Towards the close of his career, Sir William would sometimes say to
his intimates, when conversation turned upon the battle of life: ‘I
had to begin the world with a great name, and one thousand pounds for
all my fortune.’ But the world never used him very roughly. Whilst
still a young man (1755) he married Miss BARLOW, the wealthy heiress
of Hugh BARLOW, of Laurenny Hall, in Pembrokeshire. She brought him an
estate, in the neighbourhood of Swansea, worth nearly five thousand
pounds a year; but it was his happy lot to have married a true wife,
not a bag of money. DUCLOS, who saw much of the HAMILTONS in their
family circle at Naples in after years, was wont to say, ‘They are the
happiest couple I ever saw.’

[Sidenote: 1764–1800.]

Mr. HAMILTON was sent to the Court of Naples in 1764. The post, in
that day, was not overburdened with business. And for some years to
come the new Ambassador found the Neapolitan society little to his
taste. He was intellectual, and, in the truest sense, an English
gentleman. The tone of society at that time in Naples was both
frivolous and dissolute. He had to form, by slow degrees, a circle in
which a man of cultivated tastes might enjoy social life. The public
duties of the embassy could employ but a small portion of his time,
and the temper of the man made employment to him a necessary of life.
He threw his energies into hard study. And he possessed that happiest
of mental characteristics, an equal love of the natural sciences, and
of the world of art and of books. He could pore, with like enjoyment,
on the deep things of Nature, and on the secrets of ‘the antiquary
times.’ And in both paths, he knew how to make his personal enjoyments
teem with public good.

His first labours were given to the exhaustive research of volcanic
phenomena. He amazed the fine gentlemen of Naples by setting to work
as though he had to win his bread by the sweat of his brow. He
laboured harder on the slopes of Vesuvius than an exceptionally
diligent craftsman would labour in a factory—had Naples possessed any.
Within four years he ascended the famous mountain twenty-two times.
More than one of these ascents was made at the risk of his life. He
made, and caused to be made, innumerable drawings of all the phenomena
that he observed, showing the volcanic eruption in all its stages, and
under every kind of meteorological condition. He formed too a complete
collection of volcanic products, and of the earths and minerals of the
volcanic district. When he had studied Vesuvius under every possible
aspect, he went to Etna.

The results of these elaborate investigations were sent, from time to
time, to the Royal Society (of which Mr. HAMILTON was made a Fellow,
after the reading of the first of his papers in 1766), and they were
published in the _Philosophical Transactions_, between the years 1766
and 1780. They were afterwards collected, and improved, in the two
beautiful volumes entitled _Campi Phlegræi_, and were lavishly
illustrated from the drawings of F. A. FABRIS, who had been trained by
HAMILTON to the work.[57] The collection of volcanic geology and
products was given to the British Museum in 1767.

[Sidenote: THE HAMILTON MUSEUM OF ANTIQUITIES.]

These geological labours had been diversified, at intervals, by the
collection of a rich archæological museum, and by the establishment of
a systematic correspondence on antiquarian subjects with men of
learning in various parts of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies. This
correspondence had for its object, not merely the enrichment of his
own Museum, but the awakening of local attention throughout the
country to its antiquities and history; matters which had theretofore
been but too much neglected—in the Neapolitan fashion.

One of the earliest and choicest acquisitions made by HAMILTON in the
early years of his residence at Naples was a collection of vases
belonging to the senatorial family of PORCINARI, many of which had
been gathered from sepulchres and excavations in Magna Græcia. This
purchase, made in 1766 and afterwards largely increased, may be
regarded as the substantial beginning of the noble series of vases now
so prominent a part of our National Museum.

Thus had been formed, by degrees, at Naples, a museum which, at the
beginning of the year 1772, included seven hundred and thirty fictile
vases; a hundred and seventy-five terra-cottas; about three hundred
specimens of ancient glass (including three of the most perfect
cinerary urns known, at that time, to have been discovered); six
hundred and twenty-seven bronzes, of which nearly one-half illustrated
the arms and armour of the ancients; more than two hundred specimens
of sacrificial, domestic, and architectonic, instruments and
implements; fourteen bassi-relievi, busts, masques, and inscribed
tablets; about a hundred and fifty miscellaneous pieces of ancient
ivory, including a curious series of tessaræ; a hundred and forty-nine
gems, chiefly scarabæi; a hundred and forty-three personal ornaments,
of various kinds, in gold; a hundred and fifty-two fibulæ in various
materials; and more than six thousand coins and medals, comprising a
considerable series from the towns of Magna Græcia.

The first fruits of this noble collection was the publication,
commenced in the year 1766, of the work entitled _Antiquités
Etrusques_, &c., with admirable illustrations, and with a descriptive
text, written in French by D’HANCARVILLE. [Sidenote: PUBLICATION OF
THE ‘ANTIQUITÉS ETRUSQUES.’] The first edition of this costly book was
issued at Naples. It naturally attracted great attention. No such
collection of fictile vases—in their combination of number and
beauty—had been theretofore known.

The two volumes published at Sir William’s cost in 1766, were followed
by two other volumes in 1767. All of them were executed with great
care and with lavish expenditure. But the later edition, printed at
Florence—long afterwards—is in many points superior.[58]

Whilst the volumes were still incomplete, Mr. HAMILTON circulated
proof plates of the work with great liberality. Some of these proofs
were lent to our famous English potter, Josiah WEDGWOOD, and gave a
strong impulse to his taste and artistic zeal. [Sidenote: Meteyard,
_Life of Josiah Wedgwood_, vol. ii, p. 72.] But they excited an eager
longing for access to the vases themselves, as the only satisfactory
models.

[Sidenote: Wedgwood to Bentley, 10 May, 1770.]

When WEDGWOOD wrote to his friend and partner, BENTLEY;—‘Mr.
HAMBLETON, you know, has flattered the old pot-painters very much,’
one feels that for the moment that excellent man’s prepossessions had
been rubbed a little, against the grain. But he shows directly that
there is no real intent to impeach the Editor’s honesty in the matter.
‘He has, no doubt,’ adds WEDGWOOD, ‘taken his designs from the very
best vases extant,’ which was precisely what it was his duty to do,
since selection was the task in hand, not the publication of seven
hundred specimens.

This Collection—far more remarkable than any, of its kind, which had
yet come to England—was brought over in 1772, and offered to the
Trustees of the British Museum. An appeal was made to Parliament, and
the first grant of public money, worthy of mention, was now made in
order to its acquisition. The sum given to Mr. HAMILTON was eight
thousand four hundred pounds.

How soon one of the incidental results of the acquisition returned to
the Public much more than its cost—leaving out of account altogether
the best returns which accrue from such Collections—is among the
familiar annals of our commerce. Josiah WEDGWOOD told a Committee of
the House of Commons that, within two years, he had himself brought
into England, by his imitations of the Hamilton vases in his
manufactory at Etruria, about three times the sum which the Collection
had cost to the country.

[Sidenote: THE EXPLORATIONS AT POMPEII AND HERCULANEUM.]

At the beginning of the year 1772 Mr. HAMILTON was made a Knight of
the Bath. He returned to Naples soon after the transfer of his
antiquities to the Museum, and ere long he was busily engaged in new
explorations at Pompeii and at Herculaneum. He sent to the Society of
Antiquaries, in 1777, an interesting account of the discoveries at
Pompeii, which is printed in the fourth volume of the _Archæologia_.
At Herculaneum he employed, during many years, Father Antonio PIAGGI
to superintend excavations and make drawings, and gave him an annual
salary equal to a hundred pounds sterling, after vainly
endeavouring—at that time—to urge on the Neapolitan Government its own
duty to carry on the task in an adequate manner for the honour of the
nation, and to publish the results of the explorations for the general
benefit of learning.

Sir William’s services as an ambassador were rendered with zeal and
with credit, as opportunity offered. But the opportunity, in his
earlier period, was comparatively rare. It was, perhaps, despite the
proverb, not altogether a happy thing for Naples that its annals were
tiresome. The rust of inactivity showed itself there, as so often
elsewhere, to be much more fatal than the exhaustion of strife.
Certainly, to the ambassador, it was a personal misfortune that, when
the affairs of Naples became really momentous to Englishmen, the
vigour and the will of earlier days were then departing from the man
whose energies were at length to be put to the test in the proper
sphere of his profession. Meanwhile, and in his prime, he had but—from
time to time—to make routine memorials as to matters of individual
wrong; to heal breaches between one Bourbon and another; and to secure
the neutrality of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies during the war which
grew out of the struggle in America. Such matters made no great inroad
upon the pursuits of the naturalist and the antiquarian.

Labour on the mountains, in the excavations, and in the study, had
been, now for many years, relieved by congenial friendships. There had
been an improvement in the tone of Neapolitan Society since HAMILTON’S
first appearance. And all that was best in Naples had gathered round
him. To English travellers his hospitalities were splendid and
unremitting. But in 1782 the circle lost its mistress. Seven years
before, Sir William and Lady HAMILTON had been bereaved of a
daughter—their only child. In 1783 occurred the dreadful earthquake in
Calabria, the greatest calamity of the century save that at Lisbon.

Among the scientific correspondents in England with whom Sir William
HAMILTON kept up an intercourse was Sir Joseph BANKS, then the
President of the Royal Society. To him was sent the fullest account
that was attainable of the sad event of 1783.

It had chanced that just before the news reached Naples, Sir Joseph
had written to HAMILTON about some experiments and discoveries on the
composition and transmutation of water. He had said, jestingly: ‘In
future we philosophers shall rejoice when an eruption, which may
swallow up a few towns, affords subsistence for as many nations of
animals and vegetables.’ This letter HAMILTON was about to answer when
he received the intelligence from Calabria.

‘We have had here,’ he writes, ‘some shocks of an earthquake which, in
Calabria Ultra, has swallowed up or destroyed almost every town,
together with some towns in Sicily.... Every hour brings in accounts
of fresh disasters. [Sidenote: 1783. Feb. 18.] Some thousands of
people will perish with hunger before the provisions sent from hence
can reach them. This, I believe, will prove to have been the greatest
calamity that has happened in this century. An end is put to the
Carnival. [Sidenote: Hamilton to Banks, MS. ADDIT., 8967, ff. 34,
seqq.] The theatres are shut. I suppose Saint Januarius will be
brought out.’ There had been no exaggeration in these first reports.
It was found that at Terranova, not only were all the buildings
destroyed, but the very ground on which they stood sunk to such a
depth as to form a sort of gulf. In that district alone 3043 people
lost their lives. At Seminara 1328 persons were buried beneath the
ruins. In other and adjacent districts more than 3300 persons
perished.

In 1784 the ambassador visited England. His stay was brief. But an
incident which occurred during this visit gave its colour to the rest
of his life.

In 1791 Sir William HAMILTON was made a Privy Councillor, and in the
same year (nine years after the death of his first wife) he married
Emma HARTE, whom he had first met in the house of his nephew, Colonel
GREVILLE, in 1784. In September, 1793, his eventful acquaintance with
NELSON was formed.

[Sidenote: HAMILTON’S FIRST ACQUAINTANCE WITH NELSON.]

In that month, NELSON had been sent to Naples with despatches from
Admiral Lord HOOD, in which Sir William HAMILTON was pressed to
procure the sending of some Neapolitan troops to Toulon. After his
first interview with Lord HOOD’S messenger, he is said to have
remarked to his wife: ‘I have a little man to introduce to you who
will become one of the greatest men England has ever had.’ The
favourable impression was reciprocal, it seems. The ambassador gave
such good furtherance to the object of NELSON’S mission, that the
messenger, we are told, said to him, ‘You are a man after my heart.
[Sidenote: Clarke and McArthur, _Life, &c., of Nelson_, vol. i, p.
133; and Nicolas, vol. i, p. 326.] I’m only a captain, but, if I live,
I shall get to the top of the tree;’ while, of the too-fascinating
lady into whose social circle he was presently brought, NELSON wrote
to his wife, ‘She is a young woman of amiable manners, who does honour
to the station to which she is raised.’ Several years, however, were
yet to intervene before the events of the naval war and the political
circumstances of Naples itself brought about a close connexion in
public transactions between the great seaman and the British
ambassador, whose long diplomatic career was drawing to its close.


HAMILTON, after the manner of Collectors, had scarcely parted with the
fine Museum, which he had sold to the Public in 1772, before he began
to form another. The explorations of the buried cities gave some
favourable opportunities near home, and his researches were spread far
and wide. In amassing vases he was especially fortunate. And, in that
particular, his second Collection came to surpass the first. He became
anxious to ensure its preservation in integrity. With that view he
offered it to the King of Prussia.

[Sidenote: THE SECOND HAMILTON COLLECTION OF VASES.]

‘I think,’ he wrote to the Countess of LICHTENAU, in May, 1796, ‘my
object will be attained by placing my Collection, with my name
attached to it, at Berlin. And I am persuaded that, in a very few
years, the profit which the arts will derive from such models will
greatly exceed the price of the Collection. The King’s [porcelain]
manufactory would do well to profit by it.... For a long time past I
have had an unlimited commission from the Grand Duke of Russia
[afterwards PAUL THE FIRST], but, between ourselves, I should think my
Collection lost in Russia; whilst, at Berlin, it would be in the midst
of men of learning and of literary academies.

‘There are more,’ he continues, ‘than a thousand vases, and one half
of them figured. If the King listens to your proposal, he may be
assured of having the whole Collection, and I would further undertake
to go, at the end of the war, to Berlin to arrange them. [Sidenote:
Sir W. Hamilton to the Countess of Lichtenau, 3 May, 1796.] On
reckoning up my accounts,—I must speak frankly (_il faut que je dise
la vérité_),—I find that I shall needs be a loser, unless I receive
seven thousand pounds sterling for this Collection. That is exactly
the sum I received from the English Parliament for my first
Collection....[59] As respects Vases, the second is far more beautiful
and complete than the series in London, but the latter included also
bronzes, gems, and medals.’ But the negotiation thus opened led to no
result. And some of the choicest contents of this second Museum were
eventually lost by shipwreck.

When the correspondence with Berlin occurred, the Collector’s health
was rapidly failing him. The political horizon was getting darker and
darker. Victorious France was putting its pressure upon the Neapolitan
Government to accept terms of peace which should exact the exclusion
of British ships from the Neapolitan ports. The ambassador needed now
all the energies for which, but a few years before, there had been no
worthy political employment. They were fast vanishing; but, to the
last, Sir William exerted himself to the best of his ability. It was
his misfortune that he had now to work, too often, by deputy.

[Sidenote: THE LATER EVENTS AT NAPLES, 1796–1799.]

Lady HAMILTON’S ambitious nature, and her appetite for political
intrigue, when combined with some real ability and a good deal of
reckless unscrupulousness as to the path by which the object in view
might be reached, were dangerous qualities in such a Court as that of
Naples. If, more than once, they contributed to the attainment of ends
which were eagerly sought by the Government at home, and were of
advantage to the movements of the British fleet, they cost—as is but
too well known—an excessive price at last. The blame fairly attachable
to Sir William HAMILTON is that of suffering himself to be kept at a
post for which the infirmities of age were rapidly unfitting him. But
there he was to remain during yet four eventful years; quitting his
embassy only when, to all appearance, he was at the door of death.

Between the September of 1793 and that of 1798 NELSON and Sir William
HAMILTON met more than once; but their chief communication was, of
course, by letter. When, in October, 1796, after two victories in
quick succession, NELSON lost his hard-won prizes, and narrowly
escaped being taken into a Spanish port, it was to HAMILTON that he
wrote for a certificate of his conduct. And one of the ambassador’s
latest diplomatic achievements was his procuring access for British
ships to Neapolitan ports before the Battle of the Nile was won.

On the very night of that famous first of August, 1798, Sir
William—whilst the distant battle was yet raging—told NELSON of the
disappointment which had followed the rumours, current during many
days at Naples, of a defeat given to the French fleet in the Bay of
Alexandretta, and assured him of his own confidence that the rumours,
though then unfounded, would come true at last. Five weeks afterwards,
he had the satisfaction of sending to London the first official
account of the great victory which he had seen before with the eye of
faith.

At Naples the authentic news was received with a joy which worked like
frenzy. When the ambassador first saw the Queen, after its arrival,
she was rushing up and down the room of audience, and embracing every
person who entered it—man, woman, or child. [Sidenote: Sir W. Hamilton
to Nelson; Nicolas, vol. iii, p. 72.] He sent to NELSON an account of
the universal joy. ‘You have now, indeed, made yourself immortal,’ was
his own greeting. On the 22nd they again met, on board the _Vanguard_,
in the Bay. On the 21st of the following December Sir William HAMILTON
accompanied the King and Court of Naples in their flight to Palermo.

The events of 1799 belong rather to history than to biography. Sir
William HAMILTON’S chief share in them lay in his exertions to obtain
for NELSON the large powers which the King of NAPLES vested in the
English Admiral—with results so mingled. On the 21st of June he
embarked with NELSON on board the _Foudroyant_, and sailed with the
squadron to Naples. In the stormy interview between NELSON and
Cardinal RUFFO, Sir William acted as interpreter. In all that
followed, he seems to have been rather a spectator than an actor. At
the close of the year he joined with NELSON in the vain endeavour to
induce the King to return to Naples, while that course was yet open to
him.

