'Society of Antiquaries.

'To Mr. Stowe.

The place appointed for a conference upon the question followinge ys att Mr. Garter's house, on Frydaye the 11th of this November, 1598, being Al Soule's daye, at 11 of the clocke in the afternoone, where your oppinioun in wrytinge or otherwise is expected.

6

The question is,

Of the antiquitie, etimologie, and priviledges of parishes in Englande.

Yt ys desyred that you give not notice hereof to any, but such as have the like somons.'"-I. D'ISRAELI.1

It would be gratifying to ascertain that a Ms. of the venerable John Stow exists in the Ashmolean Museum-if the phrase I shall preserve it, did not intimate that some awful fate awaits that establishment.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department should attend to this intimation; and, in the mean time, I shall console myself with the assurance that the most eminent member of the University of Oxford is a CONSERVATIVE and a master of arts well calculated to protect whatever appertains to it.

We pass on to the Ms. Did the antiquarian zeal of D'Israeli conduct him to Oxford to transcribe these few lines? or did he avail himself of the transcript of Thomas Hearne, M.A.? We will examine what the faithful and assiduous Tom Hearne said on this subject anno 1720:—

"Now that what I have said as to summoning is true, up

1 C. L., iv. 231.

pears from a passage in a MS. in the Ashmolean Museum, which because it will very much conduce to a Notitia of the Society, I shall here transcribe it at large, as I find it entered in my Collec

tions:

• Society of Antiquaries.

To Mr. Stowe.

The place appointed for a Conference upon the question followinge, ys att Mr. Garters house on Frydaye the ii. of this Nouember, beinge Alsoules day, at ii. of the clooke in thafternoone, where your oppinioun in wrytinge or otherwyse is expected.

The question is,

Of the Antiquitie, Etimologie and priviledges of parishes in Englande.

Dt ps despred, that you giue not notice hereof to any, but suche as haue the like somons.[’]” 2

When we condescend to borrow, we should condescend to avow it—and take the utmost care of the article borrowed. D'Israeli slights these obvious maxims: Tom Hearne seems beneath his notice, and it fares no better with facts. According to Hearne, the summons was for the second of November: D'Israeli says the eleventh- a F. S. A. calls the eleventh of November All Souls day! According to Hearne, the year was not expressed. D'Israeli interpolates 1598. I take it to have been 1599.3 According to Hearne, the appointed hour of meeting was two in the afternoon: D'Israeli says eleven in the afternoon! The question as to the hour of meet

2 Curious Discourses, Oxford, 1720. 8vo. p. xxxix.=London, 1775. 8vo. i. xiv. 3 Notitia Historica, by N. H. Nicolas, 1824. 8vo. p. 98.+Curious Discourses, 1720. 8vo. p. cxviii.

ing is of considerable importance. Gough sharply censures James I. for dissolving the Society of Antiquaries. The statement of D'Israeli is a triumphant vindication of the conduct of that monarch: the Fellows held their meetings at midnight!

There is another point which requires illustration. D'Israeli omits to commemorate Mr. Garter, who so politely accommodated his antiquarian friends. Could he furnish no anecdote of this Mr. Garter? Who was this Mr. Garter? Why, Sir William Dethicke, Garter King at Arms—which accounts for the meetings being held in the College of Arms.

Now, that this F.S.A. should announce as the fruit of his own recondite researches what had been in print more than a century-that he should contrive, in one short transcript, to mis-state the hour, the day, and the year-are circumstances which may fairly be considered as Curiosities of Literature.

*** It was one of the rights and privileges of the elevated station which I formerly occupied in the République des Lettres, that I could express my critical opinions in decisive terms without liability to the charge of arrogance. It is one of the conveniences and comforts of my present rank as an amateur, that I can express my doubts on the subjects which come under notice without incurring any serious imputation. Such an occasion now presents itself. evasion a part of controversy?

Is

I had censured Mr. D'Israeli for printing a docu

Archaeologia, i. xiv.

courses, 1775. 8vo. ii. 431.

5

Archaeologia, i. v. + Curious Dis

ment which he transcribed from Hearne, as from an Ashmolean Ms. ; for erroneously interpolating the year; and for mis-stating the day and the hour. He passes over the attempt at imposition-and the erroneous interpolation; entitles his comment, BLACKLETTER DATES; and ascribes his obvious blunders to mis-copying the black-letter numerals!

ART. XIX. Character of Queen Mary II. -"I always give the pour and the contre!"— I. D'Israeli.

"The late Queen Mary, consort and partner of the crown with King William III. was so exemplary in religion and every virtue, that our modern histories will be unjust and untrue, if they do not represent her as the purest ornament of her sex and royal dignity."-Bishop KENNET.1

Examine the catalogue of crowned ladies from Semiramis to Adelaide examine the narratives of the most credible historians and biographers-review all that the spirit of eulogy has devised-it will add to the conviction that Mary, the consort of William III. of England, was one of the most amiable women who ever adorned a throne.

Now, it hath pleased D'Israeli to make choice of her Majesty as the object of one of his curious experiments in the philosophy of history; and also to exer

1 Register etc. 1728. Fol. Ded.

cise his skill as a literary manipulator on her right reverend biographer Burnet.

Two extracts (not a pair) will serve to convey some notion of the first step in the experimental process on Mary :

“Burnet informs us, that when Queen Mary held the administration of government during the absence of William, it was imagined by some, that as every woman o sense loved to be meddling, they concluded that she had but a small portion of it, because she lived so abstracted from all affairs."-I. D'ISRAELI.?

"The Queen was now in the administration. It was a new scene to her; she had, for above sixteen months, made so little figure in business, that those, who imagined, that every woman of sense loved to be meddling, concluded that she had a sinall proportion of it, because she lived so abstracted from all affairs."Bp. BURNET.3

D'Israeli undertakes to "expose the fallacious appearances of popular history." His first step is an act of deception. Burnet applies his remark to the sixteen months which preceded the absence of William - who bore the cares of government. D'Israeli applies it to the time of his absence—at which time Mary was, as Sir John Dalrymple justly observes, in one of the most singular situations known in history!4

"The distracted state amidst which the queen lived, the vexations, the secret sorrows, the agonies and the despair of Mary in the absence of William, nowhere appears in history! *** They were reserved for the curiosity and in

48.

* C. L., vi. 212.

3 Hist. of his own Time, 1724-34. Fol. ii. 4 Memoirs of Great Britain, 1790. 8vo. iii. 68.