course from a text of Scripture, with infinite divisions and subdivisions, delivered a very eloquent and statesmanlike speech, which made a deep impression, if we may judge from the liberal supplies which were voted. After some observations in praise of the government of England by King, Lords, and Commons," he then put them in mind in what poor estate the King found the crown; despoiled of the due inheritance; wasted in its treasures; the laws wrecked; and the whole by the usurpation in a manner subverted. Add to this the loss of the crown of France; the Duchies of Normandy, Gascoigny, and Guienne, the ancient patrimony of the crown of England, lost also; and further he found it involved in a war with Denmark, Spain, Scotland, Brittany, and other parts, and even with their old enemy of France. Then, descending, he told them that the King had appeased all tumults within the realm, and planted such inward peace that law and justice might be extended. That the King had made peace with Scotland; that the Lord Wenters was negotiating a league with Spain and Denmark, so as to open a free commerce with those countries. But what was still the greatest, he had allied himself to the Dukes of Burgundy and Brittany, two most powerful princes in such sort as they had given the King the strongest assurance of acting vigorously against France for the recovering of that kingdom and other the King's patrimonies; of which, since they made little doubt, the King thought fit not to omit such an opportunity, and such a one as never happened before. And that his Majesty might see this kingdom as glorious as any of his predecessors did, he was ready to adventure his own person in so just a cause. Lastly, he told them that the King had called this parliament to make them acquainted with these matters, and to desire their advice and assistance."

The announcement of a French war was a certain mode of opening the purse-strings of the nation; a large subsidy of two tenths and two fifteenths was immediately granted, and a renewal of the glories of Cressy, Poictiers, and Agincourt was confidently anticipated.

But these visions were soon dispelled by the landing of the Earl of Warwick, now the leader of the Lancastrians, with the avowed object of rescuing Henry from the Tower, where he himself had imprisoned him, and replacing him on the throne from which he had pulled him down as an usurper. "The scene which ensues," says Hume, "resembles more the fiction of a poem or romance than an event in true history." It may be compared to nothing more aptly than the return of Napoleon from Elba. In eleven days from Warwick's landing at Dartmouth,-without fighting a battle, Henry was again set at liberty and proclaimed king, and Edward was flying in disguise to find a refuge beyond the seas.

[SEPT. 1470.]

The Lord Chancellor Stillington certainly did not submit to the new government; but I cannot find whether he followed Edward [Ост.1470.] into exile, or where he resided during "the hundred days." Most of the leading Yorkists fled to the Continent, or took to sanctuary,

* 1 Parl. Hist. 427.

like the Queen-who, shut up in Westminster Abbey, while assailed by the cries of the Lancastrians, was delivered of her son, afterwards Edward V., murdered by his inhuman uncle. Stillington probably relied for safety on his sacred character, and retired to his see.

A new Chancellor must have been appointed, as a parliament was called and the government was regularly conducted in Henry's name, this being now styled "the 49th year of his reign;" but there is no trace of the name of any one who was intrusted with the Great Seal till after the restoration of Edward IV.

It is chiefly on the public records that we ought to rely for the events of those times, and as soon as Edward was again on the throne, the records of all the transactions which had taken place during his exile were vacated and destroyed. "There is no part of English history since the Conquest so uncertain, so little authentic or consistent, as that of the wars between the two Roses; and it is remarkable that this profound darkness falls upon us just on the eve of the restoration of letters, and when the art of printing was already known in Europe. All that we can distinguish with certainty through the deep cloud which covers that period, is a scene of horror and bloodshed, savage manners, arbitrary executions, and treacherous, dishonourable conduct in all parties."*

Thus we shall never know who was the Chancellor that stated the causes for calling, in the name of Henry VI., the parliament which met at Westminster on the 26th of November, 1470,-when Edward IV. was declared a traitor and usurper of the Crown,—all his lands and goods were confiscated,—all the statutes made by him were repealed,— all his principal adherents were attainted,—and sentence of death was passed on the accomplished Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester, though, struck with the first rays of true science, he had been zealous by his exhortation and example to propagate the love of polite learning among his unpolished countrymen.† The strong probability is, that George Neville, King-maker Warwick's brother, at this time had the Great Seal restored to him, and took the oaths as Chancellor to King Henry VI.

