as 4th marquess, served with
distinction in the royal navy, and was M.P. for Bury St Edmunds from 1906
to 1907.

See John, Lord Hervey, _Memoirs of the Reign of George II_., edited by J.W.
Croker (London, 1884); John Hervey, 1st earl of Bristol, _Diary_ (Wells,
1894); and _Letter Books of Bristol; with Sir T. Hervey's Letters during
Courtship and Poems during Widowhood_ (Wells, 1894). Also the articles in
the _Dictionary of National Biography_, vol. xxvi. (London, 1891).

BRISTOL, GEORGE DIGBY, 2ND EARL OF[1] (1612-1677), eldest son of the 1st
earl (see below), was born in October 1612. At the age of twelve he
appeared at the bar of the House of Commons and pleaded for his father,
then in the Tower, when his youth, graceful person and well-delivered
speech made a great [v.04 p.0576] impression. He was admitted to Magdalen
College, Oxford, on the 15th of August 1626, where he was a favourite pupil
of Peter Heylin, and became M.A. in 1636. He spent the following years in
study and in travel, from which he returned, according to Clarendon, "the
most accomplished person of our nation or perhaps any other nation," and
distinguished by a remarkably handsome person. In 1638 and 1639 were
written the _Letters between Lord George Digby and Sir Kenelm Digby, Knt.
concerning Religion_ (publ. 1651), in which Digby attacked Roman
Catholicism. In June 1634 Digby was committed to the Fleet till July for
striking Crofts, a gentleman of the court, in Spring Gardens; and possibly
his severe treatment and the disfavour shown to his father were the causes
of his hostility to the court. He was elected member for Dorsetshire in
both the Short and Long parliaments in 1640, and in conjunction with Pym
and Hampden he took an active part in the opposition to Charles. He moved
on the 9th of November for a committee to consider the "deplorable state"
of the kingdom, and on the 11th was included in the committee for the
impeachment of Strafford, against whom he at first showed great zeal. He,
however, opposed the attainder, made an eloquent speech on the 21st of
April 1641, accentuating the weakness of Vane's evidence against the
prisoner, and showing the injustice of _ex post facto_ legislation. He was
regarded in consequence with great hostility by the parliamentary party,
and was accused of having stolen from Pym's table Vane's notes on which the
prosecution mainly depended. On the 15th of July his speech was burnt by
the hangman by the order o