in

Otaheite (Artocarpus incisus), which had been brought to the garden by Captain Bligh; also an account of the growth and cultivation of the East Indian bread-fruit tree. A description was also given of the success attending the cultivation of the plants producing cloves and cinnamon in the botanic garden of St. Vincents. For this paper a silver medal was awarded him by the Society of Arts, and he was made a corresponding member. The paper was published in the sixteenth volume of the Society's Transactions. In 1802, two papers appeared the twentieth volume of the Society's Transactions by Dr. Anderson. One of the papers was on the clove plant (Caryophyllus aromaticus) as cultivated at St. Vincents. This was one of the first attempts that had been made to cultivate the clove in the West Indies. The specimens of cloves accompanying the paper were pronounced by a committee of the Society of Arts to be as good as those from the East Indies. This paper was accompanied by a drawing of the Caryophyllus aromaticus. The second paper was on the cinnamon tree, as cultivated at St. Vincents. Specimens of the cinnamon bark accompanied this paper, and although inferior to the cinnamon of the East Indies, they were considered superior to the cassia. For these papers the gold medal of the Society of Arts was awarded in 1802.

He

was a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Anderson died about the year 1813, and since his death the experimental garden at St. Vincents has been abolished. (Trans. Soc. of Arts. xvi. xx.; Phil. Trans. 1789; Callisen, Medicinisches Schriftsteller Lexicon.)

E. L.

ANDERSON, ANDREAS. [FELDBORG.] ANDERSON, SIR EDMUND, chief justice of the court of Common Pleas in the reigns of Elizabeth and James I., was the younger son of a gentlemen of Scottish descent, who had settled at first in Northumberland, and subsequently at Flixborough, a small village near Glanford Bridge in Lincolnshire. The precise date of Sir Edmund Anderson's birth is not recorded; but, as his monumental inscription states that he was upwards of seventy-four years of age at the time of his death in 1605, he was probably born about the year 1531. The particulars of his education are unknown, except that Anthony Wood says that he was a student of Lincoln College, Oxford, and that he removed from thence to the Temple, where he went through the ordinary course of education for the bar. The date of his call to the bar is also unknown; but the registers at the Inner Temple show that in 1567 he was Lent and summer reader, and in 1574 double reader. In 1577 he was called to the degree of serjeant at law, and two years afterwards was made queen's serjeant. His practice in the courts of Westminster Hall

was very extensive. Lloyd says that "his father left him a thousand pounds, which he multiplied into many by his great proficiency in the common law." (Lloyd's State Worthies, 803.) In the autumn of 1581 he was associated with Sir Christopher Wray, who was then lord chief justice, in the commissions for the Norfolk circuit. At this period, the proceedings of the sectarians called Brownists occasioned much uneasiness to the government, especially in the eastern counties; and the lord chief justice and Serjeant Anderson gained credit by the vigorous measures which they adopted for their prosecution and suppression. The Bishop Bishop of Norwich in a letter to Lord Burleigh eulogizes "Master Justice Anderson and the lord chief justice for having bridled the Brownists' factions, and dismayed their followers," and strongly recommends them to the queen's thanks "for their painful travail in that behalf." (Strype's Annals, vol. iii. part i. p. 22, 23.) Shortly after the performance of this service, Sir James Dyer, the chief justice of the Common Pleas, died, and in May, 1582, Serjeant Anderson was appointed to succeed him in that office.

He presided in the court of Common Pleas more than twenty-three years, having been continued in his office by James I. upon his accession. He died on the 1st of August, 1605, and was buried at Eyworth, in Bedfordshire, leaving large estates to several sons. Two families of baronets descended from him; and the Lords Yarborough (better known by their assumed name of Pelham) are in male descent from him. As chief justice, Sir Edmund Anderson assisted officially at most of the state trials and important judicial proceedings of the period. He was a commissioner on the trials of Mary Queen of Scots; of the several conspirators in the Babington plot in 1586; of Sir John Perrott, the lord deputy of Ireland, in 1592; and of Sir Walter Raleigh in 1603; and he attended with the other judges in the House of Lords on the trials of the Earl of Arundel in 1589, and of the Earls of Essex and Southampton in 1600; but it does not appear that on any of these occasions he took a prominent part in the proceedings. He was also one of the special commissioners appointed for the trial of Davison on the charge of expediting, without authority, the instrument for the execution of the Queen of Scots; and some of his biographers have censured the opinion imputed to him on that occasion, in saying that Davison had done "justum sed non juste." But by the report of the case in the "State Trials," this expression is ascribed to the chief baron, Sir Roger Manwood, and not to Sir Edmund Anderson.

