Troye. (1471.)

The Game and playe of the Chesse. 1474.

Thymage, or Myrrour of the World. (1481.)

The Historye of Reynart the foxe. 1481.

The laste siege and conqueste of Jherusalem. 1481.

The Golden Legende. 1483.

The Book called Cathon. 1483.

The Book of the techynge of the Knyght of the Toure. (1484.)

The Fables of Esope, Avian, Alfonce, and Poge. 1484.

The Booke of the ordre of Chyvalry or knyghthode. (1484.)

The Lyf of Prince Charles the Grete. 1485.

The Ryal Book, or Book for a kyng. 1485.

Thystorye of the noble knyght Parys. (1485.)

The Doctrinal of Sapience. 1489.

The Book of fayttee of armes and of Chyvalrye. 1489.

A lityl treatise of the arte to knowe well to dye. 1490.

The Boke of Eneydos compyled by Vyrgyle. 1490.

The Curial of Maystre Alain Charretier. n. d.

The Lyf of the holy Vyrgyn Saynt Wenefryde. n. d.; and, lastly,

The Vitas Patrum, which was translated by Caxton in 1486, but printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1495.

Such are some of the materials for the "Memorial" suggested by MR. BOLTON CORNEY; and if the original subscribers to a Monument should consent to such an appropriation of their funds, it will be necessary to apportion the number of copies to be distributed to each subscriber, according to the amount of the original contribution. It is to be presumed that the work will be strictly limited to subscribers, and that no copies will be printed for sale, the object being, to do honour to Caxton, and produce a lasting Memorial of that industrious printer. The form of the work is of importance, with reference to the cost of its production: and if a new life of the first English printer should perchance be found necessary, "The Caxton Coffer" will require to be considerably replenished before the literary undertaking can be carried into effect.

BERIAH BOTFIELD.

LORD STRAFFORD AND ARCHBISHOP USSHER.

In Lord Campbell's account of the conduct of Archbishop Williams, and the advice which that prelate gave to Charles I. with respect to the attainder of Lord Strafford, is a sentence which seems to require a "Note." Having observed that "Williams's conduct with respect to Strafford cannot be defended," and having referred particularly to his speech in parliament, he proceeds in these words:—

"The Bill of Attainder being passed, although he professed to disapprove of it, he agreed to go with three other prelates to try to induce the king to assent to it, and thus he stated the question:—'Since his Majesty refers his own judgment to his judges, and they are to answer it, if an innocent person suffers,—why may he not satisfy his conscience in the present matter, since competent judges in the law have awarded that they find the Earl guilty of treason, by suffering the judgment to stand, though in his own mind he is satisfied that the party convicted was not criminous?' The other three bishops, trusting to his learning and experience, joined with him in sanctioning this distinction, in laying all the blame on the judges, and in saying that the king, with a good conscience, might agree to Strafford's death. Clarendon mainly imputes Strafford's death to Williams's conduct on this occasion, saying that 'he acted his part with prodigious boldness and impiety.' It is stated as matter of palliation by others, that Ussher, the celebrated Archbishop of Armagh, was one of this deputation, and that Strafford, although aware of the advice he had given, was attended by him on the scaffold, and received from him the last consolations of religion."—Lives of the Chancellors, vol. ii. p. 494., second edition.

The account which Lord Campbell has here given is the same in substance as that given by Bishop Hackett in his Life of Williams (Part II. p. 161.), and in several particulars is calculated to mislead the reader. The whole story has been very carefully examined by the late Dr. Elrington in his Life of Archbishop Ussher. Hackett's account is very incorrect. There were five prelates consulted by the king, Ussher, Williams, Juxon, Morton (Durham) and Potter (Carlisle). The bishops had two interviews with the king, one in the morning, and the other in the evening of the same day. At the morning meeting Ussher was not present. It was Sunday, and he was engaged at the time preaching at Covent Garden. In the evening, he was in attendance, but so far from giving the advice suggested by Williams, much less approving his pernicious distinction between a public and private conscience, Ussher plainly advised the king, that if he was not satisfied of Strafford being guilty of treason, he "ought not in conscience to assent to his condemnation." Such is the account given by Dr. Parr, Ussher's chaplain, who declares, that, when the primate was supposed to be dying, he asked his Grace—

"Whether he had advised the king to pass the bill against the Earl of Strafford? To which the Primate answered: 'I know there is such a thing most wrongfully laid to my charge; for I neither gave nor approved of any such advice as that the king should assent to the bill against the Earl; but, on the contrary, told his Majesty, that if he was satisfied by what he heard at his trial, that the Earl was not guilty of treason, his Majesty ought not in conscience to consent to his condemnation. And this the king knows well enough, and can clear me if he pleases.' The hope of the Primate was fulfilled, for, when a report reached Oxford that the Primate was dead, the king expressed in very strong terms, to Colonel William Legg and Mr. Kirk, who were then in waiting, his regret at the event, speaking in high terms of his piety and learning. Some one present said, 'he believed he might be so, were it not for his persuading your Majesty to consent to the Earl of Strafford's execution;' to which the king in a great passion replied, 'that it was false, for after the bill was passed, the Archbishop came to me, saying with tears in his eyes, Oh Sir, what have you done? I fear that this act may prove a great trouble to your conscience, and pray God that your Majesty may never suffer by the signing of this bill.'"—Elrington's Life of Ussher, p. 214.

This account Dr. Elrington has taken from the narrative given by Dr. Parr, who adds, that he had received this account of the testimony borne by the king from Colonel Legg and Mr. Kirk themselves:—

"This is the substance of two certificates, taken divers times under the hands of these two gentlemen of unquestionable credit; both which, since they agree in substance, I thought fit to contract into one testimony, which I have inserted here, having the originals by me, to produce if occasion be."—Parr's Life of Ussher, p. 61.

Indeed, considering the great and uninterrupted friendship which subsisted between Ussher and Strafford, considering that the primate was his chosen friend during his trial and imprisonment, and attended him to the scaffold, nothing could be more improbable than that he should have advised the king to consent to his death. At all events, the story is contradicted by those most competent to speak to its truth, by the archbishop and by the king; and therefore, in a work so deservedly popular as Lord Campbell's, one cannot but regret that any currency should be given to a calumny so injurious to a prelate whose character is as deserving of our esteem, as his learning is of our veneration.