bookes wee have taken into our chardge, This "Post scripta. The Duchesse of Richmonde and Mrs. Holland take their journey towardes London in the morneng, or the next daie, at the furthest. "Your Majesties most humble obedient servauntes and subjectes, Signed, JOHN GATE. This is not inserted in the State Papers. "Signed, RICH. SOUTHWELL. "Signed, WYMOUNDE CAREW. "Superscribed, "To the Kinges most excellent Majestie in hast, hast, post, hast, for thy lif." The substance of the Duchess of Richmond's deposition, as given by Lord Herbert, was as follows: "Mary, Duchess of Richard, being examined, confessed that the Duke, her father, would have had her marry Sir Thomas Seymour, brother to the Earl of Hertford, which her brother also desired, wishing her withal to endear herself so into the King's favour, as she might the better rule here [him] as others had done, and that she refused; and that her father would have had the Earl of Surrey to have matched with the Earl of Hertford's daughter, which her brother likewise heard of, (and that this was the cause of his father's displeasure,) as taking Hertford to be his enemy. And that her brother was so much incensed against the said Earl, as the Duke his father said thereupon, 'His son would lose as much as he had gathered together.' Moreover, that the Earl her brother should say, These new men loved no nobility; and if God called away the King, they should smart for it.' And that her brother hated 4 The word "here" is a misprint for "him," and the allusion is explained by the following extract. Some one, it appears, had been so wicked as to suggest that the Earl of Surrey recommended his sister to become the mistress of her royal father-inlaw, a course which, whatever latitude of sin the reader may be disposed to attribute to the shameless monarch, no one will be ready to admit could be shared by the gallant Surrey, nor (it may be hoped) will be ready to ascribe to the Duchess of Richmond, at this time resident in great retirement in the country. The passage is from a series of queries drawn by the Lord Chancellor Wriothesley, and interlined (as shown in Italic) by the tremulous hand of the King himself. "If a man cumpassing with hymselfe to governe the realme, do actually go abowght to rule the Kinge, and shuld, for that purpose, advise his doughter, or suster, to becom his harlot, thynkyng therby to bryng it to passe, and soo wolde rule bothe fader and soon, as by thys nexte artycle doth appere; whatt thys importyth?" This passage in particular is especially open to suspicion of inaccuracy. The Earl of Surrey had been married to Lady Frances Vere so long before as the year 1532, and she survived him to the year 1577. In 1532 the Seymours were nobodies, for the Lady Jane did not attract the King's notice until 1536. It was between Surrey's children and those of the Earl of Hertford that the alliance was to have been formed, as is shown by the Duke of Norfolk's own statement already given. So Mr. Lodge, in his memoir of the Earl of Surrey, in Chamberlain's Holbein Heads, was misled by Lord Herbert, where he mentioned "the resentment of the Earl of Hertford, whose daughter Surrey had refused to marry;" an assertion which he subsequently omitted in his "Illustrious Portraits," where the causes of the Earl of Surrey's ruin are thus stated, probably with much greater approach to the truth. "Surrey, irritated to the utmost by the revocation of his command in France, had indulged in bitter and contemptuous remarks and sarcasms on Hertford, to whose influence he ascribed it, and had even menaced him with revenge under a new reign, a threat most offensive to Henry, whose health was then daily declining; and Hert, ford is supposed to have heard and repeated those speeches to the King." them all since his being in custody in Windsor Castle; but that her father seemed not to care for their ill-will, saying, His truth should bear him out.' Concerning arms, she said, that she thought that her brother had more than seven rolls; and that some that he had added more [were] of Anjou and of Lancelot du Lac. And that her father, since the attainder of the Duke of Buckingham (who bare the King's arms), where the arms of her mother (daughter to the said Duke), were rayned in his coat, had but a blank quarter in the place, but that her brother had reassumed them. Also, that instead of the Duke's coronet was put to his arms a cap of maintenance purple, with powdred fur, and with a crown, to her judgment, much like to a close crown; and underneath the arms was a cipher, which she took to be the King's cipher, H. R. As also, that her father never said that the King hated him, but his councillers; but that her brother said, the King was displeased with him (as he thought) for the loss of the great journey; which displeasure, he conceived, was set forward by them who hated him, for setting up an altar in the church at Boulogne. And that her brother should say, God long save my father's life; for, if he were dead, they would shortly have my head.' And that he reviled some of the present council, not forgetting the old cardinal. Also, that he dissuaded her from going too far in