[Sidenote: DEPARTURE FROM NAPLES.]

On the 10th of June, 1800, Sir William took his final leave of Naples,
which had been his home for thirty-six years, and where he had mingled
in a departed world. In company with the Queen and three princesses,
the HAMILTONS sailed in the _Foudroyant_ for Leghorn, on their way to
Vienna. A few days after the embarkation, a fellow-passenger writes
thus: ‘Sir William HAMILTON appears broken, distressed, and harassed.
[Sidenote: Miss Knight to Lady Berry, July 2, 1800.] He says that he
shall die by the way, and he looks so ill that I should not be
surprised if he did.’ When the Admiral struck his flag (13th July) at
Leghorn, the party set out for Vienna. Between Leghorn and Florence,
Sir William’s carriage met with an overturn, which increased his
malady. At Trieste the physicians were inclined to despair of his
life. But he rallied sufficiently to reach England at last, and the
change from turmoil to rest prolonged his life for two years to come.

[Sidenote: SIR WILLIAM HAMILTON’S LAST DAYS.]

During the long interval between the acquisition of the first Hamilton
Museum and the return of its Collector to his country, he had marked
his interest in the national Collection by repeated and valuable
gifts. To make yet one gift more—trivial, but possessing an historical
interest—was one of his last acts. On the 12th of February, 1803, he
sent to the British Museum a Commission given by the famous fisherman
of Amalfi to one of his insurrectionary captains. On the 6th of April
Sir William HAMILTON died, in London. He was buried at Milford Haven.


The kindly heart had left many memorials of its quality at Naples. The
ambassador had lost a part of his fortune. But many poor dependants,
in his old home, enjoyed pensions from his liberality.

NELSON, when writing to the Queen of the Two Sicilies upon the death
of their common friend, made this remark on his testamentary
arrangements:—‘The good Sir William did not leave Lady HAMILTON in
such comfortable circumstances as his fortune would have allowed. He
has given it amongst his relations. [Sidenote: Nelson to the Queen of
Naples (Nicolas, vol. iv, p. 84).] But she will do honour to his
memory, although every one else of his friends calls loudly against
him on that account.’ This comment, however, expresses rather a
temporary feeling than a wise judgment. Sir William had settled a
jointure of seven hundred pounds a year upon his widow.

During the few months of life that yet remained to the great seaman
himself, the highest encomium known to his vocabulary was to say,
‘So-and-so was a great friend of Sir William HAMILTON.’


[Sidenote: THE ‘INSTITUTE OF EGYPT;’ AND ITS RESEARCHES AND
           ACQUISITIONS.]

As the British Museum owes one choice portion of its archæological
treasures to the man who was NELSON’S type of friendship, so also it
owes—indirectly—another portion of them to the man who was NELSON’S
favourite aversion, and whose very name, in the Admiral’s mind, served
to sum up all that was most detestable. The Battle of the Nile, and
the military operations which followed it in the after years, would
have counted no antiquarian riches amongst their trophies, but for
that ardent love of science in NAPOLEON which prompted him to plan the
‘Institute of Egypt’ as an essential part of the Campaign of Egypt.

The intention with which the Institute of Egypt was founded embraced
every kind of study and research. The scholars of whom it was composed
included within their number men of the most varied powers. What they
effected was fragmentary, and yet their researches, directly or
indirectly, bore much fruit.

In the end, the harvest was to France herself none the less abundant
from the fact that NELSON’S achievement, and what grew thereout, set
Englishmen and Germans to work with increased vigour in the same
field, and divided some of the tools.

Scarcely had General BONAPARTE established the military power of the
French Republic in Egypt, before he was employed in organizing the
Institute at Cairo. [Sidenote: 1798–1801.] Its declared object was
twofold: (1) the increase and diffusion of learning in Egypt itself;
(2) the examination, study, and publication, of the monuments of its
history and of its natural phenomena, together with the elucidation
and improvement of the natural and industrial capabilities of the
country. [Sidenote: _Mémoires sur l’Egypt_, passim.] The Institute was
composed of thirty-six members, and was divided into four sections.
The section with which alone we are here concerned—that of Literature,
Arts, and History—was headed by DENON, and amongst its other members
were DUTERTRE, PARSEVAL, and RIPAULT. Its labours began in 1798, and
were continued, with almost unparalleled activity, until the summer of
1801, when the defeat of BELLIARD near Cairo, and the capitulation of
MENOU at Alexandria, placed that part of the collections of the
Institute which had not been already sent to France at the disposal of
Lord HUTCHINSON.

DENON, on his return from Upper Egypt to Cairo, said, with French
vivacity, that if the active movements of the Mamelukes now and then
forced an antiquary to become, in self-defence, a soldier, the
antiquary was enabled, by way of balance and through the good nature
and docility of the French troops, to turn a good many soldiers into
antiquaries. Had it not been for this general sympathy and readiness,
one can hardly conceive that so much could have been accomplished,
even under the eye of NAPOLEON, amidst perils so incessant. The
_Description de l’Egypte_ is for France at large, no less than for
NAPOLEON and the men whom he set to work, a monument which might well
obliterate the momentary mortification attendant on the transfer to
London of a part of the treasures of the Institute. History, ancient
or modern, scarcely offers a parallel instance in which war was made
to contribute results so splendid, both for the progress of science
and for the eventual improvement of the invaded country. To the
labours initiated by NAPOLEON, and partially carried out by the
‘Institute of Egypt,’ the ablest of the recent rulers of that land owe
some of their best and latest inspirations. Nor is it a whit less true
that the most successful of our English Egyptologists have followed
the track in which Frenchmen led the way. Such results, indeed, can
never suffice to justify an unprovoked invasion. But they illustrate,
in a marvellous way, how temporary evil is wrought into enduring good.

By the sixteenth article of the Capitulation of Alexandria, it was
provided that the Members of the Institute of Egypt might carry back
with them all instruments of science and art which they had brought
from France, but that all collections of marbles, manuscripts, and
other antiquities, together with the specimens of natural history and
the drawings, then in the possession of the French, should be regarded
as public property, and become subject to the disposal of the generals
of the allied army.

[Sidenote: THE CONVENTION OF ALEXANDRIA.]

The Convention was made between General MENOU and General HOPE, on the
31st of August, 1801. [Sidenote: 1801, August.] Against this sixteenth
article MENOU made the strongest remonstrances, but General HOPE
declined to modify it, otherwise than by agreeing to make a reference,
as to the precise extent to which it should be carried into actual
effect, to Lord HUTCHINSON, as Commander-in-Chief.

Between MENOU and HUTCHINSON there was a long correspondence. The
French General declared that the Collections, both scientific and
archæological, were private, not public property. The since famous
‘Rosetta stone,’ for example, belonged, he said, to himself. Various
members of the Institute claimed other precious objects; some alleged,
with obvious force of argument, that the care bestowed on specimens of
natural history made them the property of the collectors and
preservers; others threatened to prefer the destruction or defacement
of their collections, by their own hands, to the giving of them up to
the English army.

[Sidenote: THE NEGOTIATIONS AND SERVICES OF COLONEL TURNER.]

The correspondence was followed by several personal conferences
between MENOU and Colonel (afterwards General) TURNER, in order to a
compromise. TURNER, who was himself a man of distinguished knowledge
and accomplishments, advised Lord HUTCHINSON to insist on the transfer
of the Marbles and Manuscripts, and to yield the natural history
specimens, with some minor objects, to the possessors. The astute
Capitan Pasha had contrived to place himself in ‘possession’ of one of
the most precious of the marbles—the famous sarcophagus which Dr.
CLARKE so strenuously contended to be nothing less than the tomb of
ALEXANDER—by seizing the ship on board of which the French had placed
it, and he gave Colonel TURNER almost as much trouble as MENOU himself
had given.

The French soldiers were, as was natural, deeply mortified when they
heard that the captors of Alexandria were to have the antiquities.
Every man of them who had had to do with their excavation or transport
had vindicated DENON’S eulogy by his pains to protect the sculptures
from harm. Now, their excessive zeal and their national pride led to
an unworthy result. The Rosetta stone was stripped of the soft cotton
cloth and the thick matting in which it had been sedulously wrapped,
and was thrown upon its face. Other choice antiquities were deprived
of their wooden cases. [Sidenote: CAPTURE OF THE ROSETTA STONE;] When
TURNER, with a detachment of artillerymen and a strong tumbril, went
to the French head-quarters to receive the Rosetta stone, he had to
pass through a lane of angry Frenchmen who crowded the narrow streets
of Alexandria, and were not sparing in their epithets and sarcasms.
Those artillerymen, too, were the first English soldiers who entered
the city. When Colonel TURNER had gotten safely into his hands the
stone destined to mark an era in philology, he returned good for evil.
He permitted some members of the Institute of Egypt to take a cast of
it, which they sent to Paris in lieu of the original.

The Rosetta inscription had been found, by the French explorers, among
the ruins of a fortification near the mouth of the Rosetta branch of
the Nile. When they discovered it the stone was already broken, both
at the top and at the right side. Of its triple inscription,
commemorative of the beginning of the actual and personal reign of
PTOLEMY EPIPHANES—and therefore cut nearly two hundred years before
the Christian era—that in the hieroglyphic or sacred character had
suffered most. The second or enchorial inscription was also mutilated
in its upper portion. The Greek version was almost entire.

The scarcely less famous Alexandrian sarcophagus was found by the
French in the court-yard of a mosque called the ‘Mosque of St.
Athanasius.’ [Sidenote: AND OF THE SARCOPHAGUS SOMETIMES CALLED ‘TOMB
OF ALEXANDER.’] Of its discovery and state when found, the following
account is given in the _Description de l’Egypte_:—A small octagonal
building, covered with a cupola, had been constructed by the Moslems
for their ablutions, and in this they had placed the sarcophagus to be
used as a bath; piercing it for that purpose with large holes, but not
otherwise injuring it. The sarcophagus is a monolith of dark-coloured
breccia—such as the Italians call _breccia verde d’Egitto_—and is
completely covered with hieroglyphics. [Sidenote: _Description de
l’Egypte_, vol. v, pp. 373, seqq.; Plates and Append. (8vo edit.),
1829.] Their number, according to the French artist by whom
impressions in sulphur were taken of the whole, exceeds 21,700. Dr.
CLARKE’S identification of this monument as the tomb of Alexander has
not been supported by later Egyptologists.

This sarcophagus, with most of the other antiquities, was sent on
board the flagship _Madras_. [Sidenote: LIST OF THE EGYPTIAN
ANTIQUITIES EMBARKED AT ALEXANDRIA.] The Rosetta inscription, Colonel
TURNER embarked, with himself, in the frigate _Egyptienne_. His own
list of the antiquities thus brought, in safety, to England runs
thus:—(1) An Egyptian sarcophagus, of green breccia; (2) another, of
black granite, from Cairo; (3) another, of basalt, from Menouf; (4)
the hand of a colossal statue—supposed to be Vulcan—found in the ruins
of Memphis; (5) five fragments of lion-headed statues, of black
granite, from Thebes; (6) a mutilated kneeling statue, of black
granite; (7) two statues, of white marble, from Alexandria—Septimus
Severus and Marcus Aurelius; (8) the Rosetta stone; (9) a lion-headed
statue, from Upper Egypt; (10) two fragments of lions’ heads, of black
granite; (11) a small kneeling figure, of black granite; (12) five
fragments of lion-headed statues, of black granite; (13) a fragment of
a sarcophagus, of black granite, from Upper Egypt; (14) two small
obelisks, of basalt, with hieroglyphics; (15) a colossal ram’s head.
Nos. 10 to 15 inclusive were all brought from Upper Egypt. (16) A
statue of a woman, sitting, with a model of the capital of a column of
the Temple of Isis at Dendera, between her feet; (17) a fragment of a
lion-headed statue, of black granite, from Upper Egypt; (18) a chest
of Oriental Manuscripts—sixty-two in number—in Coptic, Arabic, and
Turkish.


I have given the more careful detail to this notice of the
archæological results of the capitulation of Alexandria, inasmuch as a
very inaccurate statement of the matter has found its way into an able
and deservedly accredited book. [Sidenote: See the _History of
Europe_, vol. v, p. 596 (last edition).] Sir Archibald ALISON, in his
_History of Europe_ (probably from some misconception of the
compromise effected between General TURNER and the French
Commander-in-Chief), writes thus:—‘General HUTCHINSON, with a generous
regard for the interests of science and the feelings of these
distinguished persons [the Members of the Institute of Egypt], agreed
to depart from the stipulation and allow these treasures of art to be
forwarded to France. The sarcophagus of ALEXANDER, now in the British
Museum, was, however, retained by the British, and formed the glorious
trophy of their memorable triumph.’

General TURNER’S conspicuous service on this occasion did not end with
the transport into England of the Alexandrian Collections. Before the
Rosetta inscription was, by the King’s command, placed, together with
its companions, in the British Museum, as their permanent abode,
General TURNER obtained Lord BUCKINGHAMSHIRE’S assent to the temporary
deposit of the stone from Rosetta in the custody of the Society of
Antiquaries, by whose care copies of the inscriptions were sent to the
chief scholars and academies of the Continent, in order that combined
study might be brought to bear, immediately, upon the contents. This
circumstance makes it all the more honourable to our countryman, Dr.
Thomas YOUNG, that by his labours upon the stone a strong impulse was
first given to the progress of hieroglyphical discovery.

The accessions from Alexandria served, also, to initiate another
improvement. When, in 1802, they reached the Museum, its contents had
so increased that the old house afforded no adequate space for their
reception. They had, like some famous sculptures of much later
acquisition, to be placed in sheds which scarcely preserved them from
bad weather, and were even less adapted to facilitate their study.
[Sidenote: 1804, July 2.] [Sidenote: _Parliamentary Debates_, vol. ii,
col. 901, seqq.] The Trustees made their first application to
Parliament for the enlargement of the Museum Building, ‘in order to
provide suitable room for the preservation of invaluable monuments of
antiquity which had been acquired by the valour, intrepidity, and
skill of our troops in an expedition seldom equalled in the annals of
the country.’ And before presenting their petition they determined
that increased facilities should be given for the admission of the
Public, as soon as they should be enabled to make an adequate increase
in the staff of the establishment.

When the extension of the British Museum came first to be discussed in
the House of Commons (somewhat grudgingly and captiously it must, in
truth, be acknowledged), upon the application of the Trustees, some of
their number were already aware that an accession was likely soon to
accrue through the munificence of a fellow-trustee, which would make a
new and extensive building indispensable. Charles TOWNELEY had already
made a Will in virtue of which—as it stood in 1804—the Towneley
Marbles were devised in trust for the British Museum, on condition
that the Trustees thereof should, ‘within two years from the time of
the testator’s decease, set apart a room or rooms sufficiently
spacious and elegant to exhibit these antiquities most advantageously
to the Public,—such rooms to be exclusively set apart for the
reception and future exhibition of the antiquities aforesaid.’
Circumstances not foreseen in 1802, when Colonel TOWNELEY’S Will had
been first made, led afterwards to a change in the mode in which his
noble Collection was to be received by the Public. But its
preservation and public accessibility, in one way or other, had long
been resolved upon.


The TOWNELEYS, of Towneley, rank among the most ancient and
distinguished commoners of Lancashire. They can trace an honourable
descent to a period antecedent to the Conquest. They have been seated
at Towneley from the twelfth century. Several of them have given good
service to England, in various ways, in spite of the obstacles and
discouragements which, for many generations, clave to almost every man
whose convictions obliged him to adhere to the Roman Catholic Church,
and so to incur the pains and disabilities of recusancy. Of these they
had their full share. One TOWNELEY had been mulcted in fines amounting
to more than five thousand pounds, simply for remaining true to his
belief, and had been, for that cause, sent (with an ingenuity of
torment one is almost tempted to call diabolic) from prison to prison
across the breadth of England, and back again.[60] Another TOWNELEY
was driven into an exile which lasted so long that when he returned
into Lancashire everybody had forgotten his features and his voice,
except his dog. But neither fine, imprisonment, nor banishment, had
converted them to Protestantism. Hence it was that Charles TOWNELEY,
the Collector of the Marbles, received his education at Douay, and
contracted all the strong formative impressions of early life and
habit on the Continent.