But Edward soon returned to recover his lost authority, and to wreak vengeance on his enemies; the battles of Barnet and [A. D. 1471.] Tewkesbury were fought; the Earl of Warwick fell; Edward the Prince of Wales was assassinated; and the unhappy Henry, "after life's fitful fever slept well,”—whether relieved from his sufferings by the pitying hand of nature, or by the "weeping sword" of the inhuman Gloucester.

When King Edward had gone through the ceremony of being recrowned, we find Stillington in possession of the Seal as Chancellor. There is no entry in the records of its being again delivered to him, and he was probably considered as holding it under his original appointment.

A parliament was soon afterwards called, which was opened and

prorogued by a speech from the Chancellor, but at which nothing memorable occurred. The late parliament held in the name of Henry VI. was not then even recognised so far as that its acts were repealed, and the course was adopted as preferable of obliterating all rolls recording its proceedings. Had things so remained, it would have been difficult for lawyers to determine whether a statute then passed is now law.

I find nothing more related respecting Stillington while he continued Chancellor. He ceased to hold the office, not from having lost the favour of his master, but from having fallen into ill health, which incapacitated him from performing its duties. Being very unwell, on the 20th of September, 1472, John Alcock, Bishop of Rochester, himself afterwards Chancellor in the reign of Henry VII., was appointed to keep the Seal until the Chancellor should become convalescent; and on the 8th of June, 1473, being still unable to attend to business, he resigned his office.*

Leisure and freedom from anxiety soon restored his health. He would not again resume judicial duties, but he was still zealous to serve his royal patron, and he went upon an embassy to the Duke of Brittany, to persuade that prince to give up the Earl of Richmond, who was considered heir of the Lancastrian family, and was afterwards King of England under the title of Henry VII. Stillington left nothing unessayed to accomplish his object, but was obliged to return without

success.

A stain has been cast upon his memory by the imputation that he was privy to the crimes by which Richard III. mounted the throne. To show the invalidity of his brother's marriage with the Lady Jane Grey, Richard asserted that Edward, before espousing her, had paid court to the Lady Eleanor Talbot, daughter of the Earl of Shrewsbury, and being repulsed by the virtue of that lady, he was obliged, before he could gratify his passion, to consent to a private marriage, which was celebrated by Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells; but the Bishop never confirmed this story, and although he was one of the supporters of the usurper at his coronation, there is no proof that he assisted in bastardising the issue of his benefactor, much less in their murder.†

Henry VII. being crowned king, Stillington showed his never-dying enmity to the House of Lancaster, by taking up the cause of Lambert Simnel, the pretended heir of the House of York. Being detected in this conspiracy, the King, who had naturally a particular spite against him, resolved to show him no mercy. The Ex-chancellor endeavoured to conceal himself at Oxford, but the University agreed that he should be delivered up on an understanding that his life should be spared. He was conducted to Windsor, where he remained a prisoner till his death, in June, 1491.

On Stillington's resignation of the Great Seal, it was placed in the

*Rot. Cl. 12 Ed. 4, m. 11.

† See Horace Walpole's Historic Doubts.

hands of the Master of the Rolls, who kept it till the 23d [A. D. 1473.] of June, on which day, by the King's command, he delivered it to HENRY BOURCHIER, Earl of Essex. This stout Earl was Lord Keeper only for one month, but as he held the Great Seal during all Trinity Term in his own right for all purposes, and must for à time, though short, have transacted the business belonging to the office, judicial as well as political,―according to the plan of this work some account ought to be given of him.

He was a brother of Archbishop Bourchier, and so descended from the Earls of Eu, in Normandy, and of Essex, in England, and nearly related to the royal family.

He had been bred a soldier, and like many others, he had changed sides in the late wars as suited his interest. He was now high in the confidence of Edward IV. and at mortal enmity with all Lancastrians.

