IT is not because WILLIAM PRYNNE stands in our literature as one of our most voluminous authors, nor because he is conspicuous in our history as a sufferer for conscience' sake, that I desire to interest the great body of English readers in his biography. His works, and the circumstances of his personal history, considered simply by themselves, deserve the attention ofthe scholar and the historian, but taken in connection with the general incidents of the times in which he lived they acquire a much higher importance and have a far more extensive application. Viewed in that relation, they enlarge our knowledge of the momentous transactions which occurred in England between 1625 and 1660; they give us views of men and events, nearer and more distinct than can be derived from the wide survey of the general historian; and they enable us—which is more valuable than anything else—to drink deep into the general spirit of that eventful period. It is of the greatest importance that the history of that birth-time of our modern freedom and our consequent greatness should be thoroughly understood I hope that the life of William Prynne, which 1 have endeavoured to write upon the principle I have indicated, will conduce in some slight degree to their being so.

The family from which William Prynne descended derived both its name and origin from the county of Salop. Looking down from Wenlock Ridge on the broad and fertile expanse which spreads for many miles towards the west, the eye is attracted at the distance of a few miles by several gentle eminences, just raised above the level of the surrounding country. These grassy knolls were anciently designated “Preens.” On one of them the Lords of Castle Holgood erected, in the old times, a house of religion devoted to the Cluniac monks—a cell to the magnificent Priory at Wenlock. But all traces of this modest establishment have long since disappeared. A “Great Preen” and a “Little Preen,” the names of which may also be discovered in the records, are not now to be found on the map. “Church Preen” remains alone to fix the locality and indicate the nature of these ancient pointed hillocks.

The home of William Prynne was one well suited for the nourishment of an earnest, serious spirit. That his father was a religious man is unquestionable. It is equally certain, from the explicit avowal of his theological opinions contained in the preface to his will, that, in the disputes of those days, he took the Puritan, or, as some people term it, the Calvinistic side. Such a man would be careful to teach his children and household to worship God in the way which he deemed right.

During Prynne's residence at Oxford many changes had occurred i n his home at Swainswick. Little Dorothy, his youngest sister, died at the age of six, during his first year at Oriel. His eldest sister Joan had been married to William Kemish, described as of Wickwar, in the county of Gloucester. The circumstances or position of her husband does not appear, but it would seem that he and his wife resided for many years at Swainswick. In January, 1617-18, they had a daughter born, who was named Katherine, and in September, 1619, a son named Arthur. But the event which exercised the greatest influence on the life of Prynne was the death of his father, which occurred on the 5th July, 1620. In compliance with his own directions he was buried in the parish church on the 10th July, and an inscription which at one time commemorated the place of his interment has now disappeared. By his will, which was made on the 1st February, 1618-19, he left his lease of his farm at Swainswick to his son William, charged with the payment of 200l. to his brother Thomas, and the same sum to each of his sisters, Katherine and Bridget. He left to William also a considerable portion of his furniture and plate, with some few articles to his other children, including Joan Kemish, who had no doubt received her portion on her marriage.

In the time of William Prynne there was no stronger feeling in the minds of the people of England than a dread of a return of the dominion of Eome. In the estimation of our forefathers of that period popery was a conspiracy against the just liberties and the right reason of mankind. The evils connected with it as a conjoint system of belief, and of spiritual government, were deemed intolerable. In its former character, degrading superstitions seemed interwoven into its very essence; in the latter, it was seen and known to be the enemy, in every possible form, of freedom of thought, and speech, and pen; in both it was looked upon as handing over its subjects to the domination of a priesthood, who were foreigners in their hearts, whose chief allegiance was given to a foreign power, who used the people for their own purposes, kept them in ignorance as a means of perpetuating their dominion, and strove, heart and soul, by the publication of wicked libels, by secret conspiracy and open war, for the restoration of that temporal supremacy which they had lost. Many people now-a-days entertain the same opinions of the Church of Eome, but there is a marked distinction between the impression produced by these opinions upon the minds of our ancestors and upon those of our contemporaries. But there is a marked distinction between Eomanism as it existed then, and now. Then, it was not merely a form of faith.

The biographical fragment which is here printed was found amongst the papers of the late Mr. Bruce. It was evidently intended to form part of a separate work, and not to make a volume of the Camden Society's publications. It is printed exactly as it stands in the MS., but it is, of course, impossible to say how far its substance or form would have been modified, if it had had the benefit of the author's last corrections.