Writings," pp. 501-509. In a letter to Cowley, 12th March, 1666, Evelyn apologises for having written against that life which he had joined with Mr. Cowley in so much admiring, assuring him he neither was nor could be serious in avowing such a preference.
[10] The Virgin Queen which Evelyn saw was Dryden's Maiden Queen. Pepys saw it on the night of its first production (twelve
days before Evelyn's visit); and was charmed by Nell Gwynne's Florimell. "So great a performance of a comical part was never, I believe, in the world before."
[11] "The Parliament giving but weak supplies for the war, the King, to save charges, is persuaded by the Chancellor, the Lord Treasurer, Southampton, the Duke of Albemarle, and the other ministers, to lay up the first and second-rate ships, and make only a defensive war in the next campaign. The Duke of York opposed this, but was overruled." Life of King James II., vol. i., p. 425.
[12] Since done. Evelyn's note.
[13] This entry of the 9th December, 1667, is a mistake. Evelyn could not have visited the "late Lord Chancellor" on that day. Lord Clarendon fled on Saturday, the 29th of November, 1667, and his letter resigning the Chancellorship of the University of Oxford is dated from Calais on the 7th of December. That Evelyn's book is not, in every respect, strictly a diary, is shown by this and several similar passages already adverted to in the remarks prefixed to the present edition. If the entry of the 18th of August, 1683, is correct, the date of Evelyn's last visit to Lord Clarendon was the 28th of November, 1667.
[14] Evelyn has been supposed himself to have written this piece.
[15] Reprinted in Evelyn's "Miscellaneous Writings."
[16] Afterward Mrs. Godolphin, whose life, written by Evelyn, has been published under the auspices of the Bishop of Oxford. The affecting circumstances of her death will be found recorded on pp. [126]-[27] of the present volume.
[17] Evelyn subjoins in a note: "When there was a project, 1669, for getting a divorce for the King, to facilitate it there was brought into the House of Lords a bill for dissolving the marriage of Lord Ross, on account of adultery, and to give him leave to marry again. This Bill, after great debates, passed by the plurality of only two votes, and that by the great industry of the Lord's friends, as well as the Duke's enemies, who carried it on chiefly in hopes it might be a precedent and inducement for the King to enter the more easily into their late proposals; nor were they a little encouraged therein, when they saw the King countenance and drive on the Bill in Lord Ross's favor. Of eighteen bishops that were in the House, only two voted for the bill, of which one voted through age, and one was reputed Socinian." The two bishops favorable to the bill were Dr. Cosin, Bishop of Durham, and Dr. Wilkins, Bishop of Chester.