WOBO: Search for words and phrases in the texts here...

In 1611, he went to Leyden, with his family, and, although he brought with him the most authentic testimonials of his being orthodox, and prudent in his conduct and manner of life, the Calvinistic clergy became alarmed at having the divinity professorship filled by one who promised to perpetuate the errors of Arminius; and therefore represented, in the strongest terms, the danger that might accrue from the appointment of Vorstius. They even called to their aid the opinions of foreign universities and potentates. Among the latter, our king James I. who had caused Vorstius’s book “De Deo” to be burnt at London and the two universities, and now had drawn up a catalogue of the several heresies he had found in that work, commanded his resident at the Hague to notify to the States, that he greatly detested those heresies, and those who should tolerate them. The States answered, that, if Vorstius maintained the errors laid to his charge, they would not surfer him to live among them. Tin’s answer not being satisfactory, he again pressed them with greater earnesiness to banish Vorstius, though he should deny the errors laid to his charge; but, if he should own and persist in them, he was firmly of opinion, that burning was too miiJ a punishment for him. He declared, that, if they did not use their utmost endeavours to extirpate this rising heresy, he should publicly protest against such abominations; in quality of defender of the faith, should exhort all Protestant churches to join in one general resolution to extinguish these abominable newly-broached heresies; and, with regard to himself, would forbid all his subjects to frequent so pestilential a place as the university of Leyden. To his menaces he added the terrors of his pen, and published a book against Vorstius; who replied in the most respectful terms but at fast, through the influence of the king’s deputies, was declared unworthy of the professorship, divested of his employment, and sentenced to perpetual banishment by the synod of Dort. He lay concealed two years, until at length he found an asylum in the dominions of the duke of Holstein, who took the remains of the Artninians under his protection, and assigned them a spot of ground for building a city. He died atToningen, Sept. 29, 1622. His body was carried to Fredericstadt, the newly-raised city of the Arminians, where he was buried with considerable splendour. He wrote many things against the Roman Catholics, as well as his own particular adversaries.

The second production of Wace is the history of the irruptions into England and the northern provinces of France, written in verses of eight syllables. His third work is the famous Roman du Rou, composed in 1160, in verses of twelve syllables. Raoul, or Rollo, is the hero of this poem. His fourth piece is the romance of William Longsword, the son of Rollo, written in verses of twelve syllables. It is to be found in the royal library at Paris, at the end of the Roman du Rou; and his fifth work, or the romance of Richard I. duke of Normandy, composed in the same measure, may be seen in the same repository. His sixth work contains, in 12,000 lines, the history of the Norman dukes, from the time of duke Richard I. to the sixth year of Henry I. and was composed after 1170. A copy is in the British Museum, Bib. Reg. iv. c. xi. His seventh performance is an abridged chronicle of the history of the dukes of Normandy, beginning with Henry II. and going upwards to Rollo.

But while this legation was going on, he removed from the cardinal’s palace, as enjoying there a course of life which he thought incompatible with his profession of Franciscan, and took up his residence at the Franciscan-convent of St. Peter, where he was honoured with the respect of many of the dignified ecclesiastics of Rome; and on the departure of the bishop to Spain, when the care of the legation was entrusted to the duke of Albuquerque, the Spanish ambassador at Rome, Wadding was appointed his assistant, and was, says his biographer, the life of the whole negotiation. He wrote three pamphlets on the subject of the immaculate conception, the titles of which we may be excused from giving. During the time he could spare from the business of this legation, he published an edition of some works of St. Francis, from Mss. in the public libraries, under the title of “Opusculorum St. Francisci Libri tres,” Antwerp, 1623. Before this time he performed what will probably be thought a more acceptable service to theological studies, in undertaking to print Calasio’s Concordance (see Calasio). Calasio died at Rome, wliile Wadding was there, leaving this large work in manuscript. Wadding, who saw its merits, regretted that it should be lost; and being unable of himself to defray the expence of printing, applied to pope Paul V. and to Benignus a Genua, the general of the Franciscans, by whose encouragement the whole was published at Rome in 1621, 4 vols, folio, under the inspection of Wadding, who prefixed to it a learned treatise “De Hebraic lingoos origine, praestaiitia et militate.” Pope Paul dying while the work was in the press, he dedicated it to his successor, Gregory XV. He published also, from original Mss. the works of some other Spanish divines, and wrote a life of Thomasius, patriarch of Constantinople, “Vita B. Petri Thomce Aquitani Carmelitse,” &c. Lyons, 1637, 8vo. But the most labourius effort of editorship was his rescuing from obscurity all the manuscript copies of Duns Scotus’s works, transcribing, collating, and correcting, and afterwards publishing the whole, in twelve folio volumes, at Lyons, in 1639.

This was once a place of great fame in the university, and may be traced to very high antiquity. In 1251, pope Innocent IV. granted a power to the friars eremites of St. Austin, to travel into any countries, build monasteries, and celebrate divine service. With this permission, they first established a house in London, but deputed some of their number to go to Oxford, where they hired an obscure bouse near the public schools. Acquiring some reputation for their skill in philosophy and divinity, or at least what were then so called, they attracted the attention of sir John Handlove, or Handlow, of Burstall in Buckinghamshire, a very opulent gentleman, who purchased for them a piece of ground, enlarged afterwards by a gift from Henry III. On this tney built a house and chapel in a sumptuous form, and held schools for divinity and philosophy of such reputation, that, before the divinity school was built, the university acts were kept, and the exercises in arts were performed in this place. It was in particular enjoined that every bachelor of arts should once in ea^h year dispute, and once answer, at this house, and this continued until the dissolution, when the disputations were removed to St. Mary’s, and afterwaids to the schools. Alter the dissolution, the premises were let, on a lease of twenty-one years, at 3l. yearly, to Thomas Carwarden, or Carclon, esq. who appears to have demolished the whole, and carried off the materials. In 1552, king Edward VI. sold the site to Henry duke of Suffolk, and Thomas Duport, gentleman, who almost immediately conveyed it to Henry Baylie, M. D. formerly a fellow of New college, for forty-five shillings yearly. In 1553, Baylie sold it to his father-in-law, Edward Freere, of Oxford, who left it to his son William, by whom, in 1587, it was again sold to the mayor, bailiffs, and commonalty of Oxford lor the principal sum of 450l.

That for which archbishop Wake appears to have been most blamed, was the share he had in a scheme of union between the English and Gallican churches; but in this, as in other parts of his conduct, the blame seems to have arisen principally from misrepresentation, at the same time that we are willing to allow that the scheme itself was a weak one, and never likely to produce any good. The outline of the affair, which is related more at large in the Appendix to the last edition of Mosheim’s History, No IV. is this. In 1717 some mutual civilities had passed between the archbishop and the celebrated ecclesiastical historian Dupin, as men of letters, by means of the rev. Mr. Beauvoir, then chaplain to lord Stair, the English ambassador at Paris. In the course of these civilities, Dupin wrote to the archbishop a Latin letter in Jan. 1718, in which, having congratulated the church of England on the enjoyment of so eminent a prelate for its metropolitan, he took occasion to express his desire for an union between the two churches of England and France, and wished to enter into a correspodence with his grace with that view. The archbishop, in return, after thanking him for his compliment, observed, that it was full time both for himself (Dupin) and the rest of his brethren of the Sorbonne, to declare openly their true sentiments of the superstition and ambition of the court of Rome; that it was the interest of all Christians to unmask that court, and thereby reduce it to those primitive limits and honours which it enjoyed in the first ages of the church. In some farther correspondence, the archbishop explained the belief, tenets, and doctrine of the chuch of England, the manner of its beginning to reform and shake off all foreign power and superstition both in church and state, and its acknowledgment that our Lord Jesus Christ is the only founder, source, and head of the church. In all his letters both to Dupin and others, he insisted constantly on this article, and always maintained the justice and orthodoxy of every individual article of the church of England, without making the least concession towards any approbation of the ambitious pretensions of the church of Rome. Some of the doctors of the Sorbonne readily concurred in this scheme, and Dupin drew up an essay towards an union, which was to be submitted for approbation to the cardinal de Noailles, and then to be transmitted to his grace. This essay, which was called a “Commonitorium,” was read by, and had the approbation of the Sorbonne, and in it was ceded the administration of the sacrament in both kinds, the performing of divine service in the vulgar tongue, and the marriage of the protestant clergy; and the invocation of saints was given up as unnecessary. The project engrossed the whole conversation of the city of Paris, and the Engiish ambassador was congratulated upon it by some great personages at court. The regent duke of Orleans himself, and the abbe Du Bois, minister of foreign affairs, and De Fleury, the attorney general, at iirst seemed to acquiesce, or at least not to interfere; but, after all, no considerate person could expect much from the scheme, which was entirely prevented by the Jesuits, who sounded the alarm, and represented the cardinal de Noailles and his friends the Jansenists as about to make a coalition with the heretics.

In the third year of his residence at college he was a candidate for one, or all, of Dr. Browne’s medals. His Latin ode was allowed to possess merit, but was unsuccessful, from partiality, as he insinuates; but he allowed that his Greek and his epigrams were deservedly rejected. In his life he introduces the Latin ode with “variations,” which, although he calls them “trivial,” give a suspicious alteration of character to the production. In 1776 he took his degree, and had the honour of nomination to the second post. About the same time he gained the second of the duke of Newcastle’s classical medals. Dr. Forster gained the first; Mr. Wakefield allows him superior merit, buf still endeavours to insinuate partiality in the allotment of the prizes.

Entering at length into the dangerous path of politics, he published “Remarks on the General Orders of the Duke of York,” in which he arraigned the justice of the war with France in terms which are supposed to have exercised the utmost forbearance of the ministry. But in his “Reply to some parts of the bishop of Lanclaff’s Address,” he passed those limits, and a prosecution being commenced, he was sentenced, upon conviction, to a two years imprisonment in Dorchester gaol. While here, his sufferings were as much as possible alleviated by the zeal of his friends, who raised a subscription of 5000l., which eased his mind as to a future provision for his family, and probably far exceeded what he could ever have been able to leave them, under any probable circumstances.

The next poem is supposed by Fenton to be the address “To the Queen” on her arrival but this is doubtful, and we have no date of any other poetical production before that which the murder of the duke of Buckingham occasioned. Neither of these pieces that seem to carry their own dates could have been the sudden effusion of fancy. In the verses on the prince’s escape, the prediction of his marriage with the princess of France must have been written after the event; in the other, the promises of the king’s kindness to the descendants of Buckingham, which could not be properly praised till it had appeared by its effects:, shew that time was taken fqr revision and improvement. It is not known that they were published till they appeared long afterwards with other poems.

He was now elected member for Castle-Rising, and sat for that borough in the two short parliaments which were assembled in the last two years of the reign of king William, and soon became an active member for the whig party. In 1702 he was chosen member of parliament for King’s- Lynn, and represented that borough in several succeeding parliaments. In 1705 he was nominated one of the council to prince George of Denmark, as lord high admiral of England; in 1708 he was appointed secretary at war; and, in 1709, treasurer of the navy. In 1710 he was one of the managers of the trial of Sacheverel, but when the whig-ministry was dismissed he was removed from all his posts, and held no place afterwards during queen Anne’s reign. In 1711 he was voted by the House of Commons guilty of a high breach of trust and notorious corruption in his office of secretary at war; and it was resolved that he should be committed to the Tower, and ex- ­pelled the House. Upon a candid review of this affair, there does not appear sufficient proof to justify the severity used towards him; and perhaps his attachment to the Marlborough ministry, and his great influence in the House, owing to his popular eloquence, were the true causes of his censure and imprisonment, as they had been before of his advancement. All the whigs, however, on this occasion, considered him as a kind of martyr in their cause. The borough of Lynn re-elected him in 1714, and, though, the House declared the election void, yet they persisted in the choice, and he took a decided part against the queen’s tory-ministry. In the well-known debate relating to Steele for publishing the “Crisis,” he greatly distinguished himself in behalf of liberty, and added to the popularity he had before acquired. The schism-bill likewise soon after gave him a fine opportunity of exerting his eloquence, and of appearing in the character of the champion of civil and religious liberty. On the death of the queen a revolution of politics took place, and the whig-party prevailed both at court and in the senate. Walpole had before recoinmended himself to the house of Hanover, by his zeal for its cause when the Commons considered the state of the nation with regard to the protestant succession: and he had now the honour to procure the assurance of the House to the new king (which attended the address of condolence and congratulation), “That the Commons would make good all parliamentary funds.” It is therefore not surprising that his promotion soon took place after the king’s arrival; and that in a few days he was appointed receiver and paymaster general of all the guards and garrisons, and of all other the land forces in Gveat Britain, paymaster of the royal hospital at Chelsea, and likewise a privy counsellor. On the opening of a new parliament, a committee of secrecy vtfas chosen to inquire into the conduct of the late ministry, of which Walpole was appointed chairman; and, hy his management, articles of impeachment were read against the earl of Oxford, lord Bolingbroke, the duke of Ormond, and the earl of Stratford. The eminent service he was thought to have done the nation, and the crown, by the vigorous prosecution of those ministers who were deemed the chief instruments of the peace, was soon rewarded by the extraordinary promotions of first commissioner of the treasury, and chancellor and undertreasurer of the exchequer,

About the end of queen Anne’s reign, and the beginning of George the First, he wrote the following pamphlets. 1. “The Sovereign’s Answer to the Gloucestershire Address.” The sovereign meant Charles duke of Somerset, so nick-named by the whigs. 2. “Answer to the Representation of the House of Lords on the state of the Navy,” 1709. 3. “The Debts of the Nation stated and considered, in four papers,” 1710; the third and fourth, Mr. Coxe thinks, were not his. 4. “The Thirty-five millions accounted for,” 1710. 5. “A Letter from a foreign Minister in England to Monsieur Pettecum,” 1710. This likewise Mr. Coxe doubts, but thinks he might have written an answer to it, as it was a vindication of the tories, 6. “Four Letters to a friend in Scotland upon Sacheverell’s Trial;” falsely attributed in the ''General Dictionary“to Mr. Ma>nwariiig. 7. '< A short History of the Parliament.” Ims an account of the last Session of the queen, 8. “The South Sea Scheme considered.” 9. “A pamphlet against the Peerage-Bill,” 1719. 10. “The Report of the Secret Committee, June 9th; 1715.” 11. “The Thoughts of a Member of the Lower-house, in relation to a project for restraining and limiting the power of the Crown in the future creation of peers,” 1719. 12. “The Report of the Secret Committee, June 9, 17 15.” 13. “A private Letter from General Churchill after Lord Orford’s retirement,” which has been considered as indicating a love of retirement, and contempt of grandeur; but it wilj. probably appear to be rather an affectation of contentment with a situation which he could no longer change. Amidst all his knowledge, he had laid up very little for the purposes of retirement.

Mr. Coxe has also enriched the historical library with memoirs of Horatio Lord Walpole, brother to sir Robert, first earl of Orford. Horatio was born in 1678, and came early into public life. In 1706 he accompanied general Stanhope to Barcelona, as private secretary, and in 1707 was appointed secretary to Henry Boyle, esq. then chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1708, he went as secretary of an embassy to the emperor of Germany, and was present in the same capacity at the congress of Gertruydenberg in 1709. On sir Robert’s being nominated first lord of the treasury in 1715, he was made secretary to that board. In 1716 he was sent as envoy to the Hague; and in 1717 succeeded to the office of surveyor and auditor-general of all his majesty’s revenues in America, 'in consequence of a reversionary grant obtained some time before. In 1720 he was appointed secretary to the duke of Grafton, when lord-lieutenant of Ireland. In 1723 he commenced his. embassy at Paris, where he resided till 1727 as ambassador. In 1.730 he was made cofferer of his majesty’s housebold. In 1733 he was sent plenipotentiary to the Statesgeneral; in 1741 was appointed a teller of the exchequer^ and in 1756 was created a peer of England, by the title of lord Walpole of Wolterton. His lordship died Feb. 5, 1757.

, an Irish catholic of great learning liberality, was born at Moortown, in the county of Kildare, irr the early part of the seventeenth century. He was a friar of the Franciscan order, and was professor of divinity at Louvain, where he probably was educated. Returning to Ireland, he went to Kilkenny at the time the pope’s nuncio was there, but was not of his party. On the contrary, he made many endeavours to persuade the Ifish Roman catholics to the same loyal sentiments as he himself held; and after the restoration of Charles II. when he was procurator of the Romish clergy of Ireland, he persuaded many of them to subscribe a recognition or remonstrance, not only of their loyalty to the king, but of their disclaiming the pope’s supremacy in temporals. This drew upon him the resentment of many of his brethren, and particularly of the court of Rome. Such hopes, however, were entertained of this important change in the sentiment! of the Irish catholics, that in 1666 the court thought proper to permit their clergy to meet openly in synod at Dublin, in order, as was expected, to authorize the above remonstrance by a general act of the whole body. But this assembly broke up without coming to any decision, and the duke of Ormond, then lord lieutenant, considered it necessary to proceed against those who refused to give any security for their allegiance. But when, in 1670, lord Berkeley succeeded him, by some secret orders or intrigues of the popishly-affected party in England, Walsh, and those who had signed the remonstrance, were so persecuted as to be obliged to leave the country. Walsh came to London, and by the interest of the duke of Ormond, got an annuity of lOOl. for life. He had lived on terms of intimacy with the duke for nearly forty years, and had never touched much on the subject of religion until the reign of James II. when he made some overtures to gain the duke over to popery; but desisted when he found his arguments had no effect. Dodwell took some pains, although in vain, to convert Walsh, hoping, that as they had cast him out of the communion of the church of Rome, he might be persuaded to embrace that of the church of England. Walsh died in September 1687, and was buried in St. Dun* stan’s in the West.

, an English critic and poet, was the son of Joseph Walsh of Abberley in Worcestershire, esq. and born about 1663, for the precise time does not appear. According to Pope, his birth happened in 1659; but Wood places it four years later. He became a gentleman-commoner of Wadham-college in Oxford in 1678, but left the university without a degree, and pursued his studies in London and at home. That he studied, in whatever place, is apparent from the effect; for he became, in Dryden’s opinion, “the best critic in the nation.” He was not, however, merely a critic or a scholar. He was likewise a man of fashion, and, as Dennis remarks, ostentatiously splendid in his dress. He was likewise a member of parliament and a courtier, knight of the shire for his native county in several parliaments, in another the re* presentative of Richmond in Yorkshire, and gentleman of the horse to queen Anne under the duke of Somerset. Some of his verses shew him to have been a zealous friend to the Revolution; but his political ardour did not abate his reverence or kindness for Dryden, to whom, Dr. Johnson says, he gave a Dissertation on Virgil’s Pastorals; but this was certainly written by Dr. Chetwood, as appears by one of Drydeu’s letters. In 1705 he began to correspond with Pope, in whom he discovered very early the power of poetry, and advised him to study correctness, which the poets of his time, he said, all neglected. Their letters are written upon the pastoral comedy of the Italians, and those pastorals which Pope was then preparing to publish. The kindnesses which are first experienced are seldom forgotten. Pope always retained a grateful memory of Walsh’s notice, and mentioned him in one of his latter pieces among those that had encouraged his juvenile studies.

, an eminent statesman in the reign of queen Elizabeth, of an ancient family in Norfolk, was the third and youngest son of William Walsingham of Scadbury, in the parish of Chislehurst, in Kent, by Joyce, daughter of Edmund Denny, of Cheshunt in Hertfordshire. He was born at Chislehurst in 1536. He spent some time at King’s-college in Cambridge, but, to complete his education, travelled into foreign countries, where he acquired various languages and great accomplishments. These soon recommended him to be agent to sir William Cecil, lord Burleigh; and under his direction he came to be employed in the most important affairs of state. His first engagement was as ambassador in France during the civil wars in that kingdom. In August 1570, he was sent a second time there in the same capacity, to treat of a marriage between queen Elizabeth and the duke of Alençon, with other matters; and continued until April 1573 at the court of France, where he acquitted himself with great capacity and fidelity, sparing neither pains nor money to promote the queen’s interest, who, however, did not support him with much liberality. It was even with great difficulty that he could procure such supplies as were necessary for the support of his dignified station. In a letter from him (Harleian Mss. No. 260), to the earl of Leicester, dated Paris, March 9, 1570, he earnestly solicits for some allowance on account of the great dearth in France; desiring lord Leicester to use his interest in his behalf, that he might not be so overburthened with the care how to live, as to be hindered from properly attending to the business for which he was sent thither. Five days after he wrote a letter to lord Burleigh, which gives a curious account of the distresses to which Elizabeth’s representative was reduced by her singular parsimony. “Your lordship knoweth necessity hath no law, and therefore I hope that my present request, grounded on necessity, will weigh accordingly. And surely if necessity forced me not hereto, I would forbear to do it for many respects. I do not doubt, after my lord of Buckhurst’s return, but you shall understand, as well by himself, as by others of his train, the extremity of dearth that presently reigneth here; which is such as her majesty’s allowance doth not, by 5l. in the week, defray my ordinary charges of household. And yet neither my diet is like to any of my predecessors, nor yet the number of my horses so many as they heretofore have kept. I assure your lordship, of 800l. I brought in my purse into this country, I have not left in money and provision much above 300/; far contrary to the account I made, who thought to have had always 500l. beforehand to have made my provisions, thinking by good husbandry somewhat to have relieved my disability otherwise,” &c. In another letter, dated June 22, 1572, he again solicits lord Burleigh for an augmentation of his allowance, alledging, that otherwise he should not be able to hold out: but notwithstanding this and other solicitations, there is much reason to believe that the queen kept him in considerable difficulties.

