text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/300

 Oral Languages, forming a Comprehensive Digest of Phonology,’ 1799, 8vo. The volume contains more than two hundred alphabets, including eighteen varieties of the Chaldee and thirty-two of the Greek. Many of the characters were expressly cut by Fry for his book. On the admission of George Knowles in 1799, the firm took the name of Fry, Steele, & Co. At the commencement of the present century the modern-faced type supplanted the old-faced. ‘Specimens of modern cut printing types from the foundry of Messrs. Fry & Steele’ are given in C. Stower's ‘Printer's Grammar,’ 1808, 8vo. About this time Fry reassumed sole management of the business. In 1816 a ‘Specimen of Printing Types by Edmund Fry, Letter Founder to the King and Prince Regent,’ was published. The firm soon after became Edmund Fry & Son, on the admission of his son, Windover. Fry cut several founts of oriental types for the university of Cambridge, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and other bodies. In a ‘Specimen’ printed in 1824 the name is changed back to ‘Edmund Fry’ at ‘the Polyglot Foundry.’ In 1828 he endeavoured to dispose of his business, and issued a descriptive circular (see, pp. 310–12). It was purchased by William Thorowgood of Fann Street, and the stock removed in 1829. It has since been in the hands of Thorowgood & Besley, then R. Besley & Co., and now Sir Charles Reed & Sons. In 1833 twenty designs for raised type for the blind were submitted to the Royal Scottish Society of Arts, who had offered a prize for the best example. Among them was one from Fry, to whom the gold medal was awarded a couple of years after his death (Transactions, 1837, i.), which took place at Dalby Terrace, City Road, London, at the age of eighty-one, on 22 Dec. 1835.

Fry was one of the most learned of the English typefounders, but retired with a very small competence. He was a member of the Company of Stationers. He was married twice: first to Jenny, daughter of Nicholas Windover, of Stockbridge, Hampshire, of whose issue one son only survived, Windover Fry (1797–1835); secondly to Ann Hancock, by whom he had a son, Arthur (1809–78). A portrait of Fry, painted by Frédérique Boileau, was shown at the Caxton Exhibition in 1877 (Catalogue, p. 336). A silhouette has been reproduced by Reed (Letter Foundries, p. 298) and Fry (Memoir, p. 16).

FRY, ELIZABETH (1780–1845), prison reformer, born at Earlham in Norfolk, 21 May 1780, was third daughter of John Gurney, banker in Norwich, and member of an old quaker family. Her younger brothers included [q. v.] and [q. v.] Elizabeth in youth joined in social gaieties. Under the preaching and influence of an American named Savery she became deeply impressed by the gospel. Her earliest work was to visit the poor at Earlham and in Norwich, relieving the sick, and forming a class for the instruction of the children. At the age of twenty she married Joseph Fry, who appears to have been of a much colder and more commonplace nature than his wife. Their family was large. Amid all her public labours she never ceased to devote herself to their welfare; it was a great disappointment to her that some of them left the Society of Friends.

Soon after her marriage she was much exercised by the question whether or not she was called to the ministry among her people. Naturally she had an intense aversion to such a work, but on the death of her father, when she was twenty-nine, she was constrained to take part in the public service, and thereafter experienced such ‘incomings of love, joy, peace,’ that she no longer doubted, and was accordingly soon after recognised as a minister. She spoke with marvellous effect. The pathos of her voice was almost miraculous, and melted alike the hardest criminals and the most impervious men of the world. Cool observers who had witnessed the effects of her appeals in Newgate prison could hardly describe the scene without tears.

Her connection with prisons began practically in 1813. As a child of fifteen she had been deeply interested in the house of correction at Norwich, and had prevailed on her father to allow her to visit it. At the instigation of some of her friends who had come to know of the state of things at Newgate, and particularly of (1784–1854) [q. v.], she now turned her attention to the condition of the female prisoners. The state of things was appalling. Nearly three hundred women, with their children, were huddled together in two wards and two cells; some of them convicted, some not yet tried, innocent and guilty, misdemeanants and felons, all tumbled together; without employment, without nightclothes or bedclothes, sleeping on the bare floor, cooking and washing, eating and sleeping in the same apartment. A tap in the prison gave them the opportunity of supplying themselves with drink. Even the governor was afraid to trust himself in the place, and when the quakers were


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/301

 about to visit it he advised them to leave their watches behind. ‘The begging,’ as she afterwards described the scene to a committee of the House of Commons, ‘swearing, gaming, fighting, singing, dancing, dressing-up in men's clothes were too bad to be described, so that we did not think it suitable to admit young persons with us.’

At first she tried no more than to supply the most destitute with clothes. Then she established a school, which was very successful. A matron was afterwards appointed. But the main cause of reformation was her personal influence and exertions. The reading of the scriptures was a leading part of her remedial measures, and her impressive tones and profound reverence made a deep impression. She was the heart and soul of an association formed in 1817 for the improvement of female prisoners in Newgate. The effects of her labours were thus described by the American minister of the day: ‘Two days ago I saw the greatest curiosity in London, aye and in England too, compared to which Westminster Abbey, the Tower, Somerset House, the British Museum, nay parliament itself, sink into utter insignificance. I have seen Elizabeth Fry in Newgate, and I have witnessed there the miraculous effect of true christianity upon the most depraved of human beings. And yet the wretched outcasts have been tamed and subdued by the christian eloquence of Mrs. Fry. …’

Her success attracted the attention of all classes, including royalty. Transported criminals were sent in those days to New South Wales, and the voyage was performed without classification, employment, or superintendence. At New South Wales no arrangements were made for enabling them to earn an honest living. Mrs. Fry exerted herself greatly to induce the government to make proper regulations for the voyage, and to provide a suitable home and proper employments for them on arriving.

She took a lively interest in the condition of other prisons besides Newgate. Sometimes combining her work as a minister of the quaker communion with her prison labours, she would travel through the country, especially visiting places where there were prisons, ascertaining their condition, conferring with the local authorities, making suggestions to them, and forming ladies' associations for more effectually carrying out the object. Her visits, too, extended beyond the limits of the United Kingdom. In 1820 she corresponded with the Princess Sophie Mestchersky of Russia; the dowager-empress became deeply interested, and her son Nicholas allowed her to convert a royal palace into a palace prison. Mrs. Fry, however, did not desire to encourage such sentimental philanthropy. In France, Louis-Philippe and his queen received her kindly; so did the king of Prussia and his family. At Kaiserswerth she had a most interesting time; Fliedner owned that her example had moved him greatly; while she was impressed, after visiting Kaiserswerth, with the importance of having trained nurses to attend the sick, and instituted an order of ‘nursing sisters,’ whose aid has been sought and valued by persons of all classes.

Although prison reform was her chief work, she attended to other questions. She was much impressed by the miseries of homeless wanderers in London during the rigorous winter of 1819–20, and especially by the death of a poor boy who was found frozen to death on a doorstep. A ‘nightly shelter for the homeless’ was the result, soup and bread, as well as a bed, being given to those who applied. The scheme prospered under a committee of ladies, of whom she was the head, and they did not limit their efforts merely to providing the night's lodging, but tried to find occupation for the unemployed. In like manner, finding Brighton to be greatly infested with beggars, she instituted a district visiting society designed to relieve real distress, to prevent mendicity and imposture, and encourage industry. Observing how the members of the blockade or preventive service were exposed to dreary idleness, she got them a supply of bibles and useful books, and by-and-by libraries were supplied to the preventive stations. A remark on the temptations of discharged prisoners led to the opening, by a lady who heard it, of the Royal Manor Hall Asylum.

In 1828 her husband became bankrupt, and he and his family sank from affluence to poverty. Much suffering was entailed on others, and Mrs. Fry could no longer help the needy as she had been accustomed to do. But she continued her duties as a minister, in addition to all her philanthropic work and her domestic duties. She was equally at home with all ranks; at one time we find her entertaining the king of Prussia at dinner, at another drinking tea with a poor shoemaker who had been able to procure but one luxury for her entertainment—a little fresh butter. She died at Ramsgate on 12 Oct. 1845, and was buried in the Friends' burial-ground at Barking. Mrs. Fry was the author of: 1. ‘Observations on … Female Prisoners,’ Lond., 1827. 2. ‘Report by Mrs. Fry and J. J. Gurney on their late visit to Ireland,’ Lond., 1827. 3. Preface to John Venn's ‘Sermon on Gradual Progress of Evil,’ Lond., 1830. 4. ‘Texts for

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/302

 Every Day in the Year,’ Lond., 1831; translated into French, German, and Italian.

