Nathaniel Crew, Bishop of Durham, fifth son of the first Lord who bore that name, succeeded upon the death of his last surviving brother to the family estate and the title, and therefore was entitled to a seat in Parliament both as Prelate and Baron. Committed to the worst policy of James, and for a time excepted from pardon by William, he narrowly secured his See by taking the oath of allegiance at the last moment, and was scarcely admitted to Court during the reign of the last-named Monarch. Handsome features, imposing presence, winning manners, and princely munificence--although commending him to the affection of friends and the gratitude of dependants--could not redeem his character from the consequences incurred by his political conduct, or render him either a strong or an ornamental pillar of the English Church. [Sidenote: BISHOPS.] I pass over Bishops altogether obscure,[393] to notice one who attained an unenviable notoriety. This was Thomas Watson, Bishop of St. David’s, who experienced the singular fate of being proceeded against in the Court of Arches, when he received a sentence of deprivation. He was convicted of applying to his own use offerings given at ordinations; receiving what had been bestowed on servants as gratuities; not administering oaths required by law; ordaining at other times than the Sundays next Ember weeks; conferring orders on a candidate below the canonical age; exacting illegal fees; and demanding excessive procurations. There must have been at the bottom of these proceedings much more than appears on the surface. He is reported to have been coarse and violent in his language and conduct, and to have thereby exposed himself to popular odium; but these were not the things for which he was tried, nor was he formally accused of Popish opinions, though, in public estimation, he stood suspected of Romanist sympathies. He had been made a Bishop by James II., whose policy he approved, and this circumstance seems to have had much to do with the issue of his trial. He appealed to the House of Lords against the sentence of the spiritual court, but the sentence was confirmed. The case made much noise at the time, and excited a good deal of controversy. In a _Review_[394] of it published by a friendly hand, the charges brought against him are pronounced to be false, the veracity of the witnesses is impugned, and the whole process is described as a conspiracy carried on by “subordination,” and inspired by “political motives and inducements of pique and revenge.” The writer intends to suggest the animus of Watson’s prosecutors, by stating that he was asked what Papists and Nonjurors came to his house, and whether he had not drunk the health of King James; and I also find one deponent declaring that, in the oath of allegiance administered by the Bishop at an ordination, neither William nor Mary were mentioned by name. I cannot but think that political feeling prompted the prosecution;