After his return, in 1573, he was appointed one of the principal secretaries of state, and sworn a privy-counsellor, and soon after received the honour of knighthood. He now devoted himself solely to the service of his country and sovereign; and by his vigilance and address preserved her crown and life from daily attempts and conspiracies. ID 1578, he was sent on an embassy to the Netherlands, and in 1581, went a third time ambassador to France, in order to treat of the proposed marriage between the queen and the duke of Anjou; and also to conclude a league offensive and defensive between both kingdoms He resided in France from about the middle of July to the end of the year. In 1583, he was sent into Scotland on an embassy to king James, attended with a splendid retinue of one hundred and twenty horse. The particular design of this embassy is not very clearly expressed by historians. It appears to have been partly occasioned by king James having taken into his councils the earl of Arran, a nobleman very obnoxious to queen Elizabeth. Sir James Melvil, who was at this time at the Scottish court, mentions their expecting the arrival of secretary Walsingham, “a counsellor,” he says, “of worthy qualities, who had great credit with the queen of England.” Sir James was sent to welcome him, and to inform him, “That his majesty was very glad of the coming of such a notable personage, who was known to be endued with religion and wisdom, whom he hail ever esteemed as his special friend, being assured that his tedious travel in his long voyage (being diseased as he was) tended to more substantial points for the confirmation of the amity between the queen his sister and him, than had been performed at any time before.”

, one of the best English historians of the fifteenth century, was a native of Norfolk, a Benedictine of St. Albans, and historiographer royal, about 1440, in the reign of Henry VI. He compiled two historical works of considerable length, the one “A History of England,” beginning at the 57th Henry III. the year 1273, and concluding with the funeral oF Henry V. and the appointment of Humphrey duke of Gloucester to the regency of England. His other work is entitled “Ypodigma Neustrise,” a sort of history of Normandy, an* ciently called Neustria, interspersed with the affairs of England from the beginning of the tenth century to 1418. In the dedication of this work, which, with the other, was published by archbishop Parker in 1574, Fol. he tells Henry V. that when he reflected on the cunning intrigues, frauds, and breaches of treaties in his enemies the French, he was tormented with fears that they would deceive him: and had composed that work, which contained many examples of their perfidy, to put him upon his guard. Walsingham himself allows that his style is rude and unpolished, and he relates many ridiculous stories of visions, miracles, and portents, but all this was the credulity of the age. In what belongs to himself he is more to be praised: his narrative is far more full, circumstantial, and satisfactory, than that of the other annalists of those times, and contains many things no where else to be found.

, duke of Fridland, a celebrated German commander, was born in 1584, and descended of a noble and ancient Bohemian family. His education appears to have been irregular. At first he had no inclination for study, but later in life he applied himself to astronomy and politics, at Padua. After his return to his own country, he married, but being soon left a widower, he went to the siege of Gradisca, in Friuli, and offered his services to the archduke Ferdinand, against the Venetians. When the troubles broke out in Bohemia, he offered himself to the emperor, with an army of thirty thousand men, on condition of being their general. The emperor having consented, Walstein marched at the head of this army, and reduced the diocese of Halberstadt and the bishopric of Halle he ravaged also the territories of Magdeburgh and Anhalt; defeated Mansfeldt in two battles retook all Silesia; vanquished the marquis d‘Urlach conquered the archbishopric of Bremen and Holsace, and made himself master of all the country between the ocean, the Baltic sea, and the Elbe; leaving only Gluckatadt to the king of Denmark, whom he also drove from Pomerania, where he had made a descent. After the treaty of Lubec, the emperor gave him the titles and spoils of the duke of Mecklenburgh, who had rebelled; but Walstein published an edict about that time, ordering the restitution of ecclesiastical property in the territories just given him; and the’ protest* tants, being alarmed, called in Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, to their assistance. This step so intimidated the emperor, that he permitted Walstein to be removed, and sent only Tilly against Gustavus. Tilly having been defeated at Leipsic by the Swedes, the conqueror rushed into Germany like a torrent, which obliged the emperor to recall Walstein, whom he appointed generalissimo. Walstein accordingly entered the lists with the Swedish monarch; defeated him, and was defeated in his turn; took from him almost the whole of Bohemia, by the capture of Prague, and fought with various success till the bloody battle of Lutzen, November 16, 1632, which Walstein lost, though Gustavus Adolphus was killed at the commencement of the action. Walstein, notwithstanding this defeat, finding himself delivered from so formidable a prince, was suspected of aiming at independence; and these suspicions being increased by his refusing to submit to the court of Vienna in any of his enterprises, the emperor degraded him, and gave the command to Galas. Walstein, alarmed at this, made the officers of his army take an oath of fidelity to him at Pilsen, January 12, 1634, and retired to Egra, a strong city on the frontiers of Bohemia and Saxony; but Gordon, a Scotchman, lieutenant-colonel and governor of Egra, nattered by the hopes of great preferment, conspired against him with Butler, an Irishman, to whom Walstein had given a regiment of dragoons, and Lasci, a Scotchroan, captain of his guards. These three, who are said to have been instigated to this crime by the court of Vienna, murdered him in his chamber, February 15, 1634. He was, at that time, fifty years old. The family of Walstein is distinguished in Germany, and has produced several other great men.

After this, a general acquaintance with the laws of his country seems to have been his leading acquirement, and hence, when he became a representative in parliament, he was nominated one of the eight chief managers in the impeachment of the duke of Buckingham. The account of Mr. Wandesforde’s share in that transaction, as given by llushworth, is much to the credit of his moderation and prudence. In the new parliament, which met March 17, 1628, he made a conspicuous figure, and acted a truly constitutional part, supporting the privileges of the people when attacked, and when these were secured by a confirmation of the petition of right, adhering to his sovereign. About 1633, it was proposed by Charles I. to send Mr. Wandesforde ambassador to Spain; but this honour was declined, from his not wishing to engage in any public employment. Soon after, however, when his friend lord Wentworth was fixed on to go as lord-deputy.to Ireland, Mr. Wandesforde was persuaded to accompany him as master of the rolls, from motives of personal regard. He arrived at Dublin in July 1633, where he built a new office of the rolls at his own cost. In 1636 he was made one of the lords justices of Ireland, in the absence of lord Wentworth, and knighted. Retiring to his seat at Kil r dare, he completed his book of “Instructions to his Son,” which bears date Get, 5, 1636. He soon after sold Kildare to lord Wentwortb, and purchase^ the estate of Castlecomer, where he established a manufactory for cottons, and founded a colliery. In 164-0 he was appointed lord-deputy in the place of lord Strafford, and gave such satisfaction to the king by his* conduct in that high station, that he was created baron Mowbray and Musters, and viscount Castle^ comer. On the receipt of the patent, however, he exclaimed, “Is it a fit time for a faithful subject to appear higher than usual, when his king, the fountain of honours, is likely to be reduced lower than ever?” He therefore ordered the patent to be concealed, and his grandson was the first who assumed its privileges.

, a learned German, was born in 1635, at Erfort, in Thuringia, where his father was minister of a Lutheran church. After having studied philosophy and theology at Konigsberg, he put himself under Job Ludolf, in order to learn “the Oriental tongues of that celebrated professor. Ludolf taught him the Ethiopic amorvg others; and then sent him at his own expence into England to print his” Ethiopic Dictionary,“which came out at London in 1661. Ludolf complained of Wansleb for inserting many false and ridiculous things, and afterwards gave a new. edition of it himself. Dr. Edmhnd Castell was at that time employed upon his” Lexicon Heptaglotton," and was much gratified to find in Wansleb a man who could assist him in his laborious undertaking; he received him therefore into his house, and kept him three months. Wansleb was no sooner returned to Germany, tban Ernest the pious, duke of Saxe-Gotha, being informed of his qualifications, sent him to Ethiopia: the prince’s design was, to establish a correspondence between the Protestant Europeans and Abyssines, with a view to promote true religion among the latter. Wansleb set out in June 1663, and arrived at Cairo in Jan. following. He employed the remainder of the year in visiting part of Egypt; but the patriarch of Alexandria, who has jurisdiction over the churches of Ethiopia, dissuaded him from proceeding to that kingdom, and sent his reasons to Ernest in an Arabic letter, which is still extant in the library of the duke of Saxe-Gotha.

Wansleb left Alexandria in the beginning of 1-665, and arrived at Leghorn; but durst not return to his own country, because duke Ernest was greatly displeased with his conduct, in neglecting the chief object of his embassy, and employing in an improper manner the sums he had received. He went therefore to Rome, where he abjured Lutheranism, and entered into the order of St. Dominic in 1666. In 1670, he was sent to Paris, where being introduced to Colbert, he was commissioned by that minister to return to the East, and to purchase manuscripts and medals for the king’s library. He arrived at Cairo in 1672, continued in Egypt near two years, and in that time sent to France 334 manuscripts, Arabic, Turkish, and Persic. The Mahometans growing jealous of this commerce which Wansleb carried on, he removed from Egypt to Constantinople, and had promised to go from that place in search of manuscripts to mount Athos; but excused himself on pretence that Leo Allatius had taken away the best for the use of the Vatican. He was preparing to set out for Ethiopia, when he was recalled to France by Colbert; who, it seems, had just reason to be displeased with his conduct, as Ernest had been before him. He arrived at Paris in April 1676, and might have been advanced not only to the royal professorship of Oriental languages, but even to a bishopric, if his irregular life and manners had not stood in his way. He lived neglected for two or three years, and then died in June 1679.

His publications are, 1. “Relazione dello stato presente dell' Egitto, 1671,” 12mo. This is said to be an abridged account of Egypt, which had been sent by him in several letters to duke Ernest; and Ludolf has related, that the Jacobines, whom he employed to translate it into Italian, have deviated from the original in several places. 2. “Nouvelle Relation en forme de Journal d'un Voyage fait en Egypte en 1672 et 1673,” 1676, 12mo, 3. “Histoire de PEglise d‘Alexandrie fondee par S. Marc, que nous appellons celles des Jacobites -Coptes d’Ei^ypte, ecrite au Caire même en 1672 et 1673. 1677,” 12mo.

In 1751, Mr. Warburton published an edition of Pope’s “Works,” with notes, in nine volumes, octavo and in the same year printed “An Answer to a Letter to Dr. Middleton, inserted in a pamphlet entitled The Argument of the Divine Legation fairly stated,” &c. 8vo. and “An Account of the Prophecies of Arise Evans, the Welsh Prophet, in the last Century;” the latter of which pieces afterwards subjected him to much ridicule. In 1753, Mr. Warburton published the first volume of a course of Sermons, preached at Lincoln’s-inn, entitled “The Principles of natural and revealed Religion occasionally opened and explained;” and this, in the subsequent year, was followed by a second. After the public had been some time promised lord Bolingbroke’s Works, they were about this time printed. The known abilities and infidelity of this nobleman had created apprehensions, in the minds of many people, of the pernicious effects of his doctrines; and nothing but the appearance of his whole force could have convinced his friends how little there was to be dreaded from arguments against religion so weakly supported. The personal enmity, which had been excited many years before between the peer and our author, had occasioned the former to direct much of his reasoning against two works of the latter. Many answers were soon published, but none with more acuteness, solidity, and sprightliness, than “A View of Lord Bolingbroke’s Philosophy, in two Letters to a Friend,” 1754. The third a/id fourth letters were published in 1755, with another edition of the two former; and in the same year a smaller edition of the whole; which, though it came into the world without a name, was universally ascribed to Mr. Warburton, and afterwards publicly owned by him. To some copies of this is prefixed an excellent complimentary epistle from the president Montesquieu, dated May 26, 1754. At this advanced period of his life, that preferment which his abilities might have claimed, and which had hitherto been withheld, seemed to be approaching towards him. In September 1754 he was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary, and in the 'next year was presented to a prebend * in the cathedral of Durham, worth 500l. per annum, on the death of Dr. Mangey. About the same time, the degree of doctor of divinity was conferred on him by Dr. Herring, then archbishop of Canterbury; and, a new impression of “The, Divine Legation” having being called for, he printed a fourth edition of the first part of it, corrected and enlarged, divided into two volumes, with a dedication to the earl of Hardwicke. The same year appeared “A Sermon preached before his grace Charles duke of Marlborough president, and the Governors of the Hospital for the small-pox and for inoculation, at the parish church of St. Andrew, Holborn, on Thursday, April the 24th, 1755,” 4to; and in 1756 “Natural and Civil Events the Instruments of God’s moral Government, a Sermon preached on the last public Fast-day, at Lincoln’s-inn Chapel,” 4to. In 1757, a pamphlet was published, called “Remarks on Mr. David Hume’s Essay on the Natural History of Religion;” which is said to have been composed of marginal observations made by Dr. Warburton on reading Mr. Hume’s book; and which gave so much offence to the author animadverted upon, that he thought it of importance enough to deserve particular mention in the short account of his life. On Oct. 11, in this year, our author was ad­* Soon after he attained this pre- Neal’s History of the Puritans, which ferment, he wrote the Remarks on are now added to his Works. “vanced to the deanery of Bristol and in 175&republished the second part of” The Divine Legation,“divided into two parts, with a dedication to the earl of Mansfield, which deserves to be read by every person who esteems the wellbeing of society as a concern of any importance. At the latter end of next year, Dr. Warburton received the honour, so justly due to his merit, of being dignified with the mitre, and promoted to the vacant see of Gloucester. He was consecrated on the 20th of Jan. 1760; and on the 30th of the same month preached -before the House of Lords. In the next year he printed” A rational Account of the Nature and End of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,“12mo. In 1762, he published” The Doctrine of Grace: or, the office and operations of the Holy Spirit vindicated from the insults of Infidelity and the abuses of Fanaticism,“2 vols. 12mo, one of his performances which does him least credit; and in the succeeding year drew upon himself much illiberal abuse from some writers of the popular party, on occasion of his complaint in the House of Lords, on Nov. 15, 1763, against Mr. Wilkes, for putting his name to certain notes on the infamous” Essay on Woman.“In 1765, anotber edition of the second part of” The Divine Legation“was published, as volumes III. IV. and V.; the two parts printed in 1755 being considered as volumes I. and II. It was this edition which produced a very angry controversy between him and Dr. Lowth, whom in many respects he found more than his equal. (See Lowth, p. 438.) On this occasion was published,” The second part of an epistolary Correspondence between the bishop of Gloucester and the late professor of Oxford, without an Imprimatur, i.e. without a cover to the violated Laws of Honour and Society,“1766, 8vo. In 1776, he gave a new edition of” The Alliance between Church and State;“and” A Sermon preached before the incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in foreign Parts, at the anniversary Meeting in the parish church of St. Mary-le-bow, on Friday, Feb. 21,“8vo. The next year produced a third volume of his” Sermons,“dedicated to lady Mansfield and with this, and a single” Sermon preached at St. Lawrence-Jewry on Thursday, April 30, 1767, before his royal highness Edward duke of York, president, and the governors of the London Hospital. &c.“4to, he closed his literary labours. His faculties continued unimpaired for some time after this period; and, in 1769, he gave the principal materials to Mr. Ruffhead, for his” Life of Mr. Pope." He also transferred 500l. to lord Mansfield, judge Wilmot, and Mr. Charles Yorke, upon trust, to found a lecture in the form of a course of sermons; to prove the truth of revealed religion in general, and of the Christian in particular, from the completion of the prophecies in the Old and New Testament, which relate to the Christian church, especially to the apostacy of Papal Rome. To this foundation we owe the admirable introductory letters of bishop Hurd and the well- adapted continuation of bishops Halifax and Bagot, Dr. Apthorp, the Rev. R. Nares, and others. It is a melancholy reflection, that a life spent in the constant pursuit of knowledge frequently terminates in the loss of those powers, the cultivation and improvement of which are attended to with too strict and unabated a degree of ardour. This was in some degree the misfortune of Dr. Warburton. Like Swift and the great duke of Marlborough, he gradually sunk into a situation in which it was a fatigue to him to enter into general conversation. There were, however, a few old and valuable friends, in whose company, even to the last, his mental faculties were exerted in their wonted force; and at such times he would appear cheerful for several hours, and on the departure of his friends retreat as it were within himself. This melancholy habit was aggravated by the loss of his only son, a very promising young gentleman, who died of a consumption but a short time before the bishop himself resigned to fate June 7, 1779, in the eighty-first year of his age. A neat marble monument has been lately erected in the cathedral of Gloucester, with the inscription below *.

In 1654, both the Savilian professors performed their exercise in order to proceed doctors in divinity; and, when they were to be presented, Wallis claimed precedency. (See Wallis.) This occasioned a dispute; which being decided in favour of Ward, who was really the senior, Wallis went out grand compounder, and by that means obtained the precedency. In 1657 he was elected principal of Jesus-college by the direction of Dr. Mansell, who had been ejected from that headship many years before; but Cromwell put in one Francis Howell, with a promise of So/. a year to Dr. Ward, which was never paid. In 1659 he was chosen president of Trinity-college, although absolutely disqualified for the office, and was therefore obliged, at the restoration, to resign it. At that time, however, he was presented to the vicarage of St. Lawrence-Jewry: for, though he was not distinguished by his sufferings during the exile of the royal family, yet he was known to be so averse to the measures of the late times, and to be so well affected to the royal cause, that his compliances were forgiven. He was installed also, in 1660, in the precentorship of the church of Exeter. In 1661 he became fellow of the Royal Society, and dean of Exeter; and the following year was advanced to the bishopric of that church. Dr. Pope tells us, he was promoted to that see, without knowing any thing of it, by the interest of the duke of Albemarle, sir Hugh Pollard, and other gentlemen, whom he had obliged during his residence at Exeter.

On the restoration, he was, by special order from his majesty, repla ed in his office of auditor-general, and a parliament beiug summoned in May 1661, he was unanimously elected representative oPthe university of Dublin. He was very instrumental in the parliamentary grant of 30,000l. to the marquis, now duke, of Ormond, who distinguished him in a very particular manner. By his grace’s interest, he was made one of the fourcommissioners of appeal in causes of the excise, and new impost raised by the statute of 14th and 15th Charles II. with a salary of 150l. He was also appointed one of the commissioners for the execution of the king’s declaration for the settlement of the kingdom, and for the satisfaction of the several interests of adventurers, soldiers, and others, and was, by the king’s instructions, made of the quorum in this commission, without whose presence and concurrence no act could be done in execution of the declaration. His majesty, in consideration of his faithful services for a great number of years, and perhaps not forgetting a handsome sum of money which he had sent him in his exile, was graciously pleased to offer to create him a viscount of the kingdom of Ireland, but this he refused, and likewise a baronetcy. At his request, however, the king granted him two blank baronet’s patents, which he filled up and disposed of to two friends, whose posterity, Harris says, “to this day enjoy the honours,” but he does not mention their names.

As an antiquary, sir James Ware must ever be held in veneration by his countrymen. He was the Camden of Ireland, and was deficient only in not understanding the Irish language; yet major Vallancey observes, that considering his ignorance of that language, he did much. “His works are the outlines and materials of a great plan, which he enjoyed neither life nor abilities to finish; and it is much to be lamented that he had not the good fortune to meet with so experienced and intelligent an amanuensis as Mac Terbiss sooner.” He found, however, an excellent editor in Walter Harris, esq. who married his grand-daughter, and published all his works, except the Annals of Ireland, in 1739 1745, 3 vols. fol. ornamented with engravings. These were reprinted in 1764, 2 vols. foi. a work which now bears a very high price. Sir James Ware’s ms collections relative to Ireland were purchased of his heir by lord Clarendon, when lord-lieutenant in 1686, and after his death by the duke of Chandos, whom the public spirited dean of St. Patrick’s in vain solicited to deposit them in the public library at Dublin. These underwent a second dispersion by public auction. Dr. Milles, dean of Exeter, whose uncle had considerable property in Ireland, purchased a large part, and deposited them in the British Museum; Dr. Rawlinson bought others, and bequeathed them to the library of St. John’s-college, Oxford, and some part fell into the hands of lord Newport, chancellor of Ireland. Of these Mss. a catalogue was printed at Dublin about 1641, and another at Oxford in 1697, in the “Catalogue of Mss. of England and Ireland.” Sir James was a man of a charitable disposition, and frequently contributed considerable sums of money to the relief of the indigent, especially to decayed royalists, whom he also often invited to his hospitable table. Harris says he always forgave the fees of office to widows, clergymen, and clergymen’s sons, as we have already noticed; and adds, that he was frequently known to lend -money, where he had no prospect of repayment, not knowing how to deny any body who asked. On one occasion, a house in Dublin, forfeited by the rebellion, being granted to him, he sent for the widow and children of the forfeiting person, and conveyed it back to them.

, an eminent English prelate, archbishop of Canterbury, and lord high chancellor, the son of Robert Warham, was born of a genteel family at Okely, in Hampshire. He was educated at Winchester school, whence he was admitted a fellow of New college, Oxford, in 1475. There he took the degree of doctor of laws, and, according to Wood, left the college in 1488. In the same year he appears to have been collated to a rectorship by the bishop of Ely, and soon afterwards became an advocate in the court of arches, and principal or moderator of the civil law school in St. Edward’s parish, Oxford. In 1493 he was sent by Henry VII. with sir Edward Poynings, on an embassy to Philip duke of Burgundy, to persuade him to deliver up Perkin Warbeck, who had assumed the title of Richard duke of York, second son of king Edward IV. representing that he had escaped the cruelty of his uncle king Richard III. and was supported in this imposture by Margaret, duchess dowager of Burgundy, sister of Edward IV. as she had before given encouragement to Lambert Simuel, the pretended earl of Warwick, out of the implacable hatred which she had conceived against Henry VII. Upon this remonstrance the ambassadors were assured by the duke’s council (himself being then in his minority) that “the archduke, for the love of king Henry, would in no sort aid or assist the pretended duke, but in all things preserve the amity he had with the king; but for the duchess dowager, she was absolute in the lands of her dowry, and that he could not hinder her from disposing of her own.” This answer, being founded on an assertion not true, namely, that the duchess dowager was absolute in the lands of her dowry, produced a very sharp reply from the English ambassadors; and when they returned home Henry VII. was by no means pleased with their success. They, however, told him plainly that the duchess dowager had a great party in the archduke’s council, and that the archduke did covertly support Perkin. The king for some time resented this, but the matter appears to have been accommodated in a treaty of commerce concluded in February 1496, by certain commissioners, one of whom, on the part of England, was Dr. Warham.

