mong his friends extremists like Cartwright and
Perkins. So great was his reputation that when Sir Walter Mildmay
founded Emmanuel College in 1584 he chose Chaderton for the first
master, and on his expressing some reluctance, declared that if he would
not accept the office the foundation should not go on. In 1604 Chaderton
was appointed one of the four divines for managing the cause of the
Puritans at the Hampton Court conference; and he was also one of the
translators of the Bible. In 1578 he had taken the degree of B.D., and
in 1613 he was created D.D. At this period he made provision for twelve
fellows and above forty scholars in Emmanuel College. Fearing that he
might have a successor who held Arminian doctrines, he resigned the
mastership in favour of John Preston, but survived him, and lived also
to see the college presided over successively by William Sancroft (or
Sandcroft) and Richard Holdsworth. He died on the 13th of November 1640
at the age of about 103, preserving his bodily and mental faculties to
the end.

Chaderton published a sermon preached at St Paul's Cross about 1580,
and a treatise of his _On Justification_ was printed by Anthony
Thysius, professor of divinity at Leiden. Some other works by him on
theological subjects remain in manuscript.

CHADWICK, SIR EDWIN (1800-1890), English sanitary reformer, was born at
Longsight, near Manchester, on the 24th of January 1800. Called to the
bar without any independent means, he sought to support himself by
literary work, and his essays in the _Westminster Review_ (mainly on
different methods of applying scientific knowledge to the business of
government) introduced him to the notice of Jeremy Bentham, who engaged
him as a literary assistant and left him a handsome legacy. In 1832 he
was employed by the royal commission appointed to inquire into the
operation of the poor laws, and in 1833 he was made a full member of
that body. In conjunction with Nassau W. Senior he drafted the
celebrated report of 1834 which procured the reform of the old poor law.
His special contribution was the institution of the union as the area of
administration. He favoured, however, a much more centralized system of
administration than was adopted, and he never ceased to complain that
the reform of 1834 was fatally marred by the rejection of his views,
which contemplated the management of poor-law relief by salaried
officers controlled from a central board, the board