so favourable an interpretation.  His systematic and successful attention to his own interest—­his dexterity in keeping on ’the windy side of the law’—­his perfect political pliability—­and his presence of mind and fertility of resources when entangled in difficulties—­indicate an accomplished impostor, not a crazy enthusiast.  It is very possible and probable, that, at the outset of his career, he was a real believer in the truth and lawfulness of his art, and that he afterwards felt no inclination to part with so pleasant and so profitable a delusion:  like his patron, Cromwell, whose early fanaticism subsided into hypocrisy, he carefully retained his folly as a cloak for his knavery.  Of his success in deception, the present narrative exhibits abundant proofs.  The number of his dupes was not confined to the vulgar and illiterate, but included individuals of real worth and learning, of hostile parties and sects, who courted his acquaintance and respected his predictions.  His proceedings were deemed of sufficient importance to be twice made the subject of a parliamentary inquiry; and even after the Restoration—­when a little more scepticism, if not more wisdom, might have been expected—­we find him examined by a Committee of the House of Commons, respecting his fore-knowledge of the great fire of London.  We know not whether it ‘should more move our anger or our mirth,’ to see an assemblage of British Senators—­the cotemporaries of Hampden and Falkland—­of Milton and Clarendon—­in an age which roused into action so many and such mighty energies—­gravely engaged in ascertaining the causes of a great national calamity, from the prescience of a knavish fortuneteller, and puzzling their wisdoms to interpret the symbolical flames, which blazed in the mis-shapen wood-cuts of his oracular publications.

“As a set-off against these honours may be mentioned, the virulent and unceasing attacks of almost all the party scribblers of the day; but their abuse he shared in common with men, whose talents and virtues have outlived the malice of their cotemporaries, and

      ’Whose honours with increase of ages grow,
       As streams roll down, enlarging as they flow.’”

    Retrospective Review, Vol. ii. p. 51.]

The town of Diseworth did formerly belong long unto the Lord Seagrave, for there is one record in the hands of my cousin Melborn Williamson, which mentions one acre of land abutting north upon the gates of the Lord Seagrave; and there is one close, called Hall-close, wherein the ruins of some ancient buildings appear, and particularly where the dove-house stood; and there is also the ruins of decayed fish-ponds and other outhouses.  This town came at length to be the inheritance of Margaret, Countess of Richmond, mother of Henry VII. which Margaret gave this town and lordship of Diseworth unto Christ’s College in Cambridge, the Master and Fellows whereof have ever since, and at present, enjoy and possess it.