confined to natural history, but extended to local and general history, antiquities, the arts, and all kinds of useful knowledge. Ray’s first botanical tour occupied nearly six weeks, from August 9th to September 18th, 1658. On the 23rd of December, 1660, he was ordained both deacon and priest at the same time by Dr. Sanderson, then Bishop of Lincoln. In 1661 he travelled with Mr. Willughby into Scotland, returning by Cumberland and Westmoreland; and the following year, with the same companion, he accomplished a more particular investigation of Wales. How critically he studied the botany of the countries he visited, is evident from the different editions of his works called “A Catalogue of British Plants,” and “A Methodical Synopsis of British Wild Plants.” In fact, Ray felt the necessity of being able to recognize plants by their accurate descriptions, and saw that classification was the alphabet of the science. All this time Mr. Ray continued to enjoy his fellowship and to cultivate his Cambridge connections; but in September, 1662, his tranquillity was disturbed by the too famous Bartholomew Act, by which two thousand conscientious divines were turned out of their livings, and many fellows of colleges deprived of their maintenance and means of literary improvement. Among the latter was the subject of our memoir, with thirteen honest men at Cambridge besides, of whose names he has left us a list. One of them, Dr. Dillingham, was master of Emanuel College; but Ray was the only person of his own college who suffered this deprivation. One of Ray’s biographers writes:—“The reader must not suppose that he, or perhaps any other person in this illustrious catalogue, was in the least degree deficient in attachment to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England, or that they had taken the oath, called the Solemn League and Covenant, which Ray certainly had neither taken nor even approved. They were required to swear to the infamous proposition that the said oath was not binding to those who had taken it, and on this ground they conscientiously gave up their preferment.” It is curious to read the apology made for Ray, to Dr. Derham on this subject, by a Mr. Brokesby, “that he was at that time absent from his college, where he might have met with satisfaction to his scruples, and was among some zealous nonconformists who too much influenced him by the addition of new scruples. And we may also ascribe somewhat to the prejudice of education in unhappy times.” By this it appears that the “scruples” of nonconformists were most favourable to the sanctity of an oath, and that the “unhappy times” alluded to were more advantageous to principle than the golden days of Charles II., whose ministers doubtless valued the obedience far more than the honesty of any man; nor was this taste by any means peculiar to them or their profligate master.