In March 1503-4, bishop Warham was translated to the see of Canterbury, in which he was installed with great solemnity, Edward duke of Buckingham officiating as his steward on that occasion. He was likewise, on May 28, 1506, unanimously elected chancellor of the university of Oxford, being then, and ever after, a great friend and benefactor to that university, and to learning in general. In 1509, Henry VII. died, and was succeeded by his son Henry VIII. from whose promising abilities great expectations were formed. Archbishop Warham’s high rank in the church, and the important office he held in the state, as lord chancellor, naturally caused him to preside at the council-board of the young king, and his rank and talents certainly gave him great authority there. One of the first matters of importance, in the new reign, was the marriage of the king, which, from his tender age, and his aversion to it r had not yet taken place, and it was now necessary that his majesty should decide to break it off, or conclude it. Warham still continued to oppose it, and Fox, as before, contended for it; and it, accordingly, was performed June 3, 1509; and on the 24th of the same month, the king and queen were crowned at Westminster by archbishop W r arham. In the years 1511 and 1512, we find our prelate zealously persecuting those who were termed heretics; and although the inttances of his interference with the opinions of the reformation are neither many, nor bear the atrocious features of a Bonner or a Gardiner, they form no small blemish in his character.

, Lucasian professor of mathematics in the university of Cambridge, was descended from an ancient family at Mitton, in the parish of Fittes, Shropshire, being the eldest son of John Waring of that place. He was born in 1734, and after being educated at the free school at Shrewsbury, under Mr. Kotchkis, was sent on one of Millington’s exhibitions to Magdalen college, Cambridge, where he applied himself with such assiduity to the study of mathematics, that in 1757, when he proceeded bachelor of arts, he was the senior wrangler, or most distinguished graduate of the year. This honour, for the securing of which he probably postponed his first degree to the late period of his twenty-third year, led to his election, only two years afterwards, to the office of Lucasian professor. The appointment of a young man, scarcely twenty-five years of age, and still only a bachelor of arts, to a chair which had been honoured by the names of Newton, Saunderson, and Barrow, gave great offence to the senior members of the university, by whom the talents and pretensions of the new professor were severely arraigned. The first chapter of his “Miscellanea Analytica,” which Mr. Waring circulated in vindication of his scientific character, gave rise to a controversy of some duration. Dr. Powell, master of St. John’s, commenced the attack by a pamphlet of “Observations” upon this specimen of the professor’s qualifications for his office. Wariug was defended in a very able reply, for which he was indebted to Mr. Wilson, then an under-graduate of Peter House, afterwards sir John Wilson, a judge of the common pleas, and a magistrate justly beloved and revered for his amiable temper, learning, honesty, and independent spirit. In 1760, Dr. Powell wrote a defence of his “Observations,” and here the controversy ended. Mr. Waring’s deficiency of academical honours was supplied in the same year by the degree of M. A. conferred upon him by royal mandate, and he remained in the undisturbed possession of his office. Two years afterwards, his work, a part of which had excited so warm a dispute, was published from the university press, in quarto, under the title of “Miscellanea Analytica de Æquationibus Algebraicis et Curvarum Proprietatibus,” with a dedication to the duke of Newcastle. It appears from the title-page, that Waring was by this time elected a fellow of his college. The book itself, so intricate and abstruse are its subjects, is understood to have been little studied even by expert mathematicians. Indeed, speaking of this and his other works, in a subsequent publication, he says himself, “I never could hear of any reader in England out of Cambridge, who took the pains to read and understand what I have written.”

, an eminent surgeon, was born in the island of Antigua, in 1717, on the family estate, which he inherited, together with a ring, famous in history, as the one given by queen Elizabeth to the earl of Essex, and which in the hour of impending danger he entrusted to the countess of Nottingham, who never delivered it to the queen, and this, according to the story, was the cause of Essex’s losing his life. By some means this ring had regularly descended, together with the estate, in the Warner family. Mr. Warner was sent to England at an early age, and educated at Westminster school. At the age of seventeen he was apprenticed to the celebrated surgeon, Samuel Sharpe, and after residing seven years with him, was admitted joint lecturer in anatomy at St. Thomas’s hospital with Mr. Sharpe, after whose resignation Mr. Warner continued the lectures for several years. In 1746, during the rebellion in Scotland, he volunteered his professional services, and joined the royal army under the duke of Cumberland, In the course of that campaign he was recalled to London to fill the office of surgeon to Guy’s hospital, a situation which he held, with increasing reputation, and great professional success, for the long period of forty-four years. During this time his private practice became extensive, and his fame was increased by his valuable treatises on the cataract, the hydrocele, &c. and his still more va-r luable volume of “Cases in Surgery,” 1754, &c. In 1756 he was elected a fellow of the royal society, in whose Transactions a number of his communications were published. In 1764 he was elected a -member of the court of assistants of the then corporation of surgeons, and in 1771, became one of the court of examiners, in which office he continued to discharge his duty most punctually until the last month of his life.

Owing to some disagreement with the parishioners of Chelsea, which had taken place before he left that curacy, he accepted the duty of Chawton and Droxford, but after a few months returned to Basingstoke. In 1747-8 he was presented by the duke of Bolton to the rectory of Winslade, and as this, although a living of small produce, was probably considered by him as the earnest of more valuable preferment, he immediately married Miss Daman of that neighbourhood, to whom, his biographer informs us, he had been for some time most enthusiastically attached. In 1747, according to Mr. WoolPs account, he had published a volume of Odes, in conjunction with Collins, but on consulting the literary registers of the time, it appears that each published a volume of poems in 1746, and in the same month. It cannot now be ascertained what degree of fame accrued to our author from this volume, but in the preface we find him avowing those sentiments on the nature of genuine poetry which he expanded more at large afterwards, and which were the foundation of what has since been termed “The School of the Wartons.”

In 1751, his patron the duke of Bolton invited him to be his companion on a tour to the south of France. For this, Mr. Wooll informs us, he had two motives, “the society of a man of learning and taste, and the accommodation of a Protestant clergyman, who, immediately on the death of his duchess, then in a confirmed dropsy, could marry him to the lady with whom he lived, and who was universally known and distinguished by the name of Polly Peachum.” Whichever of these motives predominated in the duke’s mind, it is much to be regretted that our author so far forgot what was due to his character and profession as to accept the offer. But if any circumstance, besides the consciousness of doing wrong, could embitter the remembrance of this solitary blemish in his public life, it was, that, after all, the only hopes which could justify his compliance were very ungraciously disappointed. For some reason or other, he was obliged to leave his patron, and come to England before the duchess died, and when that event took place, and he solicited permission to return to the duke, he had the mortification to learn that the ceremony had been performed by Mr. Devisme, chaplain to the embassy at Turin.

So extraordinary a letter surely requires no comment. In 1781, he published a volume of “Chemical Essays,” addressed to his pupil the duke of Rutland, which was received with such deserved approbation, as to induce the author to give to the world, at ditferent times, four additional volumes of equal merit with the first. It has been stated, that when bishop Watson obtained the professorship of chemistry, without much previous knowledge of that science, he deemed it his duty to acquire it; and accordingly studied it with so much industry, as materially to injure his health: with what success, his publications on that branch of philosophy demonstrate. When he was appointed to that professorship, he gave public lectures, which were attended by numerous audiences; and his “Chemical Essays” prove that his reputation was not undeserved. They have passed already through several editions, and are accounted a valuable manual to those who pursue that branch of science. “The subjects of these Essays,” to use the author’s own words, “have been chosen, not so much with a view of giving a system of Chemistry to the world, as with the humble design of conveying, in a popular way, a general kind of knowledge to persons not much versed in chemical inquiries.” He accordingly apologizes to chemists, for having explained common matters with, what will appear to them, a disgusting minuteness; and for passing over in silence some of the most interesting questions, such as those respecting the analysis of air and fire, &c. The learned author also apologizes to divines; whose forgiveness he solicits, for having stolen a few hours from the studies of his profession, and employed them in the cultivation of natural philosophy; pleading, in his defence, the example of some of the greatest characters that ever adorned either the University of Cambridge, or the Church of England. In the preface to the last of these volumes, he introduces the following observations: “When I was elected professor of divinity in 1771, I determined to abandon for ever the study of chemistry, and I did abandon it for several years but the veteris vestigia jtamm& still continued to delight me, and at length seduced me from my purpose. When I was made a bishop in 1782, I again determined to quit my favourite pursuit: the volume which I now offer to the public is a sad proof of the imbecility of my resolution. I have on this day, however, offered a sacrifice to other people’s notions, I confess, rather than to my own opinion of episcopal decorum. I have destroyed all my chemical manuscripts. A prospect of returning health might have persuaded me to pursue this delightful science; but I have now certainly done with it for ever at least I have taken the most effectual step I could to wean myself from an attachment to it: for with the holy zeal of the idolaters of old, who had been addicted to curious arts I have burned my books.”

Having been tutor to the late duke of Rutland, when his grace resided at Cambridge, Dr. Watson was presented by him to the valuable rectory of Knaptoft, Leicestershire, in 1782; and in the same year, through the recommendation of the same noble patron, was advanced and consecrated to the bishopric of Landaff. In consequence of the small ness of the revenues of the latter, Dr. Watson was allowed to hold with it the archdeaconry of Ely, his rectory in Leicestershire, the divinity professorship, and rectory of Somersham. At that time his fame for talents and science stood very high; but his politics having taken an impression from the party which he had espoused, and which, though then admitted to power, had been in opposition, probably prevented his advancement to a more considerable eminence on the episcopal bench*. Immediately after his promotion, he published “A Letter to archbishop Cornwallis on the Church Revenues,” 1783, 4to; recommending a new disposition, by which the bishoprics should be rendered equal to each other in value, and the smaller livings be so far increased in income, by a proportionate deduction from the richer endowments, as to render them a decent competency. This letter produced several pamphlets in opposition to the scheme, which was never afterwards brought forward in any other shape. In 1784 bishop Watson published “A Sermon preached before the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in the Abbey Church, Westminster, on Friday, Jan. 30,” 4to; and also “Visitation Articles for the Diocese of Landaff,” 4to.

“A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Landaff in June 1805,” was published in that year; and another in 1808: “Two Apologies, one for Christianity against Gibbon, and the other for the Bible against Paine, published together with two Sermons and a Charge in Defence of Revealed Religion,” in 1806, 8vo: “A Second Defence of Revealed Religion, in two Sermons; preached in the Chapel-royal, St. James’s, 1807.” “Communica r tion to the Board of Agriculture, on Planting and Waste Lands,” 1808. His lordship’s latest publication was a collection, of “Miscellaneous Tracts on Religious, Political, and Agricultural subjects,” 1815, 2 vols. 8vo. Some articles by him occur in the Transactions of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, of which he was one of the earliest members, During the last years of his life his lordship employed his leisure upon a history of his own times, after the manner of bishop Burnet’s celebrated work; and left directions for its publication after his decease. Such a performance from so, eminent a character will, of course, be expected with no ordinary anxiety by the political as well as the literary world, and will throw light on those parts of his own character and conduct which have been the subject of some difference of opinion. In the mean time it may be said of him, that he was an excellent public speaker, both in the pulpit and in the senate; his action graceful, his voice full and harmonious, and his delivery chaste and correct. As far as his influence extended, he was invariably the patron of merit. As a writer, bishop Watson united the knowledge of a scholar with the liberality of a gentlemaa, and in the course of a long, active, and conspicuous life, his lordship’s demeanour was marked by the characteristics of a very superior mind. His partiality to unlimited toleration in regard to religious opinion called down upon him the applauses of one part of the community, and the censures of the other. He uniformly exerted his endeavours to procure the abolition of the corporation and test-acts. In his private deportment, though somewhat reserved, he was remarkable for the simplicity of his manners, and the equality of his temper; enjoying all the emoluments of his stations, and the fame arising from his writings, in rural retirement, at Calgarth-park, Westmorland, a beautiful sequestered situation on the celebrated Lakes, a retreat which he had not only adorned and improved, but in some measure created, and where he passed much of his time in the indulgence of those deep studies to which his whole life was addicted. His plantations here were very extensive, and in 1789 gained him a premium from the Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce. On the whole, Dr. Watson may justly be pronounced a prelate of distinguished abilities, learning, research, and industry. He had a numerous family, and many distinguished personages were attached to him by the ties of friendship; amongst whom, the late duke of Grafton, to the close of his life, was long one of the most conspicuous.

His acknowledged talents and political sagacity procured him the unreserved confidence of his royal master, who appears to have treated him with condescending familiarity, employed him in some affairs of critical importance, and received throughout the whole of his turbulent reign abundant proofs of his invariable loyalty and attachment. In 1450, when the rebellion of Jack Cade burst forth, Waynflete, who had retired to the nunnery of Holywell, was sent for by the king to Canterbury, and advised the issuing a proclamation offering pardon to all concerned in the rebellion, except Cade himself; in consequence of which the rebels dispersed, and left their leader to his fate. Soon after, when Richard, duke of York, took up arms, the king sent our prelate, with the bishop of Ely, to inquire his reasons for so alarming a step. The duke replied, that his only view was to remove evil counsellors from his highness, and particularly the duke of Somerset. Waynflete and his colleague having made this report, the king ordered the duke of Somerset to be imprisoned, and received the duke of York with kindness, who on his part took a solemn oath of future allegiance and fidelity; which, however, he violated at the battle of Northampton in 1460. In October 1453, Waynflete baptised the young prince of Wales by the name of Edward, afterwards "Edward IV. In October 1456, he was appointed lord high chancellor in the room of Bourchier, archbishop of Canterbury; and the following year he sat in judgment with the archbishop and other prelates, upon Dr. Reginald Pecocke, bishop of Chichester, who had advanced some doctrines contrary to the prevailing religious opinions. On this occasion the court was unanimous in enjoining Pecocke to a solemn recantation, and confinement to his house; his writings also were ordered to be burnt; but the archbishop, according to Mr. Lewis’s account, took a far more active share in this business than the chancellor.

, a minor poet and miscellaneous writer, born at Abington in Northamptonshire in 1689, received the rudiments of his education in Westminsterschool, where he wrote the celebrated little poem called “Apple-Pie,” which was universally attributed to Dr. King, and as such had been incorporated in his works. Very early inlife Mr. Welsted obtained a place in the office of ordnance, by the interest of his friend the earl of Clare, to whom, in 1715, he addressed a small poem (which Jacob calls “a very good one”) on his being created duke of Newcastle; and to whom, in 1724, he dedicated an octavo volume, under the title of “Epistles, Odes, &c. written on several subjects; with a translation of Longinus’s Treatise on the Sublime.” In 1717 he wrote “The Genius, on occasion of the duke of Marlborough’s Apoplexy;” an ode much commended by Steele, and so generally admired as to be attributed to Addison; and afterwards ' An Epistle to Dr. Garth, on the Duke’s death.“He addressed a poem to the countess of Warwick, on her marriage with Mr Addison; a poetical epistle to the duke of Chandos; and an ode to earl Cadogan, which was highly extolled by Dean Smedley. Sir Richard Steele was indebted to him for boih the prologue and epilogue to” The Conscious Lovers;“and Mr. Philips, for a complimentary poem on his tragedy of” Humfrey duke of Gloucester.“In 1718, he wrote” The Triumvirate, or a letter in verse from Palemon to Celia, from Bath,“which was considered as a satire against Mr. Pope. He wrote several other occasional pieces against this gentleman, who, in recompence for his enmity, thus mentioned him in his” Dunciad:"

The characteristic ardour of Wentworth’s affections began to be very early remarked; and as he was devoted to the interests of his friends, he proved no less decided in the prosecution of his enemies. Habituated to the indulgencies of a plentiful fortune, and unaccustomed to opposition, he was choleric in the extreme, and the sudden violence of his resentment was apt to transport him beyond all bounds of discretion. Yet this defect was in a great measure atoned for by the manliness and candour with which it was acknowledged. When his friends, who perceived how detrimental it must prove to his future welfare, frequently admonished him of it, their remonstrances were always taken in good part. He endeavoured, by watching still more anxiously his infirmity, to convince them of his earnest desire to amend: and his attachment was increased towards those who advised him with sincerity and freedom. Sir George Radcliffe, the most intimate of his friends, informs us, that he never gained more upon his trust and affection than when he told him of his weaknesses. On his return from abroad Wentworth appeared at court, and was knighted by king James, and about the same time married Margaret Clifford, the eldest daughter of the earl of Cumherland. In the following year (1614) he succeeded, by the death of his father, to a baronetcy, and an estate of 6000l. a year. His time was now occupied with the pleasures and cares which naturally attend a country gentleman of distinction, but he seems to have quickly attracted the notice of his county and of government; for he had not above a year enjoyed his inheritance when he was sworn into the commission of the peace, and nominated by sir John Savile to succeed him as custos rotulorum, or keeper of the archives, for the West Riding of Yorkshire, an office bestowed only on gentlemen of the first consideration. The resignation of Savile, although apparently voluntary, proceeded from some violent quarrels with his neighbours, the result of his restless and turbulent disposition; and even Wentworth soon became the object of his decided enmity. Having found means to interest in his favour the duke of Buckingham, who at that period governed the councils of king James, Savile meditated a restoration to his former office. At his instance the duke wrote to Wentworth, informing him that the king, having again taken sir John Savile into his favour, had resolved to employ him in his service; and requesting that he would freely return the office of custos rotulorum to the man who had voluntarily consigned it to his hands. Wentworth, instead of complying, exposed the misrepresentations of his antagonist; shewed that his resignation had been wnaog from him by necessity, and indicated his intention of coming to London to make good his assertion. The duke, though very regardless of giving offence in the pursuit of his purposes, did not, however, judge this a sufficient occasion to risk the displeasure of the Yorkshire gentlemen. He therefore replied with much seeming cordiality, assuring Wentworth that his former letter proceeded entirely from misinformation, and that the king had only consented to dispense with his service from the idea that he himself desired an opportunity to resign. This incident is chiefly remarkable as it laid the first foundation of that animosity with Buckingham which was the cause of many questionable circumstances in the conduct of Wentworth. The duke was not of a disposition to forget even the slightest opposition to his will; and Wentworth was not a man to be in*­jured with impunity.

A parliament having been summoned to meet in 1621, Wentworth was returned for the county of York, and appeared in the House of Commons at a period when an unusual combination of circumstances drew forth a singular display of address, intrepidity, and eloquence. The part which Wentwortb acted during the two sessions of this parliament, was circumspect and moderate. We indeed find him active in promoting the expulsion of a member who had spoken with much irreverence of a bill for repressing those licentious sports on the sabbath, which the royal proclamation had authorised; and when the king hazarded the assertion that the privileges of the commons were enjoyed by his permission, and their deliberations controulable by his authority, Wentworth urged the House to declare explicitly that their privileges were their right and inheritance, and the direction of their proceedings subject solely to their own cognizance. The abrupt dissolution of the parliament, he followed with expressions of regret and apprehension. Yet his language towards the court was always respectful, and his eloquence more frequently employed to moderate than to excite the zeal of his colleagues. Two years after, in 1624, another parliament was called, in which Wentworth, again returned, appears to have refrained from any particular activity. On the accession, however, of Charles I. he took his station among the most conspicuous of the party in opposition to the measures of the court. But this did not last long. Buckingham found means to conciliate him by expressions of esteem, and promises of future favour. These overtures were not unacceptable to Wentworth. To the request for his good offices, he replied “that he honoured the duke’s person, and was ready to serve him in the quality of an honest man and a gentleman.” The duke replied by cordial acknowledgments; and during the short remainder of the session Wentworth exerted himself to moderate the resentment of his party. This, however, did not remove the apprehensions of Buckingham, and therefore, when in 1625 another parliament was called, he took care that Wentworth should be nominated sheriff of the county, which office then included a disability to serve in parliament. Wentworth did all he could to avert this blow, but in vain; and he was flattering himself that he bore it with great composure and resignation, when Buckingham made him new overtures. Alarmed at the accusations preparing in parliament, and fearful of the general indignation bursting around him, Buckingham deemed it high time to conciliate some of those angry spirits whom his former insolence had exasperated. To Wentworth, whose vigour and influence were objects of dread, he forgot not to apply his arts; and, having called him to a personal interview, assured him that his nomination as sheriff had taken place without his knowledge, and during his absence; and begged thai all former mistakes should be buried in a contract of permanent friendship. The protestations of his grace were evidently false, his proffer of amity probably insincere; yet Wentworth met his advances with cordiality; and having again waited upon the duke, and experienced the most obliging reception he departed in full satisfaction for Yorkshire, to await, amidst his private and official avocations, the result of these favourable appearances.

, a celebrated physician, was born at Schaft'hausen, Dec. 23, 1620. He studied at Strasburgh and Basle for eight years, and after having attended some of the learned medical professors of Italy for two more years, returned to Basle, and took his doctor’s degree in July 1647. In practice he was so successful, that his advice was in great demand, not only through Swisserland, but in the German courts, In 1675 the duke of Wirtemberg appointed him his physician, and some time afterwards the marquis of Dourlach, and the elector Palatine, bestowed the same title on him. His care and anxiety, in attending upon the duke of Wirtemberg in 1691, and upon the soldiers of i the imperial army commanded by the duke, was of great prejudice to his own health, which was at last fatally injured by his attendance on the army of the emperor Leopold, in which an epidemic fever prevailed. He contracted an asthmatic disorder, ending in a dropsy, of which he died January 28, 1695 His works, most of which have been often reprinted, are highly valued for practical utility, abounding in accurate and judicious observation. Among these we may enumerate his, 1. “Observationes anatomicae ex cadaveribus eorum quos sustulit Apoplexia; 1f this, after going through three editions, was published, at least twice, under the title of” Historia Apoplecticorum,“Amst. 1710, 1724, 8vo. 2.” Observations Medico-practice de affectibus capitis internis et externis," 1727, 4to, published by his grandsons, with his life, and a history of the disorder of which he died. This work was the result of fifty years observation.

In the beginning of 1705 he printed a poem on the battle of Blenheim, with which the duke of Marlborough was so well pleased, that he made him chaplain to colonel Lepelle’s regiment, which was to remain in England some time. In consequence of the same poem, a noble lord sent for him to London, promising to procure him a prebend; but unhappily he was at this time engaged in a controversy with the dissenters, who being in favour at queen Anne’s court, and in parliament, had influence enough to obstruct his promotion, and even to procure his removal from the chaplaincy of the regiment.

