198 OBSERVATIONS ON BISHOP BURNET'I’S 
_ The reader shall now see in what manner Wharton exposes the 
ignorance of his fellow-workman in the mine of antiquity. “ Had 
this historian been acquainted with our English antiquities, he 
would have known that this very charter hath been often and long 
since published in the Monasticon, in Spelman’s Council, and else- 
where, and would not have imagined himself to have discovered 
some rare secret in this inspeximus. Or if he had been acquainted 
with our rolls he would not have expected to find in an inspeximus_ 
the seal of an original charter enrolled in it; or if he had been con- 
versant with ancient records and charters made before the Norman 
times, he would have spared his observation of the want of a seal to 
this charter (although he had seen the original charter and observed 
this in it), and of the not naming either bishopric or abbey therein. 
For they who know this to be the case of the far greater part of the 
instruments and charters of their times, would no more have made 
such an observation than, after having said that they had seen a 
man named Titius, they would have added that he had a nose to his 
face.” 
In speaking of the revered martyr Ridley, our historian observes 
that “he, as himself writes in one of his letters, was named to be 
Bishop of Duresme, being one of the natives of that country, but it 
never took effect ;’* upon which his adversary, ever ready to deny 
him the praise of accurate and laborious research, thus exultingly 
accuses him of being guilty of misrepresentation. ‘It so far took 
effect that Ridley was actually translated from London to Durham ; 
for in the instrument of the restitution of Bonner to the see of 
London, in the beginning of Queen Mary’s reign, it is alleged that 
the see of London was then void by the removal of Ridley to Dur- 
ham, made by King Edward after the deprivation of Tonstal ; and 
Bonner was, therefore, reinstated in London, pronouncing Ridley 
deprived of the see of London; but, on the contrary, Ridley is, in 
the register, declared to have been deprived of the bishopric of Dur- 
ham for heresie and sedition.” It is not fair to try the author of a 
long and laborious history by a few insulated mistakes of dates and 
facts ; and upon them to ground a charge,.as Wharton has done, 
of general bad faith and perverted judgment. He evinces, indeed, 
like Swift, a festive delight in seizing upon every thing that can 
vilify the man or depreciate his work; and therefore the bio- 
grapher, as it were a personal friend of Burnett, rejoices in giving 
the reader the following specimen of Wharton’s own inaccuracy in 
* Hist. of the Reform. vol. i, p. 38. 