[Memories of [Mrs. Fry], by her daughter, R. E. C[resswell], 1845; Memoirs of the Life of Mrs. Fry, by two of her daughters, 1847; Abridged Memoir by Mrs. Cresswell, 1856; Memoirs of Mrs. Elizabeth Fry, by Thomas Timpson, 1847; The Life of Elizabeth Fry, compiled from her Journals, by Susanna Corder, 1853; Smith's Friends' Books, i. 811–13.]

FRY, FRANCIS (1803–1886), bibliographer, born at Westbury-on-Trym, near Bristol, on 28 Oct. 1803, was the second son of Joseph Storrs Fry (1769–1835). He was educated at a large school at Fishponds, in the neighbourhood of Frenchay, kept by a quaker named Joel Lean, and commenced his business training at Croydon. From his twentieth year to middle age he devoted himself to the rapidly increasing business of the firm of J. S. Fry & Sons, cocoa and chocolate manufacturers, at Bristol, in which he was afterwards a partner. In 1833 he married Matilda, only daughter of Daniel and Anne Penrose, of Brittas, co. Wicklow. He took a part in the introduction of railways in the west of England, and was a member of the board of the Bristol and Gloucester railway, which held its first sitting 11 July 1839, retaining his position during the various amalgamations of the line until its union with the Midland. He was also a director of the Bristol and Exeter, the South Devon, and other railways. He took a principal share in managing the Bristol Waterworks (1846) until his death. In 1839 he removed to Cotham, between Bristol and Redland, and built a house close to the old Tower, represented in many of the books which he afterwards purchased. With William Forster, father of W. E. Forster [q. v.], and Robert Alsop he visited Northern Italy in 1850, as a deputation from the Society of Friends to various crowned heads, praying for their countenance in the abolition of slavery (, Memoirs of William Forster, 1865, ii. 284). In 1852 he made proposals to the railway companies for a general parcel despatch throughout the United Kingdom. He catalogued the library of the Monthly Meeting at Bristol in 1860, and visited Germany. A discovery made by him at Munich about the books printed at Worms by Peter Schœffer the younger enabled him to decide that Tyndale's first English New Testament came from Schœffer's press. Two years later Fry produced his careful facsimile reprint, by means of tracing and lithography, of Tyndale's New Testament (1525 or 1526), the first complete edition printed in English, from the only perfect copy known, now in the Baptist College, Bristol. In the same year he edited a facsimile reprint of the pamphlet known as the ‘Souldier's Pocket Bible,’ distributed to Cromwell's army, and discovered by G. Livermore of Boston, who had himself reprinted it the previous year. Several editions were circulated among the soldiers during the American civil war. It was somewhat altered and enlarged as the ‘Christian Soldier's Penny Bible’ (1693), also facsimiled and edited by Fry. In 1863 he issued a couple of small rare pieces illustrative of Tyndale's version, and in 1865 published his remarkable bibliographical treatise on the Great Bible of 1539, the six editions of Cranmer's Bible of 1540 and 1541, and the five editions of the authorised version. Fry visited many private and public libraries to collate different copies of these bibles, and was able to settle the peculiarities of the various issues. This work was followed by his account of Coverdale's translation of the Scriptures, and his description of forty editions of Tyndale's version, most of which vary among themselves. These three books are marked by laborious accuracy, great bibliographical acumen, and a profound acquaintance with the history of the English Bible.

He was a member of the committee of the Bristol Philosophical Society, as well as of the Bristol Museum and Library. Books and china formed his chief study. His collection of specimens produced at the Bristol factory between 1768 and 1781 was particularly complete. Many examples are described by Hugh Owen (Two Centuries of Ceramic Art in Bristol, 1873, pp. 78–9, 97, 243, &c.). His collection of bibles and testaments numbered nearly thirteen hundred, chiefly English, especially editions of the versions of Tyndale, Coverdale, and Cranmer, but with a number of first editions in other languages. He took an active interest in many associations for social improvement. He died 12 Nov. 1886, soon after the completion of his eighty-third year, and was buried in the Friends' graveyard at King's Weston, near Bristol.

His writings are: 1. ‘A Catalogue of Books in the Library belonging to the Monthly Meeting in Bristol,’ 3rd edit. Bristol, 1860, 8vo. 2. ‘The First New Testament printed in the English Language (1525 or 1526), translated from the Greek by William Tyndale, reproduced in facsimile, with an Introduction,’ Bristol, 1862, sm. 8vo. 3. ‘The Souldiers Pocket Bible, printed at London by G. B. and R. W. for G. C. 1643, reproduced in facsimile, with an Introduction,’ London, 1862, sm. 8vo (this consists of texts of Scripture, chiefly from the Geneva version, with special applications). 4. ‘The Christian Sol-


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/303

 diers Penny Bible, London, printed by R. Smith for Sam. Wade, 1693, reproduced in facsimile with an Introductory Note,’ London, 1862, sm. 8vo (No. 3 altered, with the texts from the authorised version somewhat incorrectly quoted). 5. ‘A proper Dyaloge betwene a gentillman and a husbandman eche complaynynge to other their miserable calamite through the ambicion of clergye with a compendious olde treatyse shewynge howe that we ought to have the Scripture in Englysshe, Hans Luft, 1530, reproduced in facsimile, with an Introduction,’ London, 1863, 8vo. 6. ‘The prophete Jonas, with an Introduction by Wm. Tyndale, reproduced in facsimile, to which is added Coverdale's version of Jonah, with an Introduction,’ London, 1863, 8vo (Nos. 5 and 6 reproduced from the unique copies in the library of Lord Arthur Hervey). 7. ‘The Standard Edition of the English New Testament of the Genevan Version,’ London, 1864, 8vo (reprinted from the ‘Journal of Sacred Literature,’ July 1864). 8. ‘A Description of the Great Bible, 1539, and the six editions of Cranmer's Bible, 1540 and 1541, printed by Grafton and Whitchurch; also of the editions in large folio of the Authorised Version printed in 1611, 1613, 1617, 1634, 1640; illustrated with titles and with passages from the editions, the genealogies and the maps, copied in facsimile, also with an identification of every leaf of the first seven and of many leaves of the other editions, on fifty-one plates, together with an original leaf of each of the editions described,’ London, 1865, folio. 9. ‘The Bible by Coverdale, 1535, remarks on the titles, the year of publication, &c., with facsimiles,’ London, 1867, 8vo. 10. ‘A List of most of the Words noticed exhibiting the peculiar orthography used in Tindale's New Testament,’ Bristol, 1871, folio (single sheet, circulated to inquire as to the edition ‘finished in 1535’). 11. ‘A Bibliographical Description of the Editions of the New Testament, Tyndale's Version in English, with numerous readings, comparisons of texts, and historical notices, the notes in full from the edition of November 1534, an account of two octavo editions of the New Testament of the Bishop's version, without numbers to the verses, illustrated with 73 plates,’ London, 1878, 4to. 12. ‘Description of a Title-page of a New Testament dated anno 1532,’ Bristol, 1885, 4to (with facsimile of title-page, two leaves).

[A Brief Memoir of Francis Fry of Bristol, by his son, Theodore Fry, privately printed, 1887, 8vo, with portraits of Fry and members of his family, and other illustrations; Joseph Smith's Descriptive Catalogue of Friends' Books, 1867, i. 814–15.]

FRY, JOHN (1609–1657), theological writer, son of William Fry of Iwerne Minster, Dorsetshire, by Milicent, daughter of Robert Swaine of Tarrant Gunville, Dorsetshire, was born in 1609, being fourteen years of age at the herald's visitation of Dorset in 1623. Wood's account, to be received with caution, is that he ‘had ran through most, if not all, religions, even to Rantisme.’ In October 1640 he was elected a member for Shaftesbury in the Long parliament, but his election was declared void. Somewhat later (probably after the order of 6 Sept. 1643) he was placed on the county committee for Wiltshire, which acted in conjunction with the committee for plundered ministers. Dugdale calls him a colonel, but there is no evidence that he was in the parliamentary army. After Pride's purge (6 Dec. 1648) he was called to the parliament, put on the committee for plundered ministers, and on 6 Jan. 1649 was included in the commission for the trial of the king. He owed his appointment to his having severed himself from the ‘rigid presbyterians,’ though it does not appear that he joined any other religious body.

