trading licence from the Archbishop, on condition of his buying from them copies of two heavy works they had printed by the Archbishop’s desire—­viz. Theophylact on St. Paul’s Epistles and the Catena of the Greek Fathers on Job.  He had actually obtained such a licence for two years, and had hopes of its renewal, when the Civil War broke out.  On that account only, and not in any disgrace, as Milton said, he had, after having been about ten years in all in London, transferred himself to Paris.[1] He had been there about six years, dealing honestly, and publishing important theological and other books, the titles of some of which he gives; but here also he had been the victim of trade jealousy.  He had found it impossible to get on in Paris, though it was utterly false that he dared not now show his face there.  He had shown his face there, since he had returned to his native Holland and made the Hague his head-quarters; and he could show his face there again without any inconvenience.  Meanwhile he was in the Hague, comfortable enough; and his character there might easily be ascertained.—­To return to Milton’s present book.  Though Ulac had reprinted it, he had done so in doubt whether, now that there was peace between the United Provinces and the Protector, such irritating books between the two nations ought not to be mutually suppressed.  His own leanings had always been rather to the English Parliamentarians than to the Royalists, and hence he had been disposed to think well of Milton.  Though he cannot think so well of him now, he will not retaliate by any abuse of Milton.  “If Milton is acknowledged in his own country to be a good man, let him be glad of it; but I hear that many Englishmen who know him are of another opinion.  I would decide nothing on mere rumour; nay, if I had ascertained anything scandalous about him with positive certainty, I should think it better to hold my tongue than to blazon it about publicly.”  How strange, however, that Milton had fallen foul of Morus at such a violent rate!  Had he not been told two years ago, through Hartlib, that Morus was not the author of the book for which he made him suffer?  It was the more inexcusable inasmuch as in the Joannis Philippi, Angli, Responsio ad Apologiam Anonymi Cujusdam—­which work Milton had superintended, if he had not written it—­there had been the same mistake of attributing a work to the wrong person.  It would be for Morus himself, however, to take cognisance of that.

[Footnote 1:  Long ago, foreseeing the interest I should have in ULAC, I made notes in the State-Paper Office of some documents appertaining to him when he was a Bookseller in London.  They do not quite correspond with Ulac’s account of his reasons for leaving London.  The documents, here arranged in what seems to be their chronological order, are as follows:—­(1) Petition of Ulac, undated, to Sir John Lambe, Dean of the Arches, that he would intercede with Laud in Ulac’s favour.  His