In his judicial conduct Anderson appears to have been in general moderate and correct. He has been accused, indeed, of intemperance and unseemly violence in the proceedings sectarians of those days. In particular, a letter written in 1596 describes him as “ using many oaths and reproachful revilings on the bench" respecting the Brownists; and the same authority states, that on occasion of the trial of a clergyman at the assizes for omitting to read some of the prayers in the liturgy, " Lord Anderson, standing up, bent himself towards him with a strange fierceness of countenance, called him 'knave' oftentimes, and rebellious knave,' with manifold reproaches besides." (Strype's Annals, vol. iv. p. 367.) Much of this, however, may be imputed to the exaggeration of the writer, who was obviously an angry partizan; and in the numerous trials on state prosecutions in which Anderson was a judge, his language and demeanour were unexceptionable.

In general it may be remarked, that the conduct of the judges in the reign of Elizabeth displayed far more dignity and respectability than characterised their successors under the Stuarts. An instance of resistance by Anderson and the other judges of his court to the encroachment of the crown displays judicial independence of so high a character as to deserve particular notice. In the year 1587, Elizabeth was prevailed upon to grant to a follower of the Earl of Leicester the office of making certain writs in the court of Common Pleas, together with the fees derived from this service, which had always belonged to the prothonotaries and clerks of the court by virtue of their offices; and the queen ordered the judges of the court to admit her grantee accordingly. As the effect of this admission would have been to deprive the ancient officers of the profits of their freehold offices, the judges did not comply. Upon this, a letter under the sign manual was delivered to them, enjoining them forthwith to sequester the profits of the office until the right to appoint could be properly decided. The judges considered that a sequestration of the profits would constitute a wrongful disseisin of the persons who claimed those profits as arising from their freehold. They, therefore, refused the sequestration. The consequence was a second letter under the sign manual, peremptorily requiring them on the first day of the ensuing term, to admit the queen's grantee to the use and profits of the office; and this letter was delivered to the judges in the presence of the lord chancellor and the Earl of Leicester, who were commanded by the queen to receive the answer. The judges, after a short consultation, replied that "they were desirous in all lawful points dutifully and humbly to obey her majesty, but that in this respect they could not do so without a violation of their oaths, which they were well assured that the queen would not command or require." Upon this refusal, the queen directed the lord chancellor, the chief

of the Rolls to hear fully the reasons of the judges of the court of Common Pleas, and commanded her learned counsel to argue the point in support of her prerogative. But Anderson and his companions, after hearing the argument, adhered to their determination, saying, "that they had no interest in the profits in question, which did not belong to the judges, but to the clerks and prothonotaries of the court; and that if the latter were not by law entitled to them, they might by law be deprived of them. They avowed that they had not obeyed the queen's letters, not queen's out of offence or disrespect to her majesty, but because the commands therein contained were against the law of the land," as they showed by several precedents. The chancellor reported the reasons of the judges to the queen, with his own approbation of them, " which her majesty, as I have heard (says Anderson, who relates the occurrence in his “ Reports,” vol. i. p. 152.), took in good part, and nothing more was done, or at least heard of by the judges in the matter, either in that or the following term, which moved them to think that nothing more would come of it." If the position of the judges at this period is considered, as well as the temper of the queen, whose personal interest and feelings were thus directly opposed, this instance of judicial firmness will perhaps bear a comparison with subsequent examples of the same virtue, which, being better known, have been the subject of exalted eulogy.

Chief Justice Anderson was a profound and industrious lawyer; and it is evident from the reports of proceedings in the court of Common Pleas in his time, that he was assiduous in his attendance and singularly ready in the application of his great learning to the legal questions which were moved before him. Serjeant Fleetwood says, that “he dispatched more orders, and answered more difficult cases in one forenoon, than were dispatched in a whole week in his predecessor's time." (Strype's Annals, vol. iii. part i. p. 198.) Lloyd, however, who was nearly his contemporary, says " He was a pure legist, that had little skill in the affairs of the world, always alleging a decisive case or statute on any matter or question, without that account of a moderate interpretation some circumstances of things require, being so much the less useful as he was incompliant." (State Worthies, p. 803.)