Fry is commonly called a regicide, but he attended only the early sittings of the high court. He was one of seven commissioners whose places had been filled by others, before 27 Jan., the date when sentence was passed; nor did he sign the warrant for the king's execution. It may be doubted whether his absence is to be explained by his having to meet a charge of blasphemy, or whether, as is more probable, that charge was brought against him in consequence of some reluctance on his part to proceed to extreme measures against the king.

For a number of years, according to his own account, Fry had been ‘a searcher of the scriptures,’ and his conversation had given the impression, a twelvemonth back, that he denied the deity of Christ, an impression which he declares to be groundless. But he was willing to extend toleration to antitrinitarians. On or about 15 Jan. 1649 he was in the committee-room of the House of Commons when Cornelius Holland [q. v.] asked him to give his aid in the committee for plundered ministers towards the liberation of a minister who had lain two or three years in prison for ‘denying the personality of Christ.’ This prisoner was almost certainly John Biddle [q. v.] Fry readily agreed to the request. Hereupon Colonel John Downes [q. v.], who was present, broke into passionate language on the subject of Fry's own opinions. Two or three days later Fry had a discussion with Downes in the painted chamber, where the high court was about to


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/304

 hold its sitting, and heard soon after that Downes had sought the Speaker's advice in framing a charge of blasphemy against him. The house suspended him till he should clear himself. He sent in a written paper declaring the sacred three to be ‘equally God,’ but objecting to the terms ‘person’ and ‘subsistence.’ This was accepted as satisfactory, and Fry was restored.

Next month he published a narrative of the case (‘The Accuser Sham'd’), appending his exculpatory paper, with an offensive heading. This publication brought out several pamphlets in reply. One of them, in allusion to Fry's title-page, bore the title, ‘M. Fry his Blasphemy and Error blown up and down the Kingdome with his owne Bellowes,’ &c., 1649. Fry's most considerable opponent was Francis Cheynell [q. v.], who published his ‘Divine Trinunity,’ 1650, to meet the charge of tritheism preferred by Fry against some theological writers. Cheynell affirms that Fry was the first who had employed in English the expression ‘Trinity of the Godhead.’ His suspicion that Fry had been acquainted with ‘the deified atheists of the Family of Love’ is probably the foundation of Wood's accusation of ‘rantisme.’ Fry retorted in ‘The Clergy in their Colours,’ in which he disparaged the assembly's catechism, attacked the doctrine of free-will, argued against ‘believing things above reason,’ assumed the attitude of a critical free-lance (‘my aym is not to write positive but negative things’), and satirised the ‘wrye mouths, squint eyes, and screw'd faces’ of popular divines.

Downes brought both of Fry's books under the notice of parliament. The house on 24 Feb. 1651 voted the publication of the narrative and paper a breach of privilege, condemned certain of Fry's statements as ‘erroneous, prophane, and highly scandalous,’ ordered the books to be burned in the New Palace Yard and the Old Exchange, and disabled Fry from sitting in parliament. Soon afterwards appeared an anonymous and undated pamphlet, ‘A Discussion of Mr. Frye's Tenets lately condemned in Parliament,’ &c., which Wood assigns to Cheynell without much ground. A more temperate reply was ‘Theios. Divine Beames of Glorious Light,’ &c., 1651 (1 March). Wood says that Fry, after his expulsion, consorted with Biddle, but there is no evidence of his adoption of Biddle's views; his tendency was rather in a Sabellian direction.

He died at the end of 1656 or beginning of 1657. His will is dated 29 Dec. 1656, and was proved on 15 June 1657. He married Anna, probably daughter of Lindsay of Poole, and had five sons and three daughters, one of his sons being Stephen Fry, M.D., of Trinity College, Oxford. At the Restoration Fry's property was forfeited for the part he had taken in the trial of the king.

He published: 1. ‘The Accuser Sham'd; or, a Pair of Bellows to blow off that Dust cast … by Col. Jo. Downs,’ &c., February 1648 [i.e. 17 Feb. 1649], 8vo; prefixed is ‘A Word to the Priests, Lawyers, Royalists, Self-Seekers, and Rigid-Presbyterians;’ appended is ‘A Brief Ventilation of that chaffie and absurd opinion of three Persons or Subsistences in the Godhead,’ being his paper sent in to the house. 2. ‘The Clergy in their Colours; or, a Brief Character of them,’ &c., 1650, 8vo (published 28 or 29 Nov.)

[Wood's Athenæ Oxon. ed. Bliss, iii. 705 sq.; Rushworth's Hist. Coll. (abridged), 1798, vi. 563, 574, 594, 603; Noble's Lives of the English Regicides, 1798, i. 247; Wallace's Antitrin. Biog. 1850, iii. 206; works cited above; information from E. A. Fry.]

FRY, JOHN (1792–1822), bookseller and author, was born in 1792. He was always in bad health, and devoted his leisure hours, when connected with the bookselling firm of Thomas Fry & Co., 46 High Street, Bristol, to the study of early English literature. Some of the prefaces of his pieces are dated from Kingsdown, Somersetshire. Besides his published works he left several in manuscript, among them one he styled ‘Bibliophilia,’ editions of the writings of the Rev. William Hamilton and William Browne, and biographical sketches of eminent Bristolians. After a lingering illness he died at Bristol, 28 June 1822, at the age of thirty. He published: 1. ‘Metrical Trifles in Youth,’ Bristol, 1810, 8vo. 2. ‘The Legend of Mary Queen of Scots, and other ancient Poems, now first published from MSS. of the XVIth century, with an Introduction, Notes, &c.,’ London, 1810, 8vo. 3. ‘A Selection from the Poetical Works of Thomas Carew,’ London, 1810, sm. 8vo (commended in ‘British Critic,’ February 1810). 4. ‘Pieces of Ancient Poetry from Unpublished MSS. and Scarce Books,’ Bristol, 1814, 4to (102 copies printed). 5. ‘George Whetstone's Metrical Life of George Gascoigne, 1577,’ Bristol, 1815, 4to (100 copies). 6. ‘Bibliographical Memoranda in illustration of Old English Literature,’ Bristol, 1816, 4to.

[Gent. Mag. December, vol. xcii. pt. ii. p. 566.]

FRY, JOSEPH (1728–1787), type-founder, was born in 1728. He was the eldest son of John Fry (d. 1775) of Sutton Benger, Wiltshire, author of ‘Select Poems,’


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/305

 1774, 4th edition, 1793. He was educated in the north of England, and afterwards bound apprentice to Henry Portsmouth of Basingstoke, an eminent doctor (Gent. Mag. 1787, vol. lvii. pt. i. p. 385), whose eldest daughter, Anna, he afterwards married. He was the first member of his family to settle in Bristol, where he acquired a considerable medical practice, and ‘was led to take a part in many new scientific undertakings’ (, Two Centuries of Ceramic Art in Bristol, 1873, p. 218). After a time he abandoned medicine for business pursuits. He helped Richard Champion [q. v.] in his Bristol china works, and began to make chocolate, having purchased Churchman's patent right. The chocolate and cocoa manufactory thus started has been carried on by the family down to the present day. The success of John Baskerville caused Fry to turn his attention in 1764 to type-founding, and he entered into partnership with William Pine, the first printer of the ‘Bristol Gazette,’ who had a large business in Wine Street. Their new type may be traced in several works issued between 1764 and 1770. The manager of Messrs. Fry & Pine was Isaac Moore, formerly a whitesmith at Birmingham (, Dissertation upon English Typogr. Founders, 1778, p. 83), after whose speedy admission to partnership the business was removed to London, and carried on as ‘Isaac Moore & Co., in Queen Street, near Upper Moorfields.’ Luckombe mentions Moore as one of three London founders (History of Printing, 1770, p. 244). In 1774 the London firm produced a fine folio bible, and in 1774–1776 a well-printed edition in 5 vols., 8vo. About this time they somewhat abandoned their earlier Baskerville style of letter, to follow the more popular Caslon character. In 1774 Pine printed at Bristol a bible in a pearl type, asserted to be ‘the smallest a bible was ever printed with.’ To all these editions notes were added to escape the penalty of infringing the patent. Two years later the firm became J. Fry & Co., and issued in 1777 reprints of the octavo and folio bibles. Pine subsequently withdrew entirely. Fry took his sons, Edmund (d. 1835) [q. v.] and Henry, into partnership in 1782, and bought largely at the sale of James's foundry in that year. The business was removed to Worship Street, where in 1785 was issued ‘A Specimen of Printing Types made by Joseph Fry & Sons, Letter-founders and Marking Instrument Makers by the King's Royal Letters Patent.’ In the advertisement the proprietors ‘flatter themselves’ that the types which are called new ‘will mix with, and be totally unknown from, the most approved founts made by the late ingenious artist, William Caslon.’ The next year they published another ‘Specimen,’ with new founts, and including seven pages of oriental types. They now called themselves ‘Letter-founders to the Prince of Wales.’ Up to the time of his death Fry was a partner with Alderman William Fripp, as Fry, Fripp, & Co., soap-boilers. This business is now in the hands of Christopher Thomas Brothers. Fry also had some chemical works at Battersea, in which he was assisted by his son.