He was born, in the old seat of the family at Towneley Hall, on the
1st of October, 1737. [Sidenote: LIFE OF CHARLES TOWNELEY.] His
father, William TOWNELEY, had married Cecilia, sole daughter and heir
of Richard STANDISH, by his wife Lady Philippa HOWARD, daughter of
Henry, Duke of NORFOLK. The hall—which has not yet lost all its
venerable aspect—was built in part by a Sir John TOWNELEY in the reign
of HENRY VIII, and its older portions (turrets, gateway, chapel, and
library) suit well the fine position of the building, and the noble
woods which back it. Of the founder two things still remain in local
tradition and memory. He took the changes made under the rule of
HENRY—or rather of Thomas CROMWELL—so much in dudgeon, that when
Lancaster Herald came to Towneley, upon his Visitation, he refused to
admit him, saying, ‘Do not trouble thyself. There are no more
gentlemen left in Lancashire now than my Lord of DERBY, and my Lord
MONTEAGLE.’ The other tradition of this same Sir John is, that he
enclosed a common pasture called Horelaw, and so made the peasantry as
angry with his innovations as he was with CROMWELL’S. Some of their
descendants may yet chance to assure the inquisitive stranger, that
his ghost still haunts the park, crying aloud in the dead of night—

                   ‘Lay out! lay out![61]
                   Horelaw and Hollingley Clough!’

At Douay Charles TOWNELEY received a careful education, moulded, of
course, under the conditions and the memories of that celebrated
College. When he left its good priests he was already the owner of the
family estates—his father having died prematurely in 1742—and he was
plunged, at once, into the gaieties and temptations of Paris. All the
Mentorship he had was that of a great uncle who had become
sufficiently naturalised to win the friendship of VOLTAIRE, and to be
able to turn _Hudibras_ into excellent French. The dissipations of the
Capital overpowered, for a time, the real love of classical studies
which had been excited in the provincial college. But the seed had
been sown in a good soil. The study of art and of classical
archæology, in particular, presently reasserted its claims and renewed
its attractions. It was a fortunate circumstance, too, that family
affairs required the presence of Mr. TOWNELEY in England on the
attainment of his majority.

He had left Towneley very young. He came back to it with more of the
foreigner than of the Englishman in his ways of life and manners. But
he was able to win the genuine regard of his neighbours, and to take
his fair share in their pursuits and sports, although he could
never—at least in his own estimation—succeed in expressing his
thoughts with as much ease and readiness in English as in French. Late
in life, he would speak of this conscious inability with regret.
Whether needfully or not, the feeling, no doubt, prevented Mr.
TOWNELEY from turning to literary account his large acquirements.

What he had seen of the Continent had given him a desire to see more
of it, and the bias of his youthful studies pointed in the same
direction. In 1765, after a short stay in France, he went into Italy,
and there he passed almost eight years. They were passed in a very
different way from that in which he had passed the interval between
Douay and Towneley. That long residence abroad enabled him to become a
very conspicuous benefactor to his country.

He visited Naples, Florence, and Rome, and from time to time made many
excursions into various parts of Magna Græcia and of Sicily. At Naples
he formed the acquaintance of Sir William HAMILTON and of
D’HANCARVILLE. [Sidenote: TOWNELEY’S ARTISTIC RESEARCHES IN ITALY.]
[Sidenote: 1765–1778.] At Rome he became acquainted with three
Englishmen, James BYRES, Gavin HAMILTON, and Thomas JENKINS, all of
whom had first gone thither as artists, and step by step had come to
be almost exclusively engrossed in the search after works of ancient
art. The success and fame of Sir William HAMILTON’S researches in the
Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and of those, still earlier, of Thomas
COKE of Holkham (afterwards Earl of Leicester), had given a strong
impulse to like researches in other parts of Italy. TOWNELEY caught
the contagion, and was backed by large resources to aid him in the
pursuit.

His first important purchase was made in 1768. It was that of a work
already famous, and which for more than a century had been one of the
ornaments of the Barberini Palace at Rome. This statue of a boy
playing at the game of tali, or ‘osselets’ (figured in _Ancient
Marbles in the British Museum_, part ii, plate 31), was found among
the ruins of the Baths of Titus, during the Pontificate of URBAN THE
EIGHTH. During the same year, 1768, Mr. TOWNELEY acquired, from the
Collection of Victor AMADEI, at Rome, the circular urn with figures in
high relief—which is figured in the first volume of Piranesi’s
_Raccolta di Vasi Antichi_—and also the statue of a _Nymph of Diana_,
seated on the ground. This statue was found in 1766 at the Villa
Verospi in Rome.

[Sidenote: FORMATION OF THE TOWNELEY GALLERY.]

Two years afterwards, several important acquisitions were made of
marbles which were discovered in the course of the excavations
undertaken by BYRES, Gavin HAMILTON, and JENKINS, amidst the ruins of
Hadrian’s Villa near Tivoli. The joint-stock system, by means of which
the diggings were effected, no less than the conditions which
accompanied the papal concessions that authorised them, necessitated a
wide diffusion of the spoil. But whenever the making of a desirable
acquisition rested merely upon liberality of purse or a just
discrimination of merit, Mr. TOWNELEY was not easily outstripped in
the quest. Amongst these additions of 1769–71 were the noble Head of
_Hercules_, the Head said, conjecturally, to be that of _Menelaus_,
and the ‘_Castor_’ in low relief (all of which are figured in the
second part of _Ancient Marbles_).

Two terminal heads of the bearded _Bacchus_—both of them of remarkable
beauty—were obtained in 1771 from the site of Baiæ. These were found
by labourers who were digging a deep trench for the renewal of a
vineyard, and were seen by Mr. ADAIR, who was then making an excursion
from Naples. In the same year the statue of _Ceres_ and that of a
_Faun_ (_A. M._, ii, 24) were purchased from the Collection in the
Macarani Palace at Rome. In 1772 the _Diana Venatrix_ and the _Bacchus
and Ampelus_ were found near La Storta. It was by no fault of
TOWNELEY’S that the _Diana_ was in part ‘restored,’ and that
blunderingly. He thought restoration to be, in some cases,
permissible; but never deceptively; never when doubt existed about the
missing part. In art, as in life, he clave to his heraldic motto
‘_Tenez le vrai_.’

In 1771, also, the famous ‘_Clytie_’—doubtfully so called—was
purchased from the Laurenzano Collection at Naples.

The curious scenic figure on a plinth (_A. M._, part x) together with
many minor pieces of sculpture, were found in the Fonseca Villa on the
Cælian Hill in 1773. In the same year many purchases were made from
the Mattei Collection at Rome. Amongst these are the heads of _Marcus
Aurelius_ and of _Lucius Verus_. And it was at this period that Gavin
HAMILTON began his productive researches amidst the ruins of the villa
of Antoninus Pius at Monte Cagnolo, near the ancient Lanuvium. This is
a spot both memorable and beautiful. The hill lies on the road between
Genzano and Civita Lavinia. It commands a wide view over Velletri and
the sea. To HAMILTON and his associates it proved one of the richest
mines of ancient art which they had the good fortune to light upon.
Mr. TOWNELEY’S share in the spoil of Monte Cagnolo comprised the group
of _Victory sacrificing a Bull_; the _Actæon_; a _Faun_; a
Bacchanalian vase illustrative of the _Dionysia_; and several other
works of great beauty. The undraped _Venus_ was found—also by Gavin
HAMILTON—at Ostia, in 1775.

[Sidenote: THE ACQUISITION OF THE ‘TOWNELEY VENUS.’]

In the next year, 1776, Mr. TOWNELEY acquired one of the chiefest
glories of his gallery, the _Venus_ with drapery. This also was found
at Ostia, in the ruins of the Baths of Claudius. But that superb
statue would not have left Rome had not its happy purchaser made, for
once, a venial deflection from the honourable motto just adverted to.
The figure was found in two severed portions, and care was taken to
show them, quite separately, to the authorities concerned in granting
facilities for their removal. The same excavation yielded to the
Towneley Collection the statue of _Thalia_. From the Villa Casali on
the Esquiline were obtained the terminal head of _Epicurus_, and the
bust thought to be that of _Domitia_. The bust of _Sophocles_ was
found near Genzano; that of _Trajan_, in the Campagna; that of
_Septimius Severus_, on the Palatine, and that of _Caracalla_ on the
Esquiline. A curious cylindrical fountain (figured in _A. M._, i, §
10) was found between Tivoli and Præneste, and the fine representation
in low relief of a _Bacchanalian procession_ (_Ib._, part ii) at
Civita Vecchia. All these accessions to the Towneley Gallery accrued
in 1775 or 1776.

Of the date of the Collector’s first return to England with his
treasures I have found no record. [Sidenote: THE TOWNELEY GALLERY IN
ENGLAND.] But it would seem that nearly all the marbles hitherto
enumerated were brought to England in or before the year 1777. The
house, in London, in which they were first placed was found to be
inadequate to their proper arrangement. Mr. TOWNELEY either built or
adapted another house, in Park street, Westminster, expressly for
their reception. Here they were seen under favourable circumstances as
to light and due ordering. They were made accessible to students with
genuine liberality. And few things gave their owner more pleasure than
to put his store of knowledge, as well as his store of antiquities, at
the service of those who wished to profit by them. He did so genially,
unostentatiously, and with the discriminating tact which marked the
high-bred gentleman, as well as the enthusiastic Collector.

A contemporary critic, very competent to give an opinion on such a
matter, said of Mr. TOWNELEY: ‘His learning and sagacity in explaining
works of ancient art was equal to his taste and judgment in selecting
them.’[62] If, in any point, that eulogy is now open to some
modification, the exception arises from the circumstance that early in
life, or, at least, early in his collectorship, he had imbibed from
his intercourse with D’HANCARVILLE somewhat of that writer’s love for
mystical and supersubtle expositions of the symbolism of the Grecian
and Egyptian artists. To D’HANCARVILLE, the least obvious of any two
possible expositions of a subject was always the preferable one. Now
and then TOWNELEY would fall into the same vein of recondite
elaboration; as, for example, when he described his figure of an
Egyptian ‘tumbler’ raising himself, upon his arms, from the back of a
tame crocodile, as the ‘Genius of Production.’

During the riots of 1780, the Towneley Gallery (like the National
Museum of which it was afterwards to become a part) was, for some
time, in imminent peril. The Collector himself could have no enemies
but those who were infuriated against his religious faith. Fanaticism
and ignorance are meet allies, little likely to discriminate between a
Towneley Venus and the tawdriest of Madonnas. Threats to destroy the
house in Park Street were heard and reported. Mr. TOWNELEY put his
gems and medals in a place of safety, together with a few other
portable works of art. Then, taking ‘Clytie’ in his arms—with the
words ‘I must take care of my wife’—he left his house, casting one
last, longing, look at the marbles which, as he feared, would never
charm his eyes again. But, happily, both the Towneley house and the
British Museum escaped injury, amid the destruction of buildings, and
of works of art and literature, in the close neighbourhood of both of
them.


[Sidenote: THE SCULPTURES ACQUIRED FROM THE VILLA MONTALTO AT ROME;]

Liberal commissions and constant correspondence with Italy continued
to enrich the Towneley Gallery, from time to time, after the Collector
had made England his own usual place of abode. In 1786, Mr.
JENKINS—who had long established himself as the banker of the English
in Rome, and who continued to make considerable investments in works
of ancient art, with no small amount of mercantile profit—purchased
all the marbles of the Villa Montalto. From this source Mr. TOWNELEY
obtained his _Bacchus visiting Icarus_ (engraved by BARTOLI almost a
century before); his _Bacchus and Silenus_; the bust of _Hadrian_; the
sarcophagus decorated with a _Bacchanalian procession_ (_A. M._, part
x), and also that with a representation of the _Nine Muses_.
[Sidenote: AND FROM NEW EXCAVATIONS.] By means of the same keen agent
and explorer he heard, in or about the year 1790, that leave had been
given to make a new excavation under circumstances of peculiar
promise.

Our Collector was at Towneley when the letter of Mr. JENKINS came to
hand. He knew his correspondent, and the tenour of the letter induced
him to resolve upon an immediate journey to Rome. The grass did not
grow under his feet. He travelled as rapidly as though he had been
still a youngster, escaping from Douay, with all the allurements of
Paris in his view.

[Sidenote: THE JOURNEY TO ROME OF 1790?]

When he reached Rome, he learnt that the promising excavation was but
just begun upon. Without any preliminary visits, or announcement, he
quietly presented himself beside the diggers, and ere long had the
satisfaction of seeing a fine statue of Hercules displayed. Other fine
works afterwards came to light. But on visiting Mr. JENKINS, in order
to enjoy a more deliberate examination of ‘the find,’ and to settle
the preliminaries of purchase, his enjoyment was much diminished by
the absence of Hercules. JENKINS did not know that his friend had seen
it exhumed, and he carefully concealed it from his view. Eager
remonstrance, however, compelled him to produce the hidden treasure.
TOWNELEY, at length, left the banker’s house with the conviction that
the statue was his own, but it never charmed his sight again until he
saw it in the Collection of Lord LANSDOWNE. He had, however, really
secured the _Discobolus_ or Quoit-thrower,—perhaps, notwithstanding
its restored head, the finest of the known repetitions of MYRO’S
famous statue,—as well as some minor pieces of sculpture.

Other and very valuable acquisitions were made, occasionally, at the
dispersion of the Collections of several lovers of ancient art, some
of these Collections having been formed before his time, and others
contemporaneously with his own. [Sidenote: ACQUISITIONS MADE IN
ENGLAND AND IN FRANCE.] In this way he acquired whilst in England (1)
the bronze statue of _Hercules_ found, early in the eighteenth
century, at Jebel or Gebail (the ancient Byblos), carried by an
Armenian merchant to Constantinople, there sold to Dr. SWINNEY, a
chaplain to the English factory; by him brought into England, and
purchased by Mr. James MATTHEWS; (2) the Head of _Arminius_, also from
the Matthews Collection; (3) the _Libera_ found by Gavin HAMILTON, on
the road to Frascati, in 1776, and then purchased by Mr. GREVILLE; (4)
Heads of a _Muse_, an _Amazon_, and some other works, from the
Collection of Mr. Lyde BROWNE, of Wimbledon; (5) the _Monument of
Xanthippus_, from the Askew Collection; (6) the bust of a female
unknown (called by TOWNELEY ‘Athys’) found near Genzano, in the
grounds of the family of CESARINI, and obtained from the Collection of
the Duke of ST. ALBANS; (7) many urns, vases, and other antiquities,
partly from the Collection of that Duke and partly from Sir Charles
FREDERICK’S Collection at Esher. The bronze _Apollo_ was bought in
Paris, at the sale, in 1774, of the Museum formed by M. L’ALLEMAND DE
CHOISEUL.


Some other accessions came to Mr. TOWNELEY by gift. The _Tumbler and
Crocodile_, and the small statue of _Pan_ (_A. M._, pt. x, § 24), were
the gift of Lord CAWDOR. The _Oracle of Apollo_ was a present from the
Duke of BEDFORD. This accession—in 1804—was the last work which Mr.
TOWNELEY had the pleasure of seeing placed in his gallery. He died in
London, on the 3rd of January, 1805.

He had been made, in 1791, a Trustee of the British Museum, in the
progress of which he took a great interest. Family circumstances, as
it seems, occurred which at last dictated a change in the original
disposition which he had made of his Collection. [Sidenote: MR.
TOWNELEY’S WILL.] [Sidenote: Codicil of 22 Dec., 1804.] By a Codicil,
executed only twelve days before his death, he bequeathed the
Collection to his only brother Edward TOWNELEY-STANDISH, on condition
that a sum of at least four thousand five hundred pounds should be
expended for the erection of a suitable repository in which the
Collection should be arranged and exhibited. Failing such expenditure
by the brother, the Collection was to go to John TOWNELEY, uncle of
the Testator. Should he decline to fulfil the conditions, then the
Collection should go, according to the Testator’s first intent, to the
British Museum.

Eventually, it appeared, on an application from the Museum Trustees,
that the heirs were willing to transfer the Collection to the Public,
but that Mr. TOWNELEY had left his estate subject to a mortgage debt
of £36,500. [Sidenote: _Act of 45 Geo. III._] The Trustees, therefore,
resolved to apply to Parliament for a grant, and this noble Collection
was acquired for the Nation on the payment of the sum of £20,000, very
inadequate, it need scarcely be added, to its intrinsic worth.

Charles TOWNELEY possessed considerable skill, both as a draughtsman
and as an engraver. In authorship, his only public appearance was as
the writer of a dissertation on a relic of antiquity (the ‘Ribchester
Helmet’), printed in the _Vetusta Monumenta_.

He was a learned, genial, and benevolent man. His intense love of
ancient art did not blind his eyes to things beyond art, and above it.
The impulses of the collector did not obstruct the duties of the
citizen. He was a good landlord; a generous friend. It may be said of
him, with literal truth, that he restricted his personal indulgences
in order that he might the more abundantly minister to the wants of
others.

Charles TOWNELEY was buried at Burnley. The following inscription was
placed upon his monument:

                                M. S.
                          CAROLI TOWNELEII,
                        viri ornati, modesti,
       nobilitate stirpis, amænitate ingenii, suavitate morum,
                              insignis;
            qui omnium bonarum artium, præsertim Græcarum,
  spectator elegantissimus, æstimator acerrimus, judex peritissimus,
        earum reliquias, ex urbium veterum ruderibus effossas,
    summo studio conquisivit, suâ pecuniâ redemit, in usum patriæ
                              reposuit,
              eâ liberalitate animi, quâ, juvenis adhuc,
             hæreditatem alteram, vix patrimonio minorem,
                fratri spontè cesserat, dono dederat.
               Vixit annos lxvii. menses iii. dies iii.
                  Mortem obiit Jan. iii. A.S. 1805.

