could justify every particular, and that John Aubrey had not only told him, but Edward Lhwyd as well,' of the definite statement made by Judge Jenkins. Anthony cut a very sorry figure over this case. When he had full liberty to plead his justification, he preferred to say it was not the Lord Chancellor Clarendon he referred to in the Athena. He talked now as if Aubrey was the most dependable chronicler in the world, forgetting that in 1667 he had accused the same Aubrey of being credulous, of stuffing his letters with wrong information, of guiding him (Wood) into the paths of error. At one point in the case he says his information was derived from "persons of knowne reputation"; at another he is willing, according to a letter written to Dodwell, to insert an 'advertisement' or apology in the next volume of the Athena that he had been imposed upon by these same persons. Seven weeks before his death he had a stormy interview with Clarendon at Oxford, at which he "began to rip up all the matter," managing before the end to allude to the inflammable subject of the father's banishment. He even descended to the ignoble plea that since the Chancellor had died in a forced exile, he was capable of no law to vindicate his memory'. Such was the measure of the antiquary's prudence and the depth of his mortification. The son rejoined that though his father was banished in person yet they did not banish him in honour' (which is the considered judgment of history)3. No serious effort has been made by later writers to drive home the charges preferred in the Athena. The famous British scholar, then Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum. 2 ? Edition. 3 For the sources of this paragraph, see Life of Wood, ed. Bliss (published in 1848 by the Eccl. Hist. Soc.), pp. 152-153, 290-316, and especially App. vii, 358-388. The antiquary Thomas Hearne, again depending on oral evidence, was of the same opinion as Wood, and Dr. Philip Bliss (the editor of the Life of Wood published in 1848) professed to have seen a MS. at the Ashmolean. Museum, penned by the informant Aubrey in 1682, which contained almost the exact words used of Judge Jenkins in the Athena (this, however, is almost certainly the MS. already referred to as MS. Aubrey 8). One is disposed to turn back to 1668 and recollect the Cowbridge cross-examination of Vavasor Powell by Dr. William Bassett, the uncanny quickness with which the great Puritan discomfited his questioner by dwelling on the fall of Clarendon, the evident enjoyment of the scene by the six Deputy Lieutenants present'. Were they thinking of Judge David Jenkins, buried five years before in the south aisle of the church close by? Had these Cavaliers listened to the judge dilating upon his disappointment of 1660 and upon his grievances against the Chancellor? In the region of surmise, they are questions not devoid of interest. It is practically certain Sir John Aubrey of Llantrithyd took the chair at that meeting. Unfortunately, rhetorical surmises are even of less use in law than hearsay evidence. Even if these questions could be answered in the affirmative, that would only prove the sympathy of Glamorgan gentlemen towards their departed neighbour and respect for the brother-in-law who sat in the chair. Legal proof of the judge's charge was still far to seek. Nor is Andrew Clark, the learned and meticulous editor of Wood's Life and Times (published 1891-1895), Life of Powell (1671), p. 139. 2 The names of the D.L's are not given. This examination on 17 October, 1668, was followed by another on 8 November. At that meeting Sir John was undoubtedly present (Life, p. 177). having had full access to documents at the Bodleian and the Archives, able to improve very materially upon the information given by Dr. Bliss in 1848. Fifty pages, divided into sixty heads, are exclusively devoted in his fourth volume to the records of Clarendon versus Wood. It is only in Head LVI-Wood's criticism of the court's sentence upon him as published in the London Gazette — that a new element comes to light: the antiquary there says that the actual words used on p. 221 were supplied to him by the daughters and nephew of the said David Jenkyns'. Then what are we to make of the fact that they are an exact transcript of the words of MS. Aubrey 8, fol. 27a ? And is it not matter for high surprise that all this was not brought out till the case had been decided, that neither John Aubrey nor Edward Lhwyd nor the relatives of Judge Jenkins were called as witnesses before the Vice-Chancellor, and that not a single reference was made to the corruption' articles brought against Clarendon in 1667, by one of which he was accused of 'enriching himself by the sale of offices'? If Wood had lived to see the publication of the Clarendon Papers and found Clarendon indignantly denying the charges of corruption without adding a word in expatiation of his denial, would he look upon this silence as evidence of guilt and as indirect proof of what Judge Jenkins had said? Let us turn the shield round. It is rather curious that neither in the case itself nor in the many papers collateral to it, no one seems to have defended Clarendon's action by pointing to the incongruity of promoting an old man to Westminster Hall at a time when the law-courts would 1 Pp. 47-48. 23 August, 1693. 3 Clark contributed a mistake of his own (Life and Times, i, 337. n. 6) by saying that Wood got his information from the Judge himself. 4 Article V (Cobbett's State Trials, vi, 396, 414). have to deal with a crop of refractory problems arising out of the Restoration unsettlement. It might also be asked how would a rugged partisan like David Jenkins comport himself with Hale and Vaughan, with Windham and Twisden, judges only just past the prime of life, some of whom had deepened their large knowledge of the law in the long leisure moments of the late sad times". Perhaps it was this comparative unfitness of an old man that Dodwell had in mind when he told Wood that young Clarendon had more proofs of his father's honour than you are aware of". 1 Cp. Justice Keeling's remarks on his appointment in 1663 (1 Keble, 526-527). 2 In a letter written on 18 January, 1692-1693. Denbigh Castle. BY WILFRID J. HEMP, F.S.A., I. HISTORY. "THE said Castle is built high up on a rock of stone, very stately and beautifully in a very sweet air." Such is the description of Denbigh Castle given in a survey of the town dating from the time of Henry VIII; but the words describe it equally well in its present state of ruin, and it still dominates the modern town as it did the mediæval borough. In spite of a complete lack of evidence it is possible that there was some stronghold here from the earliest historical times, as the Welsh name Dinbych suggests the former existence of a "dinas", or early hill fort. The earliest reference to the place is contained in a letter written in 1230 by Nicholas, Abbot of Vaudey, to Ralph, Bishop of Chichester and Chancellor, in which he states that he found Llywelyn (the Great) at "Tynbey ". It is not, however, until the latter part of the thirteenth century that it comes into any kind of prominence, i.e., after it became the principal residence of Dafydd ap Gruffydd, who was the brother of Llywelyn, the last native prince of North Wales. Llywelyn himself was there in 1269, as in that year he dates a letter to Henry III from "Denbych ". Moreover, it is recorded in the 1 2 1 Shirley's Royal Letters (Rolls Series), I. 366. 2 Ibid., II, 329. (I owe these two references to Professor J. E. Lloyd.) |