Fry died after a few days' illness on 29 March 1787, aged 59, having retired from business a short time before. Like his father and grandfather he was a member of the Society of Friends, and was buried in their burial-ground at the Friars, Bristol. After his death the chocolate and cocoa manufactory was carried on by his widow under the style of Anna Fry & Son. The previous title had been Fry, Vaughan, & Co. In 1795 the works were removed from Newgate Street to Union Street, where a Watt's steam engine was erected, the first in Bristol. The son was Joseph Storrs Fry (1766–1835), whose three sons, Joseph, Francis (1803–1886) [q. v.], and Richard, were subsequently joined with him as J. S. Fry & Sons, the name the firm has since borne. His widow was associated for a short time with her sons in the type-foundry. She died at Charterhouse Square, London, 22 Oct. 1803, aged 83.

[Hugh Owen's Two Centuries of Ceramic Art in Bristol, 1873, 8vo; T. B. Reed's Old English Letter Foundries, 1887, 4to; T. Fry's Memoir of Francis Fry (not published), 1887; a woodcut of silhouette of Joseph Fry is given in each of these works. See also Printer's Grammar, 1787; T. C. Hansard's Typographia, 1825; J. Smith's Catalogue of Friends' Books, 1867, vol. i.]

FRY, WILLIAM THOMAS (1789–1843), engraver, born in 1789, worked chiefly in stipple. He engraved four portraits for Fisher's ‘National Portrait Gallery,’ viz., Princess Charlotte, after Sir T. Lawrence, the Earl of Liverpool, after the same, Admiral Earl Howe, after Gainsborough Dupont, and the Rev. Samuel Lee, after R. Evans. He also engraved some fine portraits, after J. Jackson, R.A., including Robert Hills, the animal painter, John Scott, the engraver, and others. For Jones's ‘National Gallery’ he executed eleven engravings. He was extensively employed in his profession, and died in 1843. He occasionally exhibited his engravings at the Suffolk Street exhibition.

[Bryan's Dict. of Painters and Engravers; Graves's Dict. of Artists, 1760–1880; Redgrave's Dict. of Artists.]


text: Author:Francis Manley Lowe

title: Author:Francis Manley Lowe


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/306

 FRYE, THOMAS (1710–1762), painter, mezzotint engraver, and china manufacturer, was born near Dublin in 1710, and came to England early in life, in company with Stoppelaer, a brother artist. He at first practised as a portrait painter with some success, and in 1734 painted a full-length portrait of Frederick, prince of Wales, for the hall of the Saddlers' Company in Cheapside, engraved by himself in mezzotint, and published in 1741. A portrait by him of Leveridge, the actor, was engraved in mezzotint by Pether, who was Frye's pupil in the art. Through Mr. Ellis, whose portrait he painted, Frye obtained an introduction to Sir Joshua Reynolds, and became a familiar friend. In 1744 an American brought to London, and offered to the china manufactory, which seems to have been already in existence at Bow, some samples of an earth suitable for making china like that imported by the oriental merchants. It may have been through Frye, who was then residing at West Ham close by, that he obtained this introduction; at all events, on 6 Dec. 1744 a patent was taken out by ‘Edward Heylin in the parish of Bow, in the county of Middlesex, merchant, and Thomas Frye of the parish of West Ham, in the county of Essex, painter,’ for ‘a new method of manufacturing a certain mineral whereby a ware might be made of the same nature or kind, and equal, if not exceeding in goodness and beauty, china or porcelain ware imported from abroad. The material is an earth, the produce of the Cherokee nation in America, called by the natives unaker.’ A second patent was taken out on 17 Nov. 1749 by Frye alone, whose epitaph (published at length in Gent. Mag. 1764, xxxiii. 638) grandiloquently styles him ‘the Inventor and first Manufacturer of Porcelain in England.’ Frye became the manager of the china manufactory, which he constructed on the model of that at Canton in China, and called ‘New Canton,’ and brought Bow china into some repute. Pieces of this china are sometimes marked with his initials. After spending fifteen years in this profession, his health became seriously impaired by living among the furnaces, and he was forced to relinquish an active share in the business, which rapidly declined in later years. He retired into Wales to restore his health, and resumed his former profession as a portrait and miniature painter. After twelve months he returned to London, and settled in Hatton Garden. He now engraved and published the series of lifesize portrait heads in mezzotint, by which he is best known to the world at large. These are works of great power, and their artistic merit has been generally admitted. It is stated that Frye used to frequent the theatre in order to make drawings of royalty and other people of quality, and that the king and queen, George III and Charlotte, used to pose themselves in order to give him special facilities for his object. It is also stated that the ladies whose portraits he thus drew declined to have their names affixed to the engravings, as they did not know in what company they might appear. Many of this series, eighteen in number, are unidentified, some being of his own family; among those identified, besides the king and queen and his own portrait, are Garrick, the Duchess of Northumberland, the Gunning sisters, Elizabeth countess of Berkeley, Miss Pond, the actress, and Miss Stothouse. Complete sets are scarce; one was formed by Mr. Charles and Lady Charlotte Schreiber at Langham House, Portland Place, and there are fine examples in the print room at the British Museum. Frye was very corpulent and subject to gout; adopting an over-spare diet, he fell into a consumption, and died on 2 April 1762, in his fifty-second year. He left a son, who turned out badly, and two daughters, who assisted him in painting the china at Bow; one, Catherine, married a painter of Worcester china of the name of Willcox, and with her husband was employed by Wedgwood in a similar capacity at his works at Etruria up to her death in 1776.

Frye's epitaph quoted above also states that ‘no one was more happy in delineating the human countenance. He had the correctness of Vandyck, and the colouring of Rubens. In miniature painting he equalled, if not excelled, the famous Cooper.’ A portrait by Frye of Jeremy Bentham, painted in 1761, is in the National Portrait Gallery.

[Redgrave's Dict. of Artists; Chaloner Smith's British Mezzotinto Portraits; Chaffers's Marks and Monograms on Pottery and Porcelain, 7th edit. 1886; Gent. Mag. cited above.]  FRYER, EDWARD, M.D. (1761–1826), physician, was born in 1761 at Frome, Somersetshire. He was sent to the grammar school there, and afterwards apprenticed to a general practitioner of medicine in Wiltshire. He studied medicine in London, Edinburgh, and Leyden, and graduated M.D. at Leyden 29 Jan. 1785. He travelled in Europe till 1790, when he came to London, and was admitted a licentiate of the College of Physicians. He became physician to the Duke of Sussex, and resided in Upper Charlotte Street, where he died 9 Jan. 1826. He attended Barry, the painter, in his last illness, and wrote his life, a work which was published in 1825. It shows little skill in biography, being full of indefinite


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/307

 statements, but has the merits of moderation in its praise of its subject, and of modesty in the concealment of the personality of its author.