, a gentleman of literary talents, and long known for his fine library and museum, was the son of Richard West, esq. of Alscott, in Warwickshire, said to be descended, according to family tradition, frona Leonard, a younger son of Thomas West, lord De la Warr, who died in 1525. He was educated at Baliol college, Oxford, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1726. He had an early attachment to the study of antiquities, and was elected F. S. A. in 1726, and was afterwards one of the vice-presidents. Of the Royal Society likewise he became a fellow in the same year, and was first treasurer, from Nov. 1736 to Nov. 1768, when he was elected president, and held that honourable office until his death, July 2, 1772. In 1741 he was chosen one of the representatives in parliament for St. Alban’s, and, being appointed one of the joint secretaries of the treasury, he continued in that office until 1762. His old patron, the duke of Newcastle, afterwards procured him a pension of 2000l. For what services so large a sum was granted, we are not told.

, was eld* est son of Philip lord Wharton, who distinguished himself on the side of the parliament during the civil wars, by his second wife, Jane, daughter and heiress of Arthur Goodwyn, of Upper Winchendon, in Buckinghamshire, esq. He was born about 1640, and sat in several parliaments during the reigns of Charles II. and James II. in which he appeared in opposition to the court. In 1688, he is supposed to have drawn up the first sketch of the invitation of the prince of Orange to come to England, which, being approved and subscribed by several peers and commoners, was carried over to Holland by the earl, afterwards duke, of Shrewsbury: and joined that prince at Exeter soon after his landing at Torbay. On the advancement of William and Mary to the throne, Mr. Wharton was made comptroller of the household, and sworn of the privy-council Feb. 20, 1689. On the death of his father, he succeeded to the title of lord Wharton, and in April 1697 was made chief justice in Eyre ' on this side of the Trent, and lord* lieutenant of Oxfordshire. In the beginning of 1701, upon the debate in the House of Peers about the address relative to the partition-treaty, his lordship moved an addition to it, to this purpose, that as the French king had broke that treaty, they should advise his majesty to treat no more with bin), or rely on his word without further security. And this, though much opposed by all who were against engaging in a new war, was agreed to by the majority of the House.

In 1706, he was appointed one of the commissioners for the union with Scotland; which being concluded, he was one of the most zealous advocates for passing the bill enacting it; and in December the same year, he was created earl of Wharton in the county of Westmorland. Upon the meeting of the parliament in Oct. 1707, the earl supported the petition of the merchants against the conduct of the admiralty, which produced an address to the queen on that subject. In the latter end of 1708, his lordship was appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland, where he arrived April 2, 1709, and opened a session of parliament there, with a speech reminding them of the inequality with respect to numbers, between the protestants and papists of that kingdom, and of the necessity of considering, whether any new bills were wanting to inforce or explain those good laws already in being, for preventing the growth of popery and of inculcating and preserving a good understanding amongst all protestants there. He shewed likewise his tenderness for the dissenters, in the speech which he made to both Houses at the close of the session Aug. 30, in which he told them, that he did not question, but that they understood too well the true interest of the protestant religion in that kingdom, not to endeavour to make all such protestants as easy as they could, who were willing to. contribute what they could to defend the whole against the common enemy; and that it was not the law then past to “prevent the growth of popery,” nor any other law that the wit of man could frame, which would secure them from popery, while they continued divided among themselves; it being demonstrable, that, unless there be a firm friendship and confidence amongst the protestants of Ireland, it was impossible for them either to be happy, or to be safe. And he concluded with declaring to them the queen’s fixed resolution, that as her majesty would always maintain and support the church, as by law established, so it was her royal will and intention, that dissenters should not be persecuted or molested in the exercise of their religion. His lordship’s conduct was such, as lord lieutenant of Ireland, that the Irish House of Peers, in their address to the queen, returned their thanks to her majesty for sending a person of “so great wisdom and experience” to be their chief governor. His lordship returned thither on May 7. 1710, but in Oct. following, delivered up his commission of lord lieutenant, which was given to the duke of Ormond.

The earl continued in a vigorous opposition to the measures of the court during the last four years of queen Anne’s reign, and particularly against the schism bill; and in June 1713, moved the address in the House of Lords, that her majesty should use her most pressing instances with the duke of Lorrain, and with all the princes and states in amity and correspondence with her majesty, that they would not receive the Pretender, or suffer him to continue within their dominions. In Sept. 1714, soon after the arrival of king George I. in England, his lordship was made lord privy seal, and in the beginning of January following, was created marquis of Wharton and Malmsbury in England, and earl of Rathfarnham and marquis of Catherlough, in Ireland. But he did not long enjoy these distinctions, as he died at his house in Dover-street, April 12, 1715, in the seventy-sixth year of his age.

, son to the preceding, was born about 1699. He was educated at home; and, as what was calculated to distinguish him most, his father’s prime object was to form him a complete orator. The first prelude to his innumerable misfortunes may justly be reckoned his falling in love with, and privately marrying at the Fleet, when he was scarcely sixteen years old, a young lady, the daughter of major-general Holmes; a match by no means suited to his birth and fortune, and far less to the ambitious views his father had entertained for him. However, the amiable lady deserved infinitely more happiness than she met with by an alliance with his family; and the young lord was not so unhappy through any misconduct of hers as by the death of his father, which this precipitate marriage is thought to have occasioned about a year after. The duke, being so early free from paternal restraints, and possessed of a fortune of 16,000l. a year, plunged into those numberless excesses which became at last fatal to him; and proved, as Pope expresses it,

When the marquis was at Lyons, he took a very strange step, little expected from him. He wrote a letter to the chevalier de St. George, then residing at Avignon, to whom he presented a very fine stone-horse. Upon receiving this present, the chevalier sent a man of quality to the marquis, who carried him privately to his court, where he was received with the greatest marks of esteem, and had the title of duke of Northumberland conferred upon him. He remained there, however, but one day; and then returned post to Lyons, whence he set out for Paris. He likewise made a visit to the queen-dowager of England, consort to James II. then residing at St. Germain*, to whom he paid his court, pursuing the same rash measures as at Avignon. It was reported that he told the queen he was resolved to atone by his own services for the faults of his family, and would exert all his endeavours to subvert the Hanover suecession, and promote the interest of the exiled prince; but as he complained that being underage, and kept out of his estate, he wanted money to carry on the design, the dowager-queen, though poor, pawned her jewels to raise him 2000l. We shall afterwards find that the chevalier accommodated him with the same sum long after the dowager’s death.

In Dec. 1716, the marquis arrived in England, where he did not remain long till he set out for Ireland; in which kingdom, on account of his extraordinary qualities, he had' the honour of being admitted, though under age, to take his seat in the House of Peers as earl of Rathfarnham and marquis Catherlough. He made use of this indulgence to take possession of his estate, and receive his rents, asking his tenants “if they durst doubt of his being of age, after the parliament had allowed him to be so?” In the Irish parliament he espoused a very different interest from that which he had so lately embraced. He distinguished himself, in this situation, as a violent partizan for the ministry; and acted in all other respects, as well in his private as public capacity, with the warmest zeal for government . In consequence of this zeal, shewn at a time when they stood much in need of men of abilities, and so little was expected from him, the king created him duke of Wharton; and, as soon as he came of age, he was introduced into the House of Lords in England, with the like blaze of reputation. Yet a little before the death of lord Stanhope, his grace again changed sides, opposed the court, and endeavoured to defeat the schemes of the ministry. He was one of the roost forward and vigorous in the defence of the bishop of Rochester, and in opposing the bill for inflicting pains and penalties on that prelate; and, as if this opposition was not sufficient, he published, twice a week, a paper called “The True Briton,” several thousands of which were dispersed weekly. In the mean time his boundless profusion had so burthened his estate, that a decree of chancery vested it in the hands of trustees fur the payment of his debts, allowing a provision of 1200l. per annum for his subsistence. This not being sufficient to support his title with dignity at home, he resolved to go abroad till his estate should be clear. But in this he only meant, as it should seem, to deceive by an appearance; for he went to Vienna, to execute a private commission, not in favour of the English ministry; nor did he ever shine to greater advantage as to his personal character than at the Imperial court. From Vienna he made a tour to Spain, where his arrival alarmed the English minister so much, that two expresses were sent from Madrid to London, upon an apprehension that his grace was received there in the character of an ambassador; upon which the duke received a summons under the privy seal to return home. His behaviour on this occasion was a sufficient indication that he never designed to return to England whilst affairs remained in the same state. This he had often declared, from his going abroad the second time; which, no doubt, was the occasion of his treating that solemn order with so much indignity, and endeavouring to inflame the Spanish court, not only against the person who delivered the summons, but also against the court of Great Britain itself, for exercising an act of power, as he was pleased to call it, within the jurisdiction of his Catholic majesty. After this he acted openly in the service of the Pretender, and appeared at his court, where he was received with the greatest marks of favour.

While thus employed abroad, his duchess, who had been neglected by him, died in England, April 14, 1726, and left no issue behind her. Soon after this, he fell vio-r lently in love with madam Obyrne, then one of the maids of honour to the queen of Spain. She was daughter of an Irish colonel in that service, who being dead, her mother lived upon a pension the king allowed her; so that this lady’s fortune consisted chiefly in her personal accomplishments. Many arguments were used, by their friends on both sides, to dissuade them from the marriage. The queen of Spain, when the duke asked her consent, represented to him, in the most lively terms, that the consequence of the match would be misery to them both; and absolutely refused her consent. Having now no hopes of obtaining her, he fell into a deep melancholy, which brought on a lingering fever. This circumstance reached her majesty’s ear: she was moved with his distress, and sent him word to endeavour the recovery of his health; and, as soon as he was ahle to appear abroad, she would speak to him in a more favourable manner than at their last interview. The duke, upon receiving this news, ima-> gined it the best way to take advantage of the kind disposition her majesty was then in; and summoning to his assistance his little remaining strength, threw himself at her majesty’s feet, and begged of her either to give him M. Obyrne, or order him not to live. The queen consented,' but told him he would soon repent it. After the solemnization of his marriage, he passed some time at Rome; where he accepted of a blue ribband, affected to appear with the title of duke of Northumberland, and for a while enjoyed the confidence of the exiled prince. But, as he could not always keep himself within the bounds of Italian gravity, and having no employment to amuse his active temper, he soon ran into his Usual excesses; which giving offence, it was thought proper for him to remove from that city for the present, lest he should at last fall into actual disgrace.

Accordingly, he quitted Rome, and went by sea to Barcelona; and then resolved upon a new scene of life, which few expected he would ever have engaged in. He wrote a letter to the king of Spain, acquainting him, that he would assist at the siege of Gibraltar as a volunteer. The king thanked him for the honour, and accepted his service: but he soon grew weary of this, and set his heart on Rome. In consequence of this resolution, he wrote a letter to the chevalier de St. George, full of respect and submission, expressing a desire of visiting his court; but the chevalier returned for answer, that he thought it more advisable for his grace to draw near England. The duke seemed resolved to follow his advice, set out for France in company with his duchess, and, attended by two or three servants, arrived at Paris in May 1728. Here he made little stay, but proceeded to Rouen, in his way, as some imagined, for England; but he stopped, and took up his residence at Rouen, without reflecting the least on the business that brought him to France. He was so far from making any concession to the government, in order to make his peace, that he did not give himself the least trouble about his personal estate, or any other concern in England. The duke had about 600l. in his possession when he arrived at Rouen, where more of his servants joined him from Spain. A bill of indictment was about this time preferred against him in England for high treason. The chevalier soon after sent him 2000l. for his support, of which he was no sooner in possession than he squandered it away. Asa long journey did not well suit with his grace’s finances, he went for Orleans; thence fell down the river Loire to Nantz, in Britany; and there he stopt some time, till he got a remittance from Paris, which was dispersed almost as soon as received. At Nantz some of his ragged servants rejoined him, and he took shipping with them for Bilboa, as if he had been carrying recruits to the Spanish regiments. PYorn Biiboa he wrote a humorous letter to a friend at Paris, giving a whimsical account of his voyage, and his manner of passing his time. The queen of Spain took the duchess to attend her person.

In Jan. 1731, the duke declined so fast, being in his quarters at Lerida, that he had not the use of his limbs so as to move without assistance; but, as he was free from pain, did not lose all his gaiety. He continued in this ill state of health for two months, when he gained a little strength, and found benefit from a certain mineral water in the mountains of Catalonia; but he was too much exhausted to recover. He relapsed the May following at Tarragona, whither he removed with his regiment: and, going to the above-mentioned waters, he fell into one of those faintingfits, to which he had been for some time subject, in a small village; and was utterly destitute of all the necessaries of life, till some charitable fathers of a Bernardine convent offered him what assistance their house afforded. The duke accepted their kind proposal; upon which they removed tmn to their convent, and administered all the relief in their power. Under this hospitable roof, after languishing a week, the duke of Wharton died May 31, 1731, without one friend or acquaintance to close his eyes. His funeral was performed in the same manner which the fathers observed to those of their own fraternity. Dying without issue, his titles became extinct. His widow survived to a very advanced age, and died in Feb 1777, and was buried in St. Pancras church-yard.

Like Buckingham and Rochester* says lord Orford, he <c comforted all the grave and dull by throwing away the. brightest profusion of parts on witty fooleries, debaucheries, and scrapes, which may mix graces with a great character, but can never compose one.“It is difficult to understand a sentence composed of such incoherent materials, but his lordship is more intelligible when he tells us that” with attachment to no party, though with talents to govern any party, this lively man exchanged the free air of Westminster for the gloom of the Escurial; the prospect of king George’s garter for the Pretender’s; and with indifference to all religion, the frolic lord who had written the ballad on the archbishop of Canterbury, died in the habit of a capuchin.“For this last particular, however, there appears no foundation. Lord Orford proceeds to mention that there are two volumes in 8-vo, called his” Life and Writings,“but containing of the latter nothing but seventyfour papers of the True Briton, and his celebrated speech in the House of Lords, in defence of Atterbury. But there are two other volumes 12mo, without date and with the same life as in the 2 vols. 8vo. (1731) th title of which is” The Poetical Works of Philip late Duke of Wharton aid others of the Wharton family, and of the duke’s intimate acquaintance, &c. with original letters, novels, &c.“In this farrago are some few poetical pieces which have generally been attributed to the duke, but the greater part are by other hands, and the whole given without any apparent authority. The late Mr. Ritson had formed the design of publishing Wharton’s genuine poetry, with a life. What he prepared is now before us, but does not amount to much. He probably began the collection in his latter days. Wharton appears to have been at one time a patron of men of letters. He certainly was such to Dr. Young, who dedicated the tragedy of the” Revenge" to him, in a style of flattery which must excite surprise in all who observe the date, 1722, and know that long before that period Wharton’s character was decided and notorious. Young might perhaps blush now, and it is certain that be lived afterwards to be completely ashamed, and to suppress his dedication.

, a learned abbot of St. Albans, was ordained a priest in 1382, and died in 1464, when he had been eighty-two years in priest’s orders, and above an hundred years old. He wrote a chronicle of twenty years of this period, beginning in 1441 and ending in 1461. It contains many original papers, and gives a very full account of some events, particularly of the two battles of St. Alban’s. More than one half of his chronicle is filled with the affairs of his own abbey, to which he was a great benefactor, particularly to the altar of the patron saint, which he adorned with much magnificence. About 1430 he employed Lydgate to translate the Latin legend of St. Alban’s life into English rhymes, for the purpose of familiarising the history of that saint to the monks of his convent. He enriched the library by procuring transcripts of useful books, and was on account of such pursuits in high favour with duke Humphrey, who, when about to found his library at Oxford, often visited St. Alban’s, and employed Whethamstede to collect valuable books for him.

, an eminent divine of the sixteenth century, was of the family of Whiteheads of Tuderiey in Hampshire, and was educated at Oxford, but whether at All Souls or Brasenose colleges, Wood has not deter* mined. He was chaplain to queen Anne Boleyn. Wood says, he was “a great light of learning, and a most heavenly professor of divinity.” Archbishop Cranmer says that “he was endowed with good knowledge, special honesty, fervent zeal, and politic wisdom,”' for which, in 1552, he nominated him as the fittest person for the archbishopric of Armagh. This nomination, however, did not succeed. lit the beginning of the tyrannic reign of queen Mary, he retired, with/many pf his countrymen, to Francfort, where he was chosen pastor to the English congregation of exiles, and when differences arose respecting church discipline, endeavoured to compose them by the moderation of his opinions. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, he “returned to England, and was one of the committee appointed to review king Edward’s liturgy; and in 1559 was also appointed one of the public disputants against the popish bishops* In this he appeared to so much advantage, that the queen is said to have offered him the archbishopric of Canterbury, but this he declined, as well as the mastership of the Savoy, excusing himself to the queen by saying that he could live plentifully by the preaching of the gospel without any preferment. He was accordingly a frequent preacher, and in various places where preaching was most wanted. He remained a single man, which much pleased the queen, who had a great antipathy against the married clergy. Lord Bacon informs us that when Whitehead was one day at court, the queen said,” I like thee better, Whitehead, because thou livest unmarried.“” In troth, madam,“he replied,” I like you the worse for the same cause.“Maddox, in his examination of Neal’s History of the Puritans, thinks that” Whitehead ought to be added to the number of those eminent pious men, who approved of the constitution, and died members of the church of England;“but it appears from Strype’s life of Grindal, that he was deprived in 1564 for objecting to the habits; how long he remained under censure we are not told. He died in 1571, but where buried, Wood was not able to discover. The only works attributed to his pen are,” Lections and Homilies on St. Paul’s Epistles“and in a” Brief Discourse of the Troubles begun at Francfort,“1575, 4to, are several of his discourses, and answers to the objections of Dr. Home concerning matters of discipline and worship. In Parkhurst’s” Epigram. Juvenil." are some addressed to Whitehead; and from the same authority we learn that he had been preceptor to Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk.

'tovjOn Feb. 8, he was appointed one of the three lords commissioners of the new great seal of the commonwealth, pf England, He appears disposed to apologize for accepting this office, and his apology is a curious one; “because he was already very deeply engaged with this party: that, dje business to be undertaken by him was the execution of law and justice, without which men could, not live one by another; a thing of absolute necessity to be done.” On the 14th of the same month, he was chosen one of the thirty persons who composed the council of state. A few months after he was elected high-stewardof Oxford. The commissioners of the great seal being about this time in want uf a convenient dwelling, parliament granted them the duke of Buckingham’s house. In Jane, Whitelocke made a learned speech to the new judges in the court of Common-pleas, who were then sworn into their offices. In November, he opposed a motion made in the House of Com* inons, that no lawyers should sit in parliament; and in 1650 made a very learned speech in the House, in defence of the antiquity and excellence of the laws of England.

About this time the pope (Urban) sent notice to king Edward, that he intended to cite him to his court at Avignon, to answer for his default in not performing the homage which king John acknowledged to the see of Rome; and for refusing to pay the tribute of 700 marks a-year, which that prince granted to the pope. The king laid this before the parliament, and was encouraged to resist the claim. One of the monks having endeavoured to vindicate it, Wickliffe replied; and proved that the resignation of the crown, and promise of a tribute made by king John, ought not to prejudice the kingdom, or oblige the present king, as it was done without consent of parliament. This introduced him to the court, and particularly to the duke of Lancaster, who took him under his patronage. At this time he styled himself peculiaris regis clericus, or the king’s own clerk or chaplain, but continued to profess himself an obedient son of the Roman church. Shortly after he was presented, by the favour of the duke of Lancaster, to the living of Lutterworth in Leicestershire, but in the diocese of Lincoln, and it was here that he advanced in his writings and sermons, those opinions which entitle him to the rank of reformer. But as he did not in the most open manner avow these seaiiments until he lost this living, his enemies then and since have taken occasion to impute them to a motive of revenge against the court of Rome which deprived him. This, however, is not strictly the truth, as he seems to have uttered and maintained some of his reforming opinions before he was turned out of the rectorship. This is evident from a tract entitled “Of the last age of the Church,” published in 1356, fourteen years before, in which he censures the popish exactions and usurpations.

King Edward III. died before these bulls arrived in England, and the university seemed inclined to pay very little respect to the one addressed to them. The duke of Lancaster and the earl-marshal openly declared they would not suffer, him to be imprisoned, and as yet, indeed, the bishops were not authorized by law to imprison heretics without the royal consent. The archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London, however, on the 19th Feb. 1378, issued out their mandate to the chancellor of the university of Oxford, commanding them to cite Wickliffe to appear before them in the church of St. Paul, London, within thirty days. But in such reputation was Wickliffe held at this time, that when, in the interval before his appearance, the first parliament of king Richard II. met, and debated “whether they might lawfully refuse to send the treasure out of the kingdom, after the pope required it on pain of censures, by virtue of the obedience due to him?” the resolution of this doubt was referred by the king and parliament to doctor Wickliffe, who undertook to prove the, legality of their refusal.

Sueh confidence reposed in him by the higher powers augured ill for the success of the prelates who had summoned him to appear before them. On the day appointed, a vast concourse assembled, and Wickliffe entered, accompanied by the duke of Lancaster and the earl-marshal Percy, who administered every encouragement, to him. But before the proceedings began, an altercation was occasioned by the bishop oi London’s opposing a motion of the earl-marshal, that Wickliffe should be allowed a seat. The duke of Lancaster replied to the bishop in warm terms, and said, although rather softly, that “rather than -take such language from the bishop, he would drag him out of the church by the hair of his head.” But this being over-s heard, the citizens present took part with their bishop, and such a commotion ensued that the court broke up without entering on the examination, while Wickliffe was carried off by his friends in safety. The Londoners, in revenge, plundered the duke of Lancaster’s palace in the Savoy, and the duke turned the mayor and aldermen out of the magistracy for not restraining their violence. From these circumstances it would appear that at this time WicklihVs principles had not been espoused by many of the lower classes, as is generally the case with innovations in religious matters; yet it was not long before he had a strong party of adherents even among them, for when he was a second time cited by the prelates to appear before them at Lambeth, the Londoners forced themselves into the chapel to encourage him, and intimidate his judges and accusers, On this occasion Wickliffe delivered a paper to the court, in which he explained the charges against him, but the proceedings were again stopped by the king’s mother, who sent sir Lewis Clifford to forbid their proceeding to any definitive sentence against Wickliffe. This completely disconcerted them, and according to the evidence of their own historian, Walsyngham, changed their courage into pusillanimity. “Qui quam iodevote,” says he, “ quamsegniter commissa sibi mandata compleverint, inelius est silere quam loqui.” All they could do was to enjoin him silence, to which he paid no regard; his followers increased; the death of pope Gregory XI. put an end to the commission of the delegates; and when a schism ensued by the double election of two popes, Wickliffe wrote a tract, “Of the Schism of the Roman Pontiffs,” and soon after published his book “Of the Truth of the Scripture,'” in which he contended for the necessity of translating the scriptures into the English language, and affirmed that the will of God was evidently revealed in two Testaments; that the law of Christ was sufficient to rule the church; and that any disputation, not originally produced from thence, must be accounted profane.

