1922 SEVENTEENTH EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 259 George Brereton, M.A., canon of St. Davids, 1672, second son of William, Baron Brereton. Henry Compton, D.D. (1632-1713), bishop of London, sixth son of Spencer, second earl of Northampton. Nathaniel Crewe, D.D. (1633-1721), bishop of Durham, second Baron Crewe of Stene. Samuel Crewe, M.A. (d. 1661), brother of Nathaniel. Henry Fairfax, D.D., canon of York, rector of Bolton Percy (d. 1665), fourth son of Thomas, first Baron Fairfax. John Feilding, D.D., canon of Sarum, chaplain to William III (d. 1698), son of George, first earl of Desmond. Richard Fiennes, rector of Oakley, grandson of William, first Viscount Saye and Sele, and father of Richard, sixth viscount. Leopold Finch, D.D. (1663-1702), warden of All Souls College, son of Heneage, second earl of Winchilsea. William Graham, D.D. (1656-1713) dean of Carlisle 1686, and Wells 1704, brother of Viscount Preston. Denis Grenville, D.D. (1637-1703), dean of Durham, son of Sir Bevil Grenville. Anthony Grey, D.D., rector of Aston Flamville, succeeded as earl of Kent, 1639. James Montagu, D.D. (1568-1618), bishop of Winchester, brother of Edward, Baron Montagu of Boughton. John North, D.D. (1645-83), master of Trinity College and professor of Greek at Cambridge, prebendary of Westminster, fifth son of Dudley, fourth Baron North. 1 The lists of incumbents and the matriculation registers of colleges and universities clearly show that men of gentle if not of noble birth continued to seek ordination. Nor was Macaulay right in drawing a sharp line between the clergy of the early sixteenth century and those of the period after the Reformation. The striking instances of display in the earlier period belonged to an age when great position demanded a proportionate magnifi- cence. The lower clergy even then were drawn from plebeian homes, some of them coming of villein parentage ; and while influential ecclesiastics were frequently of noble, and sometimes even of royal descent, many, like Wolsey himself, were raised by their abilities from a humble origin. In the later period there is a manifest distinction between the more lucrative and the poorer country cures. The former were held by persons of some eminence, and their rank or com- parative wealth commended them to the upper strata of society, to which, in many cases, they already belonged ; while the small rustic cures could not provide a good living, and, if held by men of position, were regarded as a subsidiary source of income, the duties being discharged by a curate of little note and 1 See also Churchill Babington, Mr. Macavlay's Character of the Clergy, 1849. S2