[Munk's Coll. of Phys. ii. 412; Fryer's Life of Barry.]  FRYER, JOHN, M.D. (d. 1563), physician, born at Balsham, Cambridgeshire, was educated at Eton and elected thence to King's College, Cambridge, in 1517. He graduated B.A. in 1521 and M.A. in 1525. On 5 Nov. 1525 he was incorporated at Oxford, being one of three masters of arts who had been preferred to Cardinal Wolsey's college in that university. Proving, however, ‘violent Lutherans,’ they were one and all obliged to leave. He was imprisoned for heresy in the Savoy, where he solaced himself with the lute, having good skill in music. On this account a friend commended him to the master of the Savoy, who replied ‘Take heed, for he that playeth is a devil, because he has departed from the catholic faith’ (, Fasti Oxon. ed. Bliss, i. 72). The date of his incarceration in the Savoy is nowhere recorded, but by 1528 he was again a prisoner, this time in the Fleet. On 16 Sept. 1528 he addressed from that prison an elegant Latin letter to Wolsey, wherein he extols the latter's generosity, ‘which he had often experienced before.’ ‘To Wolsey,’ he writes, ‘he owed his restitution to life from that destruction into which he had precipitated himself by his own folly’ (Letters and Papers of Reign of Henry VIII, ed. Brewer, vol. iv. pt. ii. No. 4741). Fryer's scholarship and personal qualities gained him the friendship of many eminent men, especially that of Edward Fox [q. v.], then provost of King's College. By Fox's assistance he was enabled to study medicine at Padua, where he took the degree of M.D. in 1535 (ib. ed. Gairdner, vol. ix. No. 648). It is probable that he was incorporated on this degree at Cambridge. In December 1535 he attended Fox to the diet at Smalcalde in Saxony (ib. vol. ix. Nos. 917, 1011). The following year he returned home (ib. vol. x. Nos. 321, 411, 418), and ultimately settled at London, residing in that part of Bishopsgate Street which is within the parish of St. Martin Outwich. He was admitted a fellow of the College of Physicians in 1536, was censor in 1541, 1553, 1554, 1555, and 1559, elect in 1547, consiliarius in 1548 and 1555 to 1560, and president in 1549 and 1550. To judge by a letter from him to Thomas, lord Cromwell, Fryer must have possessed no inconsiderable share of humour. He had attended the Bishop of Rochester in his last illness. On the bishop's death his goods were seized to the king's use, so that for twelve days' labour and four nights' watching Fryer received nothing. Thereupon he besought Cromwell's mediation on his behalf, observing, ‘Except your lordshype be good to me, I shal bothe lose my labour, my frende, and also my physycke; and truely if physycyens shuld take no monye for them that they kyll, as well as for them that they save, theyr lyvyngs shuldbe very thynne and bare.’ As regards the amount of his recompense and reward for his pains he remarks: ‘I beseche your lordshyppe it may be so motche the mor lyberall, becawse it shalbe the last payment; for of them that scape, we may take the lesse, becawse we hope they shale ons cum agayne in to our handys’ (, Original Letters, 3rd ser. ii. 346–7). The bishop here alluded to has been erroneously supposed to have been Fisher; it was Hilsey who died in 1539. On 24 June 1560 Fryer was committed to the compter, but for what offence does not appear. He was liberated on the following day. In 1561 he was imprisoned in the Tower, on this occasion not for Lutheranism but for catholicism, ‘wherein he was educated’ (cf. Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser. Addenda, 1547–65, p. 510). There is extant an examination of his servant, Thomas How, organ-maker, taken before Sir William Chester, lord mayor of London, 23 April 1561. It relates to the visit of his master to Dr. Martyn at Buntingford, Hertfordshire, and states that neither he nor his master to his knowledge had received the communion since the queen's accession (ib. 1547–80, p. 174). Fryer was liberated from prison in the beginning of August 1563, but died of the plague on the ensuing 21 Oct., and was buried at St. Martin Outwich. It is probable that he became outwardly reconciled to the English church before his death, as his will nuncupative (P.C.C. 2, Stevenson) is attested by the then curate of St. Martin's, one Albert Coopeman. His wife, Ursula, and several of his children also lost their lives by the pestilence. In her will, proved 28 Dec. 1563 (P.C.C. 39, Chayre), Mrs. Fryer, after desiring burial with her husband, names as her children three sons, Thomas, Jarmyn, and Reinolde, and two daughters, Mathe and Lucie.

[Cooper's Athenæ Cantabr. i. 225; Munk's Coll. of Phys. (1878), i. 31–2; Gillow's Bibliographical Dict. of the English Catholics, ii. 334.]  FRYER, JOHN, M.D. (fl. 1571), physician, who has been erroneously described as the son of John Fryer, M.D. (d. 1563) [q. v.],


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/308

 was born at Godmanchester, Huntingdonshire, and educated at Cambridge, where he proceeded B.A. in 1544, M.A. in 1548, and commenced M.D. in 1555, when he subscribed the Roman catholic articles. His college is not known. He was one of the disputants in the physic act kept before Queen Elizabeth in the university 7 Aug. 1564. He subsequently settled at Padua for the sake of his religion. He is author of: 1. ‘Hippocratis Aphorismi Versibus scripti … Per Iöannem Frerum Gormoncestrensem Anglum,’ 8vo, London, 1567, 24 leaves, dedicated to Sir William Cecil. It was subsequently incorporated in Ἱπποκράτους οἱ ἀφορισμοί πεζικοί τε καὶ ἔμμετρο, edited by Ralph Winterton, 8vo, Cambridge, 1633. 2. Latin verses, viz. (a) on the death of Bucer; (b) on the restoration of Bucer and Fagius; (c) prefixed to Bishop Alley's ‘The Poore Mans Librarie,’ 1565; (d) prefixed to ‘G. Haddoni Lucubrationes,’ 1567; (e) prefixed to Nicholas Carr's ‘Demosthenes,’ 1571; (f) on the death of Nicholas Carr in 1568.

[Cooper's Athenæ Cantabr. i. 302; Gillow's Bibliographical Dict. of the English Catholics, ii. 334–5.]  FRYER, JOHN, M.D. (d. 1672), physician, was a grandson of John Fryer, M.D. (d. 1563) [q. v.], and the eldest son of Thomas Fryer, M.D. (d. 1623, see, Coll. of Phys. ed. 1878, i. 72–4), both of whom were fellows of the College of Physicians. He studied his profession at Padua, where he graduated M.D. 6 April 1610, and was admitted a candidate of the College of Physicians 25 June 1612. He lived in Little Britain, London, in part of the house where his father ‘did dwell.’ By birth a strict member of the church of Rome, he was on 29 March 1626 returned to the parliamentary commissioners by the college as ‘an avowed or suspected papist.’ ‘This,’ observes Dr. Munk, ‘was probably the reason he was not admitted a fellow, as it was without doubt the cause of his brother, Thomas Fryer, M.D. (fl. 1623), having been refused admission as a candidate.’ After remaining a candidate for more than half a century, he was, in December 1664, when honorary fellows were first created, placed at the head of the list. On 5 Aug. 1628 he was admitted a member of Gray's Inn (Harl. MS. 1912, f. 106), but did not proceed to the bar. He died at his house in Little Britain, 12 Nov. 1672, at the advanced age of ninety-six, and was buried on 19 Nov. (, Obituary, Camden Soc. p. 97), ‘in the vault of St. Botolph's Church without Aldersgate, London, where his mother and eldest sister, Elizabeth Peacocke, lye buried.’ Fryer, for his unfilial and unbrotherly conduct, had been disinherited by his father, though the latter, by will dated 2 Dec. 1617, and proved 10 May 1623 (P.C.C. 40, Swan), left him 50l. in token of forgiveness. He denounced, however, his son's ‘many great impieties to his parents, and especially towards his tender, carefull, and mercifull mother … too horrible and shamefull to repeate,’ and desired the world to know that he had ‘brought his parents, against all rites and against nature, and especially me, his father, before the greatest magistrates, to our discredites, as may appeare by letters sent from the highest, whch at length they, having fully ripped upp all matters, although mutch against my will, turned utterly to his utter discredit.’