In 1381 we find Wickliffe attacking the doctrine of transubstantiation, which was first asserted by Radbertus about the year 820, and had been always propagated by the Romish church. Wickliffe offered to support his opinion in a public disputation, but as that was prohibited, he published it in a tract entitled “De Blasphemia,” which was condemned by William de Barton, chancellor of the university, and eleven doctors, of whom eight were of the religious. Wickliffe maintained that they had not refuted his assertions, and appealed from their condemnation, to the king. In the mean time William Courtney, bishop of London, succeeded archbishop Sudbury in the see of Canterbury, and was entirely devoted to the interest of his patron the pope. This prelate had before shewn himself a violent opposer of Wickliffe, and now proceeded against him and his followers. But as soon as the parliament met in 1382, Wickliffe presented his appeal to the king and both houses. Walsingham represents this as done with a design to draw the nobility into erroneous opinions, and that it was disapproved by the Duke of Lancaster, who ordered Wickliffe to speak no more of that matter. Others say that the duke advised Wickliffe not to appeal to the king, but submit to the judgment of his ordinary upon which, the monks assert, he retracted his doctrine at Oxford in the presence of the archbishop of Canterbury, six bishops, and many doctors, surrounded with a great concourse of people. But the confession which he read, in Latin, was rather a vindication of his opinion of the sacrament, as it declares his resolution to defend it with his blood, and maintains the contrary to be heresy.

, famous for his embassies and his writings, was a Hollander, and born in 1598; but it is not certain at what place, though some have mentioned Amsterdam. He left his country very young, and went and settled in France, where he applied himself diligently to political studies, and sought to advance himself by political services. Having made himself known to the elector of Brandenburg, this prince appointed him his resident at the court of France, about 1626 and he preserved this post two- and-thirty years, that is, till 1658. Then he fell into disgrace with cardinal Mazarin, who never had much esteem for him, and particularly disliked his attachment to the house of Conde. The cardinal accused him of having sent secret intelligence to Holland and other places; and he was ordered to leave the court and the kingdom: but, before he set out, he was seized and sent to the Bastille. M. le Teilier wrote at the same time tp the elector of Brandenburg, to justify the action; which he did by assuring him that his minister was an intelligencer in the pay of several princes. The year after, however (1659), he was set at liberty, and escorted by a guard to Calais; whence he passed over to England, and thence to Holland. There De Witt, the pensionary, received him affectionately, and protected him powerfully: he had indeed been the victim of De Witt, with whom he had carried on a secret correspondence, which was discovered by intercepted letters. He reconciled himself afterwards to France, and heartily espoused its interests; whether out of spite to the prince of Orange, or from some other motive; and the count d'Estrades reposed the utmost confidence in him. JFor the present, the duke of Brunswic-Liwienburg made him his resident at the Hague; and he was appointed, besides this, secretary-interpreter of the States General for foreign dispatches.

He continued under restraint till 1679, and then contrived to escape by the assistance- of one of his daughters, who ran the risk of her own liberty in order to procure his. By exchanging clothes with the lady, he went out, and took refuge at the court of the duke of Zell; from which be withdrew in 1681, disgusted, because that prince would not act with more zeal in procuring his sentence to be reversed at the Hague. It is not known what became of him after; but he is said to have died in 1682. His “L'Ambassadeur et ses Fonctions,” printed at the Hague, 1681, in 2 vols. 4to, is his principal work, and is a very curious miscellany of facts and remarks, the latter not always profound, but often useful. He published also in 1677, during his imprisonment, “Memoires touchant les Ambassadeurs et les Ministres publics.” He translated some books of travels from the German into French and also from the Spanish, “L'Ambassade de D. Garcias de Silva f igueroa en Perse, contenant la Politique de ce grand Empire,” &c. These works, which Wicquetort was at the pains to translate, are said to contain many curious and interesting things.

, a voluminous German writer who has been complimented with the title of the Voltaire of Germany, was born in 1733, at Biberach. Of his life no authentic account has, as far as we know, reached this country, but the following few particulars, gleaned from various sources, may perhaps be genuine, His father was a clergyman, who gave him a good education, and his attachment to the Muses discovered itself very early. At the age of fourteen, he wrote a poem on the destruction of Jerusalem, Two years after he was sent to Erfurt to study the sciences, where he became enamoured of Sophia de Gusterman, afterwards known by the name of Madame de la Roche. The youthful lovers swore eternal fidelity to each other, but Wieland’s father thought proper to interrupt the connection, and sent his son to Tubingen to study law. For this he probably had little inclination, and employed most of his thoughts and time on poetry, producing at the age of eighteen an “Art of Love” in the manner of Ovid, and a poem “On the nature of things,” in which we are told he combined the philosophy of Plato and Leibnitz. After this he appears to have devoted himself entirely to study and writing, and acquired considerable reputation as a poet of taste and fancy. For some time he appears to have resided in Swisserland, and in 1760 he returned to his native place, where he was appointed to the office of director of the chancery, and during his leisure hours wrote some of those works which completely established him in the opinion of his countrymen, as one or the greatest geniuses of the age, and honours were liberally bestowed upon him. The elector of Mentz made him professor of philosophy and polite literature at Erfurt, and he was soon after appointed tutor to the two young princes of Saxe Weimar; he was also aulic counsellor to the duke, who gave him a pension; and counsellor of government to the elector of Mentz. In 1765 he married a lady at Augsburgh, of whom he speaks so highly that we may conclude ke had overcome or moderated his attachment to the object of his first love. In 1808 Bonaparte sent him the cross of the legion of honour, and after the battle of Jena, partook of a repast with Wieland, and, we are gravely told, “conversed with him at great length on the folly and horrors of war and on various projects for the establishment of a perpetual peace!” Wieland’s latter days were employed in translating Cicero’s Letters. A paralysis of the abdominal viscera was the prelude to his death, which took place at Weimar, in January 1813, in the eighty-first year of his age.

, an able physician, called in Latin Wierus, and sometimes Piscinarius, was born in 1515, at Grave, on the Meuse, in the duchy of Brabant, of a noble family. He studied philosophy under the famous Henry Cornelius Agrippa; made several voyages even to Africa, but returned again into Europe, and was physician to the duke of Cleves during thirty years. Wier had so strong a constitution, that he frequently passed three or four days without eating gr drinking, and found not the least inconvenience from it. He died suddenly Feb. 4, 1588, at Tecklenbourg, a German town in the circle of Westphalia, in the seventy-third year of his age. His works were printed at Amsterdam, 1660, one volume, quarto, which includes his treatise “De Prestigiis et Incantationibus,” translated into French, by James Grevin 1577, 8vo. He maintains in this work, that those accused of witchcraft were persons whose brain was disordered by melancholy, whence they imagined falsely, and without any reason, that they had dealings with the devil, and were therefore deserving of pity rather than of punishment. It seems strange that, with this opinion, Wier should in other instances give the readiest credit to fabulous stories. The above mentioned book made much noise.

His great delight, in the way of relaxation from his more serious engagements, was in his garden, in which he formed a great collection of curious plants. Haller mentions his publication “De succino Borussico, de. Alee, de Herbis Borussicis, et de Sale,” 1590; 8vo, which Freher and other biographers speak of as three distinct publications. In 1553 he was chosen superintendant of Magdeburg, but the count Mansfeld and his countrymen strongly opposed his removal from them, yet at last, in consequence of the application of the prince of Anhalt, consented to it. At Magdeburg, by his preaching and writings he greatly promoted the reformed religion, and had a considerable hand in the voluminous collection, entitled “The Magdeburg Centuries,” which Sturmius used to say had four excellent qualities, truth, research, order, and perspicuity. In 1560, on the foundation of the university of Jena by the elector of Saxony, he was solicited by his highness to become professor of divinity, and performed the duties of that office until some angry disputes between Illyricus and Strigelius inclined him to resign. He was after a short stay at Magdeburg, chosen, in 1562, to be superintendant at Wismar. He now took his degree of doctor in divinity at the university of Rostock, and remained at Wismar seven years, at the end of which a negociation was set on foot for his return to Jena, where he was made professor of divinity and superintendant. Five years after he was again obliged to leave that university, when the elector Augustus succeeded his patron the elector William. On this he went to the duke of Brunswick who entertained him kindly, and he was soon after invited to the divinity-professorship of Konigsberg, and in two years was appointed bishop there. He died 1587, in the sixty-fourth year of his age. He wrote a prodigious number of works, principally commentaries oa different parts of the Bible, and treatises on the controversies with the popish writers. He was esteemed a man of great learning, a profound theologian and no less estimable in private life. He ranks high among the promoters of the reformation in Germany.

The years 1765 and 1766 he passed in a journey through Italy. But as he knew too well the nature of the multitude, not to be aware that a long retirement would soon cause him to be forgotten, even by those whose sympathy in his favour was most warm, when the duke of Grafton became minister, towards the end of 1766, Mr. Wilkes solicited, in a letter to him, the clemency of his sovereign; and finding. his address but faintly listened to, he, in a second letter to the same nobleman, again called the public attention to his case. He endeavoured also to keep his name alive, by publishing in 1767, “A collection of the genuine Papers, Letters, &c. in the Case of J. Wilkes, late member for Aylesbury in the county of Bucks; a Paris, chez J. W. imprimeur, Run du Columhier, Fauxburgk St. Germain, a I' Hotel de Saxe” In 1768 he again appeared personally upon the theatre of public action. On the 4th of March he addressed a letter of submission to the king, which was delivered by his servant at Buckingham Gate. This, like his first letter to the duke of Grafton, supplicated pardon, which one of his biographers says he was enabled to do without meanness, because “in no one syllable of his otherwise offensive publications had he offended against the personal respect due to the prince on the throne.” But this writer surely forgets the obvious tenour-of his No. 45, as well as the repeated and atrocious attacks he made on the princess dowager, his majesty’s mother.

, an ingenious and learned English bishop, was the son of Mr. Walter Wilkins, citizen and goldsmith of Oxford, and was born in 1614, at Fawsley, near Daventry, in Northanvptonshire, in the house of his mother’s father, the celebrated dissenter Mr. John Dod. He was taught Latin and Greek by Edward Sylvester, a teacher of much reputation, who kept a private school in the parish of All-Saints in Oxford and his proficiency was such, that at thirteen he entered a student of New-innhall, in 1627. He made no long stay there, but was removed to Magdalen-hall, under the tuition of Mr. John Tombes, and there took the degrees in arts. He afterwards entered into orders; and was first chaplain to William lord Say, and then to Charles count Palatine of the Khine, and prince elector of the empire, with whom he continued some time. To this last patron, his skill in the mathematics was a very great recommendation. Upon the breaking out of the civil war, he joined with the parliament, and took the solemn league and covenant. He was afterwards made warden of Wadham-college by the committee of parliament, appointed for reforming the university; and, being created bachelor of divinity the 12th of April, 1648, was the day following put into possession of his wardenship. Next year he was created D. D. and about that time took the engagement then enjoined by the powers in being. In 1656, he married Robina, the widow of Peter French, formerly canon of Christ-church, and sister to Oliver Cromwell, then lord-protector of England: which marriage being contrary to the statutes of Wadham-college, because they prohibit the warden from marrying, he procured a dispensation from Oliver, to retain the wardenship notwithstanding. In 1659, he was by Richard Cromwell made master of Trinity-college in Cambridge; but ejected thence the year following upon the restoration. Then he became preacher to the honourable society of Gray’s-inn, and rector of St. Lawrence-Jewry, London, upon the promotion Dr. Seth Ward to the bishopric of Exeter. About this time, he became a member of the Royal Society, was chosen of their council, and proved one of their most eminent members. Soon after this, he was made dean of Rippon; and, in 1668, bishop of Chester, Dr. Tillotson, who had married his daughter-in-law, preaching his consecration sermon. Wood and Burnet both inform us, that he obtained this bishopric by the interest of Villiers duke of Buckingham; and the latter adds, that it was no stnall prejudice against him to be raised by so bad a man. Dr. Walter Pope observes, that Wilkins, for some time after the restoration, was out of favour both at Whitehall and Lambeth, on account of his marriage with Oliver Cromwell’s sister; and that archbishop Sheldon, who then disposed of almost all ecclesiastical preferments, opposed his promotion; that, however, when bishop Ward introduced him afterwards to the archbishop, he was very obligingly received, and treated kindly by him ever after. He did not enjoy his preferment long; for he died of a suppression of urine, which was mistaken for the stone, at Dr. Tiilotson’s house, in Chancery-lane, London, Nov. 19, 1672. He was buried in the chancel of the church of St. Lawrence Jewry; and his funeral sermon was preached by Dr. William Lloyd, then dean of Bangor, who, although Wilkins had been abused and vilified perhaps beyond any man of his time, thought it no shame to say every thing that was good of him. Wood also, different as his complexion and principles were from those of Wilkins, has been candid enough to give him the following character “He was,” says he, “a person endowed with rare gifts he was a noted theologist and preacher, a curious critic in several matters, an excellent mathematician and experimentist, and one as well seen in mechanisms and new philosophy, of which he was 3 great promoter, as any man of his time. He also highly advanced the study and perfecting, of astronomy, both at Oxford while he was warden of Wadham-college, and at London while he was fellow of the Royal Society; and I cannot say that there was any thing deficient in him, but a constant mind and settled principles.”

Sir Charles Hanbury Williams arrived at St. Petersburg in the latter end of June; the negociation had been already opened by Mr. Guy Dickins, who lately occupied the post of envoy to the court of Russia; but his character and manners were not calculated to ensure success. He was treated with coldness and reserve by the empress, and had rendered himself highly offensive to the great chancellor, count Bestucheff. On the first appearance of the new ambassador, things immediately wore a favourable aspect; at his presence all obstacles were instantly removed, and all difficulties vanished- The votary of wit and pleasure was well received by the gay and voluptuous Elizabeth; he attached to his cause the great duke, afterwards the unfortunate Peter the Third; and his consort, the princess of Anhalt Zerbst, who became conspicuous under the name of Catherine the Second. All the ministers vied in loading him with marks of attention and civility; he broke through the usual forms of etiquette, and united in his favour the discordant views of the Russian cabinet; he conciliated the unbending and suspicious Bestucheff; warmed the phlegtnatic temper of the vice-chancellor, count Voronzoff; and gained the under agents, who were enabled, by petty intrigues and secret cabals, to thwart the intentions of the principal ministers. He fulfilled literally the tenor of his own expressions, that he would “make use of the honeymoon of his ministry,” to conclude the convention as speedily as possible on the best terms which could be obtained: he executed the orders of the king, not to sign any treaty in which an attack on any of his majesty’s allies, or on any part of his electoral dominions, was not made a casus foederis: in six weeks after his arrival at St. Petersburg, he obtained the signature, without using all the full powers intrusted to him by the British cabinet, and instantly transmitted it to Hanover.

His official dispatches, says Mr. Coxe, are written with, great life and spirit; he delineates characters with truth and facility; and describes his diplomatic transactions with minuteness and accuracy, but without tediousness or formality. His verses were highly prized by his contemporaries, but in perusing those which have been given to the public, “Odes, 1775, 12mo,” and those which are still in manuscript, the greater part are political effusions, or licentious lampoons, abounding with local wit and temporary satire, eagerly read at the time of their appearance, but little interesting to posterity. Three of his pieces, however, deserve to be exempted from this general character; his poem of “Isabella, or the Morning,” is remarkable for ease of versification, and huppy discrimination of character; his epitaph on Mr. Winnington is written with great feeling; and his beautiful “Ode to Mr. Pointz,” in honour of the duke of Cumberland, breathes a spirit of sublimity, which entitles the author to the rank of a poet, and excites pur regret that his, muse was not always employed on subjects worthy of his talents.

He was not, however, so much distinguished for his learning, as for his dexterity and skill in business. When he was no more than five and twenty, he was employed by the college in some concerns of theirs; on which occasions he was sometimes admitted to speak before archbishop Bancroft, who was exceedingly taken with his engaging wit and decent behaviour. Another time he was deputed, by the masters and fellows of his college, their agent to court, to petition the king for a mortmain, as an increase of their maintenance; on this occasion he succeeded in his suit, and was taken particular notice, of by the king; for, there was something in him which his majesty liked so well, that he told him of it long after when he came to be his principal officer. He entered into orders in his twenty-­seventh year and took a small living,.- which lay beyond St. Edmund’s Bury, upon the confines of Norfolk. In 1611 he was instituted to the rectory of Grafton Regis, in Northamptonshire, at the king’s presentation; and the same year was recommended to the lord-chancellor Egerton for his chaplain, but obtained leave of the chancellor to continue one year longer at Cambridge, in order to serve the office of proctor of the university. While Mr. Williams was in this post, the duke of Wirtemberg and his train happened to pay a visit to the university. The duke having the reputation of a learned prince, it was thought proper to entertain him with learned disputations. Mr. Williams being on this occasion president or moderator, performed his part with equal skill and address. Out of compliment to the duke he confirmed all his reasons with quotations from the eminent professors of the German uni^ versities, which was so. acceptable to the duke and his retinue, that they would not part with Mr. Williams from their company while they continued at Cambridge, and afterwards carried him with them to the palace at Newmarket, and acquainted the king with the honour he had done to the literati of their country. The following year Mr. Williams took the degree of B. D. and afterwards chiefly resided in the house of his patron, lord Egerton, who advised with him on many occasions, and testified his regard for him by various promotions, particularly the rectory of Grafton Underwood, in Northamptonshire; and in 1613 he was made precentor of Lincoln; rector of Waldgrave, in Northamptonshire, in 1614; and between that year and 1617 was collated to a prebend and residentiaryship in the church of Lincoln, and to prebends in those of Peterborough, Hereford, and St. David’s, besides a sinecure in North Wales.

Bishop Williams continued in favour during this reign, and attended king James at his death, and preached his funeral-sermon, on 2 Chron. ix. 29, 30, 3 1 which was afterwards printed. That king had promised to confer upon him the archbishopric of York at the next vacancy; but his lordship’s conduct in many points not being agreeable to the duke of Buckingham, he was removed by Charles I. from his post of lord keeper, Oct. 1626. He was ordered also not to appear in parliament, but refused to comply with that order, and taking his seat in the House of Peers, promoted the petition of right.