Whilst the Trustees of the British Museum were preparing—in a way that
will be hereafter noticed—for the reception of this noble addition to
the public wealth of the Nation, another liberal-minded scholar and
patriot was considering in what way his collections in the wide field
of classical archæology might be made most contributive to the
progress of learning, of art, and of public education.


[Sidenote: LORD ELGIN AND HIS PURSUITS IN GREECE.]

Thomas BRUCE, eleventh Earl of Kincardine, and seventh Earl of Elgin,
was born on the 20th of July, 1766. He was a younger son, but
succeeded to his earldoms on the death, without issue, in 1771, of his
elder brother, William Robert, sixth Earl of Elgin, and tenth of
Kincardine. He was educated at Harrow, at St. Andrew’s, and at Paris;
entered the army in 1785; and in 1790 began his diplomatic career by a
mission to the Emperor Leopold. In subsequent years he was sent as
Commissioner to the armies of Prussia and Austria, successively, and
was present during active military operations, both in Germany and in
Flanders. In 1795 he went as envoy to Berlin.


Lord ELGIN was appointed to the embassy to the Ottoman Porte, with
which his name is now inseparably connected, in July, 1799. One of his
earliest reflections after receiving his appointment was that the
mission to Constantinople might possibly afford opportunities of
promoting the study and thorough examination of the remains of Grecian
art in the Turkish dominions. He consulted an early friend, Mr.
HARRISON—distinguished as an architect, who had spent many years of
study on the Continent with much profit—as to the methods by which any
such opportunities might be turned to fullest account. HARRISON’S
advice to his lordship was that he should seek permission to employ
artists to make casts, as well as drawings and careful admeasurements,
of the best remaining examples of Greek architecture and sculpture,
and more especially of those at Athens.

Before leaving England, Lord ELGIN brought this subject before the
Government. He suggested the public value of the object sought for,
and how worthy of the Nation it would be to give encouragement from
public sources for the employment of a staff of skilful and eminent
artists. But the suggestion was received with no favour or welcome. He
was still unwilling to relinquish his hopes, and endeavoured to
engage, at his own cost, some competent draughtsmen and modellers. But
the terms of remuneration proposed to him were beyond his available
means. He feared that he must give up his plans.

On reaching Palermo, however, Lord ELGIN opened the subject to Sir
William HAMILTON, who strongly recommended him to persevere, and told
him that if he could not afford to meet the terms of English artists,
he would find less difficulty in coming to an agreement with Italians,
whose time commonly bore a smaller commercial value. [Sidenote:
CONFERS WITH SIR WILLIAM HAMILTON.] With Sir William’s assistance he
engaged, in Sicily, a distinguished painter and archæologist, John
Baptist LUSIERI (better known at Naples as ‘Don Tita’), and he
obtained several skilful modellers and draughtsmen from Rome. The
removal of the marbles themselves formed no part of Lord ELGIN’S
original design. That step was induced by causes which at this time
were unforeseen.

On his arrival at Constantinople Lord ELGIN applied to the Turkish
Ministers for leave to establish six artists at Athens to make
drawings and casts. He met with many difficulties and delays, but at
length succeeded. [Sidenote: SENDS ARTISTS TO ATHENS;] Mr. HAMILTON,
his Secretary, accompanied the Italians into Greece, to superintend
the commencement of their labours.

The difficulties at Constantinople proved to be almost trivial in
comparison with those which ensued at Athens. Every step was met, both
by the official persons and the people generally, with jealousy and
obstruction. If a scaffold was put up, the Turks were sure that it was
with a view to look into the harem of some neighbouring house. If a
fragment of sculpture was examined with any visible delight or
eagerness, they were equally sure that it must contain hidden gold.
When the artist left the specimen he had been drawing, or modelling,
he would find, not infrequently, that some Turk or other had laid
hands upon it and broken it to pieces. But the artists persevered, and
habit in some degree reconciled, at length, the people to their
presence.

When Lord ELGIN went himself to Athens the state in which he found
some of the temples suggested to him the desirableness of excavations
in the adjacent mounds. He purchased some houses, expressly to pull
them down and to dig beneath and around them. Sometimes the
exploration brought to light valuable sculpture. [Sidenote: AND MAKES
EXPLORATIONS BY DIGGING.] Sometimes, in situations of greatest
promise, nothing was found.

On one occasion, when the indication of buried sculpture seemed
conclusive, and yet the search for it fruitless, Lord ELGIN was
induced to ask the former owner of the ground if he remembered to have
seen any figures there. ‘If you had asked me that before,’ replied the
man, ‘I could have saved you all your trouble. I found the figures,
and pounded them to make mortar with, because they were of excellent
marble. A great part of the Citadel has been built with mortar made in
the same way. That marble makes capital lime.’

The conversation was not lost upon Lord ELGIN. And the assertion made
in it was amply corroborated by facts which presently came under his
own eyes. He became convinced that when fine sculpture was found it
would be a duty to remove it, if possible, rather than expose it to
certain destruction—a little sooner or a little later—from Turkish
barbarity.

[Sidenote: THE EXPLORATIONS EXTENDED TO OTHER PARTS OF GREECE.]

At intervals the artists, whose head-quarters were at Athens, made
exploring trips to other parts of Greece. They visited Delphi,
Corinth, Epidaurus, Argos, Mycene, Cape Sigæum, Olympia, Æginæ,
Salamis, and Marathon.

But it was only by means of renewed efforts at Constantinople, and
after a long delay, that the artists and their assistant labourers
were enabled to act with freedom and to make thorough explorations. So
long as the French remained masters of Egypt Lord ELGIN had to win
every little concession piecemeal, and obtained it grudgingly. As soon
as it became apparent that the British Expedition would be finally
successful, the tone of the Turkish government was entirely altered.
They were now eager to satisfy the Ambassador, and to lay him under
obligation. [Sidenote: INFLUENCE OF THE BRITISH VICTORIES IN EGYPT.]
Firmauns were given, which empowered him, not only to make models, but
‘to take away any pieces of stone from the temples of the idols with
old inscriptions or figures thereon,’ at his pleasure. Instructions
were sent to Athens which had the effect of making the Acropolis
itself a scene of busy and well-rewarded labour. Theretofore a heavy
admission fee had been exacted at each visit of the draughtsmen or
modellers. Before the close of 1802, more than three hundred labourers
were at work under the direction of LUSIERI—with results which are
familiar to the world.

It is less widely known that, had NAPOLEON’S plans in Egypt been
carried to a prosperous issue, the ‘Elgin Marbles’ would, beyond all
doubt, have become French marbles. When Lord ELGIN’S operations began,
French agents were actually resident in Athens, awaiting the turn of
events and prepared to profit by it, in the way of resuming the
operations which M. DE CHOISEUL GOUFFIER had long previously
begun.[63]

[Sidenote: INSTANCES OF TURKISH DEVASTATION.]

[Sidenote: 1674.]

The efforts of the British Ambassador became the more timely and
imperative from the fact that no amount of experience or warning was
sufficient to deter the Turks from their favourite practice of
converting the finest of the Greek Temples into powder magazines.
Twenty of the metopes of the northern side of the Parthenon had been,
in consequence of this practice, destroyed by an explosion during the
Venetian siege of Athens in the seventeenth century. [Sidenote: 1800.]
The Temple of Neptune was found by Lord ELGIN devoted to the same use,
at the beginning of the nineteenth.

No methods of extending his researches, so as to make them as nearly
exhaustive as the circumstances would admit, were overlooked by the
ambassador. Through the friendship of the Capitan Pasha, Lord ELGIN
had already, whilst yet at the Dardanelles, obtained the famous
Boustrophedon inscription from Cape Sigæum. Through the friendship of
the Archbishop of Athens, he now procured leave to search the churches
and convents of Attica, and the search led to his possession of many
of the minor but very interesting works of sculpture and architecture
which came eventually to England along with the marbles of the
Parthenon.

Of the curious range and variety of the dangers to which the remains
of ancient art were exposed under Turkish rule, the Boustrophedon
inscription just mentioned affords an instance worth noting.
[Sidenote: _Memoranda on the Earl of Elgin’s Pursuits in Greece, &c._,
p. 35.] Lord ELGIN found it in use as a seat, or couch, at the door of
a Greek chapel, to which persons afflicted with ague or rheumatism
were in the habit of resorting, in order to recline on this marble,
which, in their eyes, possessed a mysterious and curative virtue. The
seat was so placed as to lift the patient into a much purer air than
that which he had been wont to breathe below, and it commanded a most
cheerful sea-view; but it was the ill fate of the inscription to have
a magical fame, instead of the atmosphere. Constant rubbing had
already half obliterated its contents. But for Lord ELGIN, the whole
would soon have disappeared. At Athens itself, the loftier of the
sculptures in the Acropolis enjoyed equal favour in the eyes of
Turkish marksmen, as affording excellent targets.

In the course of various excavations made, not only at Athens, but at
Æginæ, Argos, and Corinth, a large collection of vases was also
formed. It was the first collection which sufficed, incontestibly, to
vindicate the claim of the Greeks to the invention of that beautiful
ware, to which the name of ‘Etruscan’ was so long and so inaccurately
given.

[Sidenote: _Ibid._, 31.]

One of the most interesting of the many minor discoveries made in the
course of Lord ELGIN’S researches comprised a large marble vase, five
feet in circumference, which enclosed a bronze vase of thirteen inches
diameter. In this were found a lachrymatory of alabaster and a deposit
of burnt bones, with a myrtle-wreath finely wrought in gold. This
discovery was made in a tumulus on the road leading from Port Piræus
to the Salaminian Ferry and Eleusis.


Early in 1803, all the sculptured marbles from the Parthenon which it
was found practicable to remove were prepared for embarkation. Both of
those so prepared and of the few that were left, casts had been made,
together with a complete series of drawings to scale. That great
monument of art had been exhaustively studied, with the aid of all the
information that could be gathered from the drawings made by the
French artist, CARREY, in 1674, and those of the English architect,
STUART, in 1752. A general monumental survey of Athens and Attica was
also compiled and illustrated.

The original frieze, in low relief, of the _cella_ of the
Parthenon—representing the chief festive solemnity of Athens, the
Panathenaic procession—had extended, in the whole, to about five
hundred and twenty feet in length. That portion which eventually
reached England amounted to two hundred and fifty feet. And of this a
considerable part was obtained by excavations. Of a small portion of
the remainder casts were brought. But the bulk of it had been long
before destroyed. Of the statues which adorned the pediments a large
portion had also perished, yet enough survived to indicate the design
and character of the whole. Of statues and fragments of statues,
seventeen were brought to England. Of metopes in high relief, from the
frieze of the entablature, fourteen were brought.

[Sidenote: THE DIFFICULTIES OF TRANSPORT AND THE SHIPWRECK AT CERIGO.]

Thus far, an almost incredible amount of effort and toil had been
rewarded by a result large enough to dwarf all previous researches of
a like kind. But the difficulties and dangers of the task were very
far from being ended. The ponderous marbles had to be carried from
Athens to the Piræus. There was neither machinery for lifting, nor
appliances for haulage. There were no roads. The energy, however,
which had wrestled with so many previous obstacles triumphed over
these. But only to encounter new peril in the shape of a fierce storm
at sea.

Part of the Elgin Marbles had been at length embarked in the ship,
purchased at Lord ELGIN’S own cost, in which Mr. HAMILTON sailed for
England, carrying with him also his drawings and journals. The vessel
was wrecked near Cerigo. Seven cases of sculpture sunk with the ship.
Only four, out of the eleven embarked in the _Mentor_, were saved,
along with the papers and drawings. Meanwhile, Lord ELGIN himself, on
his homeward journey, was, upon the rupture of the Peace of Amiens,
arrested and ‘detained’ in France.

If the reader will now recall to mind, for an instant, the
mortifications and discouragements, as well as the incessant toils,
which had attended this attempt to give to the whole body of English
artists, archæologists, and students, advantages which theretofore
only a very small and exceptionally fortunate knot of them could
enjoy, or hope to enjoy, he will, perhaps, incline to think that
enough had been done for honour. The casts and drawings had been
saved. The removal of marbles had formed no part of Lord ELGIN’S first
design. It was only when proof had come—plain as the noonday sun—that
to remove was to preserve, and to preserve, not for England alone, but
for the civilised world, that leave to carry away was sought from the
Turkish authorities, and removal resolved upon.

Entreaty to the British Government that the thorough exploration of
the Peloponnesus, by the draughtsman and the modeller, should be made
a national object, had been but so much breath spent in vain. Private
resources had then been lavished, beyond the bounds of prudence, to
confer a public boon. Personal hardships and popular animosities had
been alike met by steady courage and quiet endurance. All kinds of
local obstacle had been conquered. And now some of the most precious
results of so much toil and outlay lay at the bottom of the sea. The
chief toiler was a prisoner in France.

But Lord ELGIN was not yet beaten. He came of a tough race. He was—

           ‘One of the few, the letter’d and the brave,
           Bound to no clime, and victors o’er the grave.’

[Sidenote: LORD ELGIN BRANDED, IN ENGLAND, AS A ROBBER.] The buried
marbles were raised, at the cost of two more years of labour, and
after an expenditure, in the long effort, of nearly five thousand
pounds, in addition to the original loss of the ship. Then a storm of
another sort had to be faced in its turn. A burst of anger, classical
and poetical, declared the ambassador to be, not a benefactor, but a
thief. The gale blew upon him from many points. The author of the
_Classical Tour through Italy_ declared that Lord ELGIN’S ‘rapacity is
a crime against all ages and all generations; depriving the Past of
the trophies of their genius and the title-deeds of their fame, the
Present of the strongest inducements to exertion.’ [Sidenote: Eustace,
_Classical Tour_, p. 269.] The author of _Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage_
declared that, for all time, the spoiler’s name (the glorious name of
BRUCE)—

[Sidenote: Byron, _Curse of Minerva_, § 7.]

         ‘Link’d with the fool’s who fired th’ Ephesian dome—
         Vengeance shall follow far beyond the tomb.
         EROSTRATUS and ELGIN e’er shall shine
         In many a branding page and burning line!
         Alike condemn’d for aye to stand accurs’d—
         Perchance the second viler than the first.
         So let him stand, through ages yet unborn,
         Fix’d statue on the pedestal of scorn!’

That the abuse might have variety, as well as vigour, a very learned
Theban broke in with the remark that there was no need, after all, to
make such a stir about the matter. The much-bruited marbles were of
little value, whether in England or in Greece. If Lord ELGIN was,
indeed, a spoiler, he was also an ignoramus. His bepraised sculptures,
instead of belonging to the age of PERICLES, belonged, at earliest, to
that of HADRIAN; far from bearing traces of the hand of PHIDIAS, they
were, at best, mere ‘architectonic sculptures, the work of many
different persons, some of whom would not have been entitled to the
rank of artists, even in a much less cultivated and fastidious age....
PHIDIAS did not work in marble at all.’ These oracular sentences, and
many more of a like cast, were given to the world under the sanction
of the ‘Society of Dilettanti.’

The equanimity which had stood so many severer tests did not desert
its possessor under a tempest of angry words. When set at liberty,
after a long detention in France, he resumed his journey. On his
eventual arrival in England, in 1806, he brought with him a valuable
collection of gems and medals, gathered at Constantinople. He also
brought some valuable counsels as to the mode in which he might best
make the Athenian Marbles useful to the progress of art, obtained in
Rome.

[Sidenote: LORD ELGIN’S CONFERENCE WITH CANOVA.]

For, at Rome, he had been enabled to show a sample of his acquisitions
to a man who was something more than a dilettante. ‘These,’ said
CANOVA, ‘are the works of the ablest artists the world has seen.’

When consulted on the point whether restoration should, in any
instance, be attempted, the reply of the great Italian sculptor was in
these words: ‘The Parthenon Marbles have never been retouched. It
would be sacrilege in me—sacrilege in any man—to put a chisel on
them.’

Lord ELGIN came to England with the intention of offering his whole
Collection to the British Government, unconditionally. He was ready to
forget the short-sightedness with which his proposal of 1799 had been
met. He was prepared to trust to the liberality of Parliament, and to
the force of public opinion, for the reimbursement of his outlay, and
the fair reward of his toil. The ambassador was not in a position to
sacrifice the large sums of money he had spent. He could not afford
the proud joy of giving to Britain, entirely at his own cost, a boon
such as no man, before him, had had the power of giving. There were
conflicting duties lying upon him, such as are not to be put aside.
That British artists—in one way or another—should profit by the grand
exemplars of art which he had saved from Turkish musquetry and the
Turkish lime-kilns, was the one thing towards which his face was set.