His father had purchased the manor of Harlton, Cambridgeshire, of the Barnes family, as appears from his monument in Harlton Church. His second brother, Henry, who died in Little Britain, 4 June 1631, by a fall from his horse (, p. 6), had by his will dated 27 May of that year (P.C.C. 104, St. John) provided for some of his relatives, but directed his executors to settle Harlton and his other lands to such charitable uses as they thought fit. Fryer thereupon instituted proceedings in the court of wards. The executors consented to a reference to Mr. Justice Harvey, testator's cousin and an overseer of his will, and he certified that Fryer ought to have the whole estate. The matter was eventually submitted to the arbitration of Lord-Keeper Coventry, Bishop Laud, and Secretary Coke (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1631–33, pp. 360–1, 470; 1633–34, pp. 376, 379). Fryer evidently gained the day, for by his will dated 1 Sept. and proved 21 Nov. 1672 (P.C.C. 129 and 150, Eure), he devised the property to his nephews and executors, John Peacock of Heath House, near Petersfield, county Southampton, and Andrew Matthew, carpenter, of the city of London. The version of the story as given by Lysons (Magna Brit. vol. ii. pt. i., ‘Cambridgeshire’) is erroneous.

[Munk's Coll. of Phys. (1878), i. 319–21.]  FRYER, JOHN, M.D. (d. 1733), traveller, eldest son of William Fryer of London, was a member of Trinity College, Cambridge, from which he transferred himself on 23 July 1671 to Pembroke College in the same university as a fellow-commoner (Pembroke Coll. Register). He took the two degrees in medicine, M.B. ‘per literas regias’ in 1671, and M.D. in 1683 (Cantabr. Graduati, ed. 1787,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/310

 (the third division of the fourteenth dialogue of the ‘Parallele’), and his reasons why students should study in the morning and not after supper, in the ‘Directions,’ are examples. He enriches his works by quotations from many now forgotten writers. His classical allusions are often happy, and his remarks sound, notwithstanding his euphuistic style.

[Wood's Athenæ Oxon. (Bliss), i. 726; Notes and Queries, 29 July 1866, p. 69; Marvin's Legal Bibliography; Brit. Mus. Cat.]

FULCHER, GEORGE WILLIAMS (1795–1855), poet and miscellaneous writer, born in 1795, carried on the business of a bookseller, stationer, and printer at Sudbury in Suffolk, where in 1825 he issued the first number of the ‘Sudbury Pocket Book,’ an annual which he continued to publish during his life, and to the pages of which, besides Fulcher himself, Bernard Barton, William and Mary Howitt, James Montgomery, and other less-known writers contributed. A selection from these contributions appeared under the title of ‘Fulcher's Poetical Miscellany’ in 1841, 12mo, reprinted in 1853. Fulcher also started in 1838 a monthly miscellany of prose and verse, entitled ‘Fulcher's Sudbury Journal,’ but this was not continued beyond the year. He made a courageous effort to treat pauperism poetically, publishing ‘The Village Paupers, and other Poems,’ London, 1845. ‘The Village Paupers’ is in the heroic couplet, and betrays in almost every line the influence of Crabbe and of Goldsmith's ‘Deserted Village.’ Of the miscellaneous poems ‘The Dying Child’ is the best. Fulcher also published ‘The Ladies' Memorandum Book and Poetical Miscellany,’ 1852 and following years; ‘The Farmer's Day-book,’ which reached a sixth edition in 1854, and he was engaged on a life of Gainsborough, a Sudbury man, at his death on 19 June 1855. This work, which represents much careful original research, and is written in a terse and scholarly style, was completed by his son, E. S. Fulcher, and published in London in 1856; a second edition appeared the same year. Fulcher was throughout life a diligent student, particularly of Crabbe and Cowper. Boswell's Johnson was also one of his favourite books. He was a practical botanist, and very sensitive to the beauties of nature. He took an active interest in local affairs, being one of the magistrates of the borough of Sudbury, president of the board of guardians, and several times mayor. He gave much to charities. He was buried in the churchyard of St. Gregory, Sudbury, the townspeople closing their shops, and the mayor, corporation, and magistrates of the borough following the bier.

[Gent. Mag. 1855, xliv. 213; Allibone's Dict. of Brit. and Amer. Authors; Brit. Mus. Cat.]

FULFORD, FRANCIS, D.D. (1803–1868), bishop of Montreal, second son of Baldwin Fulford of Fulford Magna, Devonshire, by Anna Maria, eldest daughter of William Adams, M.P. for Totnes, was born at Sidmouth 3 June 1803, and baptised at Dunsford, 14 Oct. 1804. He was educated at Tiverton grammar school, whence he matriculated at Oxford from Exeter College 1 Feb. 1821, and was elected a fellow of his college 30 June 1824, but vacated his fellowship 18 Oct. 1830 by marrying Mary, eldest daughter of Andrew Berkeley Drummond of Cadlands, Hampshire. Fulford proceeded B.A. in 1827, and M.A. 1838, and was created an honorary D.D. 6 July 1850. He was ordained a deacon in 1826, and became curate of Holne, Devonshire, afterwards removing to the curacy of Fawley. The Duke of Rutland instituted him to the rectory of Trowbridge, Wiltshire, in 1832, where he resided for ten years, and as a justice of the peace as well as a clergyman commanded respect and conciliated goodwill. In 1842 he accepted the rectory of Croydon, Cambridgeshire, which he held until 1845, when he was nominated by Earl Howe as minister of Curzon Chapel, Mayfair, London. On the projection of the ‘Colonial Church Chronicle and Missionary Journal’ in 1848 he was chosen editor, and in this way acquired a knowledge of the condition of the colonial church. On 19 July 1850 he was gazetted the first bishop of the new diocese of Montreal, Canada, and consecrated in Westminster Abbey on 25 July. He landed at St. John's on 12 Sept. and was enthroned in Christ Church Cathedral, Montreal, on 15 Sept. In the following month he was actively at work, and the church society of the diocese of Montreal was organised. On 20 Jan. 1852 the primary visitation was held, when he won great respect from all parties by his declaration that the church of England in Canada, politically considered, ‘exists but as one of many religious bodies.’ Montreal was next mapped out into ecclesiastical boundaries, and each district thus divided was set apart as the conventional parish of the neighbouring church. The bishop cheerfully co-operated with all the societies that were established for benevolent, scientific, and philanthropic purposes, and wrote papers for, and delivered lectures at, mechanics' institutes and working men's clubs. On 21 May 1857 he laid the foundation-stone


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/311

 of his new cathedral, where on Advent Sunday, 1859, he preached the opening sermon. Unfortunately the great cost of this building involved the diocese in a heavy debt, the thought of which so preyed on the bishop's mind that he practised the utmost economy throughout the remaining years of his life in an endeavour to pay off the amount. On 9 July 1860 the queen caused letters patent to be issued promoting Fulford to the office of metropolitan of Canada and elevating the see of Montreal to the dignity of a metropolitical see, with the city of Montreal as the seat of that see, and on 10 Sept. in the following year the first provincial synod of the united church of England and Ireland in Canada was held at Montreal. It was chiefly on the representation of the synod of Canada that the Archbishop of Canterbury held the pan-anglican synod at Lambeth 24–27 Sept. 1867, on which occasion the Bishop of Montreal visited England and took part in the proceedings. He, however, seems on this journey to have overtaxed his strength, and never afterwards had good health. He died in the see-house, Montreal, 9 Sept. 1868, and was buried on 12 Sept., when the universal respect which his moderation had won for him was shown by the bell of the Roman catholic church being tolled as the funeral procession passed.

Fulford was the writer of the following works: 1. ‘A Sermon at the Visitation of Venerable L. Clarke, Archdeacon of Sarum,’ 1833. 2. ‘A Course of Plain Sermons on the Ministry, Doctrine, and Services of the Church of England,’ 2 vols. 1837–40. 3. ‘The Interpretation of Law and the Rule of Faith,’ an assize sermon, 1838. 4. ‘The Progress of the Reformation in England,’ 1841. 5. ‘A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese,’ 1851. 6. ‘An Address delivered in the Chapel of the General Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States,’ 1852. 7. ‘A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Montreal,’ 1852. 8. ‘The Sermon at the Consecration of H. Potter to the Episcopate,’ 1854. 9. ‘Five Occasional Lectures delivered in Montreal,’ 1859. 10. ‘Sermons, Addresses, and Statistics of the Diocese of Montreal,’ 1865. Fulford's latest publication was ‘A Pan-Anglican Synod: a Sermon,’ 1867.

