466 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
[No. 29. 
a a a ae coe ee ee ee ee ae ee eee 
“The Disbursements of Mr. Cranford.” 
“ Item, to Jones, by Mr. Cromwell’s al} pega 
sent 
Mr. Cranford’s disbursements show no dates. 
His receipts immediately followed Mr. Hand’s in 
point of dates. 
About the year 1639 a petition was filed in the 
Court of Chancery by one Thomas Fowler, on be- 
half of himself and others, inhabitants of Ely, 
against the feoffees of Parson’s Charity, and ‘a 
commission for charitable uses was issued. The 
commissioners sat at Ely, on the 25th of January, 
1641, and at Cambridge on the 3rd of March in 
the same year, when several of the feoffees with 
other persons were examined. 
At the conclusion of the joint deposition of 
John Hand and William Cranford, two of the 
feoffees, is the following statement :— 
« And as to the Profitts of the said Lands in theire 
tyme receaved, they never disposed of any parte thereof 
but by the direction and appointmt of Mr. Daniell 
Wigmore, Archdeacon of Ely, Mr. William March, 
and Mr. Oliver Cromwell.” 
“ These last two names were inserted att Camb. 
3 Mar. 1641, by Mr. Hy. C.” 
The last name in the above note is illegible, and 
the last two names in the deposition are of a different 
ink and handwriting from the preceding part, but 
of the same ink and writing as the note. 
An original summons to the feoffees, signed by 
the commissioners, is preserved. It requires them 
to appear before the commissioners at the Dolphin 
Inn, in Ely, on the 25th of the then instant 
January, to produce before the commissioners a 
true account “of the monies, fines, rents, and 
profits by you and every of you and your prede- 
cessors feoffees receaved out of the lands given by 
one Parsons for the benefitt of the inhabitants of 
Ely for 16 years past,” &c. The summons is 
dated at Cambridge, the 13th of January, 1641, 
and is signed by the three commissioners, 
“ ‘Tho. Symon. 
Tho. Duckett. 
Dudley Page.” 
The summons is addressed 
“ To Matthew, Lord Bishop of Ely, 
Willm. Fuller, Deane of Ely, and to 
Daniell Wigmore, Archdeacon of Ely, 
William March, Esq. 
Anthony Page, Esq. 
Henry Goodericke, Gent, 
Oliver Cromwell, Esq. 
Willm, Anger. 
Willm. Cranford, 
John Hand, and 
Willm. Austen,” 
Whether Cromwell attended the sitting of the 
commissioners does not appear. 
The letter from Cromwell to Mr. John Hand, 
published “in Cromwell’s Memoirs of Cromwell, 
has not been in the possession of the feoffees for 
some years. 
There is, however, an item in Mr, Hand's dis- 
bursements, which probably refers to the person 
mentioned in that letter. It is as follows :— 
Eset heGh 
“ Ffor phisicke and surgery for old Benson, 2 7 4 
»” 
Cromwell's letter appears to be at a later date 
than this item. 
John Hand was a feoffee for many years, and 
during his time executed, as was usual, the office 
of collector or treasurer. It may be gathered 
from the documents preserved that Cromwell 
never executed that office. The office was usually 
taken by the feoffees in turn then, as at the present 
time ; but Cromwell most probably was called to 
a higher sphere of action before his turn arrived. 
It is worthy of note, that Cromwell’s fellow- 
trustees, the Bishop of Ely (who was the celebrated 
Matthew Wren), Fuller the Dean, and Wigmore 
the Archdeacon, were all severely handled during 
the Rebellion, ARUN, 
DR. SAM. PARR AND DR. JOHN TAYLOR, OF SHREWS- 
BURY AND SHREWSBURY SCHOOL, 
Looking at the Index to the Memoirs of Gilbert 
Wakefield, edit. of 1804, I saw, under the letter 
T., the following entries :— 
“ Taylor, Rev. Dr. John, Tutor of Warrington Aca- 
demy, i. 226. 
his latinity, why faulty, ii. 449.” 
But I instantly suspected an error: for it was 
my -belief that those two notices were designed 
for two distinct scholars. Accordingly, I revised 
both passages, and found that I was right in my 
conjecture. The facts are these: —In the former 
of the references, “The Rev. John Taylor, D.D.,” 
is pointed out. The other individual, of the same 
name, was John Taylor, LL.D., a native of 
Shrewsbury, and a pupil of Shrewsbury School : 
us datinity it is which Dr. Samuel Parr [ut supr.] 
characterises as FAULTY; and for the defects of 
which he endeavours, successfully or otherwise, to 
account. So that whosoever framed the Index has 
here committed an oversight. 
In the quotation which I proceed to make, Parr 
is assigning causes of what, as I think, he truly 
deemed blemishes in G. Wakefield’s Latin style; 
and this is the language of the not unfriendly 
censor :—~ 
“__ None, I fear, of his [W.’s] Latin productions 
are wholly free from faults, which he would have been 
taught to avoid in our best public seminaries, and of 
which I have seen many glaring instances in the works 
of Archbishop Potter, Dr. John Taylor, Mr. Toup, and 
several eminent scholars now living, who were brought 
up in private schools.” 
a 