reading the Scripture. Some passionate words of her brother she likewise repeated; as also some circumstantial speeches, little for his advantage, yet so as they seemed much to clear her father." It is obvious that the Earl of Surrey and his sister differed in religious opinions. The Earl had recently set up a new altar at Boulogne, whilst she was a patroness of Foxe the martyr ologist. The Duke of Norfolk when in prison, with an apparent inconsistency characteristic of a period of unsettled opinions, requested permission to hear mass and to "receive his Maker," and at the same time to purchase for his reading a copy of Sabellicus, "who doth declare, most of any book that I have read, how the Bishop 6 Life of Foxe. of Rome from time to time hath usurped his power against all Princes, by their unwise sufferance." The Earl of Surrey's children were taken from their mother, and committed to the care of their aunt the Duchess of Richmond, and she immediately engaged John Foxe as their preceptor, "in which charge," we are told, "he deceived not the expectation the Duchess, a woman of great wisdom, had of him.” And it is worthy of remark that both the Earl's sons remained Protestants: Thomas fourth Duke of Norfolk, at his execution in 1572, offered the most decided avowal of Protestantism; and Henry Earl of Northampton (though a man whose moral and religious character is enveloped with dark suspicions,) died Chancellor of the university of Cambridge. The Duchess of Richmond's house is thus mentioned as the place of education of her nephew Thomas Duke of Norfolk, in a MS. "Life of that renowned Confessor Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel." "His father, T. D. of N. was a prince of a very moderate disposition and moral good life, a little tinctured with though not heresy, by reason of his education in his aunt's the Duchess of Richmond's house, which was a receptacle and harbour of pernicious persons tainted in that kind, and in particular of the infamous apostate John Bale, and also of John Foxe, the author of that pestilent book, the Acts and Monuments."'s It is further stated that the Duchess's household was usually kept at the castle of Ryegate, which was one of the Duke of Norfolk's manors, and that Foxe was the first of the reformed faith who "preached the Gospel" in the town." Whatever may have been the feelings of the Duchess of Richmond to. wards her brother, it will be observed that from the first she rather sought to exculpate her father, and he appears to have always retained a kindly feeling "I have not been popishly inclined ever since I had any taste for religion, but was always averse to the popish doctrine, and embraced the true religion of Jesus Christ, and put my whole trust in the blood of Christ, my blessed Redeemer and Saviour.'' Tierney's History of Arundel. Life of Foxe. towards her. In his will he thus acknowledges her exertions to obtain his release from confinement, and in the education of his grandchildren : "Unto my daughter the Lady Mary Duchess of Richmond the sum of 5001., as well in consideration that she is my daughter, as that she hath been at great costs and charges in making suit for my delivery out of imprisonment, and in bringing up my said son of Surrey's children." This will was dated on the 18th July 1554. The Duchess of Richmond had about two years before received from the Crown an equally honourable acknowledgement of her care: "Edward the Sixth, &c. To all men to whom these presents shall come greeting. Whereas our right dear and right entirely beloved cousin the Duchess of Richmond hath now of a good time, as we are credibly informed, been charged with the finding two sons and three daughters of the Earl of Surrey, attainted of treason; Know you, that we, minding both to ease our said cousin of those charges, and nevertheless to have the said children well brought up, and knowing no better place for their virtuous education than with our said cousin, have of our grace especial and mere motion given and granted unto her for the finding of the said children an annuity or yearly pension of one hundred pounds of lawful money of England, &c. &c. With one half-yearly payment in retrospect. Writ of Privy Seal, 4 July 6 Edw. VI."2 On the whole it would appear that, whereas the Duchess of Richmond has been hitherto chiefly named as having officiously borne testimony against her brother and her father, she rather deserves to be remembered for her dutiful exertions to obtain her father's release, and for her vigilant care over her brother's children, for whose sake she was contented to remain unmarried, though still a young woman, at the same time that their mother, the Countess of Surrey, accepted a second husband. The Duchess of Richmond died on the 9th of Dec. 1557;3 but the place of her burial is not recorded. A portrait drawn by Holbein of "The Lady of Richmond," remains in the Royal Collection, and is engraved by Bartolozzi in the volume published in 1795 by Chamberlain. In the accompanying biographical notice by the late Mr. Lodge it is remarked that the style of The Lady, which was no uncommon designation of a Princess at that time, was