His "Reports," which were first published in 1664, consist of notes of cases which occurred in different courts, taken for his own use when in practice at the bar, and after he became a judge. They have always been considered as good authority in Westminster Hall, especially that portion of them which comprehends cases which came under his judicial consideration, and which are more circumstantial and instructive than those of are called "Gouldsborough's Reports" has been ascribed to Sir Edmund Anderson by many of his biographers, for no other apparent reason than that they chiefly consist of his decisions. They were in truth compiled by the person whose name they bear, and who was one of the prothonotaries of the court of Common Pleas at the period during which Anderson presided in that court. (Biographia Britannica; Wood, Athena Oxonienses; Lloyd, State Worthies; Granger, Biographical History; English Baronetage, vol. iii. part ii. p. 428., part i. p. 191.)

D. J.

ANDERSON, GEORGE. [ANDERSEN.] ANDERSON, JAMES, was born on the 5th of August, 1662. His father, the Rev. Patrick Anderson, was one of the non-juring clergymen who were persecuted during the reign of Charles II. and had been imprisoned in the state prison on the Bass Rock. Jamés Anderson studied at the University of Edinburgh, where he took the degree of M.A. on the 27th of May, 1680. He chose the profession of a writer to the signet; and after an apprenticeship under Sir Hugh Paterson, was admitted a member of that society (a body of practising attorneys holding some peculiar privileges), on the 6th of June, 1691. He appears from his correspondence to have become intimate, at an early period, with Captain John Slezer, the author of the "Theatrum Scotiæ," whose antiquarian pursuits and disappointments so much resembled his own. Anderson first appeared as an author in 1705. William Atwood, ex-chief justice of New York, had written a book called "The Superiority and direct Dominion of the imperial Crown and Kingdom of England over the Crown and Kingdom of Scotland," in which he referred to Anderson as a voucher for the authenticity of certain charters on which he founded his argument. The charters in question are those well-known documents supposed to have been forged by Harding the chronicler, of which no one now supports the authenticity. Atwood's book created intense excitement in Scotland, and, unfortunately for him, he had referred to the authority of the very man who was most capable of refuting him. Anderson published his " Historical Essay, showing that the Crown and Kingdom of Scotland is imperial and independent." It is a clear and learned, and was at the time a conclusive criticism on the forged charters. So much light has been lately thrown upon the whole subject of the early connection between England and Scotland by Sir Francis Palgrave, that little valuable instruction can be now obtained from Anderson's book, but it had the merit of clearing history of some falsehoods. It is a remarkable illustration of the influence of national prejudice, that he who was so acute in discovering forgeries against his country,

inserted in his great collection of charters mentioned below. His own nation received Anderson's work with great enthusiasm. The Scottish Parliament voted him thanks and a sum of money, and Atwood's book was publicly burnt by the hangman. The assurances of support which he received on this occasion tempted him to give up his profession, and commence his great undertaking - a collection of fac-similes of Scottish charters and other muniments. It appears that before the union he had received a grant of three hundred pounds. In the last parliament held at Edinburgh his claims were brought forward by a committee, who reported on the 12th February, 1707, that they " do presume to give it as their humble opinion, that the said Mr. James Anderson has made as great advance in the said matter as the time and difficulty in the performance could permit, and that his learned industry in a matter so useful, undertaken on the recommendation of parliament, deserves farther encouragement to enable him to support the charge, and carry on the design uniformly, and with that beauty of execution which will be expected in a work begun by so great authority."

It was found that besides the three hundred pounds voted to him he had spent five hundred and ninety pounds in his project. The parliament recommended to the queen the repayment of this sum and the advance of a thousand guineas to Anderson; and "in consideration of his good services to his country, and of the loss he suffers by the interruption of his employment in prosecuting the said work, do further recommend him to her majesty as a person meriting her gracious favour in conferring any office of trust upon him." It was a favourite practice of the Scottish parliament to vote sums of money to public benefactors, leaving them to collect the money as they best could. This was the principle on which the unfortunate Slezer had been dealt with. In Anderson's case there was not even a vote, for the Scottish parliament had met only to cease for ever, and he merely obtained a recommendation to a body on which his peculiar claims were likely to have little influence - the parliament of Great Britain.