[Fennings Taylor's Last Three Bishops appointed by the Crown (1870), pp. 21–130, with portrait; Boase's Exeter College, pp. 125, 216; Illustrated London News, 3 Aug. 1850, p. 101, 24 Aug. p. 168, with portrait, 29 Nov. 1862, pp. 576, 587, with portrait, 26 Sept. 1868, p. 307; Morgan's Bibliotheca Canadensis, pp. 131–2.]

FULKE, WILLIAM, D.D. (1538–1589), puritan divine, the son of Christopher Fulke, a wealthy citizen, was born in London in 1538, and is said to have been educated at St. Paul's School. As a London schoolboy he was a contemporary of Edmund Campion [q. v.], who defeated him in the competition for the silver pen offered as a prize to the city schools. He matriculated at St. John's College, Cambridge, in November 1555. He graduated B.A. in January 1557–8, and M.A. in 1563. By his father's desire he studied law at Clifford's Inn for six years, when, finding legal studies increasingly distasteful, he returned to Cambridge, and applied himself to mathematics, languages, and theology. He had already made one or two trifling essays upon astronomical subjects (see below). His father refused to help him after he relinquished the law, but his election to a foundation fellowship in 1564 placed him in comparative independence. He was thus enabled to study the text of holy scripture, having already taken up Hebrew and the other oriental languages then much neglected at Cambridge. In 1565 he was appointed principal lecturer of his college, in 1567 preacher and Hebrew lecturer, and in 1568 took his degree as B.D. Fulke on his return to Cambridge had attached himself to Thomas Cartwright (1535–1603) [q. v.], the puritan leader at Cambridge. He took a prominent part in the ‘vestiarian’ controversy, which was then distracting the university, and by his sermons and personal influence ‘beat into the heads of younger sort such a persuasion of the superstition of the surplice,’ that nearly three hundred at one time discarded it in the chapel of St. John's. The dispute led to scenes of violence, barely stopping short of bloodshed (, Annals, i. 154). The contagion spread to other colleges. Discipline was relaxed, the whole university was in an uproar. Cecil found it necessary to interpose his authority as chancellor. He caused Fulke to be cited before him ‘by special commandment’ as the chief author of the dissension, intending, he said, ‘to proceed with him himself’ (ib. p. 156). Fulke was deprived of his fellowship, and expelled the college. He remained at Cambridge, took lodgings at the Falcon Inn in the Petty Cury, and continued to give lectures there and to hold public disputations. The puritans supported their champion successfully. The decree of expulsion was speedily removed, and he was readmitted to his fellowship 21 March 1566–1567, and on the 15th of the following April was elected a senior fellow. At this period of his life Fulke fell under grave suspicion of conniving at an incestuous marriage. Owing


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/312

 to relaxation of ancient ecclesiastical authority, connections within the prohibited degrees had become painfully common, and of these, says Strype, ‘Cambridge was too guilty.’ Fulke was so strongly suspected of being concerned in one of these illegal unions that he deemed it prudent to resign his fellowship. His case was heard before Bishop Cox of Ely, as visitor of the college, by whom he was acquitted, and in 1569 was a second time restored to his fellowship (, Parker, i. 556). He so completely regained his reputation, that during the same year, on the vacancy of the headship, Dr. Longworth having left the college, then distracted by cabals, for fear of expulsion, Fulke, to the great disgust of Archbishop Parker, narrowly missed being elected master. Longworth, who offered himself for re-election, and Fulke, though of the same theological school, were the heads of the rival college factions. The feud became so hot that the Bishop of Ely expelled Longworth, a hot-headed and intemperate man, while Fulke, to escape a like fate, retired quietly (ib. i. 555–6). To console him for his disappointment, Leicester, the great favourer of the puritan party, who had supported his candidature, appointed him his chaplain, and obtained for him the livings of Warley in Essex and Dennington in Suffolk (, Fœdera, xv. 728), both of which he held till his death. By Leicester's influence also he obtained the degree of D.D. by royal mandate, 19 May 1572, being about to proceed to France with Edward Clinton, earl of Lincoln [q. v.] (, Annals, i. 354–5). In the same year he was one of the friends who prevailed upon Cartwright to return from his banishment. He accompanied Cartwright in his visits to the puritans Field and Wilcox, then in prison for the publication of their ‘Admonition to Parliament,’ and urged them to persevere in the cause. On 10 May 1578 Leicester obtained for him the mastership of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, vacant by the promotion of Dr. John Young to the see of Rochester, which he held till the end of his uneasy polemical life in 1589. He is said to have held frequent meetings with Chaderton, Whitaker, and other puritan divines at Cambridge for the study of holy scripture (, Lives, p. 169). Fulke having no private means, and being burdened with a wife and family, found the stipend of the mastership insufficient, and got it augmented at the expense of the other members of the college. He is said by Bishop Wren to have been eager to increase the number of his college at the expense of its reputation. No fewer than twenty-six fellows were elected in his mastership. He at once enlarged the buildings of the college by the erection of the University Hostel, to which he only contributed 20l., leaving the main burden to be borne by the society. He also most inconsiderately bound his college by covenant with Queens' College to maintain six scholars, although the income was barely sufficient for three. On Chaderton's resignation in 1579 he was recommended to Lord Burghley by Dr. Still for the regius professorship of divinity, which was, however, more worthily conferred on Dr. Whitaker. In 1582 he unsuccessfully urged Cecil, then Lord Burghley, to set on foot a visitation of all the colleges in the university, by royal authority, with a view to the promotion of puritanism (State Papers, Dom. 10 Oct. 1582, p. 72). In 1580 he was appointed by the Bishop of Ely to hold a conference with Dr. Watson [q. v.], the deprived bishop of Lincoln, and Abbot Feckenham [q. v.], then imprisoned as papists in the bishop's castle of Wisbech, and in September 1581 was one of the divines deputed to hold a public disputation with his old schoolboy rival Campion in the Tower of London (, Annals, ii. 361). In the same year he served the office of vice-chancellor of his university. In 1582 he was one of the body of twenty-five theologians appointed by the council to hold disputations with Romish priests and jesuits on the points of controversy between the two churches (, Whitgift, i. 198). The last ten years of his life were the period of his greatest literary activity. No year passed without the appearance of one or more books in defence of protestantism, and in confutation of the doctrines of the church of Rome. His language was unmeasured, and, even in that age, he was conspicuous for the virulence of his invectives against his opponents. His learning was, however, extensive and sound, and he was an able master of controversy. His style is clear and incisive, though deformed by the coarseness of the time. He gained high reputation among protestants by his writings against Cardinal Allen [q. v.], and other leaders of the counter-reformation in England. His defence of the English translation of the Bible against the attacks of Gregory Martin, the seminarist of Rheims, bears a high reputation for learning and ability. It has been republished by the Parker Society, as well as his ‘Discovery of the dangerous rock of the Papist Church, with the confutation of Stapleton and Martial.’ His last work was a completion of Cartwright's unfinished confutation of the Rhemish translation of the New Testament, which was published in the year of his death, 1589, with a dedication


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/313

 to Queen Elizabeth, ‘his undertaking therein being,’ according to Fuller, ‘judiciously and learnedly performed’ (, Church History, v. 79;, Whitgift, i. 484). He is described by contemporaries as ‘a pious and learned man, well skilled in history and languages, a very diligent student, industrious both in writing and printing, and “acerrimus Papamastix.”’

Fulke died 28 Aug. 1589, and was buried in the chancel of his church at Dennington, where a monument, with a laudatory epitaph, was erected to him by Dr. Thomas Wright, one of his successors. He was succeeded in his mastership by the celebrated Lancelot Andrewes [q. v.]

Fulke was twice married. By his wife Margaret he left two sons, Christopher and William, and four daughters, Mary, Hester, Elizabeth, and Ann. He bequeathed to his college a silver-gilt acorn-shaped cup, which is still in the possession of the society.