When first imprisoned in France, Lord ELGIN did actually send a
direction to England that his Collection should be made over,
unconditionally, to the British Government. This order was sent, to
guard against the possible effect of any casualty that might happen
during his detention, the duration of which was then very
problematical. He reached England, however, before the instruction had
been carried into effect. In the mean time, the controversy about the
real value of the Marbles, as well as that which impugned the
Collector’s right to remove them from Athens, had arisen, and had
excited public attention. It became important to elicit an enlightened
opinion on those points, before raising the question how the sculpture
should be finally disposed of.

The ignorance of essential facts—which alone made such reproaches[64]
as those I have just quoted possible from a man devoid of malice, and
gifted with genius—was a far less stubborn obstacle in Lord ELGIN’S
intended path than was the one-sided learning (one-sided as far as
true art and its appreciation are concerned) which dictated the
sneering utterances of some among the ‘Dilettanti.’ A BYRON, by his
nature, is open to conviction, sooner or later, in his own despite. A
connoisseur, when narrow and scornful, is above reason. And he is
eminently reproductive.


[Sidenote: THE ACTION OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM ON THE
           TOWNELEY BEQUEST. 1805–1806.]

But for this stumbling-block in the path, the time of Lord ELGIN’S
return to England would have been eminently favourable for realising
his plans in their fulness.

The two important accessions of antiquities to the British Museum
which had just accrued from the success of our arms in Egypt, and from
the almost life-long researches of Mr. TOWNELEY and his associates in
Italy, had led the way to an important enlargement of the Museum
building, and also to a great improvement in its internal
organization. The true importance, to the Public, of a series of the
best works of ancient art as a national possession was beginning to be
felt.

In June, 1805, the Trustees obtained from Parliament the purchase of
the Towneley Marbles. They had already (in the previous year) obtained
power to begin an additional building, the plan and design of which
were now enlarged, and made specially appropriate to the reception and
display of the Towneley Collection.

[Sidenote: ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTIQUITIES.]

Hitherto, the Antiquities in the Museum had been regarded as a mere
appendix of the Natural History Collections. They were now made a
separate department, in accordance with their intrinsic value. Mr.
Taylor COMBE, who had entered the service of the Trustees, in 1803, as
an assistant librarian, was made first Keeper of the new department.
He filled that office, with much efficiency, until his death in 1826.

The new building or ‘Towneley Gallery’ was opened by a royal visit on
the third of June, 1808. The Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Dukes of
Cumberland and Cambridge, came to the Museum with a considerable
retinue, and were received, with much ceremony, by a Committee of the
Trustees. The Queen had not visited the Museum for twenty years past.

The Towneley Gallery was erected from the designs of Mr. SAUNDERS, and
was admirably adapted to its purpose. Some of the sculptures have not
been seen to quite equal advantage since its replacement by the
existing building. The addition has now disappeared as entirely as has
old Montagu House itself, but the reader may see its form and style by
glancing at the small vignette on the title-page of this volume.


[Sidenote: OPENING OF THE ELGIN MARBLES AT BURLINGTON HOUSE.]

So favourable an opportunity, however, was for the present lost. The
self-conceit of the cognoscenti strengthened the too obvious parsimony
of Parliament. Lord ELGIN made no direct overture to the Government,
but appealed to the great body of artists, of students, and of art
lovers, for their verdict on his labours in Greece and their product.
He arranged his marbles first in his own house in Park Lane, and
afterwards—for the sake of better exhibition—at Burlington House, in
Piccadilly, and threw them open to public view. The voice of the
artists was as the voice of one man. Some, who were at the top of the
tree, acknowledged a wish that it were possible to begin their studies
over again. Others, who had but begun to climb, felt their ardour
redoubled and their ambition directed to nobler aims in art than had
before been thought of. Not a few careers, arduous and honourable,
took their life-long colour from what was then seen at Burlington
House. Some of the men most strongly influenced were not what the
world calls successful, but not one of them ended his career without
making England the richer by his work.

The eagerness of foreign artists to study the Elgin Marbles was equal
to that of Englishmen. CANOVA, when on his visit to London in 1815,
wrote: ‘I think that I can never see them often enough. Although my
stay must be extremely short, I dedicate every moment I can spare to
their contemplation. I admire in them the truth of nature, united to
the choice of the finest forms.... I should feel perfectly satisfied,
if I had come to London only to see them.’

The most accomplished of foreign archæologists were not less decisive
in their testimony. VISCONTI, after seeing and studying repeatedly a
small portion only of the Parthenon frieze, said of it: ‘This has
always seemed to me to be the most perfect production of the
sculptor’s art in its kind.’ When he saw the whole, his delight was
unbounded.

The Collector was not able to carry out his plan of exhibition, in any
part of it, to the full extent which he had contemplated.

He was anxious that casts of the whole of the extant sculptures of the
Parthenon should be exhibited, in the same relative situation to the
eye of the viewer which they had originally occupied in the Temple at
Athens. He was also desirous that a public competition of sculptors
should be provided for, in order to a series of comparative
restorations of the perfect work, based upon other casts of its
surviving portions, and wrought in presence of the remains of the
authentic sculpture itself.


[Sidenote: CONTINUANCE OF THE LABOURS OF LUSIERI AT ATHENS, UNTIL
           1816.]

Meanwhile, the chief of the artists employed in the work of drawing
and modelling continued his labours at Athens, and in its vicinity,
for more than twelve years after Lord ELGIN’S departure from
Constantinople. Between the years 1811 and 1816, inclusive, eighty
cases containing sculpture, casts, drawings, and other works of art,
were added to the Elgin Collection in London.

In the year last named, when the question of artistic value had
already been very effectively determined by the cumulative force of
enlightened opinion, a Select Committee of the House of Commons was at
length appointed, to inquire whether it were expedient that Lord
ELGIN’S Collection ‘should be purchased on behalf of the Public, and,
if so, what price it may be reasonable to allow for the same.’

[Sidenote: _Report on Earl of Elgin’s Collection_ (1816), p. 8.]

By this Committee it was reported to the House that ‘several of the
most eminent artists in this kingdom rate these marbles in the very
first class of ancient art; ... speak of them with admiration and
enthusiasm; and, notwithstanding their manifold injuries, ... and
mutilations, ... consider them as among the finest models and most
exquisite monuments of antiquity.’ It was also reported that their
removal to England had been explicitly authorised by the Turkish
Government. [Sidenote: _Ib._, p. 16.] The Committee further
recommended their purchase for the Public at the sum of thirty-five
thousand pounds; and that the Earl of ELGIN and his heirs (being Earls
of Elgin) should be perpetual Trustees of the British Museum.
[Sidenote: _Ib._, p. 27.] And the Committee expressed, in conclusion,
its hope that the Elgin Marbles might long serve as models and
examples to those who, by knowing how to revere and appreciate them,
may first learn to imitate, and ultimately to rival them. On the 1st
of July, 1816, the Act for effecting the purchase was passed by the
Legislature. I do not know that any one member of the Society of
Dilettanti really regretted the fact. But it is certain that by a very
eminent connoisseur on the Continent it was much regretted. The King
of Bavaria had already lodged a sum of thirty thousand pounds in an
English banking house, by way of securing a pre-emption, should the
controversy amongst the connoisseurs on this side of the Channel, of
which so much had been heard, lead the British Parliament eventually
to decline the purchase.

The nearest estimate that could be formed in 1816 of Lord ELGIN’S
outlay, from first to last, amounted to upwards of fifty thousand
pounds. And the interest on that outlay, at subsisting rates, amounted
to about twenty-four thousand pounds. Upon merely commercial
principles, therefore, the mark of honour affixed by Parliament to the
Earldom of Elgin was abundantly earned. By every other estimate, Lord
ELGIN had done more than enough to keep his name, for ever, in the
roll of British worthies. And, as all men know, he had a worthy
successor in that honoured title. The name of ELGIN, instead of
ranking, according to BYRON’S prophecy, with that of EROSTRATUS, has
already become a name not less revered in the Indies, and in America,
than in Britain itself.


For nearly half a century, Lord ELGIN was one of the Representative
Peers of Scotland. After his great achievement was completed, he took
but little part in public life. The most curious incident of his later
years was his election as a Member of the Society of Dilettanti,
twenty-five years after his return from the Levant. The election was
made without his knowledge. When the fact was intimated to him, he
wrote to the Secretary to decline the honour. After a brief and
dignified allusion to his efforts in Greece, he went on to say:—‘Had
it been thought—twenty-five years ago, or at any reasonable time
afterwards—that the same energy would be considered useful to the
Dilettanti Society, most happy should I have been to contribute every
aid in my power; but such expectation has long since past. I do not
apprehend that I shall be thought fastidious, if I decline the honour
now proposed to me at this my eleventh hour.’

The Collector of the Elgin Marbles died in England on the fourteenth
of October, 1841.


[Sidenote: THE MARBLES OF PHIGALEIA.]

During the long period which had thus intervened between the first
exhibition to the Public of the sculptures from the Temple of Minerva
and their final acquisition for the national Museum, an inferior but
valuable series of Greek marbles was obtained from Phigaleia, in
Arcadia. They were the fruit of the joint researches, in 1812, of the
late eminent architect, Mr. Charles Robert COCKERELL, Mr. John FOSTER,
Mr. LEE, Mr. Charles HALLER VON HALLERSTEIN, and Mr. James LINKH, who,
in that year, had become fellow-travellers in Greece, and partners in
the work of exploration for antiquities.

The temple to which these marbles had belonged, and beneath the ruins
of which they were found, stands on a ridge clothed with oak trees on
one of the slopes of Mount Cotylium. The scenery which surrounds it is
of great beauty. The temple itself has long been a ruin. It was the
work of ICTINUS, the builder of the Parthenon. One portion of the
frieze of its _cella_ represents the battles of the Centaurs and the
Lapithæ—the subject of the metopes of the Parthenon entablature. The
remaining portion illustrates another series of mythic contests—that
of the Athenians and the Amazons.

The extent of this frieze, in its integrity, was about a hundred and
eight feet in length, by two feet one and a quarter inches in height.
About ninety-six lineal feet were found, broken into innumerable
fragments, but susceptible, as it proved—by dint of skill and of
marvellous patience—of almost entire reunion, so that no restoration
was needed to bring the subject of the sculpture into perfect
intelligibility.

[Sidenote: THE EXCAVATIONS ON MOUNT COTYLIUM.]

Mr. COCKERELL, one of the most active of the explorers of 1812, had to
proceed to Sicily whilst his fellows in the enterprise carried on the
toils of digging and removal. But it is from his pen that we have a
charming little notice of the progress of the work, and of the
amusements which enlivened it. ‘I regret’ wrote Mr. COCKERELL, ‘that I
was not of that delightful party at Phigaleia, which amounted to above
fifteen persons. They established themselves, for three months, on the
top of Mount Cotylium—where there is a grand prospect over nearly all
Arcadia—building, round the Temple, huts covered with boughs of trees,
until they had almost formed a village, which they called Francopolis.
They had frequently fifty or eighty men at work in the Temple, and a
band of Arcadian music was constantly playing to entertain this
numerous assemblage. When evening put an end to work, dances and songs
commenced; lambs were roasted whole on a long wooden spit; and the
whole scene in such a situation, at such an interesting time, when,
every day, some new and beautiful sculpture was brought to light, is
hardly to be imagined. Apollo must have wondered at the carousals
which disturbed his long repose, and have thought that his glorious
days of old were returned.’

[Sidenote: Cockerell to ...; printed by Hughes, _Travels in Greece_,
           vol. i, p. 194.]

‘The success of our enterprise,’ continues Mr. COCKERELL, ‘astonished
every one, and in all circumstances connected with it good fortune
attended us.’ One of these circumstances, however—that of the mixed
nationality of the discoverers—put, it must be added, some difficulty
in the way towards accomplishing an earnest wish, on the part of the
English sharers in the adventure, that England should be made the
final home of the Phigaleian sculptures. Two Germans, as we have seen,
were active partners in the exploration. A third, Mr. GROPIUS, had
likewise some interest in it. And there was also a more formidable
sleeping partner in the rich digging. VELY Pasha had stipulated that
he was to have one half of the marbles discovered, as the price of his
licence to explore. But, very fortunately, one of the ordinary changes
in Turkish policy at Constantinople removed VELY from his government,
just at the critical moment; and so made him anxious to sell his
share, and to facilitate the removal of the spoil. The new Pasha had
heard of the discoveries, and was hastening to lay hands upon the
whole. But he was too late.

The marbles were removed to Zante. The German proprietors insisted on
a public sale by auction. There was not time to bring the matter
before Parliament. [Sidenote: THE TRANSFER OF THE MARBLES OF PHIGALEIA
TO ZANTE;] But the Prince Regent took an active interest in it. With
his sanction, and mainly by the exertions of Mr. W. R. HAMILTON
(afterwards a zealous Trustee of the British Museum), some members of
the Government authorised the despatch of Mr. Taylor COMBE to Zante.
By him the marbles were purchased, at the price of sixty thousand
dollars; but that sum was enhanced by an unfavourable exchange, so
that the actual payment amounted to nineteen thousand pounds.
[Sidenote: AND TO ENGLAND.] It was paid out of the Droits of the
Admiralty,—a fund of questionable origin, and one which had been many
times grossly abused, but which, on this occasion, subserved a great
national advantage.

The marbles thus obtained are confessedly inferior to those of the
Parthenon; but they possess great beauty, as well as great
archæological value. Both acquisitions, in their place, have
contributed to increase historic knowledge, not less conspicuously
than to develop artistic power, or to enlighten critical judgment,
both in art and in literature. It would not be an easy task to
estimate to what degree a mastery of the learning which is to be
acquired only from the marbles of Attica and of Arcadia, and their
like, has tended to make the study of Greek books a living and
life-giving study.

To the sculptures brought from Phigaleia into England in 1815, several
missing fragments have been added subsequently. A peasant living near
Paulizza had carried off a piece of the frieze to decorate, or to
hallow, his hut. This fragment was procured by Mr. Spencer STANHOPE in
1816. The Chevalier BRÖNDSTED added other fragments in 1824. Only one
entire slab of the original sculpture is wanting.


[Sidenote: PURCHASE OF THE SECOND TOWNELEY COLLECTION, 1814.]

Almost contemporaneously with the accessions which came to the Museum
as the result of the explorations in 1814 of Mr. COCKERELL and his
fellow-travellers in Arcadia, a considerable addition was made to the
Towneley Gallery by the purchase of a large series of bronzes, gems,
and drawings, and of a cabinet of coins and medals, both Greek and
Roman, all of which had been formed by the Collector of the Marbles.
These were purchased from Mr. TOWNELEY’S representatives for the sum
of eight thousand two hundred pounds. Among other conspicuous
additions, made from time to time, a few claim special mention. Among
these are the _Cupid_, acquired from the representatives of Edmund
BURKE; the _Jupiter_ and _Leda_, in low relief, bought of Colonel de
BOSSET; and the _Apollo_, bought in Paris, at the sale of the Choiseul
Collection.


[Sidenote: MINOR ANTIQUITIES OF THE ELGIN COLLECTION.]

Among the minor Greek antiquities which came to the British Museum in
1816, along with the sculptures of the Parthenon, are the fine
Caryatid figure, and the very beautiful Ionic capitals, bases, and
fragments of shafts, from the double temple of the Erectheium and
Pandrosos at Athens,—part of which, like the Temple of Neptune, was
used by the Turks, in Lord ELGIN’S time, as a powder-magazine.
Acquisitions still more valuable than these were the grand fragment of
the colossal _Bacchus_ in feminine attire, which Lord ELGIN brought
from the Choragic monument of Thrasyllus; the statue of _Icarus_
(identified by comparison with a well-known low-relief in rosso antico
formerly preserved in the Albani Collection); and the noble series of
casts from the frieze of the Theseium and from that of the Choragic
monument of Lysicrates. The Collection also included many statues’
heads and fragments of great archæological interest, but of which the
original localities are for the most part unknown, and a considerable
series of sepulchral urns.

After the Elgin Marbles, the next important acquisition in the
Department of Antiquities was that made by the purchase, in 1819, of
the famous ‘_Apotheosis of Homer_.’ This marble had been found, almost
two centuries before, at Frattocchi (the ancient ‘Bovillæ’), about ten
miles from Rome on the Appian road, and had long been counted among
the choicest ornaments of the Colonna Palace. It cost the Trustees one
thousand pounds. Then, in 1825, came the noble bequest of Mr. Richard
Payne KNIGHT.

When the treasures of Mr. Payne KNIGHT came to be added to the several
Collections made, during the preceding fifty years, by HAMILTON,
TOWNELEY, and ELGIN, as well as to those which the British army had
won in Egypt, or which were due, in the main, to the research and
energy of our travelling fellow-countrymen, the national storehouse
may fairly be said to have passed from its nonage into maturity. The
Elgin Collection had, of itself, sufficed to lift the British Museum
into the first rank among its peers. But the antiquarian treasures of
the Museum showed many gaps. Some important additions, indeed, had
been made, from time to time, to the class of Egyptian antiquities.
And a small foundation had been laid of what is now the superb
Assyrian Gallery. Rich in certain classes of archæology, it remained,
nevertheless, poor in certain others. In 1825, it came to the front in
all.