Soon after the union, Anderson removed to London, where for many years his time was divided between the labours of completing his project, and a series of unsuccessful efforts to get his claims attended to by government. His MS. correspondence of that period, which the writer of this notice has at present before him, exhibits a sad series of fruitless exertions, hollow promises, and hopes over and over again excited to be as often destroyed. In Lockhart's "Memoirs" (i. 371.), the following curious illustration is given of the disappointments he disappoint was subject to: "This gentleman, by his application to the subject of antiquities, having neglected his other affairs, and having in search after antient records come to London, allmost all the Scots nobility and gentry of note recommended him as a person that highlie deserved to have some beneficiall post bestowed upon him; nay, the queen herself (to whom he had been introduced, and who took great pleasure in viewing the fine sealls and charters of the antient records he had collected) told my Lord Oxford she desired something might be done for him; to all which his lordship's usuall answer was, that ther was no need of pressing him to take care of that gentleman, for he was thee man he designed, out of regard to his great knowledge, to distinguish in a particular manner. Mr. Anderson being thus put off from time to time for fourteen or fifteen months, his lordship at length told him that no doubt he had heard that in his fine library he had a collection of the pictures of the learned both antient and modern, and as he knew none who better deserved a place there than Mr. Anderson, he desired the favour of his picture. As Mr. Anderson took this for a high mark of the treasurer's esteem and a sure presage of his future favours, away he went and got his picture drawn by one of the best hands in London, which being presented was graciously received (and perhaps got its place in the library), but nothing ever more appeared of his lordship's favour to this gentleman, who having thus hung on and depended for a long time, at length gave himself no furder trouble in trusting to or expecting any favour from him; from whence when any one was asked what place such or such a person was to get, the common reply was, a place in the treasurer's library."

In Anderson's correspondence there is a letter of the 5th of February, 1709, in which his wife, in great alarm from a report that he had been attacked by robbers, says, "I begg of you for the Lord's sake, if you would satisfie your poor afflicted and grieved wife, to let me know the true matter, and if you have got any wounds, for it is taked here that you and Mr. Sample should be killed, and the rest drouned." This woman, who seems to have been illiterate and ill-tempered, was apparently a second wife left with the charge of the children of a previous marriage, of whom she makes a very bad report in her letters to their father.

In 1715 Anderson received the appointment of postmaster-general for Scotland, but he only retained it for a year and a half. It appears however, from a memorandum in his handwriting, that he continued to draw the salary of that office (two hundred pounds a year) in the form of a pension. In that memorandum, dated 1723, he states that of his outlay before the union, 140l. was still uncompensated; and, crediting the govern

ment with 1500l. (2001. a year for seven years and a half), he states the balance due to him at 42021. He had in the meantime made an attempt, through his friend and correspondent Sir Richard Steele, to relieve his embarrassments by selling his library to George II., but the negotiation failed. Meanwhile, to the utmost of his available funds and credit, he proceeded with the execution of his plates. His work was in magnificence and costliness far beyond what the gentry of Scotland could in that day afford to patronise, while to Englishmen it offered few inducements. Among Anderson's papers, there has been found a prospectus, on which he attempted to obtain subscribers for his book, at two guineas a copy; a desperate alternative, apparently to save him from ruin, as it is impossible that the work could have been published for double that sum. When it appeared, copies were sold at from ten to fifteen guineas. While the great object of his life thus remained uncompleted, he was enabled to publish " Collections relating to the History of Mary Queen of Scotland,” 4 vols. 4to. 1724-1728; a collection of documents well known to those who study the history of the period. The best testimonial to the honesty of this work is to be found in the attacks of Chalmers, who, taking up an opposite opinion on the question of Queen Mary's conduct, makes general charges of dishonesty against Anderson, but does not fortify them by specific instances. Anderson died in 1728. In the note-book of Wodrow the historian there is the following notice of his death :-" Worthy and learned Mr. James Anderson, of whom, last month, I hear died at London, April 3. last. If I do not forget, he was very well the day before, and had been out that evening walking in St. James's Park, and came in very well at eleven of the clock. He took a kind of fainting, and went to bed, and died before two of the clock in the morning. It's well his collections are finished, just three or four days before his death." Не had been compelled to pledge the plates of his "Diplomata," and in 1729 they were sold by auction for five hundred and thirty pounds. They were afterwards put into the hands of Ruddiman, by whom the long-contemplated work was published in 1739, with the title "Selectus Diplomatum et Numismatum Scotiæ Thesaurus, in duas Partes distributus: Prior Syllogen complectitur veterum Diplomatum sive Chartarum Regum et Procerum Scotiæ, una cum eorum Sigillis, a Duncano II. ad Jacobum I., id est, ab anno 1094 ad 1412. Adjuncta sunt reliquorum Scotiæ et Magnæ Britanniæ Regum Sigilla, a prædicto Jacobo I. ad nuperam duorum Regnorum in unum, anno 1707, Coalitionem; item Characteres et Abbreviaturæ in antiquis Codicibus MSS. Instrumentisque usitatæ. Posterior continet Numismata tam aurea quam argentea singulorum Scotiæ Regum, ab Alexandro I.