undoubtedly meant to denote her husband's indirect relation to royalty." The circumstance of her remaining a widow was perhaps connected in some degree with her holding that position. No other letter of the Duchess of Richmond has been found but that already introduced; the last few lines of which are engraved in fac-simile in Nott's Life of Surrey, vol. i. p. 167, and another portion of the same in the 17th plate of my engraved "Autographs of Remarkable Personages,"4to. 1829. A manuscript volume of poetry, chiefly by Sir Thomas Wyatt, in the library of the Duke of Devonshire, is supposed by Dr. Nott to have belonged to the Duchess of Richmond. At p. 143 is written "Madame Margaret et Madame de Richemont." Dr. Nott imagined that several pieces in the volume were written by her hand.1 J. G. N. Remainders of the Peerages granted to the Protector Somerset, SINCE the memoir of Anne Duchess of Somerset in the last Magazine was printed, I have consulted the Patent Rolls in order to ascertain the precise terms of the remainders of the Peerages granted to Sir Edward Seymour, afterwards the Protector Somerset. As they are especially remarkable, and have not hitherto been correctly stated, I take this opportunity to make them known. He was created Viscount Beauchamp on the 5th June, 1536, with remainder to the heirs male of his body thereafter to be begotten. "Prefato Edwardo et heredibus masculis de corpore suo imposterum et deinceps legittime procreandis." (Rot. Pat. 28 Hen. VIII. p. 3.) This shows that the note of Sir Nott, p. cxii. from MS. archives at Norfolk House. Recital of a grant to Lord North, in the Patent Rolls, Nott, Appx, p. xcviii, • Preface to Works of Wyatt, p. ix. Egerton Brydges in Collins, i. 172, is wrong, where he suggests that "surely the Viscounty of Beauchamp was entailed on the issue by the first marriage." The Viscounty was conferred, as mentioned last month, sixteen days after the King's marriage to Sir Edward Seymour's sister: the Earldom of Hertford was conferred upon him three days after the baptism of his nephew Prince Edward. The remainder was to the heirs male of his body then or thereafter to be born of his present or any future wife "Prefato Edwardo et heredibus suis masculis de corpore suo proprio et (blank) nunc uxoris sue jam procreatis, ac de eadem (blank) et alia quavis imposterum uxore sua deinceps legittime procreandis." (Rot. Pat. 29 Hen. VIII. p. 1.) The patent for the Barony of Seymour, granted to the Earl of Hertford, 15 Feb. 1547, which is printed in Rymer, under the title "De nomine Seymour perpetuando," has first a like remainder, "-prefato Avunculo nostro et heredibus masculis de corpore suo et Anne modo uxoris sue jam procreatis ac de eadem Anna deinceps legittime procreandis." (Rot. Pat. 1 Edw. VI. p. 6.) but this is followed by the very important concession to the first family, that on the failure of the issue male of Anne, Edward Seymour esquire, son of the said Earl, from the body of the late Katharine his first wife, should be Lord and Baron Seymour, and so the heirs male of his body; after which was added a further remainder, to the male issue of any future wife of the Earl. The dignity of Duke of Somerset was conferred on the next day after the Barony; and the remainders it may be presumed (for I have not seen them) were worded in the same terms: for it was in virtue of these patents that in the year 1750 Sir Edward Seymour baronet, the representative of Edward Seymour esquire above mentioned, succeeded, after the lapse of more than two centuries, to the dignities of Duke of Somerset and Baron Seymour, which, according to the ordinary course of law, would have been, during the whole of that interval, the inheritance of his own, the elder, branch of the family. J. G. N. AMIDST the multitudinous contributions to your miscellany which, since its remote origin, have made it the repository of such varied riches, and conferred on it an enduring vitality that has triumphantly outlived the changeful revolutions of taste or fashion, so fatal in their influence to its numerous intervenient competitors, few, I believe, continued for an equal period to be more desired by your readers than the selections from Mr. Green's "Diary of a Lover of Literature." It was a cornucopia whence concurrently flowed the refreshing streams of entertainment, and beamed on the columns of this Magazine the lights of diversified instruction. That a series, however, of desultory ob. servations committed to paper for private use, even by an accomplished scholar, should offer occasional grounds of animadversion, was equally to be expected and pardoned. These notes were, in fact, the promiscuous fruit of studious leisure, embracing in its recreations the whole circle of literary culture, while unrestrained by any definite pursuit, or controlled by a dread of the press, which, several years after the writer's death, was made their public organ, and subjected them to the consequent ordeal of criticism. Some incidental inaccuracies have accordingly attracted my attention; but I shall confine ny notice to only two, because the most striking that occurred to me in cursory perusal. Under