[Sidenote: THE LIFE, WRITINGS, AND COLLECTIONS, OF R. PAYNE KNIGHT.]

Richard Payne KNIGHT is one of the many men who, in all probability,
would have attained more eminent and enduring distinction had he been
less impetuous and more concentrated in its pursuit. He went in for
all the honours. He aimed to be conspicuous, at once, as archæologist
and philosopher, critic and poet, politician and dictator-general in
matters of art and of taste. He was ready to give judgment, at any
moment, and without appeal, whether the question at issue concerned
the decoration of a landscape, the summing-up of the achievement of a
HOMER, or a PHIDIAS, or the system of the universe.

Mr. KNIGHT was born in 1749, and was the son of a landed man, of good
property, whose estates were chiefly in Wiltshire, and who possessed a
borough ‘interest’ in Ludlow. His constitution was so weakly, and his
chance of attaining manhood seemed so doubtful, that his father would
not allow him to go to any school, or to be put to much study at home.
It was only after his father’s death, and when he had entered his
fourteenth year, that his education can be said to have begun. Within
three years of his first appearance in any sort of school, he went
into Italy; substituting for the university the grand tour. Only when
he was approaching eighteen years of age did he fairly set to work to
learn Greek. But he studied it with a will, and to good purpose.

After remaining on the Continent about six or seven years, Mr. Payne
KNIGHT removed to England, and went to live at Downton Castle. He took
delight in the management of his land, proved himself to be a kind
landlord as well as a skilful one, and convinced his neighbours that a
man might love Greek and yet ride well to hounds. When returned to
Parliament for the neighbouring borough, he attached himself to the
Whigs, and more particularly to that section of them who supported
BURKE in his demands for economical reform. When in London, he gave
constant attention to his parliamentary duty, and when in the country,
foxhunting, hospitality, and the improvement of his estate, had their
fair share of his time. But, at all periods of life, his love of
reading was insatiable. When there was no hunting and no urgent
business, he could read for ten hours at a stretch.

He had reached his thirty-sixth year before he made the first
beginning of his museum of antiquities. The primitive acquisition was
a head, unknown—probably of _Diomede_—which was discovered at Rome in
1785. It is in brass, of early Greek work, and was bought of JENKINS.
Despite the doubt which exists as to the personage, there are many
known copies of this fine head upon ancient pastes and gems. In the
following year, Mr. KNIGHT made his first appearance as an author.

[Sidenote: EARLY WRITINGS OF MR. PAYNE KNIGHT.]

The _Inquiry into the remains of the Worship of Priapus, as existing
at Isernia, in the Kingdom of Naples_, treated of a subject which
scarcely any one will now think to have been well chosen, as the first
fruits or earnest of a scholarly career. When a French critic said of
it ‘a maiden-work, but little virgin-like (_peu virginal_)’ he
expressed, pithily, the usual opinion of the very small circle of
readers at home to whom the book became known. The author eventually
called in the impression, so far as lay in his power, and the book is
now one of the many ‘rarities’ which might well be still more rare
than they are.

In 1791, he gave to the world another work on a classical subject
which possessed real value, and, amongst scholars, attracted much
attention. The _Analytical Essay on the Greek Alphabet_ is a treatise
which, in its day, rendered good service to grammatical learning, and
led to more. It was followed, in 1794, by _The Landscape, a Poem_.

‘The Landscape’ is an elaborate protest against the then fashionable
modes of gardening, which sought to ‘improve’ nature, almost as much
by replacement as by selection. On many points the poem is marked by
good sense and just thought, as well as by vigour of expression, but
its reasoning is far superior to its poetry. What is said of the
choice and growth of trees shows thorough knowledge of the subject and
true taste. But it needs no poet to convict ‘Capability BROWN’ of
ignorance in his own pursuit when he insisted on ‘the careful removal
of every token of decay’ as a cardinal maxim in landscape-gardening.
Such topics may well be left to plain prose.

The one notable feature in the poem which has still an interest is its
curious indication of that peculiarity in Mr. KNIGHT’S creed which
asserted—in relation both to the works of nature and to those of
art—that beauty is absolutely inconsistent with vastness. The
excessive love of the minute and delicate led Mr. KNIGHT into the
greatest practical error of his public life, as will be seen
presently. At this time it merely led him to the bold assertion that
no mountain ought to dare to lift its head so high as to—

           ‘Shame the high-spreading oak, or lofty tower.’

The lines which follow are, it will be seen, curiously prophetic of
that controversy about the Marbles of the Parthenon in which Mr. Payne
KNIGHT took so large a share:—

           ‘But as vain painters, destitute of skill,
           Large sheets of canvas with large figures fill,
           And think with shapes gigantic to supply
           Grandeur of form, and grace of symmetry,
           So the rude gazer ever thinks to find
           The view sublime, when vast and undefined.


           ’Tis form, not magnitude, adorns the scene.
           A hillock may be grand, and the vast Andes mean.


           Oft have I heard the silly traveller boast
           The grandeur of Ontario’s endless coast;
           Where, far as he could dart his wandering eye,
           He nought but boundless water could descry.
           With equal reason, Keswick’s favoured pool
           Is made the theme of every wondering fool.’

Within a few months, this poem—little as it is now remembered—went
through two editions. It was soon followed by a more ambitious flight.
In 1796, its author published ‘_The Progress of Civil Society; a
didactic poem_.’

The impression which had been made, in that day of feeble verse (as
far as the southern part of the realm is concerned), by _The
Landscape_, gained for _The Progress of Civil Society_ an amount of
attention of which it was intrinsically unworthy. The work deals with
social progress, and it treats the convictions dearest to Christian
men as being simply the conjectures of ‘presumptuous ignorance.’ It is
the work of a man who writes after nine generations of his ancestors
and countrymen have had a free and open Bible in their hands, and who
none the less puts the worship of Nature, and of her copyists, in the
place of the worship of Nature’s God. This ‘didactic poem’ is written
in the land of BACON, MILTON, and SHAKESPEARE, and it bases itself on
the ‘fifth book of LUCRETIUS.’

Not the least curious thing about the matter is the effect which was
wrought by Mr. KNIGHT’S poetic flight upon the mind of a brother
antiquarian. The work absolutely inspired Horace WALPOLE with a
serious and deep regret that he was consciously too near the grave to
undertake the defence of Christian philosophy against its new
assailant. Such a labour, from such a pen, would indeed have been a
curiosity of literature.

[Sidenote: HORACE WALPOLE ON THE ‘PROGRESS OF CIVIL SOCIETY,’ 1796.]

Feeling that for a man who was almost an octogenarian the tasks of
controversy would be too much, WALPOLE writes to MASON. He entreats
him to expose the daring poetaster. His earnestness in the matter
approaches passion. ‘I could not, without using too many words,’ he
says, ‘express to you how much I am offended and disgusted by Mr.
KNIGHT’S new, insolent, and self-conceited poem. Considering to what
height he dares to carry his insolent attack, it might be sufficient
to lump [together] all the rest of his impertinent sallies ... as
trifling peccadillos.... The vanity of supposing that his
authority—the authority of a trumpery prosaic poetaster—was sufficient
to re-establish the superannuated atheism of LUCRETIUS!... I cannot
engage in an open war with him.... Weak and broken as I am, tottering
to the grave at some months past seventy-eight, I have not spirits or
courage enough to tap a paper war.’

WALPOLE then adverts to a foregone thought, on MASON’S part, to have
taken up the foils on the appearance of _The Landscape_. ‘I ardently
wish,’ he says, ‘you had overturned and expelled out of gardens this
new Priapus, who is only fit to be erected in the Palais de
l’Egalité.’ [Sidenote: Horace Walpole to William Mason, March 22, 1796
(_Letters_; Coll. Edit., vol. ix, p. 462).] And he urges his
correspondent not to let the present occasion slip. Irony and
ridicule, he thinks, would be weapons quite sufficient to overthrow
this ‘Knight of the Brazen Milk-Pot.’

The last thrust was unkind indeed. It was hard that our Collector,
whatever his other demerits, should be reproached for his passion to
gather small bronzes, by the builder and furnisher of Strawberry-Hill.

For, amidst all his devotion to poetry and pantheism, Mr. KNIGHT
carried on the pursuits of connoisseurship with insatiable ardour.
[Sidenote: _Spec. of Ancient Sculp._, pl. 55 and 56.] Among the
choicer acquisitions which speedily followed the _Diomede_[?]
purchased in 1785, were the mystical _Bacchus_—a bronze of the
Macedonian period—found near Aquila in 1775; a colossal head of
_Minerva_, found near Rome by Gavin HAMILTON; and a figure of
_Mercury_ of great beauty. The last-named bronze had been found, in
1732, at Pierre-Luisit, in the Pays de Bugey and diocese of Lyons.
[Sidenote: _Ib._, 33, 34.] A dry rock had sheltered the little figure
from injury, so that it retained the perfection of its form, as if it
had but just left the sculptor’s hand. It passed through the hands of
three French owners in succession before it was sold to Mr. KNIGHT, by
the last of them, at the beginning of the Reign of Terror.

The year 1792, in which he acquired this much-prized ‘Mercury,’ is
also the date of a remarkable discovery of no less than nineteen
choice bronzes in one hoard, at Paramythia, in Epirus. They had, in
all probability, been buried during nearly two thousand years. The
story of the find is, in itself, curious. [Sidenote: THE HOARD OF
BRONZES FOUND AT PARAMYTHIA, IN EPIRUS.] It shows too, in relief, the
energy and perseverance which Mr. KNIGHT brought to his work of
collectorship, and in which he was so much better employed—both for
himself and for his country—than in philosophising upon human
progress, from the standpoint of LUCRETIUS.

Some incident or other of the weather had disclosed appearances which
led, fortuitously, to a search of the ground into which these bronzes
had been cast—perhaps during the invasion of Epirus, _B.C._ 167—and,
by the finder, they were looked upon as so much saleable metal.
Bought, as old brass, by a coppersmith of Joannina, they presently
caught the eye of a Greek merchant, who called to mind that he had
seen similar figures shown as treasures in a museum at Moscow. He made
the purchase, and sent part of it, on speculation, to St. Petersburgh.
The receiver brought them to the knowledge of the Empress CATHERINE,
who intimated that she would buy, but died before the acquisition was
paid for. They were then shared, it seems, between a Polish
connoisseur and a Russian dealer. One bronze was brought to London by
a Greek dragoman and shown to Mr. KNIGHT, who eagerly secured it,
heard the story of the discovery, and sent an agent into Russia, who
succeeded in obtaining nine or ten of the sculptures found at
Paramythia. Two others were given to Mr. KNIGHT by Lord ABERDEEN, who
had met with them in his travels. They were all of early Greek work.
Amongst them are figures of _Serapis_, of _Apollo Didymæus_, of
_Jupiter_, and of one of the _Sons of Leda_. All these have been
engraved among the _Specimens of Ancient Sculpture_, published by the
Society of Dilettanti.

Few sources of acquisition within the limits which he had laid down
for himself escaped Mr. Payne KNIGHT’S research. He kept up an active
correspondence with explorers and dealers. He watched Continental
sales, and explored the shops of London brokers, with like assiduity.
Coins, medals, and gems, shared with bronzes, and with the original
drawings of the great masters of painting, in his affectionate
pursuit.

In his search for bronzes he welcomed choice and characteristic works
from Egypt and from Etruria, as well as the consummate works of Greek
genius. His numismatic cabinet was also comprehensive, but its Greek
coins were pre-eminent. For works in marble he had so little relish
that he actually persuaded himself, by degrees, that the greatest
artists of antiquity rarely ‘condescended’ to touch marble. But he
collected a small number of busts in that material.

For one volume of drawings by CLAUDE, Mr. KNIGHT gave the sum of
sixteen hundred pounds.

Among his later acquisitions of sculpture in brass was the very
beautiful _Mars_ in Homeric armour. This figure was brought to England
by Major BLAGRAVE in 1813. The _Bacchic Mask_ (No. 35, in the second
volume of the _Specimens_) was found, in the year 1674, near Nimeguen,
in a stone coffin. It was preserved by the Jesuits of Lyons, in their
Collegiate Museum, until their dissolution. From them it passed into
the possession of Mr. Roger WILBRAHAM, from whom Mr. KNIGHT obtained
it.


[Sidenote: THE INQUIRY INTO THE SYMBOLISM OF GREEK ART AND MYTHOLOGY.]

On the thorough study of the fine Collection which had been gathered
from so many sources—here indicated by but a scanty sample—and on that
of other choice Collections both at home and abroad, Mr. KNIGHT based
the most elaborate—perhaps the most valuable—work of his life, next to
his Museum itself. The _Inquiry into the Symbolism of Greek Art and
Mythology_ bears, indeed, too many traces of the narrowness of the
author’s range of thought, whenever he leaves the purely artistic
criticism of which he was, despite his limitations, a master, in order
to dissertate on the interdependence or on the ‘priestcraft’ of the
religions of the world. But his genuine lore cannot be concealed by
his flimsy philosophy. The student will gain from the _Inquiry_ real
knowledge about ancient art. He will find, indeed, not a few
statements which the author himself would be the first to modify in
the light of the new information of the last fifty years. But he will
also find much which, in its time, proved to be suggestive and
fruitful to other minds, and which prepared the way for wider and
deeper studies. It may do so yet. The book is one which the student of
archæology cannot afford to overlook. Whilst he may well afford a
passing smile at the philosophic insight which prompted our author’s
eulogies (1) upon the ‘liberal and humane spirit which still prevails
among those nations whose religion is founded upon the principle of
emanations;’ (2) upon the wisdom of the ‘Siamese, who shun disputes,
and believe that almost all religions are good;’ [Sidenote: _Inquiry_,
&c., p. 19.] (3) on the supreme fitness of the idolatries of India ‘to
call forth the ideal perfections of art, by expanding and exalting the
imagination of the artist;’ or (4) upon the exceptional and
pre-eminent capacity of the Hindoos to become ‘the most virtuous and
happy of the human race,’ but for that one solitary misfortune which
cursed them with a priesthood.[65]

[Sidenote: THE DISSERTATION ON ANCIENT SCULPTURE.]

The _Inquiry into Symbolism_ was, at first, printed only for private
circulation, in 1818. It was afterwards reprinted in the _Classical
Journal_, with some corrections by the author. It was again reprinted,
after his death, as an appendix to the second volume of the _Specimens
of Ancient Sculpture_.

To the first volume of that work Mr. Payne KNIGHT had already prefixed
his _Preliminary Dissertation on the Progress of Ancient Sculpture_.
After showing that of Phœnician art we have no real knowledge other
than that which is to be derived from the study of coins, and that
thence it may be learnt that the Phœnicians had artisans, but not
artists, he goes on to survey Greek art in its successive phases. That
art, at its best, finds, he thinks, a typical expression, or summary,
in the saying ascribed to LYSIPPUS: ‘It is for the sculptor to
represent men as they seem to be, not as they really are.’ He dates
the culmination of Greek sculpture as ranging between the years _B.C._
450 and 400, and as due to the national pride and energy which were
excited by the defeat of XERXES and the events which followed. He
thinks that what was gained, by the artists of the next half-century,
in ideal grace, and in the fluent refinements of workmanship, was
obtained only by a loss of energy, of characteristic expression, and
of originality—the εθος of art. In the works of LYSIPPUS and his
school (_B.C._ 350–300), he sees a brief resuscitation of the vigour
of the former period, combined with much more than the grace of the
latter, to be followed only too swiftly by those desolating wars ‘in
which the temples were destroyed, their treasures of art pillaged, and
artists, for the first time, saw their works perish before
themselves.’

In the ‘_Dissertation_,’ as in the ‘_Inquiry_,’ there are many
statements and many reasonings to which subsequent discoveries have
brought a tacit correction. [Sidenote: MR. PAYNE KNIGHT AND THE ELGIN
MARBLES.] The passage in the former about the Elgin Marbles had to be
corrected by the evidence of the author’s own eyesight. His
examination before the Commons’ Committee of 1816 was an amusing
scene. The key-note was struck by the witness’s first words. To the
question ‘Have you seen the marbles brought to England by Lord ELGIN?’
he replied, ‘Yes. I have looked them over.’ But on this point, enough
has been said already in a previous page.

Both to the _Edinburgh Review_ and to the _Classical Journal_ Mr.
KNIGHT was a frequent and valuable contributor. It was in the latter
periodical that his Prolegomena to HOMER were first given to the
world, although he had printed a small edition (limited to fifty
copies) for private circulation, as early as in the year 1808.[66] His
latest poetical work, the Romance of _Alfred_, I have never had the
opportunity of reading.

Richard Payne KNIGHT died on the twenty-fourth of April, 1824, in the
75th year of his age. He bequeathed his whole Collections to the
British Museum, of which he had long been a zealous and faithful
Trustee. He made no conditions, other than that his gift should be
commemorated by the addition to the Trust of a perpetual KNIGHT
‘Family Trustee.’