We have no information respecting his performances as Lord Keeper, but he must have found his seat in the marble chair very uncomfortable, for, without any difference with the King, he resigned it on the 27th of July, and was then made a Knight of the Garter. He died in 1483. On his resignation, the Great Seal was delivered to LAWRENCE BOOTH, Bishop of Durham, with the title of Chancellor.*

*

He had risen by merit from obscurity. He studied at Cambridge, where he gained great distinction for his proficiency in literature, law, and divinity. While still a young man he was elected head of his house and Chancellor of that University. In 1457 he was made Bishop of Durham, while Henry VI. was nominally King, but under the influence of the Yorkists, to whom he continued steadily attached. It seems strange to us that an individual, who for sixteen years had been occupied in superintending a remote diocese, should in his old age be selected to fill the office of Lord Chancellor, now become one of great importance in the administration of justice; but there were, no doubt, political reasons for the appointment, and the interests of the suitors were not much regarded. It is possible that the Bishop might have been thought capable of silencing a noisy opponent in parliament, or that he was of that moderate, decent, unalarming character, which so often leads to promotion.

His appointment turned out a great failure. He was equally inefficient in the Court of Chancery and in parliament. Except that he did not take bribes, he had every bad quality of a judge, and heavy complaints arose from his vacillation and delays. While he presided on the woolsack in the House of Lords, he never ventured to open his mouth, unless in the formal addresses which he delivered by the King's command at the commencement and close of the session, and these were so bad as to cause general dissatisfaction. On the 1st of Febru ary, 1474, he summoned the Commons to the Upper House, and told them "that they were then assembled to consult which way the King might proceed in the wars; but because his Majesty had yet heard nothing

*Rot. Cl. 13 Ed. 4.

from his brother, the Duke of Burgundy, relating to that affair, whereon much depended, it was the King's command that this parliament should be prorogued to the 9th of May ensuing."*

When the two Houses again met, his incompetency became more glaring, and it was found that he had not the requisite skill, by eloquence or management, to carry the measures of the Court, or to obtain the supplies. He was accordingly dismissed from the office of Chancellor. To console him, he was soon after translated from Durham to York. He died after having quietly presided over this province between three and four years, during which time, abandoning politics, he exclusively confined himself to his spiritual duties.†

There is no record of the delivery of the Great Seal to ROTHERAM, his distinguished successor; but we know from the Privy Seal Bills extant, that he was Chancellor in the end of February, 1475.‡ Although he held the Great Seal only for a short time on this occasion, it was afterwards restored to him, and he acted a most conspicuous part in the troubles which ensued on the death of Edward IV.

He owed his elevation to his own merits. His family name was Scot, unillustrated in England at that time, and instead of it, he assumed the name of the town in the West Riding of Yorkshire in which he was born. He studied at King's College, Cambridge, and was one of the earliest fellows on this royal foundation which has since produced so many distinguished men. He was afterwards Master of Pembroke Hall, and Chancellor of this University. For his learning and piety he was at an early age selected to be chaplain to Vere, thirteenth Earl of Oxford, and he was then taken into the service of Edward IV. Being a steady Yorkist, he was made Bishop of Rochester in 1467, and translated to Lincoln in 1471. To finish the notice of his ecclesiastical dignities, I may mention here that, in 1480, he became Archbishop of York, and that he received a red hat from the Pope with the title of Cardinal STA CICILIA.T

Soon after his elevation to the office of Chancellor he was called to open a session of parliament after a prorogation, and

[JUNE 6, 1475.] by holding out the prospect of a French war he contrived to obtain supplies of unexampled amount. In the beginning of the following year he passed a great number of bills of attainder and

* 1 Parl. Hist. 432.

+ Privy Seal Bills, 14 Ed, 4.

+ L. C. 56.

§ We are not to suppose from this that he was ashamed of his descent. Edward I., to introduce surnames, still rare, and to give variety to them, had directed that people might take as a name the place of their birth. Even princes of the blood were called by the place of their birth, as "Harry of Monmouth," "John of Gaunt," "Thomas of Woodstock, &c. Priests being mortui sæculo, very frequently relinquished their family names on their ordination.

|| Three Chancellors,-Rotheram, Goodrich, and Camden, and many most eminent lawyers, as Chief Justice Sir James Mansfield, Chief Justice Sir Vicary Gibbs, Mr. Justice Patteson, Mr. Justice Dampier, and his son, the present Judge of the Stannary Court.

¶ Fuller's Worthies, 214. Godwin Willis, 42. Wood's Ath. i. 147.