the date of June 11, 1816, as reported in this Magazine for Nov. 1839, p. 456, Mr. Green, on visiting the Duke of Manchester's residence at Kimbolton, numbers among the paintings "The Grand Duke of Alva, with his secretary Machiavel, by Titian.” But assuredly the celebrated Florentine, usually distinguished, indeed, as secretary to his native state, never attended in that or any other capacity this grandee of sanguinary fame. In fact, the last public or ostensible act of Machiavel's life was his adhesion to the League, formed in 1526 against Alva's sovereign, Charles V. in repression of that Emperor's imputed aspiration to universal monarchy, after the defeat and capture of his most powerful adversary, or check to his views, at Pavia the preceding year. Machiavel died the following summer, 1527, when Alva, born in 1508, was scarcely nineteen, and, holding no official employment, could little require such a secretary. See Guicciardini, "Dell' Istoria d'Italia. Venezia, 1567, 4to." lib. xvii.* Again, at nearly the last recorded date of the Diary, on the 23rd of November, 1824, according to the extract apparent in this Magazine for June 1843, page 581, Mr. Green writes, "Dr. Burney, in his History of Music, after a profound disquisition, decides against the acquaintance of the ancients with counterpoint. But I have found a passage in the recently discovered work of Cicero de Republica, edited by Mai, lib. ii. sec. 42, which certainly decides for it. Ut enim in fidibus aut tibiis," &c. Mr. Green carried his citation no further; but the original deserves to be quoted in full. It is very explicit: "Ut enim in fidibus aut tibiis, atque ut in cantu ipso ac voci bus, concentus est quidam tenendus isque concentus ex dissimillimarum vocum moderatione concors tamen efficitur et congruens; sic quæ harmonia dicitur in cantu, ea est in civitate concordia." "Thus, in felicitous assimilation of the musical analogy to his direct purpose, he derives from the fusion of so many dissonant elements in civil society, or the State, a consentaneous action and accordant effect." This pregnant illustration by Cicero of counterpoint, or musical harmony and composition, is adduced by Mr. Green as of novel discovery, whereas it was recited in full, by St. Augustine, and has not only been visible in his noble plea for Christianity, "De Civitate Dei," * This and the succeeding three books, supplementary to the historian's original publication, limited in number to sixteen, and printed at Florence in 1561, two volumes 8vo. are greatly inferior in depth of reflection or merit of narrative to their predecessors; nor, indeed, are continuations or compositions resumed at distant intervals, generally of maintained spirit, or equivalent impression, compared with first conceptions. Authors, no doubt, may be named, whose renewed labours do not betray this disparity, such as Gibbon, who, however, enjoyed all the requisites he had contemplated for the pursuit of his history, "health, leisure, and inclination." GENT. MAG. VOL. XXIII. (book ii. § 21,) for fourteen hundred years, first in manuscript, and subsequently in print, since the earliest impression of his great work in 1467, but has been uniformly included in the fragmentary remains, collected from various authors, of Cicero's philosophical treatises. Every edition of the great writer contains it, together with the beautiful episode of Scipio's vision the "Somnium Scipionis," preserved by Macrobius, from the sixth book "De Republica." It is, in truth, rather extraordinary that a gentleman of Mr. Green's extensive reading should have been uninformed of the pre-existence of this passage so long anterior in publication to its very recent rescue, by Cardinal Mai, from the superimposed lumber of ascetic lore, or palimpsests. Again, and stranger still, this prince of the Church, to whom the first restoration to light of the paragraph is here ascribed, in the very edition and chapter referred to by our amiable Diarist, distinctly quotes St. Augustine's volume as its previous repository, and adds, that it was to it he was indebted for the compilation of some sentences defective in his manuscript. "Hæc omnia habet Augustinus, De Civitate Dei, ii. § 21. Deficit Codex Ciceronianus in medio verbo.... Dein multa desunt," is the subjoined note of the eminent literary resurrectionist, singularly overlooked by Mr. Green, though before his then aberrant eyes, in the volume "De Republica quæ supersunt omnia, edente Angelo Maio. Romæ, 1822, 8vo," the first edition, and not long preceding Mr. Green's note, or even death. To this disputed question, On the Knowledge by Antiquity of Counterpoint, Dr. Burney devotes nearly forty pages of his first volume (108-145), and presents a formidable array of the antagonist advocates. Yet, while among these combatants we reckon some of the most distinguished names in science and literature of their respective times, such as Glareanus, Isaac Vossius, Kepler, Kepler, Kircher, Mersenne, &c. no reference is made to the almost conclusive passage in St. Augustine, either by himself, or, as traceable through him, by his learned authorities. Still, we can hardly sup 3 R |