For this purpose a Bill was introduced into Parliament by Lord
COLCHESTER on the eighth of June. It received the royal assent on the
seventeenth.

The addition of Mr. KNIGHT’S Greek Coins made the British Museum
superior, in that department, to the Royal Museum of Paris; the
addition of his bronzes raised it above the famous Museum of Naples.
By the most competent judges it has been estimated that, if the
Collection had been sold by public auction, Mr. KNIGHT’S
representatives would probably have obtained for it the sum of sixty
thousand pounds.

-----

Footnote 1:

  Sir Robert’s father was the fourth ‘Thomas Cotton of Conington,’ and
  fifth Lord of that manor of the Cotton family. The marriage of
  William Cotton with the eventual heiress of the Huntingdonshire
  Bruces was contracted about the year 1450.

Footnote 2:

  ‘By this woman the Earldom of Huntingdon and the Lordship of
  Conington came to the Crown of Scotland.’-_MS. Note by Sir R.
  Cotton_, in ‘Harl. 807.’

Footnote 3:

  From the COTTON ROLL XIV, 6 [by SEGAR, CAMDEN, and ST. GEORGE];
  compared with MS. Harl. 807, fol. 95, and with MS. LANSD., 863,
  containing the Heraldic Collections of R. ST. GEORGE, Norroy, Vol.
  III, fol. 82 verso.

Footnote 4:

  Here, if we accepted Cotton’s authorship of the _Twenty-four
  Arguments, whether it be more expedient to suppress Popish
  Practices, &c._, published in the _Cottoni Posthuma_, by James
  Howell, we should have to add that ‘he travelled on the Continent
  and passed many months in Italy.’ But that tract is _not_
  Cotton’s—though ascribed to him by so able and careful an historian
  as Mr. S. R. Gardiner (_Archæologia_, vol. xli. Comp. _Prince
  Charles and the Spanish Marriage, &c._, vol. i, p. 32). That its
  real author was in Italy is plain, from his own statement ‘I
  remember that in Italy it was often told me,’ &c.; and, again: ‘In
  Rome itself I have heard the English fugitive taxed,’ &c.,
  _Posthuma_, pp. 126, seqq. Dr. Thomas Smith put a question as to
  this implied visit of Sir Robert to Italy to his grandson, Sir John
  Cotton, who assured him that no such visit was known to any of the
  family; by all of whom it was believed that their eminent antiquary
  never set foot out of Britain. Smith’s words are these:—

  ... ‘D. Joannes Cottonus hac de re a me literis consultus, se de
  isthoc avi sui itinere Italico ne verbum quidem a Patre suo edoctum
  fuisse respondit.... Cottonum usum et cognitionem linguæ Italicæ a
  Joanne Florio ... anno 1610 addidicisse ex ejusdem literis ad
  Cottonum scriptis, mihi certo constat.’ _Vita_, p. xvii.

Footnote 5:

  The story which, has been told—on the authority of one of John
  Chamberlain’s letters to Carleton (April, 1612) that ‘Sir Robert
  Cotton was sent out of the way’ at a time when certain claims of the
  Baronets were to be definitively heard at the Council Board, ‘in
  order that he might not produce records in their favour,’ rests on
  mere rumour. Charles, Lancaster Herald, wrote to Cotton immediately
  before the hearing in these terms: ‘On Saturday next the final
  determination is expected, if some troublesome spirit do not hinder;
  which end I wish were well made, and am glad that you are not seen
  in it at this time.’—Cotton MS., Julius, C. iii, f. 86.

Footnote 6:

  ‘Tambien me dijo que el Conde de Somerset havia puesto todo su resto
  en este negocio, y ganado el Duque de Lenox, ... aventurandose el
  Conde ... a ganarse y asegurarse si se hazia, o a perderse si no se
  hacia; concluyendo esta platica el Coton con decirme que el estava
  loco de contento de ver esto en este estado, porque no pretendia ni
  desseava otra cosa mas que vivir y morir publicamente Catolico, como
  sus padres y abuelos lo havian sido.’—_Gardiner Transcripts of MSS.
  at Simancas_, vol. i, p. 102 (MS.).

Footnote 7:

  Mr. S. R. Gardiner. His account is contained in the able paper
  entitled _On Certain Letters of the Count of Gondomar giving an
  Account of the Affair of the Earl of Somerset_, read to the Society
  of Antiquaries in 1867. Comp. the same historian’s _Prince Charles
  and the Spanish Marriage_ (Vol. I, c. 1, and especially the passage
  beginning ‘Sarmiento was _surprised by a visit from Sir Robert
  Cotton_,’ and so on). In these pages I use Sarmiento’s subsequent
  title of ‘Gondomar,’ simply because English readers are more
  familiar with it than with the Spaniard’s family name. Mr. Gardiner
  needlessly deepens the stain on Cotton’s memory, arising—all
  allowance duly made—out of this intercourse with Gondomar, by the
  remark that ‘twenty months before’ the interview occurred, Sir
  Robert had ‘argued his case’ [_i. e._ a tract on the question of the
  right treatment, by the State, of Romanist priests and recusants]
  ‘from a decidedly Protestant point of view, and had taken care to
  put himself forward as a thorough, if not an extreme, Protestant.’
  But, unfortunately for Mr. Gardiner’s trenchant conclusion on that
  point, the pamphlet he refers to—by whomsoever written—was certainly
  _not_ written by Sir Robert Cotton.

Footnote 8:

  ‘[Then the Duke] came to the Relation of Sir Robert Cotton [of the
  intercourse] that he had with the Spanish Ambassador in 1614 [O.S.].
  The Spanish Ambassador came to his house pretending [a desire] to
  see his rarities. On the 10th of February he acquainted His Majesty
  with it. Somerset [had] warrant then to sound the life of the
  intention. [Gondomar] told him he doubted he had no warrant to set
  any such thing on foot. [On the] 16th of March the Spanish
  Ambassador dealt with him and endeavoured to make Somerset Spanish,
  and to further this match. [He] answered him that there were divers
  rubs and difficulties in it. [On the] 9th of April he gave
  [Gondomar] a pill in a paper—viz. three reasons: If the King of
  Spain would not urge unreasonable things in Religion, then,’ &c. [as
  in Gondomar’s letter, which I have already quoted]. ‘Afterwards Sir
  Robert Cotton was questioned [for shewing] to the Ambassador of
  Spain a packet [received] from Spain.... [In the year] 1616, His
  Majesty told Sir Robert Cotton that Gondomar had counterfeited those
  letters, and that he was a “juggling jack.”’ Here Sir Edward Coke
  interposed. He was one of the Managers of the Conference for the
  Commons. He spoke thus: ‘This matter has a little relation to me. I
  committed Sir Robert Cotton, when I was Chief Justice. For I
  understood he had intelligence with the Spanish Ambassador, and
  questioned him for it. _For no subject ought to converse with
  Ambassadors without the King’s leave._ For the offence [for which] I
  committed him [Sir Robert had] afterwards his general pardon from
  the King.’ _Journals of the House of Commons_, 4 March, 1624. Vol.
  I, pp. 727, 728.

Footnote 9:

  ‘... Por diferentes vias le confirmado que contra el Conde
  [Somerset] no se averigua cosa de sustancia en lo de la muerte del
  Ovarberi; y de la del Principe [Henry, Prince of Wales,] no ha
  permetido el Rey que se hable en ella; y todo lo demas probado hasta
  agora viene a parar en que dio un decreto antes que le prendiesen,
  para recojer unos papeles, diziendo que era orden del Rey, sin
  haverla tenido para ello. Fue lo que causo su prision, y el aver
  entregado despues todos los papeles que tenia de importancia, con
  algunas joyas, a un amigo suyo [Sir Robert Cotton], para que lo
  guardase que se coxieron. _Y el Rey ha sentido infinito que se ayan
  visto algunos papeles que havia suyos para el Conde, ... y assi
  carga agora toda la yra sobre el Conde_,’ &c. Gondomar to Philip
  III,—Simancas MS. 2595, f. 23; and in _Archæologia_ (by Gardiner),
  vol. xli, p. 29.

Footnote 10:

  On this point, it is my wish to leave the reader to form his own
  estimate of probabilities. _Probabilities_, only, are attainable;
  and I have no side to take, in any attempt to weigh them. But it may
  be well to ask the reader’s attention to a passage in the Diary of a
  contemporary of Sir R. Cotton, a man of high character, and one who
  sat by Cotton’s side in Parliament, fighting with him for the
  liberties of England, during many years; one who is also remarkable
  for speaking about the faults of his friends with abundant candour.
  ‘Sir Robert Cotton, being highly esteemed by the Earl of
  Somerset, ... _was acquainted with this murder [of Overbury] by him,
  a little before it now came to light_, and had advised him what he
  took to be the best course for his safety.’ This passage occurs in
  the private diary of Sir Symonds D’Ewes—‘a man,’ says a great
  writer, ‘of somewhat Grandisonian ways,’ a man of ‘scrupulous
  Puritan integrity, of high flown conscientiousness, ... ambitious to
  be the pink of Christian country gentlemen,’ (Carlyle’s _Essays_,
  iv, 297.) This ‘scrupulous Puritan’ knew all that was current about
  the terrible ‘Great Oyer of Poisoning,’ as Sir Edward Coke called
  it. He lived in familiar intercourse with Cotton, and regarded their
  long acquaintance as an honour to himself; whilst speaking freely
  about certain social habits and limitations—neither Grandisonian or
  Puritanic—on Cotton’s part, as precluding their intercourse from
  ripening into that close friendship which such a man as D’Ewes could
  form only with men likeminded with himself on the highest interests
  of humanity. Is it not easy to infer—and is not the inference also
  inevitable—that by the fact of Somerset ‘acquainting Cotton with the
  murder of Overbury a little before’ it became public, and advising
  him as to ‘the course for his safety,’ D’Ewes understood such a
  communication and such advice as are entirely compatible with
  Somerset’s innocence of his wife’s crime?

Footnote 11:

  Such is the title in _Cottoni Posthuma_. In MS. Harl. 180—apparently
  given by Cotton himself to Sir S. D’Ewes—the title is ‘_A
  Declaration against the Matche_,’ &c. In that copy, this note occurs
  at the end, in Sir Symonds’ hand:—‘Thus far only, as Sir Robert
  Cotton himself told me, he proceeded; leaving the rest to be
  added ... according to the relation ... declared before the greater
  part of both Houses by ... the Duke of Buckingham.’—_MS. Harl._ 180,
  fol. 169.

Footnote 12:

  There is another MS. of this speech, _in Sir John Eliot’s hand_, in
  the library at Port Eliot. See Forster’s _Life of Eliot_, Vol. I, p.
  413.

Footnote 13:

  It has been printed by Howell in the _Cottoni Posthuma_ of 1651, pp.
  283–294; and is followed by _The Answer of the Committees appointed
  by Your Lordships to the Propositions delivered by some Officers of
  the Mint for inhauncing His Majesties monies of gold and silver_.
  The ‘_Answer_’ as well as the speech, appears to be from Sir
  Robert’s pen.

Footnote 14:

  _Registers of the Privy Council_, James I, vol. v, pp. 484, 485,
  489; Nov. 3–5, 1629. (C. O.) _Domestic Correspondence_, James I,
  vol. cli, § 24, § 69, _seqq._, and vol. clii, § 78, _seqq._ In this
  last-named document the following passage occurs. The writer is
  Richard James, who for very many years was Librarian to Sir Robert
  Cotton, and he is writing to Secretary Lord Dorchester.—‘About July
  last, I was willed by Sir Robert Cotton to carry him [Mr. Oliver
  Saint John] into the Upper Study and there let him make search among
  some bundles of papers for business of the Sewers.... If he (St.
  John) did make any mention of a projecting pamphlet there pretended
  to be found, so God save me as I entered into no further
  conversation of it. Neither can I believe that any such as this now
  questioned was ever in keeping with us, or ever seen by Sir R.
  Cotton until, of late, he received it from my Lord of Clare. For
  myself, let not God be merciful unto me if, before that time, I ever
  saw, heard, or thought of it’ (R. James to Dorchester, vol. 152, §
  78). (R. H.) There is also some further information on the subject
  in MS. Harl. 7000, ff. 267, _seqq._ (B. M.) A considerable number of
  the letters of Richard James to Sir Robert Cotton, his friend and
  benefactor, are preserved in MS. Harl. 7002. But these throw no
  satisfactory light on the incident of 1629. I believe, however, that
  to an observant reader they will be likely to suggest the idea that
  Richard James knew more than he was willing that Sir Robert should
  know. The letters are without dates, after the fashion of the times,
  and this adds to their obscurity. But one thing is plain. The writer
  ran away from London, either when he knew that the first inquiry was
  imminent or thought it probable that a renewed inquiry would be set
  on foot. In one of these letters, after many professions of
  attachment, he writes thus: ‘From you, at this time, I should not
  have parted, _if the exigence and penurie of my life had not forc’d
  a silent retreat into myself, and my owne home at Corpus Christi
  College_;’ and then, a fit of poesy—such as it was—coming over him,
  he ends his letter metrically, as thus:

            ‘The poore young Russian youth, that slave
            Was to the Prince, and trustie knave
            To my deere Harrie Wilde, when wee
            Forsooke that Northern Barbarie,
            Loe bending at my feete did saye
            Thancks for my love, and kindely praye,
            His evills that I would not beare
            In minde,—the which none, truely, were.
            This youth I well remember, and
            In neere, loe, manner kisse your hand;
            Hoping, of gentle courtesie,
            You will no worse remember me.’
                                    —MS. Harl. 7002, f. 118.

Footnote 15:

  And as, it must be remembered, Cotton himself believed.

Footnote 16:

  Curiously enough, part of these documents, so carefully brought
  together by Sir Robert Cotton, remained with the Cottonian MSS., and
  part of them were severed from that collection for more than two
  centuries. Their recovery is one of the smallest of the innumerable
  obligations which the Department of MSS. owes to the care and
  far-spread researches of the late Keeper, Sir Frederick Madden.

Footnote 17:

  It is COTTONIAN MS., Vitellius, c. 17, ff. 380, _seqq._

Footnote 18:

  Verses entitled _Sir Philip Sydney lying on his Deathbed_; in MS.
  Chetham 8012 (Chetham Library, Manchester).

Footnote 19:

  I had noted some of these as worthy, by way of sample, to be
  printed. But the reduced limits of my book (as compared with its
  plan) have compelled the omission of much illustrative matter which
  had been carefully prepared for insertion, and which, as I hope,
  would have been found to merit the attention of the reader. I will
  find room, however, to mention one little fact connected with the
  famous Evangeliary marked ‘Nero D. vi.’ The reader probably
  remembers Sir Robert COTTON’S fruitless perambulation of the aisle
  of Westminster Abbey, with that splendid MS. in his hands, on the
  day of the Coronation of Charles the First. It seems likely that the
  anecdote was told to Charles the Second when, at length, a like
  ceremony was to take place for him. Be that as it may, he
  sent—before he had been many days in England—a confidential servant
  to borrow the book from Sir Thomas. And the fact of the loan stands
  recorded on a fly-leaf, by the King’s intermediary, in honour ‘of
  the most noble Sir Thomas COTTON, the starre of learning and
  honestie.’ The MS., I may add, is one of those which came to Sir
  Robert from Dethick (Garter). It bears Dethick’s autograph with the
  date ‘1603’ and Cotton’s, ‘1608.’ Besides the Four Gospels it
  contains _Processus factus ad Coronationem Regis Ricardi Secundi_,
  and _Modus tenendi Parliamentum_. For some momentary fancy or other
  Sir Robert took out of another superb MS. of his—the _Psalter_ of
  King Henry the Sixth—a small but beautiful miniature, and made of it
  a vignette for this Ethelstan volume. So it continued to remain for
  two hundred and forty years, when Sir Frederick Madden restored the
  miniature to its more legitimate place (Domitian A. xvii, fol. 96*.)
  Had this Nero volume chanced to have been scrutinized at the moment
  when it was Sir Robert’s fate to be stigmatized as ‘an embezzler of
  records,’ it is very possible that it might have been called to bear
  witness for the charge. For it is undeniable that the ‘RO. COTTON
  BRUCEUS’ is written _over an erasure_. (The signature occurs on the
  beautiful dedicatory page—‘_Beatissimo Papæ Damaso Hieronymus_.’)
  But, fortunately, the descent of the book can be traced clearly.

Footnote 20:

  Take, for example, these few lines: ‘Sweete Sainte whome I soley
  addore,—at whooes srine I offer myself; I reseived your loving
  lines.... Without them, I could not live at all;—being deprived of
  your blessed sight, ... I live yet, but most miserably. Use means,
  if it be possible, that we may come to the speech of one another;
  and the Heavens of Hope may be yet auspitious unto us.... Those
  deviles have again been writing letters unto my mother.’ In 1679, it
  would seem, the two ardent lovers were kept in a sort of honourable
  imprisonment. On COTTON’S coming to Cotton House, in the spring of
  that year, an upper servant of the family writes thus to a
  correspondent: ‘I advised him to call for money; take a coach and go
  about to take the air, and to visit his friends that are in or about
  the town; and not to be mewed up in a room, without money or
  company.’—John SQUIRES, to a person unnamed; in _Appendix to Cotton
  MSS._ ‘16, 1.’ (B. M.)

