# The Lives of the Poets of Great Britain and Ireland/Volume 4/Sir Roger L’Estrange

Sir Roger L’Estrange.
This gentleman was ſecond ſon of Sir Hammon L’Eſtrange of Hunſton in Norfolk, knt. and was born anno 1617. In the year 1644 Sir Roger having obtained a commiſſion from King Charles I. for reducing Lynne in Norfolk, then in poſſeſſion of the Parliament, his deſign was diſcovered to colonel Walton the governour, and his perſon ſeized. Upon the failing of this enterprize he was tried by a court-martial at Guildhall, London, and condemned to loſe his life as a ſpy, coming from the King’s quarters without drum, trumpet, or paſs; but was afterwards reprieved, and continued in Newgate ſeveral years. Sir Roger in a work of his, called Truth and Loyalty Vindicated, has informed us, that, when he received ſentence of death, which was pronounced againſt him by Dr. Mills, then judge advocate, and afterwards chancellor to the biſhop of Norwich, he was caſt into Newgate, where he was viſited by Mr. Thorowgood and Mr. Arrowſmith, two members of the aſſembly of divines, who kindly offered him their utmoſt intereſt if he would make ſome petitionary acknowledgment, and ſubmit to take the covenant, which he refuſed. But ​that he might obtain a reprieve, he wrote ſeveral letters to the earl of Northumberland, the earl of Stamford, and others of the nobility, from whom he received favours. In the Houſe of Commons he was particularly obliged to Sir John Corbet, and Sir Henry Cholmondley. He was reprieved in order to a further hearing; but after almoſt thirty months ſpent in vain endeavours, either to come to a hearing, or to put himſelf into an exchangeable condition, he printed a ſtate of his caſe, as an Appeal from the Court-martial to the Parliament, dated at Newgate in 1647.
After almoſt four years impriſonment, with his keeper’s privity, he ſlipt into Kent, and then with much difficuity got beyond ſea. About the latter end of Auguſt 1653, upon the diſſolution of the Long Parliament, by Cromwel, he returned into England, and preſently acquainted the council, then ſitting at Whitehall, that finding himſelf within the Act of Indemnity, he thought it his duty to give them notice of his return. Soon after this he was ſerved with the following order,
Wedneſday September 7, 1655.
Ordered,
That Roger L’Eſtrange be ſent unto, to attend the committee of this council for examination.
John Thurloe, Secretary.
This order laid him under a neceſſity of attending for his diſcharge, but perceiving his buſineſs to advance very ſlowly, and his father at that time lying upon his death-bed, he was ſollicitous to have his diſcharge as much haſtened as poſſible, that he might pay his duty to his father, whom he had not ſeen for many years before. Mr. Strickland was one of the commiſſioners appointed to ​examine him, and the perſon from whom, in the judgment of his friends, he was to expect the leaſt favour. Mr. L’Eſtrange therefore to render him more propitious to his purpoſe, paid him the compliment of a viſit, telling him frankly that he was returned upon the invitation of the Act of Indemnity; and laying before him how much it concerned him, both in comfort and intereſt, to ſee his dying father. Mr. Strickland, in place of complying with Mr. L’Eſtrange’s propoſition, anſwered, that he would find himſelf miſtaken, and that his caſe was not included in that Act. Mr. L’Eſtrange’s reply to him was, ‘that he might have been ſafe among the Turks upon the ſame terms;’ and ſo he left him. From that time matters beginning to look worſe and worſe, he conſidered it, as his laſt expedient, to addreſs Cromwel himſelf. After ſeveral diſappointments, for want of opportunity, he ſpoke to him at laſt in the Cock-pit, and the ſum of his deſire was, either a ſpeedy examination, or that it might be deferred ’till he had ſeen his father. Cromwel remonſtrated againſt the reſtleſſneſs of his party, obſerved, ‘that rigour was not his inclination, but that he was but one man, and could do little by himſelf; and that Mr. L’Eſtrange’s party would do well to give ſome better teſtimony of their quiet, and peaceable intentions.’ Mr. L’Eſtrange told him, ‘that every man was to anſwer for his own actions, at his own peril;’ and ſo Cromwel took his leave. Some time after this Mr. L’Eſtrange was called, and Mr. Strickland, with another gentleman, were his examiners; but the latter preſſed nothing againſt him, Mr. Strickland indeed inſiſted upon his condemnation, and would have deprived him of the benefit of the Act of Indemnity, telling him at laſt, ‘that he had given no evidence of the change of his mind, and conſequently was not to be truſted.’ Mr. L’Eſtrange’s final anſwer was to this effect, ‘that ​it was his intereſt to change his opinion, if he could, and that whenever he found reaſon ſo to do, he would obey the ſenſe of his own mind.’ Some few days after this he was diſcharged. ‘During the dependency of this affair (ſays Mr. L’Eſtrange) I might well be ſeen at Whitehall, but that I ſpake to Cromwel on any other buſineſs than this, that I either ſought, or pretended to, any privacy with him, or that I ever ſpake to him after this time, I abſolutely diſown. Concerning the ſtory of the fiddle, this I ſuppoſe might be the riſe of it: being in St. James’s Park, I heard an organ touched in a little low room of one Mr. Henckſon’s; I went in, and found a private company of ſome five or ſix perſons. They deſired me to take up a Viol, and bear a part. I did ſo, and that part too, not much advance to the reputation of my cunning. By and by, without the leaſt colour of deſign, or expectation, in comes Cromwel. He found us playing, and, as I remember, ſo he left us.—As to bribing of his attendants, I diſclaim it. I never ſpake to Thurloe, but once in my life, and that was about my diſcharge. Nor did I ever give bribe, little or great, in the family.’