Fulke's works are: 1. ‘An Almanack and Prognostication,’ licensed by the Stationers' Company 1560. 2. ‘Antiprognosticon contra inutiles astrologorum prædictiones,’ London, 1560, 8vo. Translated into English by G. Painter, London, 1560, 12mo. 3. ‘A Goodly Gallerye, with a most pleasant prospect into the garden of naturall contemplation, to behold the naturall causes of all kynde of Meteors,’ London, 1563, 12mo. ‘Dedicated by William Fulce to Lord Robert Dudley.’ 4. ‘Οὐρανομαχία, hoc est, astrologorum ludus,’ London, 1571, 1572, 1573, 4to, an astronomical game after the manner of chess. Dedicated to William Lord Burghley, chancellor of the university. 5. ‘A Confutation of a Popishe and sclanderous Libelle,’ London, 1571, 1573, 1574, 8vo. 6. ‘A Sermon preached at Hampton Court, 12 Nov. 1570, wherein is plainly prooved Babilon to be Rome, both by Scriptures and Doctors,’ London, 1572, 1579, 16mo. 7. ‘A comfortable Sermon of Faith. Preached at St. Botulphes, wythout Aldersgate in London, the xv. of February, 1573,’ London, 1573, 12mo. 8. ‘In Sacram Divi Johannis Apocalypsim prælectiones,’ London, 1573, 4to. 9. ‘Two Treatises written against the Papistes,’ London, 1577, 8vo. 10. ‘A Sermon preached on Sondaye, being the 17th of March, anno 1577, at S. Alphage's Church within Cripplegate in London,’ London, 1577, 12mo. 11. ‘Metromachia, sive Ludus Geometricus,’ London, 4to. n.d. and 1578. 12. ‘Gulielmi Fulconis Angli ad epistolam Stanislai Hosii Varmiensis episcopi de expresso Dei verbo Responsio,’ London, 1578, 12mo. 13. ‘Ad Thomæ Stapletoni Responsio,’ London, 1579, 8vo. 14. ‘D. Heskins, D. Sanders, and M. Rastel, accounted (among their faction) three pillers, and Archpatriarches of the Popish Synagogue (utter enemies to the truth of Christes Gospel and all that syncerely profess the same), overthrowne and detected of their severell blasphemous heresies,’ London, 1579, 8vo. 15. ‘Stapletonii fortalitium expugnatum,’ London, 1580, 12mo. Translated with this title: ‘T. Stapleton and Martiall (two Popish Heretikes) confuted,’ London, 1580, 12mo. 16. ‘A Sermon at the Tower on John xvii. 17,’ London, 1580, 8vo; 1581, 16mo. 17. ‘A Godly and learned Sermon, preached before an honourable auditorie, the 26th day of Februarie, 1580’ (anon.), London, 1580, 16mo. On 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. 18. ‘Conferentia cum pontificiis in castro Wisbicensi, 4 Oct. 1580,’ London, 1580, 8vo. 19. ‘A Retentive to stay good Christians in the true faith and religion, against the motives of Rich. Bristow,’ London, 1580; reprinted, Cambridge, 1848, 8vo. 20. ‘A Rejoynder to Bristow's Replie,’ London, 1581, 8vo. 21. ‘A Sermon preached upon Sunday, being the twelfth of March, anno 1581, within the Tower of London: In the hearing of such obstinate Papistes as then were prisoners there,’ London, 1581, 12mo. 22. ‘A briefe Confutation of a Popish Discourse,’ by John Howlet (was written by Robert Persons, S.J.), London, 1581, 4to. 23. ‘Two Conferences with Edmund Campion in the Tower, 23 and 27 Sept. 1581, London, 1583, 4to. 24. ‘A Defense of the sincere and true Translations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong,’ London, 1583, 8vo; 1617, 1633, fol. 25. ‘De successione ecclesiastica, contra Thomæ Stapletoni librum,’ London, 1584, 8vo. 26. ‘A brief and plain Declaration, containing the desires of all those Ministers who seek Discipline and Reformation of the Church of England,’ 1584. This work was written by Fulke, although the name of Dudley Fenner [q. v.] appears upon the title-page. 27. Recommendatory epistle prefixed to John Stockwood's translation of Serranus's ‘Commentary upon Ecclesiastes,’ 1585. 28. ‘An Apologie of the Professors of the Gospel in Fraunce.’ 29. ‘A Confutation of a Treatise made by William Allen in defence of the usurped power of Popish Priesthood,’ Cambridge, 1586, 8vo. 30. ‘The Text of the New Testament of Jesus Christ, translated out of the vulgar Latine by the Papists of the traiterous Seminarie at Rhemes. With a Confutation of all such Arguments, Glosses, and Annotations as contein manifest impietie, of heresie, treason and slander against the Catholike Church of God,’ London, 1589, fol. Dedicated to Queen Elizabeth. 31. ‘Answer of Drs. William Fulke and John Still to certain propositions of one Shales on the authority of the Fathers,’ manuscript in State


text:
Page:Theodore Roosevelt Rough Riders.djvu/131

Rh men had from time to time responded. We had also suffered from the hill on our right front, which was held chiefly by guerillas, although there were also some Spanish regulars with them, for we found their dead. I formed my men in column of troops, each troop extended in open skirmishing order, the right resting on the wire fences which bordered the sunken lane. Captain Jenkins led the first squadron, his eyes literally dancing with joyous excitement.

I started in the rear of the regiment, the position in which the colonel should theoretically stay. Captain Mills and Captain McCormick were both with me as aides; but I speedily had to send them off on special duty in getting the different bodies of men forward. I had intended to go into action on foot as at Las Guasimas, but the heat was so oppressive that I found I should be quite unable to run up and down the line and superintend matters unless I was mounted; and, moreover, when on horseback, I could see the men better and they could see me better.

A curious incident happened as I was getting the men started forward. Always when men have been lying down under cover for some time, and are required to advance, there is a little hesitation, each looking to see whether the others are going forward. As I rode down the line, calling to the troopers to go forward; and rasping brief directions


text:
Page:Theodore Roosevelt Rough Riders.djvu/132

126 to the captains and lieutenants, I came upon a man lying behind a little bush, and I ordered him to jump up. I do not think he understood that we were making a forward move, and he looked up at me for a moment with hesitation, and I again bade him rise, jeering him and saying: "Are you afraid to stand up when I am on horseback?" As I spoke, he suddenly fell forward on his face, a bullet having struck him and gone through him lengthwise. I suppose the bullet had been aimed at me; at any rate, I, who was on horseback in the open, was unhurt, and the man lying flat on the ground in the cover beside me was killed. There were several pairs of brothers with us; of the two Nortons one was killed; of the two McCurdys one was wounded.

I soon found that I could get that line, behind which I personally was, faster forward than the one immediately in front of it, with the result that the two rearmost lines of the regiment began to crowd together; so I rode through them both, the better to move on the one in front. This happened with every line in succession, until I found myself at the head of the regiment.

Both lieutenants of B Troop from Arizona had been exerting themselves greatly, and both were overcome by the heat; but Sergeants Campbell and Davidson took it forward in splendid shape. Some of the men from this troop and from the other


text:
Page:Theodore Roosevelt Rough Riders.djvu/133

Rh troop (Bucky O'Neill'ss) joined me as a kind of fighting tail.

The Ninth Regiment was immediately in front of me, and the First on my left, and these went up Kettle Hill with my regiment. The Thirds Sixth, and Tenth went partly up Kettle Hill (following the Rough Riders and the Ninth and First), and partly between that and the block-house hill, which the infantry were assailing. General Sumner in person gave the Tenth the order to charge the hills; and it went forward at a rapid gait. The three regiments went forward more or less intermingled, advancing steadily and keeping up a heavy fire. Up Kettle Hill Sergeant George Berry, of the Tenth, bore not only his own regimental colors, but those of the Third, the color-sergeant of the Third having been shot down; he kept shouting: "Dress on the colors, boys, dress on the colors!" as he followed Captain Ayres, who was running in advance of his men, shouting and waving his hat. The Tenth Cavalry lost a greater proportion of its officers than any other regiment in the battle—eleven out of twenty-two.

By the time I had come to the head of the regiment we ran into the left wing of the Ninth Regulars, and some of the First Regulars, who were lying down; that is, the troopers were lying down, while the officers were walking to and fro. The officers