Footnote 21:

  By this William HANBURY, son-in-law of John COTTON (great grandson
  of the Founder), many COTTON MSS. were alienated—partly by sale and
  partly by gift—to Robert, Earl of OXFORD. _See_ hereafter, Chapter
  V.

Footnote 22:

  Stukeley’s _Itinerary of Great Britain_ (2nd edit. 1776).

Footnote 23:

  Some of the burnt MSS., regarded, until Mr. Forshall’s time, as
  hopelessly illegible, have been found very helpful to the
  preparation of the volume now in the reader’s hands.

Footnote 24:

  I have dwelt, somewhat protractedly, on this one interesting point
  in Cotton’s history,—pressing as are the limits prescribed to this
  volume,—under the belief that many readers will bear in mind that
  Sir Robert’s misfortune beneath the recent disinterment of
  ambassadorial despatches, written to foreign courts, is _not_ an
  exceptional misfortune. Sir Walter Ralegh has fared still worse, in
  Mr. Gardiner’s able hands, by being held up to public scorn as a
  knavish liar, upon the uncorroborated testimony of certain avowed
  and bitter enemies of England. See _Prince Charles and the Spanish
  Marriage_ (1869), vol. i, Chaps. 1 and 2, _passim_. Readers of the
  admirable _History of England_ by Mr. Froude—and who has not read
  that history?—will easily call to mind several not dissimilar
  instances. Nor is it at all surprising that it should be so. The
  most warily judicial of intellects can never be quite independent of
  that factitious charm which there will always be—over and above the
  legitimate charm—in telling an old story from an entirely new point
  of view. If, besides the attraction of mere novelty, there should
  chance to have been a keen burst of search over a difficult country,
  before the eager searcher could succeed in running down his quarry,
  he would be more than human if, in the moment of victory, he could
  weigh and balance with exact precision the real value of the
  hard-won spoil. At present, historians are too keenly chasing after
  new evidence to be able to estimate quite fairly its relative
  importance or net result. The most part both of writers and of
  readers are far too busy over newly-discovered materials to adjust
  with any approach to impartial fairness the vital question of
  comparative credibility. But the time for doing _that_ must needs
  come, by and bye. Meanwhile, the fame of not a few of our old and
  true worthies will—in all probability—suffer some degree of
  momentary eclipse; just as that of Ralegh and Cotton has suffered.

Footnote 25:

  The word ‘hope’ or some like expression, seems here to have been
  intended, but omitted. The repetition of the word ‘shortlie’ will
  sufficiently indicate to the reader the haste with which this
  effusion was written,—just as the King was about to mount for the
  long looked-for journey southwards. The letter has been printed by
  Birch, but with amendments.

Footnote 26:

  It was not strictly a ‘launch.’ The vessel had been built expressly
  for the Prince, at Chatham, and was brought thence to London to be
  named with the usual ceremonies.

Footnote 27:

  He was removed to the Fleet Prison ten days afterwards.

Footnote 28:

  In dealing with royal letters it is, of course, necessary to keep in
  mind how largely the vicarious element is apt to enter into their
  composition. Those, however, that are quoted in the text seem to
  have a plain stamp of individuality upon them.

Footnote 29:

  That Llanthony, in Monmouthshire, the purchase of which in the
  present century gave rise to so singular a chapter in the history of
  Landor, and whose charms, in retrospect, prompted the lines—

                 ‘Llanthony! an ungenial clime,
                 And the broad wing of restless Time,
                 Have rudely swept thy massy walls,
                 And rockt thy Abbots in their palls.
                 I loved thee, by thy streams of yore;
                 By distant streams, I love thee more.’

Footnote 30:

  Part of Lord Northampton’s large estates came eventually to Lord
  Arundel by bequest. He also inherited Northampton’s house at
  Greenwich, and occasionally resided there, until its destruction by
  fire in January, 1616. Chamberlain’s account of the incident, given
  to Sir Dudley Carleton, is worth quotation for the comment with
  which it ends: ‘There fell a great mischance to the Earl of Arundel
  by the burning of his house ... at Greenwich, where he lost a great
  deal of household stuff and rich furniture; the fury of the fire
  being such that nothing could be saved. No doubt the Papists will
  ascribe and publish it as a punishment for his deserting or falling
  from them.’ Ten days before the fire, Arundel had testified,
  publicly, his conformity with the Church of England. But he had
  shewn long before that his religious views and convictions differed
  widely from those in which he had been brought up.

Footnote 31:

  The question was complicated by opposition offered by the Lord
  Keeper Williams to the terms in which Lord Arundel’s patent was
  originally drawn. The relations between Arundel and Buckingham were
  never cordial, and the Lord Keeper seems to have profited by that
  circumstance to make his opposition to the pension effectual. It is
  probable that he had good grounds for so much of his objection as
  related to certain powers proposed to be vested in the Earl
  Marshal’s court. But on that point Arundel’s views eventually
  prevailed—until the time of the Long Parliament. The Lord Keeper’s
  letter is printed in _Cabala_, p. 285.

Footnote 32:

  ‘In my deare lorde I long since placed my true affection and
  love.... Had I manie lives I would have adventured them all.’ _Lady
  Maltravers to the Earl of Arundel_, 6 Feb., 1626 (MS. Harl., 1581,
  f. 390).

Footnote 33:

  It has been estimated, on competent evidence, that for every one
  thousand pounds which the Earl’s estates in England contributed
  towards his personal and household expenditure, in exile,
  twenty-seven thousand pounds were so contributed towards the
  maintenance, in one form or other, of the royalist cause. Such an
  estimate can, of course, only be approximative. But it has obvious
  significance and value.

Footnote 34:

  See the details in Lords’ Report on Gregg’s case; reprinted in
  _State Trials_, vol. xiv, cols. 1378 seqq.

Footnote 35:

  In the interval between June, 1707 (after the Union with Scotland),
  and February, 1708, the following entries occur in the Council
  Books:—

  ‘1 July, 1707. The Rt. Hon. Robert Harley, one of Her Majesty’s
  principal Secretaries of State, delivered up the old signet of
  office—which was thereupon broken before Her Majesty—and received a
  new one by the Queen’s command.’ The entry is followed by the
  note:—‘This order was thus drawn by Mr. Harley’s particular
  direction.’ (_Register of Privy Council_, Anne, vol. iii, p. 395.)

  ‘8 January, 170⅞. The Rt. Hon. R. Harley, ... having this day
  presented to Her Majesty in her Privy Council a new signet with
  supporters, Her Majesty was pleased to deliver it back to him,
  whereupon he returned to Her Majesty the old signet, which was
  immediately defaced,’ &c. (Ib., p. 485.)

Footnote 36:

  Swift’s account of their first interview after Harley’s partial
  recovery merits quotation:—‘I went in the evening,’ he notes on the
  5th of April, ‘to see Mr. Harley. Mr. Secretary was just going out
  of the door, but I made him come back; and there was the old
  Saturday club, Lord Keeper [Harcourt], Lord Rivers, Mr. Secretary,
  Mr. Harley, and I; the first time since his stabbing. Mr. Secretary
  went away, but I stayed till nine, and made Mr. Harley show me his
  breast and tell all his story.... I measured and found that the
  penknife would have killed him, if it had gone but half the breadth
  of my thumb-nail lower; so near was he to death. I was so curious as
  to ask him what were his thoughts while they were carrying him home
  in the chair. He said he concluded himself a dead man.’—_Journal to
  Stella_, as before, pp. 255, 256.

Footnote 37:

  The original letters of the Elector to Harley are in Lansdowne MS.
  1236, ff. 272–294. They range, in date, from 15 December, 1710, to
  15 June, 1714. There also are several letters (in autograph) of the
  Electress Sophia. The earliest of these bears date 26 May, 1707. The
  latest is undated, but was written in May, 1714, very few days
  before the writer’s death.

Footnote 38:

  The chief passages in the Stuart Correspondence upon which a
  confident assertion has been based of his ultimate complicity in the
  Jacobite conspiracies are given, textually, in a note at the end of
  this chapter.

Footnote 39:

  Thus, for example, at one stage of the proceedings before the Privy
  Council about Barbadoes, we find the Lord Keeper Coventry reporting
  to the Board upon an order of reference: ‘I am of opinion that
  Barbadoes is not one of the Caribbee Islands.... But ... I am also
  of opinion that the proof on Lord Carlisle’s part that Barbadoes was
  intended to be passed in his Patent is very strong.’—_Colonial
  Papers_, April 18, 1629, vol. v, § 11. See also The King to
  Wolverton, _Ib._, § 13.

Footnote 40:

  His eldest son, Peter Courten, had married a daughter of Lord
  Stanhope of Harrington, and died without issue. Sir William Courten
  bought the widow’s jointure of £1200 a year by the present payment
  of £10,000, according to a statement in MS. Sloane, 3515.

Footnote 41:

  ‘Hoc excepto quod scilicet qui se jacturam passos dicunt in duabus
  navibus ... poterunt litem inceptam prosequi.’—_Treaty of Commerce_
  of 1662.

Footnote 42:

  After elaborate inquiries in the Admiralty Court the losses were
  certified as amounting to £151,612; and that assessment was adopted
  in a subsequent Commission under the Great Seal.

Footnote 43:

  This, of course, is the statement, _ex parte_, of the claimants.

Footnote 44:

  This allusion I am unable to explain. It is quite an exceptional
  phrase in the Courten correspondence. But, possibly, ‘station’ may
  be understood as meaning merely place of residence.

Footnote 45:

  This volume undoubtedly passed into the Sloane Collection, but is
  not so described as to be identified quite satisfactorily.

Footnote 46:

  The fact is unquestionably so, although upon his tomb it is said
  that his age was sixty-two years, eleven months, and twenty-eight
  days. The same inaccurate statement occurs also—and more than
  once—in papers written by Sir Hans Sloane. Courten was born on the
  28th March, 1642. There is an entry of his baptism in the Register
  of St. Gabriel, Fenchurch, on the 31st of the same month; and a copy
  of it in MS. Sloane, 3515, fol. 53.

Footnote 47:

  Staphorst was, by birth, a German. He is known in English literature
  as the translator of Rauwolf’s _Travels in Asia_. This task he
  undertook upon Sloane’s recommendation.

Footnote 48:

  As, for example, under the words ‘_Lapathum_;’ _Poonnacai
  Malabarorum_; ‘_Ricinus_;’ ‘_Salix_;’ and several others. See
  _Almagesti Botanici Mantissa_, pp. 113; 143; 161; 165, &c.

Footnote 49:

  Dr. Arthur Charlett’s long and intimate correspondence with Sir Hans
  Sloane began in this year (1696), and continued without interruption
  until 1720. It has much interest, and fills MS. Sloane 4040, from f.
  193 to f. 285. That with John Chamberlayne was of nearly equal
  duration, and is preserved in the same volume (ff. 100–167). The
  correspondence with James Bobart contains much valuable material for
  the history of botanical study in England, and is preserved in MS.
  Sloane, 4037 (ff. 158–185). It began in 1685, and was continued
  until Bobart’s death, in 1716. Still more curious is the
  correspondence with John Burnet (1722–1738), who was originally a
  surgeon in the service of the East India Company, and afterwards
  Surgeon to the King of Spain. Burnet’s letters to Sloane, written
  from Madrid, contain valuable illustrations of Spanish society and
  manners as they were in the first half of the Eighteenth Century.
  This correspondence is in MS. Sloane, 4039.

Footnote 50:

  _History of Europe_ [the precursor of the _Annual Register_], for
  1712.

Footnote 51:

  ‘Here are great designs on foot for uniting the Queen’s Library, the
  Cotton, and the Royal Society’s, together. How soon they may be put
  in practice time must discover.’—_Sloane to Dr. Charlett, Master of
  University College_, April, 1707.

Footnote 52:

  Besides those distinctions which I have noted already, he had been
  requested, in 1730, by the University of Oxford, to allow his
  portrait to be placed in the University Gallery. In 1733 his statue,
  by Rysbraeck, was placed in the Botanic Garden at Chelsea.

Footnote 53:

  ‘Walpole is your tyrant to-day; and any man His Majesty pleases to
  name—Horace or Leheup—may be so to-morrow.’—_Bolingbroke to
  Marchmont_, 22 July, 1739.

Footnote 54:

  ‘Our House of Commons—mere poachers—are piddling with the torture of
  Leheup, who extracted so much money out of the Lottery.’—_Horace
  Walpole to Richard Bentley_, 19 December, 1753.

Footnote 55:

  The term ‘Librarian,’ as used at the British Museum, has never
  implied any _special_ connection with the Books, printed or
  manuscript. All the Keepers of Departments were, originally, called
  ‘Under Librarian.’ The General Superintendent or Warden has always
  been called ‘Principal Librarian.’

Footnote 56:

  One of Cook’s many individual gifts was the first Kangaroo ever
  brought into Europe.

Footnote 57:

  In a copy of this work now before me, the original drawings are
  bound up with the engravings, and later drawings are added. They
  serve to show that Sir William’s scientific interest in the subject
  lasted as long as his life.

Footnote 58:

  That superiority, however, is only partial. The original Naples
  edition, along with many errors, contains much valuable matter
  omitted in the reprint.

Footnote 59:

  I find that in this statement—made twenty-four years after the date
  of the transaction referred to—Sir William’s memory misled him. The
  amount of the Parliamentary vote was (as I have stated it, on a
  previous page) eight thousand four hundred pounds.

Footnote 60:

  This John Towneley was sent first to Chester Castle, then to the
  Marshalsea in Southwark, then to York Castle, and to a block-house
  in Hull. From Yorkshire he was sent to the Gatehouse at Westminster,
  and thence to a jail in Manchester. From his Lancashire prison he
  was presently hustled into Oxfordshire, and sent thence to another
  prison at Ely. The gallant old recusant survived it all, to die at
  Towneley at last.

Footnote 61:

  Lancastrian for ‘throw open.’

Footnote 62:

  _Specimens of Ancient Sculpture._ Published by the Society of
  Dilettanti, Preface, § 61.

Footnote 63:

  One of the metopes from the south side of the Parthenon, removed by
  the Count de Choiseul, during his embassy at the eve of the
  Revolution, was captured by an English ship when on its way to
  France, and had been purchased by Lord Elgin at a Custom House sale
  in London. By him it was returned to Choiseul, with a liberality too
  rare in such matters. When this metope came, after Choiseul’s death,
  to be sold at Paris, by auction, the Trustees of the British Museum
  sent a commission for its purchase. The commissioner went so far as
  to offer a thousand pounds, but was overbidden by the French
  Government.

Footnote 64:

  _Curse of Minerva_, passim.

Footnote 65:

  That my needful abridgment, in the text, of Mr. Payne Knight’s words
  may not misrepresent his meaning, I subjoin the whole of the
  passage:—‘Had this powerful engine of influence’ [namely, loss of
  caste] ‘been employed in favour of pure morality and efficient
  virtue, the Hindoos might have been the most virtuous and happy of
  the human race. But the ambition of a hierarchy has, as usual,
  employed it to serve its own particular interests instead of those
  of the community in general.... Should the pious labours of our
  missionaries succeed in diffusing among them a more pure and more
  moral, but less uniform and less energetic system of religion, they
  may improve and exalt the character of individual men, but they will
  for ever destroy the repose and tranquillity of the mass.... The
  prevalence of European religion will be the fall of European
  domination.... The incarnations which form the principal subject of
  sculpture in all the temples of India, Tibet, Tartary, and China,
  are, above all others, calculated to call forth the ideal
  perfections of the art, by expanding and exalting the imagination of
  the artist, and exciting his ambition to surpass the simple
  imitation of ordinary forms, in order to produce a model of
  excellence, worthy to be the corporeal habitation of the Deity. But
  this no nation of the East, nor indeed of the Earth, except the
  Greeks and those who copied them, ever attempted.’—_Analytical
  Inquiry_, &c., p. 80.]

Footnote 66:

  _Carmina Homerica Ilias et Odyssea a rapsidorum interpolationibus
  repurgata, et in pristinam formam ... redacta; cum notis ac
  prolegomenis, ... opera et studio_ Richardi Payne Knight. 1808, 8vo.

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                         TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES


 1. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in
      spelling.
 2. Archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as
      printed.
 3. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
 4. Enclosed bold font in =equals=.
 5. Superscripts are denoted by a caret before a single superscript
      character or a series of superscripted characters enclosed in
      curly braces, e. g. M^r. or M^{ister}.
 6. Subscripts are denoted by an underscore before a series of
      subscripted characters enclosed in curly braces, e. g. H_{2}O.