of its political celebrities. Bishops were then very active in the senate, as well as particularly industrious in the study; and Atterbury spoke and wrote in a manner that marked him out as being peculiarly adapted for administrative employment. His royal patroness chanced to close her reign somewhat suddenly, and the more popular party in the State promptly and skilfully established the Elector of a minor German State as her successor.

In furtherance of the late Queen's known wishes, her confidential counsellor had held communications with the exiled Royal family. The new sovereignat the suggestion, no doubt, of a rival-chose to put an affront upon him in reply to an act of courtesy. Having received this intimation of displeasure, the Bishop of Rochester was the more readily induced to join the large body of noblemen and gentlemen who preferred an English to a German Prince.

Looking down from the vantage ground of the nineteenth century, nothing is easier than to denounce a "meddling priest" for taking the losing side in the game of politics; but, in justice, the transaction ought to be judged in connection with the surrounding circumstances. It may be admitted that the Stuarts were not worthy of being again restored; but the spirit of fair play which should characterize an Englishman must condemn the atrocious scheme to which the most corrupt minister of his age had recourse, for the purpose of securing the expatriation and ruin of an opponent who thought he had good reason for believing they deserved a second restoration. The grossest act of

despotism was committed by a majority in the two houses of the legislature against the leader of the minority, and this has been supplemented by constant persecution and calumny. The truth has been carefully concealed. Long after Bishop Atterbury's death, the evidence that would have exposed the malice of his enemies was guarded with the most jealous supervision.

All such arts, however, failed in destroying his reputation. During his lifetime, an attempt at biography was perpetrated; and subsequently the writers of the "Biographia Britannica" included him in their compilation. It was not till the year 1783 that John Nichols published two volumes of "The Epistolary Correspondence, Visitation Charges, Speeches, and Miscellanies of the Right Reverend Francis Atterbury, D.D., Lord Bishop of Rochester, with Historical Notes." In the preface the Editor acknowledges that "he once entertained some degree of prejudice against him, which he since discovers to have been ill founded." This was so well received, that Mr. Nichols issued another collection the following year, a third in 1787, and a fifth in 1795-the last a volume entitled "The Miscellaneous Works of Bishop Atterbury, with Historical Notes.' It commences with a brief memoir, which contains no account of his proceedings after his exile. The correspondence is extremely inaccurate, and several series of errata were printed chiefly to correct the mistakes published in the "corrections."

Notwithstanding that, the government of Sir Robert Walpole abstracted a considerable portion

of Bishop Atterbury's papers after his decease, his family preserved many interesting memorials of him, including faithful transcripts from the originals of letters to and from his private friends. These were prepared for the press by a son of the Bishop's son-in-law, the Reverend William Morice, Rector of Tackley, near Woodstock. To the notes he added, I have appended his initials. During his labours he applied for permission to inspect the contemporary State Papers and the Stuart Papers, and was denied.* He attempted a biography, but this was merely a repetition of the names, incidents, and dates to be found in Chalmers's and other biographical dictionaries. Of the Bishop's later life and correspondence he knew nothing.

At Atterbury's death a considerable portion of his correspondence was claimed by the Pretender, and carried to Italy. Cardinal York, as the sole survivor of the exiled Stuarts, became the custodian of the papers addressed to his brother, his father, and their ministers, and presented them to the Prince Regent. They have remained among the Royal MSS. ever since, access being permitted only to a few favoured individuals.

In the year 1847, Mr J. H. Glover, then Her Majesty's Librarian, was permitted to publish a volume of the Bishop's correspondence while the latter was in the service of the nominal "James III.” It is much to be lamented that this task was not given

The Bishop had bequeathed his papers to his son-in-law, therefore the legal right to their possession was in his family. They have recently been purchased by Messrs. W. H. Allen and Co.

to one of the able editors of the State Papers, that were published under the superintendence of Sir Samuel Romilly, the Editor's loyalty apparently having caused him to practise an amount of reticence respecting the Jacobite author of the letters, likely to be far from satisfactory to the historical student. Nevertheless, the volume, though awkwardly arranged and most perplexingly illustrated, is extremely valuable for the broad light it throws on the administrative career of one of the most distinguished statesmen of his time.

The "Atterbury Papers," consisting of original documents and equally trustworthy transcripts, have furnished an important portion of the materials of these volumes. An equally interesting portion is derived from the "Stuart Papers ;" and other collections have been drawn upon when necessary.

Worthy of high appreciation must be the man who was warmly loved by Pope, revered by Wesley, admired by Steele, and honoured by Swift; who was the centre of that brilliant social circle that included Busby, Dryden, Addison, Prior, Congreve, Gay, Arbuthnot, Garth, Radcliffe, Parnell, Rowe, Dr. William King, Dean Aldrich, Lords Orrery and Stanhope, Drs. John and Robert Freind, Locke, Newton, Bentley, the able critic, and Bingham, the learned divine.

Nor was he less an object of regard to the rival interests struggling for pre-eminence at court, represented by Marlborough, Shaftesbury, Sunderland, Godolphin, Halifax, Somers, Lansdowne, Dorset, Harcourt, Bathurst, Bolingbroke, Oxford,

Buckingham, Walpole, Carteret, Townshend, and Pulteney-not forgetting the fair candidates for power, the Duchesses of Marlborough, Buckingham, and Queensberry, and Lady Masham. In his own profession he was honoured with the affection of Bishops Trelawney, Gastrell, and Smalridge, and Dr. Sacheverell; though he excited the hostility of Hoadly, Wake, Burnet, and Tenison. Such were his coadjutors and opponents to the period of his arbitrary banishment, when he was obliged to mingle in a new set of associates, who endeavoured to support the claims of the son of James II.—the Dukes of Ormonde and Wharton, Lord Marischal Keith, Lochiel, and the rest of that brilliant staff of adventurers and enthusiasts who sacrificed their fortunes or their lives in his service-including the traitors who took bribes to betray its secrets.

Particularly worthy of notice will be found Atterbury's relations with his home circle; for as he was honoured as a prelate, and esteemed as a statesman, he was loved as a parent. The episode in his career in which his daughter figures, must be classed amongst the most touching ever narrated.

An actor of such prominence in the historical drama then in course of performance, ought not to be denied his claim to honourable fame because he chose to commit himself to legitimacy when that cause was embraced by an important section of the intelligence and wealth of the country. The Editor therefore confidently appeals to his readers in favour of this victim of party vindictiveness. It is scarcely necessary to assure them that in doing honour to