2_nd Nov._ 1705.--"Narcissus March, Archbishop of Armagh, gave 2500 libs
for Bishop Stillingfleet's library which, like that of Dr Isaac Vossius,
was suffered to go out of the nation to the eternal scandal and reproach
of it. The said archbishop has built a noble repository for them."
6_th Nov._ 1705.--"Mr Pullen, of Magd. hall, last night told me that
there was once a very remarkable stone in Magd. hall library, which was
afterwards lent to Dr Plot, who never returned it, replying, when he was
asked for it, that _'twas a rule amongst antiquaries to receive_, _and
never restore_."
This was the more reprehensible in Dr Plot (1640-1696) inasmuch as he had
been bred at Magdalen Hall. He was the author of _A Natural History of
Oxfordshire_, and also of Staffordshire. The latter is apparently the
better of the two, but it does not speak well for his sources of
information that it should have been "a boast among the Staffordshire
squires, to whom he addressed his enquiries, how readily they had
'humbugged old Plot.'" He was appointed Secretary to the Royal Society
in 1682. He was also the first custos of Ashmole's Museum, which could
not have been an easy office since "twelve cartloads of Trades cant's
rarities" arrived in Oxford to form its nucleus. (_Dict. Nat. Biog._).
18_th Nov._ 1705.--"When sir Godfrey Kneller (as Dr Hudson informs me)
came to Oxon, by Mr Pepys's order, to draw Dr Wallis's picture, he, at
dinner with Dr Wallis, was pleased to say, upon the Dr's questioning the
_legitimacy of the prince of Wales_, that he did not in the least doubt
but he was the son of King James and queen Mary; and to evince this he
added, that upon the sight of the picture of the prince of Wales, sent
from Paris into England, he was fully satisfied of what others seemed to
doubt so much. For, as he further said, he had manifest lines and
features of both in their faces, which he knew very well, having drawn
them both several times."
18_th Nov._ 1705.--"After Mr Walker was turned out of University coll.
for being a papist, he lived obscurely in London, his chief maintenance
being from the contributions of some of his old friends and acquaintance;
amongst whom was Dr Radcliff, who (out of a grateful remembrance of
favours received from him in the college) sent him once a year a new suit
of cloaths, with ten broad pieces, and a dozen bottles of the richest
Canary to support his drooping spirits. This, Dr Hudson (from whom I
received this story) was informed by Dr Radcliff himself."
9_th Dec._ 1705, p. 78.--"To show that the Dutchess of Marlborough
(commonly called _Queen Zarah_) has the ascendant over the queen. . . .
When prince George (who is lookt upon as a man of little spirit and
understanding) sollicited the queen, his wife, for a place for some
friend of his, Zarah, who happened to be by at that time, cryed out,
_Christ_! _madam_! _I am promised it before_!"
30_th Jan._ 1705-6.--"Mr Thwaits tells me that the dean of Christ Church
(Mr Aldrich) formerly drew up an epitome of heraldry for the use of some
young gentlemen under his care. . . . He says 'twas done very well, and
the best in its nature ever made."
26_th April_ 1705-6.--"Mr Grabe created D.D.; Dr Smalrich presented him
with a cap, and after that with a ring, signifying that the universitys
of Oxford and Francfurt were now joyned together, and become two sisters;
and that they might be the more firmly united together, as well in
learning as religion, he kissed Mr Grabe."
This is of interest as showing that the custom of giving rings at the
conferring of honorary degrees existed in England, as it does to this day
at Upsala.
The following extract illustrates what we should now consider great
license in the matter of smoking:
"When the bill for security of the church of England was read . . . Dr
Bull sate in the lobby of the house of lords all the while, smoking his
pipe."
31_st March_ 1708-9.--"We hear from Yeovill in Somersetshire by very good
hands of a woman covered with snow for at least a week. When found she
told them that she had layn very warm, and had slept most part of the
time."
A well-known case of the same sort is described in Gunning's
_Reminiscences_ (1854).
22_nd April_ 1711.--"There is a daily paper comes out called _The
Spectator_, written, as is supposed, by the same hand that writ the
_Tatler_, viz. Captain Steel. In one of the last of these papers is a
letter written from Oxon, at four o'clock in the morning, and subscribed
_Abraham Froth_. It ridicules our hebdomadal meetings. The _Abraham
Froth_ is designed for _Dr Arthur Charlett_, an empty, frothy man, and
indeed the letter personates him incomparably well, being written, as he
uses to do, upon great variety of things, and yet about nothing of
moment. Queen's people are angry at it, and the common-room say there,
'tis silly, dull stuff; and they are seconded by some that have been of
the same college. But men that are indifferent commend it highly, as it
deserves."
17_th Nov._ 1712.--"On Thursday last (13th Nov.), duke Hamilton and the
Lord Mohun being before Mr Oillabar, one of the masters of Chancery,
about some suit depending between them, and some words arising, a
challenge was made between these two noble men, and the duell was fought
on Saturday (15th Nov.) in the Park. My lord Mohun was killed on the
spot, and the duke so wounded that he died before he got home. This lord
Mohun should have been hanged some years agoe for murder, which he had
committed divers times."
24_th Nov._--. . . "The duke having given Mohun his mortal wound, and
taking him up in his arms, as soon as Makartney saw it, he and col.
Hamilton fell to it; but Hamilton, though he was wounded by Makartney in
the leg, disarmed Makartney, and threw his sword from him, and
immediately went to Mohun to endeavour also to recover him. Mean time
Makartney (who is a bloudy, ill man) runs and takes up his sword, comes
to the duke, and gives him his mortal wound, of which the duke dyed
before he could get home."
It is of some interest to compare the above with Thackeray's account of
the duel in _Esmond_, book iii., chap. v.--
"'Twas but three days after the 15th November 1712 (Esmond minds him well
of the date), that he went by invitation to dine with his General
(Webb)." At the end of the feast Swift rushes to say that Duke Hamilton
had been killed in a duel. "They fought in Hyde Park just before
sunset."
When I read the story in _Esmond_ I was naturally struck by Thackeray's
making the duel occur three days after 15th November instead of on that
day. I applied to my friend Dr Henry Jackson, who pointed out that the
apparent error arises from the absence of a comma. The above passage
should run:--
"It was about three days after, the 15th of November 1712 (Esmond minds
him well of the date), that he went, etc." This makes Thackeray's
account agree with Hearne's. Dr Jackson has pointed out to me that the
duel was fought at 7 A.M., not just before sunset as Swift is made to
declare. The evidence is in Swift's Journal to Mrs Dingley, of which
extract Charles John Smith gave a facsimile in his _Historical and
Literary Curiosities_, 1840:--
"Before this comes to your Hands, you will have heard of the most
terrible Accident that hath almost ever happened. This morning at 8,
my men brought me word that D. Hamilton had fought with Ld. Mohun and
killed him and was brought home wounded. I immediately sent him to
the Duke's house in St James's Square, but the porter could hardly
answer for tears and a great Rabble was about the House. In short
they fought at 7 this morning the Dog Mohun was killed on the spot,
and wile (_sic_) the Duke was over him Mohun shortening his sword
stabbed him in at the shoulder to the heart the Duke was helpt
towards the lake house by the Ring in the park (where they fought),
{39} and dyed in the Grass before he could reach the House and was
brought home in his Coach by 8, while the poor Dutchess was asleep. .
. . I am told that a footman of Ld. Mohun's stabbd D. Hamilton; and
some say Mackartney did so too. Mohun gave the affront and yet sent
the Challenge. I am infinitly concerned for the poor Duke who was a
frank honest good natured man, I loved him very well and I think he
loved me better.