In the mean time, the duke of Buckingham was not content with having removed our prelate from all power at court, but for a long time laboured to injure him, although some time before his death he appears to have beet) rather reconciled to him. With Laud, however, Williams found all reconciliation impossible, for which it is not easy to assign any cause, unless that their political principles were in some respects incompatible, and that Laud was somewhat jealous of the 'ascendancy which Williams might acquire, if again restored at court. In consequence of this animosity, besides being deprived of the title of privycounsellor, Williams was perpetually iiarassecl with lawsuits and prosecutions; and though nothing criminal could be proved against him, yet he was, by these means, put to great trouble and expence. Amongst other prosecutions, one arose from the following circumstances, as related by his biographer Hacket. “In the conference which the bishop had with his majestv, when he was admitted to kiss his hand, after the passing of the petition of Right, the king conjuring his lordsh;p to tell him freely, hovr he might best ingratiate himself with the people, his lordship replied, ‘ that the Puritans were many and strong sticklers and if his majesty would give but private orders to his ministers to connive a little at their party, and shew them some indulgence, it might perhaps mollify them a little, and make them more pliant; though he did not promise that they would be trusty long to any government.’ And the king answered, that ‘ he had thought upon this before, and would do so.’ About two months after this, the bishop at his court at Leicester acted according to this counsel resolved upon by his majesty; and withal told sir John Lamb and Dr. Sibthorp his reason for it, ‘ that it was not only his own, but the Royal pleasure.’ Now Lamb was one, who had been formerly infinitely obliged to the bishop: but, however, a breach happening between them, he and Sibthorp carried the bishop’s words to bishop Laud, and he to the king, who was then at Bisham. Hereupon it was resolved, that upon the-deposition of these two, a bill should be dra-wn up against the bishop for revealing the king’s secrets, being a sworn counsellor. That in formation, together with some others, being transmitted to the council-table, was ordered for the present to be sealed up, and committed to the. custody of Mr. Trumbal, one of the clerks of the council. Nevertheless the bishop made a shift to procure a copy of them, and so the business rested for some years. However, the bishop was still more and more declining in favour, by reason of a settled misunderstanding between him and bishop Laud, who looked upon Williams as a man who gave encouragement to the Puritans, and was cool with respect to our church-discipline; while, on the other hand, Williams took Laud to be a great favourer of the papists. Laud’s interest at court was now so great, that in affairs of state, as well as of the church, he governed almost without controul; so that a multitude of lesser troubles surrounded bishop Williams, and several persons attacked him with a view to ingratiate themselves at court. Abundance of frivolous accusation and little vexatious law-suits were brought against hirn daily; and it was the height of his adversaries policy to empty his purse, and clip his wings, by all the means they could invent, that so at last he might lie wholly at their mercy, and not be able to shift for himself. Notwithstanding all which, what with his innocency, and what with his courage springing from it, he bore up against them all> and never shewed any grudge or malice against them. But his lordship, perceiving himself to be thus perpetually harassed, asked the lord Cottington, whether he could tell him, what he should do to procure his peace, and such other ordinary favours as other bishops had from his majesty. To which the lord Cottington answered, that the splendor in which he lived, and the great resort of company which came to him, gave offence; and that the king must needs take it ill, that one under the height of his displeasure should live at so magnificent a rate. In the next place, his majesty would be better satisfied, if he would resign the deanery of Westminster, because he did not care that he should be so near a neighbour at Whitehall. As for the first of these reasons, his natural temper would not suffer him to comply with it, and to moderate his expences in house-keeping; and he was not so shortsighted as to part with his deanery upon such precarious terms;” for,“said he,” what health can come from such a remedy? Am I like to be beholden to them for a settled tranquillity, who practise upon the ruin of my estate, and the thrall of my honour? If I forfeit one preferment for fear, will it not encourage them to tear me in piecemeal hereafter? It is not my case alone, but every man’s; and if the law cannot maintain my right, it can maintain no man’s.“So, in spite of all their contrivances to out him, he kept the deanery till the king received it from him at Oxford in 1644. But they did all they could, since he was resolved to hold it, to make him as uneasy as possible in it. In this uneasy situation he continued several years; and now it was sufficiently known to all people how much he was out of favour; so that it was looked upon as a piece of merit to assist in his ruin. And this perhaps might be some incitement to what sir Robert Osborn, high sheriff of Huntingdonshire, acted against him in the levying of the ship-money. The bishop, for his part, was very cautious to carry himself without offence in this matter; but sir Robert, laying a very unequal levy upon the hundred wherein Bugden was, the bishop wrote courteously to him to rectify it, and that he and his neighbours would be ready to see it collected. Upon this sir Robert, catching at the opportunity, posts up to the court, and makes an heavy complaint against the bishop, that he not only refused the payment of ship-money himself, but likewise animated the hundred to do so too. And yet for all that, when the bishop afterwards cleared himself before the lords of the council, and they were satisfied that he had behaved himself with duty and prudence, sir Robert was not reprehended, nor had the bishop any satisfaction given him, nor was the levy regulated. After this, was revived the long and troublesome trial against the bishop in the Star-chamber, which commenced in the fourth year of king Charles I. upon some informations brought against him by Lamb and Sibthorp. Here he made so noble a defence of himself, that the attorney-general, Noy, grew weary of the cause, and slackened his prosecution; but that great lawyer dying, and the information being managed by Kilvert a solicitor, the bishop, when the business came to a final determination, was fined 10,000l. to the king, and to suffer imprisonment during his majesty’s pleasure, and withal to be suspended by the high commission court from all his dignities, offices, and functions. In his imprisonment in the Tower, hearing that his majesty would not abate any thing of his fine, he desired that it might be taken up by 1000l. yearly, as his estate would bear it, till the whole should be paid; but he could not have so small a favour granted. Upon which Kilvert, the bishop’s avowed enemy, waTs ordered to go to Bugclen and Lincoln, and there to seize upon all he could, and bring it immediately into the exchequer. Kilvert, being glad of this office, made sure of all that could be found; goods of all sorts, plate, books, and such like, to the value of iO.Ooo/. of which he never gave account but of 800l. The timber he felled; killed the deer in the park; sold an organ, which cost \2Ql. for 10l.; pictures, which cost 400l. for 5l.; made away with what books he pleased, and continued revelling for three summers in Bugden-house. For four cellars of wine, cyder, ale, and beer, with wood, hay, corn, and the like, stored up for a year or two, he gave no account at all. And thus a large personal estate was squandered away, and not the least part of the king’s fine paid all this while; whereas if it had been managed to the best advantage, it would have been sufficient to discharge the whole. It were endless to repeat all the contrivances against his lordship during his confinement; the bills which were drawn up, and the suits commenced against him, as it were on purpose to impoverish him, and to plunge him into debt, that so, if he procured his enlargement from this prison, he might not be long out of another. However, he bore all these afflictions with the utmost patience; and if a stranger had seen his lordship in the Tower, he would never have taken him for a prisoner, but rather for the lord and master of the place. For here he lived with his usual cheerfulness and hospitality, and wanted only a larger allowance to give his guests an heartier welcome; for now he was confined to bare 500l. a year, a great part of which was consumed in the very fees of the Tower. He diverted himself, when alone, sometimes with writing Latin poems; at other times with the histories of such as were noted for their sufferings in former ages. And for the three years and a half that he was confined, he was the same man as elsewhere, excepting that his frequent law-suits broke his studies often; and it could not be seen that he was the least altered in his health or the pleasantness of his temper.”

, a brave officer in the reign of queen Elizabeth, was the son of Thomas Williams, of Penrose in Monmouthshire, and educated at Oxford, probably in Brasenose college. After leaving the university, he became a volunteer in the army, and served under the duke of Alva. In 1581, he was in the English army commanded by general Norris in Friesland, where Camden says the enemy’s troops were defeated by sir Roger Williams at Northern, who probably therefore was knighted for his gailant exploits before this time, although Wood says that honour was not conferred upon him until 1586. In this lastmentioned year he appears again in the army commanded by the earl of Leicester in Flanders. When the prince of Parma laid siege to Venlo in Guelderland, Williams, with one Skenk, a Frieslander, undertook to pierce through the enemy’s camp at midnight, and enter the town. They penetrated without much difficulty, as far as the prince of Parma’s tent, but were then repulsed. The attempt, however, gained them great reputation in the army.* In 1591, Williams was sent to assist in the defence of Dieppe, and remained there beyond August 24, 1593. What other exploits he performed, we know not, but it is probable that he continued in the service of his country during the war in the Low Countries, of which war he wrote a valuable history. He died in London in 1595, and was buried in St. Paul’s, attended to his grave by the earl of Essex, and other officers of distinction. “He might,” says Camden, “have been compared with the most famous captains of our age, could he have tempered the heat of his warlike spirit with more wariness and prudent discretion.” Wood calls him a colonel, but it does not clearly appear what rank he attained in the army. From his writings, which are highly extolled by Camden, he appears to have been a man of strong natural parts, and sound judgment. His principal writing is entitled “The Actions of the Low Countries,” Lond. 1618, 4to, which has lately been reprinted in Mr. Scott’s new edition of the Somers’s Tracts. He wrote also “A brief discourse of War, with his opinion concerning some part of military discipline,” ibid. 1590, 4to, in which he defends the military art of his country against that of former days. He mentions in his “Actions of the Low Countries,” a “Discourse of the Discipline of the Spaniards;” and in Rymer’s Fcedera is his “Advice from France, Nov. 20, 1590.” Some of his Mss. and Letters are in the Cotton Library in the British Museum.

, an eminent statesman and benefactor to Queen’s college, Oxford, was son of Joseph Williamson, vicar of Bridekirk in Cumberland from 1625 to 1634. At his first setting out in life he was employed as a clerk or secretary by Richard Tolson, esq.; representative in parliament for Cockermouth; and, when at London with his master, begged to be recommended to Dr. Busby, that he might be admitted into Westminsterschool, where he made such improvement that the master recommended him to the learned Dr. Langbaine, provost pf Queen’s college, Oxford, who came to the election at Westminster. He admitted him on the foundation, under the tuition of Dr. Thomas Smith (for whom sir Joseph afterwards procured the bishopric of Carlisle), and provided for him at his own expence; and when he had taken his bachelor’s degree, February 2, 1653, sent him to France as tutor to a person of quality. On his return to college he was elected fellow, and, as it is said, took deacon’s orders. In 1657 he was created A. M. by diploma. Soon after the restoration he was recommended to sir Edward Nicholas, and his successor Henry earl of Arlington, principal secretary of state, who appointed him clerk or keeper of the paper-office at Whitehall (of which he appointed Mr. Smith deputy), and employed him in translating and writing memorials in French; and June 24, 1677, he was sworn one of the clerks of the council in ordinary, and knighted. He was under-secretary of state in 1665; about which time he procured for himself the writing of the Oxford Gazettes then newly set up, and employed Charles Perrot, fellow of Oriel college, who had a good command of his pen, to do that office under him till 1671. In 1678, 1679, 1698, 1700, he represented the borough of Thetford in parliament. In 1685, being then recorder of Thetford, he was again elected, but Heveningham the mayor returned himself, and on a petition it appeared that the right of election was in the select body of the corporation before the charter; and in 1690 he lost his election by a double return. Wood says he was a recruiter for Thetford to sit in that parliament which began at Westminster May 8, 1661. At the short treaty of Cologne, sir Joseph was one of the British plenipotentiaries, with the earl of Sunderland and sir Leolin Jenkins, and at his return was created LL.D. June 27, 1674, sworn principal secretary of state September 11, on the promotion of the earl of Arlington to the chamberlainship of the household, and a privy counsellor. On November 18, 1678, he was committed to the Tower by the House of Commons, on a charge of granting commissions and warrants to popish recusants; but he was the same day released by the king, notwithstanding an address from the House. He resigned his place of secretary February 9, 1678, and was succeeded by the earl of Sunderland; who, if we believe Kapin, gave him 6000l. and 500 guineas to induce him to resign. In December that year he married Catherine Obrien, baroness Clifton, widow of Hen/y lord Obrien, who died in August. She was sister and sole heiress to Charles duke of Richmond, and brought sir Joseph large possessions in Kent and elsewhere, besides the hereditary stewardship of Greenwich. Some ascribe the loss of the secretary’s place to this match, through the means of lord Danby, who intended this lady for his son. She died November 1702. Sir Joseph was president of the Royal Society in 1678. Under 1674, Wood says of him that “he had been a great benefactor to his college, and may be greater hereafter if he think fit,” Upon some slight shewn by the college, he had made a will by which he had given but little to it, having disposed of his intended benefaction to erect and endow a college at Dublin, to be called Queen’s college, the provosts to be chosen from its namesake in Oxford, But soon after his arrival in Holland 1696, with. Mr. Smith, his godson and secretary, (afterwards, 1730, provost of Queen’s college, Oxford,) being seized with a violent fit of the gout, he sent for his secretary, who had before reconciled him tothe place of his education, and calling him to his bedside, directed him to take his will out of a drawer in the bureau, and insert a benefaction of 6000l. When this was done and ready to be executed, before the paper had been read to him, “in comes sir Joseph’s lady.” The secretary, well knowing he had no mind she should be acquainted with it, endeavoured to conceal it; and on her asking what he had got there, he answered, “nothing but news, Madam;” meaning, such as she was not to know: and by this seasonable and ready turn prevented her further inquiries.

Dr. Willis was one of the first members of the Royal Society, and soon made his name as illustrious by his writings as it was already by his practice. In 1666, after the fire of London, he removed to Westminster, upon an invitation from archbishop Sheldon, and took a house in St. Martin’slane. As he rose early in the morning, that he might be present at divine service, which he constantly frequented before he visited his patients, he procured prayers to be read out of the accustomed times while he lived, and at his death settled a stipend of 20l. per annum to continue them, He was a liberal benefactor to the poor wherever he came, having from his early practice allotted part of his profits to charitable uses. He was a fellow of the college of physicians, and refused the honour of knighthood. He was regular and exact in his hours; and his table was the resort of most of the great men in London. After his settlement there, his only son Thomas falling into a consumption, he sent him to Montpellier in France for the recovery of his health, which proved successful. His wife also labouring under the same disorder, he offered to leave the town; but she, not suffering him to neglect the means of providing for his family, died in 1670. He died, at his house in St. Martin’s, Nov. 11, 1675, and was buried near her in Westminster-abbey. His son Thomas, above mentioned, was born at Oxford in Jan. 1657-8, educated some time in Westminster-school, became a student a Christ church, and died in 1699. He was buried in Bletcbley church, near Fenny-Stratford, the manors of which places his father had purchased of the duke of Buckingham, and which descended to his eldest son Browne Willis of Whaddon-hall, esq. eminent for his knowledge in antiquities, and of whom some memoirs will be given. Wood tells us, that “though Dr. Willis was a plain man, a man of no carriage, little discourse, complaisance, or society, yet for his deep insight, happy researches in natural and experimental philosophy, anatomy, and chemistry, for his wonderful success and repute in his practice, the natural smoothness, pure elegancy, delightful unaffected neatness of Latin style, none scarce hath equalled, much less outdone, him, how great soever. When at any time he is mentioned by authors, as he is very often, it is done in words expressing their highest esteem of his great worth and excellency, and placed still as first in rank among physicians. And, further, also, he hath laid a lasting founJation of a body of physic, chiefly on hypotheses of his own framing.” These hypotheses, by far too numerous and fanciful for his reputation, are contained in the following works: 1. “Diatribse duae Medico-philosophicae de ft-rmentatione, altera de febribus,” Hague, 1659, 8vo, London, 1660, 1665, &c. 12mo. This was attacked by Edm. de Meara, a doctor of physic of Bristol, and fellow of the college of physicians, but defended by Dr. Richard Lower in his “Diatribse Thomas Wiilisii Med. Doct. & Profess. Oxon de Febribus Vindicatio contra Edm. de Meara,” London, 1665, 8vo. 2. “Dissertatio Epistolica de Uriuis” printed with the Diatribes above mentioned. 3. “Cerebri Anatome,” London, 1664, 8vo, Amsterdam, 1667, in 12mo. 4. “De ratione motus musculorum,” printed with the “Cerebri Anatome.” 5. “Pathologise Cerebri & nervosi generis specimina, in quo agiiur de morbis convulsivis & descorbuto,” Oxford, 1667, 4to, London, 1668, Amsterdam, 1669, &c. 12mo. 6. “Affectionum quae dicuntur hystericae & hypochondriacae Pathologia spasmodica, vindicata contra responsionem Epistolarem Nath. Highmore, M. D.” London, 1670, 4to, Leyden, 1671, 12mo, &c. 7. “Exercitationes Medico-physicae duae, 1. De sanguinis accensione. 2.” De motu musculari,“printed with the preceding book. 8.” De anim& Brutorum, quag hominis vitalis ac sensativa est, exercitationes duac, &c.“London, 1672, 4to and 8vo, Amsterdam, 1674, 12mo, All these books, except” Affection um quae dicuntur hystericae, &c.“and that” de am ma Brutorum,“were translated into English by S. Pordage, esq. and printed at London, 1681, folio. 9.” Pharmaceutice Rationalis: sive Diatriba de medicamentorum operationibus in humano corpore." In two parts, Oxford, 1674 and 1675, 12mo, 4to. Published by Dr. John Fell. In the postscript to the second part is the following imprimatur put to it by Dr. Ralph Bathurst, the author dying the day before.

On the resignation of lord Camden, and the subsequent death of Mr. Yorke, in January 1770, the great seal, with other honours, was offered to sir Eardley by the duke of Graf ton, and was again pressed upon him in the course of that year by lord North, the duke’s successor, but in vain. He was at this time too fixed in his resolution of retiring altogether from public business, and it seemed to him a good opportunity to urge the same reason for resigning the office he held, as for declining the one that was offered him, namely, ill health, which had prevented him occasionally from attending his court. His intention was to have resigned without receiving any pension from the crown; but when his resignation was accepted in 1771, he was much surprised and disconcerted to find, that he was to receive a pension for life. This he withstood in two several interviews with the first lord of the treasury; but his majesty having desired to see him at Buckingham house, was pleased to declare, that he could not suffer so faithful a servant to the public to retire, without receiving this mark of approbation and reward for his exemplary services. After this, sir Eardley thought it would be vanity and affectation to contend any longer; and certainly his private fortune would not have enabled him to live in the manner to which he had been accustomed. But as he was thus liberally provided for by his majesty’s bounty, he thought the least he could do was to make every return in his power; and having the honour of being one of his majesty’s privy council, he, in conjunction with the venerable sir Thomas Parker, who had been chief baron of the exchequer, uniformly attended the appeals to the king in council till 1782, when his increasing infirmities obliged him to give up this last part of what he thought his public duty. Of his infirmities he gives a most affecting proof in a short letter to earl Gower, dated Jan. 12 of that year. “My sight and hearing are extremely impaired; but my memory is so shook, that if I could read a case over twenty times, I could, neither understand nor remember it; and as my attendance at council would only expose ray infirmities, without being of any service to the public, I cannot think of ever putting my self into such a disagreeable situation.”

, a very distinguished artist of the last century, was born in 1714, and was the son of the rector of Pineges, in Montgomeryshire, who was afterwards collated to the living of Mould in Flintshire. Edwards says, that “his connections were highly respectable, being maternally related to the late lord chancellor Camden, who was pleased to acknowledge him as his cousin.” His father gave him a good education, and as he early discovered a taste for painting, sent him to London, and placed him under the tuition of one Thomas Wright, a portrait-painter of very slender abilities. Wilson, therefore, began his career as a portrait-painter but with a mediocrity that afforded no luminous hopes of excellence; yet he must have acquired some rank in his profession, for we find, that in 1749, he painted a large picture of his present majesty, and of his brother the late duke of York. After having practised some years at London, he went to Italy, and continued the study of portrait-painting, until a small landscape of his, executed with a considerable share of freedom and spirit, casually meeting the eye of Zuccarelli, so pleased the Italian, that he strenuously advised him to follow that mode of painting, as most congenial to his powers, and therefore most likely to obtain for him fame as well as profit.

It is not known at what time he returned to England, but he was in London in 1758, and resided over the north arcade of the piazza, Covent-garden, at whjch time he had gained great celebrity as a landscape-painter. To the first exhibition of 1760, he sent his picture of Niobe, which is now in the possession of his royal highness the duke of Gloucester. Sir Joshua Reynolds, in his last lecture but one, has offered some strictures on the figures introduced in this celebrated picture, in which Mr. Fuseli seems to agree, but which Edwards labours to oppose; and even to trace sir Joshua’s opinion to private pique. In 1765, Wilson exhibited, with other pictures, a view of Rome, from the villa Madama, a capital performance, which was purchased by the late marquis of Tavistock, and is probably in the collection of the duke of Bedford. When the Royal Academy was instituted, he was chosen one of the founders, and, after the death of Hayman, was made librarian; an office which his necessities rendered desirable, and which he retained until his decayed health compelled him to retire to his brother’s in Wales, where he died in May 1782. Mr. Opie says, in his “Lectures,” that Wilson, though second to no name of any school or country in classical and heroic landscape, succeeded with difficulty, by pawning some of his works at the age of seventy (sixty-seven or sixty-height), in procuring ten guineas to carry him to die in unhonoured and unnoticed obscurity in Wales.“Edwards informs us, that” though be had acquired great fame, yet he did not find that constant employment which his abilities deserved. This neglect might probably result from his own conduct; for it must be confessed, that Mr. Wilson was not very prudentially attentive to his interest; and though a man of strong sense, and superior education to most of the artists of his time, he certainly did not possess that suavity of manners which distinguished many of his contemporaries. On this account, his connexions and employment insensibly diminished, and left him, in the latter part of his life, in comfortless infirmity.“This appears to us but a sorry excuse for the neglect Wilson met with for what has patronage to do with the temper of anartist Wilson’s taste was so exquisite, says Fuseli, and his eye so chaste, that whatever came from his easel bore the stamp of elegance and truth. The subjects he chose were such as did credit to his judgment. They were the selections of taste; and whether of the simple, the elegant, or the sublime, ^they were treated with an equal felicity. Indeed, he possessed that versatility of power, as to be one minute an eagle sweeping the heavens, and the next, a wren twittering a simple note on the humble thorn. His colouring was in general vivid and natural; his touch, spirited and free; his composition, simple and elegant; his lights and shadows, broad and well distributed; his middle tints in perfect harmony, while his forms in general produced a pleasing impression. Wilson has been called the English Claude; a comparison which Mr. Fuseli cannot admit, from the total dissimilarity of their style.” Claude,“he adds,” little above mediocrity in all other branches of landscape-painting, had one great prerogative, sublimity; but his powers rose and set with the sun, he could only be serenely sublime or romantic. Wilson, without so great a feature, had a more varied and more proportionate power: he observed nature in all her appearances, and had a characteristic touch for all her forms. But though in effects of dewy freshness and silent evening lights few equalled, and fewer excelled him, his grandeur is oftener allied to terror, bustle, and convulsion, than to calmness and tranquillity. Figures, it is difficult to say, which of the two introduced or handled with greater infelicity: treated by Claude or Wilson, St. Ursula with her Virgins, and yneas Landing, Niobe with her family, or Ceyx drawn on the shore, have an equal claim to our indifference or mirth."

, a statesman and divine in the reign of queen Elizabeth, celebrated for the politeness of his style and the extent of his knowledge, was the son of Thomas Wilson of Stroby in Lincolnshire, by Anne daughter and heir of Roger Comberwortb, of Comberworth in the same county. He was educated at Eton, and atKing’scollege, Cambridge; and went thence into the family of Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, who intrusted him with the education of his two sons. During the reign of Mary, to whose persecution many fugitives owed their qualifications for future honours, he lived abroad, received the degree of doctor of laws at Ferrara, and was for some time imprisoned by the inquisition at Rome, on account of his two treatises on rhetoric and logic, which he had published in England, and in the English language, several years before. He is said to have suffered the torture, and would have been put to death, on refusing to deny his faith, had not a fire happened, which induced the populace to force open the prison, that those confined there might not perish > by which means he escaped; and, returning to England, after queen Mary’s death, was appointed one of the masters of requests, and master of St. Katherine’s hospital near the Tower. This was in the third year of queen Elizabeth, at which time he was her majesty’s secretary; but finding his patent for the mastership of St. Catherine’s void, because he was not a priest, according to queen Philippa’s charter, he surrendered the office, and had a new patent, with a non obstante, Dec. 7, 1563. According to Dr. Ducarel, his conduct in this office was somewhat objectionable, as he sold to the city of London the fair of St. Katherine’s, for the sum of 700 marks, surrendered the charter of Henry VI. and took a new one 8. Elizabeth, leaving out the liberty of the aforesaid fair; and did many other things very prejudicial to his successors. In 15lhe had been admitted a civilian; and in 1576 he was sent on an embassy to the Low Countries, where he acquitted himself so well, that in the following year he was named to succeed sir Thomas Smith as secretary of state; and in 1579 obtained a deanery of Durham. He died in 1581, and was buried in St. Katherine’s church. He was endowed with an uncommon strength of memory, which enabled him to act with N remarkable dispatch in his negociations. Yet he was more distinguished as a scholar than as a minister, and was perhaps unfortunate in having served jointly with the illustrious Walsingham, whose admirable conduct in his office admitted of no competition. Sir Thomas Wilson married Anne, daughter of sir William Winter, of Lidney in Gloucestershire, and left three children: Nicholas, who settled at Sheepwash in Lincolnshire; Mary, married, first, to Robert Burdett, of Bramcote in Warwickshire, secondly to sir Christopher Lowther, of Lowther in Westmoreland; and Lucretia, wife of George Belgrave, of Belgrave in Leicestershire.