The above declaration Sir Roger was obliged to make, as ſome of his enemies wanted to turn thoſe circumſtances of favour he received from the Oliverian government to his diſadvantage, and prevent his riſing in court diſtinction.
Sir Roger having little paternal fortune, and being a man rather profuſe than oeconomical, he had recourſe to writing for bread. After the reſtoration he ſet up a news-paper, which was continued ’till the Gazette was firſt ſet on foot by Sir Joſeph Williamſon, under ſecretary of ſtate, ​for which, however, the government allowed Mr. L’Eſtrange a conſideration. Mr. Wood informs us, that our author publiſhed his paper twice every week in 4to. under the tide of The Public Intelligence and News; the firſt of which came out Auguſt the 31ſt, 1663, and the other September the 3d, the ſame year. ‘Theſe continued till the 9th of January 1665, at which time Mr. L’Eſtrange deſiſted, becauſe in the November before, there were other News-Papers publiſhed twice every week, in half a ſheet in folio. Theſe were called The Oxford Gazettes, and commenced the 7th of November, 1665, the king and queen, with their courts being then at Oxford. Theſe for a little while were written by one Henry Muddeman; but when the court removed to London, they were called the London Gazette. Soon after Mr. Joſeph Williamſon, under ſecretary of State, procured the writing of them for himſelf; and thereupon employed Charles Perrot, M. A. and fellow of Oriel College in Oxford, who had a good command of his pen, to do that office under him, and ſo he did, though not conſtantly, till about 1671; after which time they were conſtantly written by under ſecretaries, belonging to thoſe that are principal, and do continue ſo to this day.’
Soon after the popiſh plot, when the Tones began to gain the aſcendant over the Whigs, Mr. L’Eſtrange became a zealous promoter of the Tory intereſt. He ſet up a paper called the Obſervator, in which he defended the court, and endeavoured to invalidate thoſe evidences which were given by Oates’s party againſt the Jeſuits. He likewiſe wrote a pamphlet, in which he attempts to prove, that Sir Edmundbury Godfrey’s murther, for which ſo many ſuffered, and ſo great a flame was raiſed in the nation, was really perpetrated by himself. He attempts to ſhew that Sir Edmundbury was a melancholy ​enthuſiaſtic man; that he was weak in his underſtanding, and abſurd in his conduct. The activity he diſcovered in Oates’s plot, had raiſed him to ſuch reputation, that he was unable to bear it, and therefore the natural enthuſiaſm of his temper prompted him to make himſelf a ſacrifice, from a view of advancing the Proteſtant cauſe, as he knew his murther would be charged upon the Papiſts.
Mr. L’Eſtrange’s reaſoning, being only conjectural, and very improbable, is therefore far from concluſive: It is certain that there never was a more intricate affair than this. We have read the trials of all thoſe who ſuffered for this murther, chiefly upon the evidence of one Prance, and one Bedloe, who pretended to have been accomplices; but their relation is ſo inconſiſtent; their characters ſo very infamous, and their reward for being evidences ſuppoſed to be ſo conſiderable, that the moſt candid enquirer after truth, can determine nothing poſitively concerning it. All who ſuffered for the popiſh plot, denied their knowledge of it; the four men who were executed, as being the perpetrators perſiſted to the laſt in proteſting their innocence of it. After all, the murther of Sir Edmundbury Godfrey is perhaps one of thoſe ſecrets, which will ever remain ſo, till the hearts of all men are laid open.