In 1739 the clergy of the Isle of Man were much alarmed by the death of the earl of Derby, who dying without issue, the lordship of Man, as a barony in fee, became the property of the duke of Athol, who had married the heiress of a late earl of Derby. This threatened to deprive the clergy of their subsistence, for the livings of the Isle of Man consist of a third of the impropriations, which had been originally purchased of a former earl of Derby by bishop Barrow, in the reign of Charles II.; but now the duke of Athol claimed the impropriations as an inseparable appendage of his estate and royalty. The clergy were now in danger of losing all their property, for the deeds of conveyance from the earl of Derby to bishop Barrow were lost from the records of the island, and the affair became every year more difficult, until at length, by the care and diligence of the bishop and his son, the deeds were discovered in the Rolls chapel, where they had been deposited for safe custody. This discovery put an end to the dispute, and in 1745 the deeds were exemplified under the great seal of England, and every precaution taken for the future payment of the money.

After four years residence, he left Oxford in 1771; he always retained feelings of gratitude towards his alma mater, and preserved to the last an intimate acquaintance and correspondence with some of the most distinguished resident members. He probably took his degree of B. A. while at college, but did not obtain that of A. M. until 1732, and then by creation, as he did that of LL. D. in 1793 at the installation of the duke of Portland. It is related that on this occasion, almost the whole assembly rose from their seats, when he entered the theatre, and received him with acclamations of applause. Nor was his memory forgotten at the late installation of lord Grenville; for in the recitations made on that occasion, due honours were paid to the genius, taste, and acquirements of which the public had recently been deprived.

* When about to visit that country in perhaps I make the time shorter than his official capacity, he called on Dr. it was. Such conversation I shall not Johnson and in the course of con- have again till I come back to the reversation lamented that he should be gions of Literature, and there Windunder the necessity of sanctioning ham is inter stellas luna. minores.“Alpractices of which he could not ap- though e have said that illness was prove.” Don't be afraid, sir,“said the cause of Mr. Windham’s resignathe tioctor, with a pleasant smile, tion, his biographer affords some rea­”you will soon in -ke a very pretty son to think that it really arose from rascal.“Dr. Johnson in a letter to the conscientious scruples which Dr. Dr. Bruckle.-'by, written an Ashbourne Johnson thought might soon vanish, in 1784 says:” Mr. Wjiuiham has and that it was owing to his being been here to see me he came, [ dissatisfied with some part of the lord think, forty miles ou of his Vay, lieutenaut’s conduct, and staid about a day aud a half; Although from the time of his coming into parliament, he usually voted with the opposition of that day, he never was what is called a thorough party-man, frequently deviating from those to whom he was in general attached, when, in matters of importance, his conscience directed him to take a different course from them; on which account his virtues and talents were never rightly appreciated by persons of that description, who frequently on this ground vainly attempted to undervalue him. After thq rupture between Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke, in consequence of the French revolution, Mr. Windham attached himself wholly to the latter, with whom he had for many years lived in the closest intimacy; and of whose genius and virtues he had always the highest admiration. Being with him thoroughly convinced of the danger then impending over his country from the measures adopted by certain classes of Englishmen, in consequence of that tremendous convulsion, he did not hesitate to unite with the duke of Portland, lord Spencer, and others, in accepting offices under the administration in which Mr. Pitt then presided. On this arrangement Mr. Windham was appointed secretary at war, with a seat in the cabinet, an honourable distinction which had never before been annexed to that office. This station he continued to fill with the highest reputation from that time (17S4) till 1801, when he, lord Spencer, lord Grenville, and Mr. Pitt, resigned their offi-r ces; and shortly afterwards Mr. Addington (now lord viscount Sidmouth) was appointed chancellor of the exchequer and first lord of the treasury. On the preliminaries of peace with France being acceded to by that statesman aod his coadjutors, in 1801, Mr. Windham made his celebrated speech in parliament, which was afterwards (April 1802) published, with an Appendix, containing a character of the Usurper of the French throne, which will transmit to posterity the principal passages of his life up to that period, in the most lively colours. On Mr. Addington being driven from the helm, in 1805, principally by the battery of Mr, Windham’s eloquence, a new administration was again formed by Mr. Pitt, which was dissolved by his death, in 1806; and shortly afterwards, on lord Grenville’s accepting the office of first lord of the Treasury, Mr. Windham was appointed secretary of state for the war department, which he held till his majesty in the following year thought fit to constitute a new administration. During this period he carried into a law his bill for the limited service of those who enlist in our regular army; a measure which will ever endear his name to the English soldiery. But it is not our purpose to detail the particular measures which either originated from him, or in which he took a part. This indeed would be impossible within any prescribed limits; and would involve the history of perhaps the whole of the war. It may suffice to notice that his genius and talents were universally acknoxvledged. He was unquestionably not inferior, in many respects, to the most admired characters of the age that is just gone by. He had been in his earlier years a very diligent student, and was an excellent Greek and Latin scholar. In his latter years, like Burke and Johnson, he was an excursive reader, but gathered a great variety of knowledge from different books, and from occasionally mixing, like them, with very various classes and descriptions of men. His memory was most tenacious. In his parliamentary speeches his principal object always was to convince the understanding by irrefragable argument, which he at the same time enlivened by a profusion of imagery, drawn sometimes from the most abstruse parts of science, but oftener from the most familiar objects of common life. But what gave a peculiar lustre to whatever he urged, was his known and uniform integrity, and a firm conviction in the breasts of his hearers, that he always uttered the genuine and disinterested sentiments of his heart. His language, both in writing and speaking, was always simple, and he was extremely fond of idiomatic phrases, which he thought greatly contributed to preserve the purity of our language. He surveyed every subject of importance with a philosophic eye, and was thence enabled to discover and detect latent mischief, concealed under the plausible appearance of public advantage. Hence all the clarnourers for undefined and imaginary liberty, and all those who meditate the subversion of the constitution under the pretext of Reform, shrunk from his grasp; and persons of this description were his only enemies. But his dauntless intrepidity, and his noble disdain of vulgar popularity, held up a shield against their malice; and no fear of consequences ever drove him from that manly and honourable course, which the rectitude and purity of his mind induced him to pursue. As an orator, he was simple, elegant, prompt, and graceful. His genius was so fertile, and his reading so extensive, that there were few subjects on which he could not instruct, amuse, and persuade. He was frequently (as has justly been observed) “at once entertaining and abstruse, drawing illustrations promiscuously from familiar life, and the recondite parts of science; nor was it unusual to hear him through three adjoining sentences, in the first witty, in the second metaphysical, and in the last scholastic.” But his eloquence derived its principal power from the quickness of his apprehension, and the philosophical profundity of his mind. In private life no man perhaps of any age had a greater number of zealous friends and admirers. In addition to his extraordinary ta-^ lents and accomplishments, the grace and happiness of his address and manner gave an irresistible charm to his conversation; and few, it is believed, of either sex (for his address to ladies was inimitably elegant and graceful) ever partook of his society without pleasure and admiration, or quitted it without regret. His brilliant imagination, his various knowledge, his acuteness, his good taste, his wit, his dignity of sentiment, and his gentleness of manner (for he never was loud or intemperate) made him universally admired and respected. To crown all these virtues and accomplishments, it mav be added, that he fulfilled all the duties. of life, the lesser as well as the greatest, with the most scrupulous attention; and was always particularly ardent in vindicating the cause of oppressed merit. But his best eulogy is the general sentiment of sorrow which agitated every bosom on the sudden s and unexpected stroke which terminated in his death. During the nineteen days of his sickness, his hall was daily visited by several hundred successive inquirers concerning the state of his health; and that part of Pall Mall in which his house was situated, was thronged with carriages filled with ladies, whom a similar anxiety brought to his door. Every morning, and also at a late hour every evening, when his physicians and surgeons attended, several apartments in his house were filled with friends, who anxiously waited to receive the latest and most accurate accounts of the progress or abatement of his disorder. This sympathetic feeling extended almost through every class, and even reached the throiio, for his majesty frequently inquired concerning the state of his health, pronouncing on him this high eulogy, that “he was a genuine patriot, and a truly honest man.” Of the fatal malady which put an end to his invaluable life, erroneous accounts have been published, but the fact was, that on the 8th of July 1809, Mr. Windham, returningon foot at twelve o'clock at niiht from the house of a friend, as he passed by the end of Conduit-street, saw a house on fire, and instantly hastened to the spot, with a view to assist the sufferers; and soon observed that the house of the Hon. Mr. Frederic North was not far distant from that which was then on fire. He therefore immediately undertook to save his friend’s library, which he knew to be very valuable. With the most strenuous activity he exerted himself for four hours, in the midst of rain and the playing of the fire-engines, with such effect that, with the assistance of two or three persons whom he had selected from the crowd assembled on this occasion, he saved four parts out of five of the library; and before they could empty the fifth book room, the house took fire. The books were immediately removed, not to Mr. Windham’s house, but to the houses of the opposite neighbours, who cook great care of them. In removing same heavy volumes he accidentally fell, and suffered a slight contusion on his hip, of which, however, he unfortunately took no notice for some months, when an indolent encysted tumour was formed, which, after due consultation, it was judged proper to cut out. The operation was accordingly performed apparently with success on May 17, 1810, but soon after unfavourable symptoms came on, and terminated fatally June 4, to the unspeakable regret of all who knew him.

Abbe Winkelman was a middle-sized man; he had a very low forehead, sharp nose, and little black hollow eyes, which gave him an aspect rather gloomy than otherwise. If he had any thing graceful in his physiognomy, it was, his mouth, yet his lips were too prominent; but, when he was animated, and in good humour, his features formed an ensemble that was pleasing. A fiery and impetuous disposition often threw him into extremes. - Naturally enthusiastic, he often indulged an extravagant imagination; but, as he possessed a strong and solid judgment, he knew how to give things a just and intrinsic value. In consequence of this turn of mind, as well as a neglected education, a cautious reserve was a quality he little knew. If hewas bold in his decisions as an author, he was still more so in his conversation, and has often made his friends tremble for his temerity. If ever man knew what friendship was, that man was Mr. Winkelman, who regularly practised all its duties, and for this reason he could boast of having friends among persons of every rank and condition. People of his turn of thinking and acting seldom or ever indulged suspicions: the abbe’s fault was a contrary extreme. The frankness of his temper led him to speak his sentiments on all occasions; but, being too much addicted to that species of study which he so assiduously cultivated, he was not always on his guard to repress the sallies of self-love. His picture was drawn half length, sitting, by a German lady born at Kosinitz, but carried when young into Italy by her father, who was a painter. She etched it in a 4to size, and another artist executed it in mezzotinto. This lady was Angelica Kauffman. The portrait is prefixed to the collection of his letters published at Amsterdam, 1781, 2 vols. 12ino. Among his correspondents were Mr. Heyne, Munchausen, baron Reidesel (whose travels into Sicily, translated into English by Dr. Forster, 1773, 8vo, are addressed to him, and inspired him with an ardent longing to go over that ground), count Bunau, C. Fuesli, Gesner, P. Usteri, Van Mechlen, the duke de Rochfoucault, lord (alias Mr. Wortley) Montague, Mr. Wiell; and there are added extracts from letters to M. Clerisseaux, while he was searching after antiquities in the South of France a list of the principal objects in Rome, 1766, &c. and an abstract of a letter of Fuesli to the German translators of Webb on the “Beauties of Painting.”

His son, the more immediate subject of this brief notice, was born in 1710, and educated at Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of bachelor. of medicine in 1734, and that of doctor in 1749. During the interval it is not improbable that he studied the art at Leyden, as was usual at that time. He settled however at London, where he became a fellow of the college of physicians, and in 1742 of the Royal Society, in 1759 physician extraordinary, and afterwards physician general to the army. In 1749 he had been appointed chief physician to the duke of Cumberland, and in 1762 was nominated physician ta his present majesty, and received the honour of knighthood. He attained considerable practice during a very long life, and was much respected both for his private and public character. He died at Hammersmith, after a lingering illness, Jan. 9, 1794, at the age of eighty-four. In 1774 he had been created a baronet, with remainder to Jarvis Clifton, esq. second son of sir Jarvis Clifton, bart. of Clifton, Nottinghamshire, who however died before him, and the title became extinct. By his will, sir Clifton left to Trinity college, where he had been educated, a small marble image of Esculapius found near Rome, which was accordingly deposited there by his widow.

, secretary of state in the reign of James I. was son of Mr. Lewis Winwood, some time secretary to Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk; and was born about 1565, at Aynho, in Northamptonshire. He was at first sent to St. John’s college, Oxford, whence he was elected a probationer-fellow of Magdalen college in 1582. He took both the degrees in arts, and that of bachelor of law; and in 1692, was proctor of the university. Afterwards he travelled on the continent, and returned a very accomplished gentleman. In 1599, he attended sir Henry Neville, ambassador to France, as his secretary; and, in' the absence of sir Henry, was appointed resident at Paris: whence he was recalled in 1602-3, and sent that year to the States of Holland by James I. In 1607, he was knighted; and the same year appointed ambassador jointly with sir Richard Spencer to Holland. He was sent there again in 1609, when he delivered the remonstrance of James I. against Vorstius (See Vorstius) the Arminian, to the assembly of the States, to which they seemed to pay very little attention. Upon this the king proceeded to threaten them with his pen; and plainly told them, that if they had the hardiness to “fetch again from hell ancient heresies long since dead, &c. he should be constrained to proceed publicly against them.” It is certain that his majesty wrote a pamphlet against Conr. Vorstius, which was printed in 1611.

, an excellent portrait painter, was born at Amsterdam in 1656, and bred up under Dodaens, an historical painter at the Hague. On coming to England, he worked some time for sir Peter Lely, whose manner he successfully imitated, and after whose death he came into fashion. He painted Charles II. and his queen, James II. and his queen, and the prince and princess of Denmark; and was sent over to Holland, by king James, to draw the prince and princess of Orange. What recommended him to the esteem of Charles II. was his picture of the duke of Monmouth, whom he drew several times and in several attitudes. He drew most of the then court, and became competitor with sir Godfrey Kneller, whose fame was at that time increasing every day. It is said that, in drawing portraits of the fair sex, when any lady came to sit, whose complexion was rather pale, he would commonly take her by the hand, and dance about the room till she became warmer and her colour increased. This painter died much lamented at Burleigh-house, in Northamptonshire, Sept. 10, 1687, aged only thirty-one; and was buried in St. Martin’s church, Stamford, where a marble tablet, with a Latin inscription, was placed by John earl of Exeter. There is a mezzotinto print of him, under which are these words, “Gulielmus Wissingus, inter pictores sui saeculi celeberrimus, nulli secundus, artis suse non exiguuai decus & ornamentum. Immodicis brevis est aetas.”

This event, important as it was to the kingdom, was of no disadvantage to Wolsey, who saw in the young king, Henry VIII. a disposition that might be rendered more favourable to his lofty views; yet what his talents might have afterwards procured, he owed at this time to a court intrigue. Fox, bishop of Winchester and founder of Corpus Christi college, introduced him to Henry, in order to counteract the influence of the earl of Surrey (afterwards duke of Norfolk), and had probably no worse intention than to preserve a balance in the council; but Wolsey, who was not destined to play a subordinate part, soon rose higher in influence than either his patron or his opponent. He studied, with perfect knowledge of the human heart, to please the young king, by joining in indulgencies which, however suitable to the gaiety of a court, were ill becoming the character of an ecclesiastic. Yet amidst the luxuries which he promoted in his royal master, he did not neglect to inculcate maxims of state, and, above all, to insinuate, in a manner that appeared equally dutiful and disinterested, the advantages of a system of favouritism, which he secretly hoped would one day center in his own person. Nor was he disappointed, as for some time after this, his history, apart from what share he had in the public councils, is little more than a list of promotions following each other with a rapidity that alarmed the courtiers, and inclined the people, always jealous of sudden elevations, to look back on his origin.

The next step to complete his ruin was taken by the duke of Norfolk and the privy counsellors, who drew up articles against him, and presented them to the king; but he still affecting to take no personal concern in the matter, remained silent. Yet these probably formed the basis of the forty-four articles presented December 1, to the House of Lords, as by some asserted, or, according to other accounts, by the lords of the council to the House of Commons. Many of them are evidently frivolous or false, and others, although true, were not within the jurisdiction of the House. The cardinal had, in fact, already suffered, as his goods had been seized by the king; he was now in a prtemunire, and the House could not go much farther than to recommend what had already taken place. The cardinal, however, found one friend amidst all his distresses, who was not to be alarmed either at the terrors of the court or of the people. This was Thomas Cromwell, formerly Wolsey’s steward (afterwards earl of Essex), who now refuted the articles with so much spirit, eloquence, and argument, that although a very opposite effect might have been expected, his speech is supposed to have laid the foundation of that favour which the king afterwards extended to him, but which, at no very distant period, proved as fatal to him as it had been to his master. His eloquence had a yet more powerful effect, for the address founded on these articles was rejected by the Commons, and the Lords could not proceed farther without their concurrence.

, whom Dr. Whitby pronounces “the most ingenious and solid writer of the Roman (catholic) party,” and who merits some notice from his name occurring so frequently in the popish controversy at the latter end of the seventeenth century, was the son of John Woodhead of Thornhill in Yorkshire, and was born in 1608 at Meltham in the parish of Abbersbury, or Ambury, in that county. He had his academical education in University college, Oxford, where he took his degrees in arts, was elected fellow in 1633, and soon after entered into holy orders. In 1641 he served the office of proctor, and then set out for the continent as travelling tutor to some young gentlemen of family who had been his pupils in college. While at Rome he lodged with the duke of Buckingham, whom he taught mathematics, and is supposed about the same time to have embraced the communion of the church of Rome, although for a long time he kept this a profound secret. On his return to England he had an apartment in the duke of Buckingham’s house in the Strand, and was afterwards entertained in lord Capel’s family. In 1648 he was deprived of his fellowship by the parliamentary visitors, but merely on the score of absence, aod non-appearance, when called. After the restoration he was reinstated in his fellowship, but rinding it impossible any longer to conform, he obtained leave to travel, with the allowance of a travelling fellowship. Instead, Kbwever, of going abroad, he retired to an obscure residence at Hoxton near London, where he spent several years, partly in instructing some young gentlemen of popish families, and partly in composing his works. Here he remained almost undiscovered, until a little while before his death, which happened at Hoxton, May 4, 1678. He was buried in St. Pancras church-yard, where there is a monument to his memory.

Sir Henry was the only son of the second marriage of his father Thomas Wotton, esq. with Eleanora, daughter of sir William Finch, of Eastwell in Kent (ancestor to lord Winchelsea), and widow of Robert Morton, of the same county, esq. He was educated first under private tutors, and then sent to Winchester-school whence, in 1584, he was removed to New- college in Oxford. Here he was entered as a gentleman-commoner, and had his chamber in Hart-hall adjoining; and, for his chamber-fellow, Richard Baker, his countryman, afterwards a knight, and author of the well known “Chronicle” which goes by his name. Wotton did not continue long there, but went to Queen’s-college, where he became well versed in logic Uid philosophy-, and, being distinguished for his wit, was solicited to write a tragedy for private acting in that society, The name of it was “Tancredo” and Walton relates, “that it was so interwoven with sentences, and for the method and exact personating those humours, passions, and dispositions, which he proposed to represent, so performed, that the gravest of the society declared^ he had in a slight employment given an early and solid testimony of his future abilities.” In 1588 he supplicated the congregation of regents, that he might be admitted to the reading of any of the books of Aristotle’s logic, that is, be admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts; but “whether he was admitted to that or any other degree doth not appear,” says Wood, ^from the university registers;“although Walton tells us, that about his 20th year he proceeded master of arts, and at that time read in Latin three lectures de oculo, on the blessing of sight, which he illustrated by some beautiful passages aud apt reflexions. In 1589 he lost his father, and was left with no other provision than a rent-charge of 100 marks a-year. Soon after, he left Oxford, betook himself to travel, and went into France, Germany, and Italy. He stayed but one year in France, and part of that at Geneva; where he became acquainted with Beza and Isaac Casaubon. Three years he spent in Germany, and five in Italy, where both in Rome, Venice, and Florence, he cultivated acquaintance with the most eminent men for learning and all manner of fine arts; for painting, sculpture, chemistry, and architecture; of all which he was an amateur and an excellent judge. After having spent nine years abroad, he returned to England highly accomplished, and with a great accumulation of knowledge of the countries through which he had passed. His wit and politeness so effectually recommended him to the earl of Essex that he first admitted him into his friendship, and afterwards made him one of his secretaries, the celebrated Mr. Henry Cuff being the other. (See Cuff.) He personally attended all the councils and employments of the earl, and continued with him till he was apprehended for high treason. Fearing now lest he might, from his intimate connexion, be involved in his patron’s ruin, he thought proper to retire, and was scarcely landed in France, when he heard that his master Essex was beheaded, and his friend Cuff hanged. He proceeded to Florence, and was received into great confidence by the grand duke of Tuscany. This place became the more agreeable to him, from his meeting with signor Vietta, a gentleman of Venice, with whom he had been formerly intimately acquainted, and who was now the grand duke’s secretary. It was during this retreat that Mr. Wotton drew up his” State of Christendom, or a most exact and curious discovery of many secret passages, and hidden myteries of the times." This was first printed, a thin fol. in 1657, and afterwards in 1677, with a small alteration in the title. It was here also that the grand duke having intercepted letters which discovered a design to take away the life of James VI. of Scotland, dispatched Wouon thither to give him notice of it. Wotton was on this account, as well as according to his instructions, to manage this affair with all possible secrecy: and therefore, having parted from the duke, he took the name and language of an Italian; and to avoid the line of English intelligence and danger, he posted into Norway, and from that country to Scotland, He found the king at Stirling, and was admitted to him under the name of Octavio Baldi. He delivered his message and his letters to the king in Italian: then, stepping up and whis^ pering to his majesty, he told him he was an Englishman, requested a more private conference with him, and that he might be concealed during his stay in Scotland. He spent about three months with the king, who was highly entertained with him, and then returned to Florence, where, after a few months, the news of queen Elizabeth’s death, and of king James’s accession to the crown of England, arriyep!.