The ſervices, which Mr. L’Eſtrange rendered the court, procured him the honour of knighthood; and he ſerved as a member for Wincheſter, in the parliament called by king James the IId. 1685. But things taking quite a different turn in that prince’s reign, in point of liberty of conſcience, to what moſt people expected, our author’s Obſervators were dropt, as not being ſuitable to the times. However he continued licenſer of the preſs ’till the acceſſion of the prince of Orange to the throne; in whoſe reign, on account of his Tory principles, and his attachment to his late maſter, he met with ſome troubles. He was ſuffered however to deſcend ​to the grave in peace, though he had in a manner ſurvived his underſtanding. He died December 12, 1705, in the 88th year of his age.
Beſides his Obſervators, which make three volumes in folio, he publiſhed a great number of poetical and other works. Winſtanley, in his Lives of the Poets, ſays, ‘That thoſe who ſhall conſider the number and greatneſs of his books, will admire he ſhould ever write ſo many; and thoſe who have read them, conſidering the ſkill and method they are written in, will admire he ſhould write ſo well. Nor is he leſs happy in verſe than proſe, which for elegance of language, and quickneſs of invention, deſervedly entitles him to the honour of a poet.’
The following are the titles of ſome of his works, viz. Collections in Defence of the King. Toleration Diſcuſſed. Relapſed Apoſtate. Apology for Proteſtants. Richard againſt Baxter. Tyranny and Popery. Growth and Knavery. Reformed Catholic. Free-born Subjects. The Caſe Put. Seaſonable Memorials. Anſwer to the Appeal. L’Eſtrange no Papiſt; in anſwer to a Libel, intitled L’Eſtrange a Papiſt, &c. with Notes and Animadverſions upon Miles Prance, Silver-Smith, cum multis aliis. The Shammer Shamm’d. Account Cleared. Reformation Reformed. Diſſenters Sayings, in two Parts. Notes on Colledge, the Proteſtant Joiner. Citizen and Bumpkin, in two Parts. Further Diſcovery in the Plot. Diſcovery on Diſcovery. Narrative of the Plot. Zekiel and Ephraim. Appeal to the King and Parliament. Papiſt in Maſquerade. Anſwer to the ſecond Character of a Popiſh Succeſſor. Conſiderations upon a Printed Sheet intitled, The Speech of Lord Ruſſel to the Sheriffs: Together with the Paper delivered by him to them at the place of execution, on July 1683.
​Theſe pieces with many more, were printed in quarto; beſides which he wrote the following, viz. The Hiſtory of the Plot in Folio. Caveat to the Cavaliers. He tranſlated into Engliſh Cicero’s Offices; Seneca’s Morals, Eraſmus’s Colloquies; Quevedo’s Viſions; Bona’s Guide to Eternity; Five Love Letters from a Nun to a Cavalier; Joſephus’s Works; Æſop’s Fables.
Mr. Gordon, author of the Independent Whig, and tranſlator of Tacitus, has very freely cenſured L’Eſtrange. He beſtows very freely upon him the epithet of a buffoon, an ignorant droll, &c.——He charges him with having no knowledge of the Latin tongue; and ſays, he is unfit to be read by any perſon of taſte. That his ſlile is full of technical terms, and of phraſes picked up in the ſtreets, from apprentices and porters.
Sir Roger L’Eſtrange tranſlated the third Rook of Tacitus, an author of whom Mr. Gordon made an entire tranſlation. To raiſe the reputation of his own performance, he has abuſed that of L’Eſtrange, in terms very unfit for a gentleman to uſe, ſuppoſing the cenſure had been true. Sir Roger’s works indeed are often calculated for the meaneſt capacities, and the phraſe is conſequently low; but a man muſt be greatly under the influence of prejudice, who can diſcover no genius in his writings; nor an intimate acquaintance with the ſtate of parties, human life, and manners.
Sir Roger was but ill-rewarded by the Tories, for having been their champion; the latter part of his life was clouded with poverty, and though he deſcended in peace to the grave, free from political turmoils, yet as he was bowed down with age and diſtreſs, he cannot be ſaid to have died in comfort. ​He had ſeen much of the world, examined many characters, experienced the viciſſitudes of fortune, and was as well inſtructed as any man that ever lived, in the important leſſon of human life, viz. That all things are vanity.
* ↑ See Gen. Dict. Art. L’Eſtrange.
* ↑ Truth and Loyalty, ubi ſupra.
* ↑ Sir Roger L’Eſtrange was called, by way of deriſion, Cromwell’s Fidler.
* ↑ General Dictionary.