After this embassy, he was sent twice more to Venice, once to the States of the United Provinces, twice to Charles Emanuel duke of Savoy, once to the united princes of Upper Germany; also to the archduke Leopold, to the duke of Wittemberg, to the imperial cities of Strasburgh and Ulm, and lastly to the emperor Ferdinand II. He returned to England the year before king James died; and brought with him many servants, of which some were German and Italian artists, and who became rather burthensome to him; for notwithstanding the many public services in which he had been employed, he had by no means improved his private fortune, which was also impaired by his liberality and want of ceconomy. As some recompense, which may at first appear rather a singular one for a man who had spent his days as a courtier and ambassador, he was in 1623 appointed provost of Eton-college. But in fact this situation was very agreeable to him, for he was now desirous of retiring from the bustle of life, and passing the evening of his days in studious pursuits. Whoever peruses his “Remains,” must perceive that he had much of the literary character, and finding now that the statutes of the college required the provost to be io holy orders, he was ordained deacon, and seemed to begin a new life. His usual course now was, after his customary public devotions, to retire into his study, and there daily spend some hours in reading the Bible, and works of divinity, closing those studies with a private prayer. His afternoons he spent partly in philosophical studies, and partly in conversation with his friends, or in some recreation, particularly angling. His sentiments and temper during his latter days will best appear by what he said, on one occasion, when visited by the learned John Hales, then a fellow of Eton. “I have in my passage to my grave met with most of those joys of which a discursive soul is capable and have been entertained with more inferior pleasures than the souls of men are usually made partakers of. Nevertheless, in this voyage I have not always floated on the calm sea of content; but have often met with cross winds and storms, and with many troubles of mind and temptations to evil. And yet though I have been, and am a man compassed about with human frailties, Almighty God has by his grace prevented me from making shipwreck of faith and a good conscience; the thought of which is now the joy of my heart, and I most humbly praise him for it. And I humbly acknowledge, that it was not myself, but he that hath kept me to this gr^at age, and let him take the glory of his great mercy. And, my dear friend, I now see that I draw near my harbour of death; that harbour will secure me from all the future storms and waves of this restless world; and I praise God I am willing to leave it, and expect a better; that world wherein dwelleth righteousness; and I long for it.”

He was a great enemy to wrangling and disputes about religion and used to cut inquiries short by witticisms. To one who asked him, “Whether a Papist may be saved” he replied, “You may be saved without knowing that look to yourself.” To another, who was railing at the papists with more zeal than knowledge, he gave this advice: “Pray, Sir, forbear, till you have studied the points better; for, the wise Italians have this proverb, c He that understands amiss concludes worse;' and beware of thinking, that, the farther you go from the church of Rome, the nearer you are to God.” One or two more of his bons mots are preserved. A pleasant priest of his acquaintance at Rome invited him one evening to hear their vespermusic, and seeing him standing in an obscure corner of the church, sent a boy to him with this question, writ upon a scrap of paper, “Where was your religion to be found before Luther?” To which sir Henry sent back underwritten, “Where yours is not to be found, in the written word of God.” Another evening, sir Henry sent a boy of the choir with this question to his friend: “Do you believe those many thousands of poor Christians damned who were excommunicated because the popeand the duke of Venice could not agree about their temporalities?” To which the priest underwrit in French, “Excusez moi, Monsieur.”

His works separately or collectively published were, I. “Epistola de Gaspare Scioppio,” Amberg, 1613, 8vo. 2. “Epistola ad Marcum Vc-lserum duuaivirum Augustas Vindelic. arm. 1612.” 3. “The Elements of Architecture,” Lond. 1624, 4to, a treatise still held in estimation. It was translated into Latin, and annexed to the works of Vitruvius, and to Freart’s “Parallel of the ancient architecture with the modern.” 4. “Plausus et Vota ad regem e Scotia reducem,” Lond. 1633, small folio, reprinted in Lamphire’s “Monarchia Britannica,” Oxtord, 1681, 8vo. 5. “Parallel bttween Robert earl of Essex and George late duke.,of Bucks,” London, 1641, 4to, not remarkable for the judgment displayed. There were scarcely any parallelisms in the two characters. 6, “Short View of the life and death of George Duke of Bucks,” London, 1642, 4to. 7. “Difference and disparity between the estates and conditions of George duke of Bucks and Robert earl of Essex.” 8. “Characters of, and observations on some kings of England.” 9. “The election of the new duke of Venice after the death of Giovanni Bembo.” 10. “Philosophical Survey of Education, or moral Architecture.” 11. “Aphorisms of Education.” 12. “The great Action between Pompey and Caesar extracted out of the Roman and Greek writers.” 13. “Meditations on the 22d chapter of Genesis.” 14. “Meditations on Christmas day.” 15. “Letters to and characters of certain personages.” 16. “Various Poems.” All or most of these pieces are published together in a volume entitled “Reliquiae Wotton ianae,” at London, 1651, 1654, 1672, and 1685, in 8vo. 17. “Letters to sir Edmund Bacon,” London, 1661, 8vo, reprinted with some editions of “Reliquiae Wottonianae.” 18. “Letters to the Lord Zouch,” printed at the end of “Reliquiae Wottonianae” in the edition of 1685, 19. “The State of Christendom; or a more exact and curious discovery of many secret passages and hidden mysteries of the times,” Loridon, 1657, folio, reprinted at London in 1667, folio, with this title; “The State of Christendom, giving a perfect and exact discovery of many political intrigues and secret mysteries of state practised in most of the courts of Europe, with an account of their several claims, interests, and pretensions.” 20. He hath also several letters to George duke of Bucks in the “Cabala, Mysteries of State,” London, 1654, 4to, and in “Cabala, or Scrinia sacra,” London, 1663, folio. 21. “Journal of his Embassies to Venice,” a manuscript fairly written, formerly in the library of Edward lord Conway. 22. “Three propositions to the Count d'Angosciola in matter of duel, comprehending (as it seems) the latitude of that subject;” a manuscript some time in the library of Ralph Sheldon, esq.; and since in that of the college of arms.

Such were the appointments which Wotton obtained, but in 1539 he had refused a bishopric, and it is said that he refused the see of Canterbury, so that whatever he might be as a courtier, he was an unambitious ecclesiastic. His talents indeed were better suited to political negociation, and accordingly he was often employed on foreign embassies. His first service abroad is thought to have been his embassy to Cleves in 1539, in order to carry on the treaty of marriage between Henry and the lady Anne; and it fell to his lot afterwards to acquaint the duke of Cleves with Henry’s repudiation of his sister. In 1546 he was one of the commissioners who met at Campe, a small place between Ardres and Guisnes, in order to negociate peace between England, Scotland, and France. In September following he obtained the royal dispensation for non-residence on his preferments, being then the king’s ambassador in France, and was there at the death of Henry, by whose will he was appointed one of the executors to whom, during the minority of his son Edward VI. he entrusted the government of the kingdom.

His “Reflections” were published, as already noticed, in 1694. In 1695 he published, in the “Philosophical Transactions,” an “Abstract” of Agostino Scilla’s book concerning marine bodies which are found petrified in several places at land; and in 1697, a “Vindication” of that abstract, which was subjoined to Dr. John Arbuthnot’s “Examination of Dr. Woodward’s Account of the Deluge,” &c. In 1701, he published “The History of Rome from the death of Antoninus Pius to the death of Severus Alexander,” in 8vo. He paid great deference to the authority of medals in illustrating this history, and prefixed several tables of them to his book, taken chiefly from the collections of Angeloni, Morell, and Vailiant. This work was undertaken at the direction of bishop Burnet, and intended for the use of his lordship’s royal pupil, the duke of Gloucester, who, however, did not live to see it finished. It was therefore dedicated to the bishop, to whom Wotton had been greatly obliged in his youth, and who afterwards, in 1705, gave him a prebend in the church of Salisbury. This history was esteemed no inconsiderable performance: M. Leibnitz immediately recommended it to George II. his late majesty, then electoral prince of Hanover; and it was the first piece of Roman history which he read in our language.

, eldest son of the preceding, was born Aug. 20, 1629, at Peter- house, Cambridge, ut which time his father was master of that college. His first education was in that university, heing admitted of St. Peter’s-college in 1642, whence he removed to Oxford, where he was a student, not in a college or hall, but in a private house, as he could not conform to the principles or practises of the persons who then had the government of the university. At the restoration' he was elected burgess of St. Michael in Cornwall, in the parliament which began May8, 1661, and was appointed secretary to the earl of Clarendon, lord high chancellor of England, who visiting the university of Oxford, of which he was chancellor, in Sept. 1661, Mr. Wren was there created master of arts. He was one of the first members of the Royal Society, when they began their weekly meetings at London, in 166O. After the fall of his patron, the earl of Clarendon, he became secretary to James duke of York, in whose service he continued till his death, June 11, 1672, in the fortythird year of his age. He was interred in the same vault with his father, in the chapel of Pembroke- hall, Cambridge. He wrote, 1. “Considerations on Mr. Harrington’s Commonwealth of Oceana, restrained to the first part of the preliminaries, London, 1657,” in 8vo. To this book is prefixed a long letter of our author to Dr. John Wilkins, warden of Wadham-college in Oxford, who had desired him to give his judgment concerning Mr. Harrington’s “Oceana.” Harrington answered this work in the first book of his “Prerogative of popular government,” 1658, 4to, in which he reflects on Mr. Wren as one of those virtuosi, who then met at Dr. Wilkins’ a lodgings at Wad ham- college, the seminary of the Royal Society, and describes them as an assembly of men who “had an excellent fcculty of mag^ nifying a louse, and diminishing a commonwealth.” Mr. Wren replied in 2, “Monarchy asserted; or, the State of Monarchical and Popular Government, in vindication of the considerations on Mr. Harrington’s * Oceana,' London, 1659,” in 8vo. Harrington’s rejoinder was an indecent piece of buffoonery, entitled “Politicaster i or, a Comical Discourse in^answer to Mr. Wren’s book, entitled ‘ Monarchy asserted, &c.’” 1659, 4to. Sir Edward Hyde, after^ wards earl of Clarendon, in a letter to Dr. John Barwick, dated at Brussels the 25th of July, 1659, and printed in the appendix to the doctor’s “Life,” was very solicitous, that Mr. Wren should undertake a confutation of Hobbes’s “Leviathan:” “I hope,” says he, “it is only modesty in Mr. Wren, that makes hirn pause upon undertaking the work you have recommended to him; for I dare swear, by what I have seen of him, he is very equal to answer every part of it: I mean, every part that requires an answer. Nor is there need of a professed divine to vindicate the Creator from making man a verier beast than any of those of the field, or to vindicate scripture from his licentious interpretation. I dare say, he will find somewhat in Mr. Hobbes himself, I mean, in his former books, that contradicts what he sets forth in this, in that part in which he takes himself to be most exact, his beloved philosophy. And sure there is somewhat due to Aristotle and Tuily, and to our universities, to free them from his reproaches; and it is high time, if what I hear be true, that some tutors read his Leviathan, instead of the others, to their pupils. Mr. Hobbes is my old friend, yet I cannot absolve him from the mischiefs he hath done to the king, the church, the laws, and the nation; and surely there should be enough to be said to the politics of that man, who, having resolved all religion, wisdom, and honesty, into an implicit obedience to the laws established, writes a book of policy, which, I may be bold to say, must be, by the established laws of any kingdom or province in Europe, condemned for impious and seditious: and therefore it will be very hard if the fundamentals of it be not overthrown. But I must ask both yours and Mr. Wren’s pardon for enlarging so much, and antedating those animadversions he will make upon it.”

Amidst this prosperous career, he had the misfortune, like most of the eminent characters of this reign, to fall under the severe displeasure of the king, and was twice imprisoned, but for what offences his biographers are not agreed. Fuller says he had heard that he fell into disfavour about the business of queen Anne Bullen. Lloyd insinuates the same, and some have gone so far as to accuse him of a criminal connection with her, but all this is in part erroneous. From the oration which he delivered on his second trial, and which lord Orford has printed in his “Miscellaneous Antiquities,” he expressly imputes his first imprisonment to Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk. “His first misfortune flowed from a court-cabal; the second from the villainy, jealousy, and false accusation of that wretch Bonner, bishop of London, whose clownish manners, lewd behaviour, want of religion, and malicious perversion of truth, sir Thomas paints with equal humour and asperity.” Bonner accused him of a treasonable correspondence with cardinal Pole, and this, with some treasonable expresssions concerning the king, formed the principal charges against him, which he repelled with great spirit, ease, and candour. The words which he was accused of having uttered were, "that the king should be cast out of. a cart’s a e;-and that by God’s blood, if he were

Upon the publication of his first play, he became acquainted with several of the wits, both of the court and town; and likewise with the duchess of Cleveland, by whom, according to Mr. Dennis, and the secret history of those times, he was admitted to the last degree of intimacy. Villiers duke of Buckingham 4iad also the highest esteem for him; and, as master of the horse to the king, made him one of his equerries; and, as colonel of a regiment, captain- lieutenant of his own company, resigning to him, at the same time his own pay as captain, with many other advantages. King Charles likewise shewed him signal marks of favour; and once gave him a proof of esteem which perhaps, never any sovereign prince before had given to an author who was only a private gentleman. Wycherley happened to fall sick of a fever at his lodgings in Bowstreet, Covent*Garden, when the king did him the honour to visit him; and, finding his body extremely weakened, and his spirits miserably shattered, and his memory almost totally gone, he commanded him, as soon as he should be able to take a journey, to go to the south of France, believing that the air of Montpelier would contribute to restore him as much as any thing; and assured him, at the same time, that he would order him 500l. to defray the charges of the journey. Wycherley accordingly went into France, and, having spent the winter there, returned to England in the spring, entirely restored to his former vigour both of body and mind. The king, it is said, shortly after his arrival told him, that “he had a son, who he had resolved should be educated like the son of a king; and that he could not chuse a more proper man for his governor than Mr. Wycherley;” for which service 1500l. per annum should be settled upon him. But there seems no solid foundation for this report.

Anthony Wydeville distinguished himself both as a warrior and statesman in king Edward’s service. The Lancastrians making an insurrection in Northumberland, he attended the king into that country, and was a chief commander at the siege of Atnwick castle; soon after which he was elected into the order of the garter. In the tenth of the same reign, he defeated the dukes of Clarence and Warwick in a skirmish near Southampton, and prevented their seizing a great ship called the Trinity, belonging to the latter. He attended the king into Holland on the change of the scene, returned with him, and had a great share in his victories, and was constituted governor of Calais, and captain-general of all the king’s forces by sea and land. He had before been sent ambassador to negociate a marriage between the king’s sister and the duke of Burgundy; and in the same character concluded a treaty between king Edward and the duke of Bretagne. On prince Edward being created prince of Wales, he was appointed his governor, and had a grant of the office of chief butler of England; and was even on the point of attaining the high honour of espousing the Scottish princess, sister to king James III.; the bishop of Rochester, lord privy-seal, and sir Edward Wydeville, being dispatched into Scotland to perfect that marriage.

A remarkable event of this earl’s life was a personal victory he gained in a tournament, over Anthony count de la Roche, called the bastard of Burgundy, natural son of duke Philip the Good. This illustrious encounter was performed -in a solemn and most magnificent tilt held for that purpose in Smithfield. Our earl was the challenger; and from the date of the year, and the affinity of the person challenged, this ceremony was probably in honour of the afore-mentioned marriage of the lady Margaret, the king’s sister, with Charles the Hardy, last duke of Burgundy. Nothing, lord Orford observes (whose narrative we follow), could be better adapted to the humour of the age, and to the union of that hero and virago, than a single combat between two of their near relations. A long account of this affair is given in a note in the Biog. Brit. art. Caxton, vol. III. new edit. It may be sufficient for our purpose to say that Wydeville was victorious.

On the death of king Edward, the queen sent a messenger to her brother earl Rivers, desiring him to assemble a body of troops in Wales, and with them to bring the young king immediately to London to be crowned; but this design was defeated by the intrigues of Richard duke of Gloucester, afterwards Richard III. who by treachery got possession of the earl’s person, as well as that of the young king, and next day earl Rivers, with lord Richard Gray, and sir Thomas Vaughan, was conveyed as a prisoner to the castle of Pontefract. They were all soon after beheaded by order of the usurper, and without any form of trial, on the very same day that lord Hastings was by the same order beheaded in the Tower of London.

The foundation of a college, or of some institution for the education of youth, had probably been revolved for a considerable time. About two years after he entered on the bishopric of Winchester, he began to make purchases in the city of Oxford with that view, and he connected with it the plan of a college at Winchester, which should be a nursery for that of Oxford. As early as 1373 he established a school at Winchester, in which he placed certain poor scholars who were to be instructed in grammatical learning, by one Richard de Herton, with an assistant. But the progress of this generous plan was for some time impeded by the intrigues of a party, headed by the duke of Lancaster, in the last year of the reign of Wykeham’s friend and master Edward III. An accusation, branching into eight articles, was brought against him, but upon a fair trial, seven were found destitute of proof, and the eighth only was laid hold of, as a pretext for seizing into the king’s hands the temporalities of the bishopric of Winchester, excluding the bishop from parliament, and removing him from court. A measure so violent, and justified upon such slight grounds, was not to be overlooked even in those days of popular acquiescence. At the ensuing convocation, the bishop of London, William Courtney, had the spirit to oppose any subsidy to the king until satisfaction should be made for the injury done to the whole body of the clergy, in the person of the bishop of Winchester; and he was so firmly supported by the convocation, that the archbishop of Canterbury, though a warm partizan of the duke of Lancaster, was obliged to admit Wykeham into their assembly, where he was received by every member with all possible marks of respect. Nor was he less a favourite with the people, who, when they rose in the affair of Wickliffe, demanded that the duke of Lancaster should allow the bishop to be brought to a fair trial. Wykeham was soon after restored to his temporalities, but with the ungracious condition, that he should fit out three ships of war for a certain time, or if they were not wanted, pay the amount of the probable expense to the king that king who had formerly heaped so many marks of favour on him, but who, although in some measure reconciled to him, was now too much enslaved by a party to act with his wonted liberality.

Upon the death of (jueen Anne, on the 1st of August 1714, he signed with others the proclamation of his majesty king George I. and on the 13th of that month seconded a motion made in the House of Commons by Horatio Walpole, esq. for the payment of the arrears due to the Hanoverian troops in the English service. However, in October following he was removed from his post of chancellor of the exchequer, which was conferred upon sir Richard Onslow. In the next parliament, which met on the 17th of March 1714-15, he appeared very vigorous in opposition to the measures of the administration, and in defence of the peace of Utrecht; and on the 6th of April made a motion, that the House would appoint a day to take into consideration his majesty’s proclamation of the 15th of January, for calling a new parliament, which reflected on the conduct of the last ministry of queen Anne, and which he represented as unprecedented and unwarrantable, and even of dangerous consequence to the very being of parliament; expressions which gave such offence to the majority of the house, that he was ordered to receive a reprimand from the speaker. He spake likewise in favour of the duke of Orrnond and the earls of Oxford and Strafford, when they were impeached in that house. But, upon the breaking out of the rebellion in Scotland under the earl of Mar, in August 1715, sir William. fell under suspicion; on which account he was seized oil the 21st of September at his house at Orchard Wyndham, in Somersetshire, by colonel Huske, and one of his majesty’s messengers; from whom making an escape, a proclamation was issued out for his apprehension. Soon after this he surrendered himseif to the government; and, being examined by the privy council, was committed to the Tower, but was never brought to a trial.

He died at Wells, in Somersetshire, after an illness of a few days, June 17, 1740. He was twice married; first, July 21, 1708, to the lady Catharine Seymour, second daughter of Charles, duke of Somerset; by whom he had issue two sons, Charles and Percy, and two daughters, Catharine, who died in April. 1734, and Elizabeth. His. second lady was Maria Catharina, relict of the marquis of Blandford, sister to the countess of Denbigh, and daughter of M. De Jong, of the province of Utrecht, in Holland.

He was succeeded in dignity and estate by his eldest son, sir Charles Wyndham, who succeeded to the titles of earl of Egremont, and baron of Cockermouth, by the death of his grace, Algernon, duke of Somerset, without heir male, who had been created earl of Egremont, and baron of Cockermouth, in the county of Cumberland, by George II. with limitation of these honours to \r Charles Wyndham. His lordship, whilst he was a commoner, was elected to parliament as soon as he came of age, for the borough of Bridgewater in Somersetshire. He sat afterwards for Appleby, in Westmoreland, Taunton,. in Somersetshire, and Cockermouth, in Cumberland. In 1751 he was appointed lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Cumberland. In April 1761 he was nominated the first of the three plenipotentiaries on the pnrfc of Great Britain to the intended congress at Augsburg, for procuring a general pacification between the belligerent powers; and in the same year was constituted one of the principal secretaries of state, in which it was his disadvantage to succeed Mr. Pitt (afterwards lord Chatham). In 1762 he was made lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Sussex. He died of an apoplectic fit in June 1763. He was succeeded by his son, George, the second and present earl of Egremont.

His first work was printed, but not generally published, under the title of “A miscellany containing several law tracts,” 1765, 8vo. These were, 1. “Observations on Fitzherbert’s natura brcvium, with an introduction concerning writs, and a dissertation on the writ De non ponendis in assists et juratis, and on the writ De leprose amovendo, 2. An inquiry concerning the reason of the distinction the law has made in cases between things annexed to the freehold, and things severed from it. 3. Argument in behalf of unlimited extension of collateral consanguinity, with extracts from the statutes on which the question arose. 4. Account of the trial of the Fix; and observations on the nature and antiquity of the court of claims. 5. An answer to two passages in the ' Catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors. 16. Observations on the antiquity and dignity of the degree of serjeant at law.” These two last were written by his father, who in the former refuted an aspersion cast on his character by Walpole (lord Orford) in his article of Philip duke of Wharton. After: relating the story of Wharton’s cheating the minister out of his arguments against bishop Atterbury, and replying to them, by anticipation, in a speech for Atterbury, Walpole added in a note that “Serjeant Wynne served the bishop in much the same manner; being his counsel, he desired to see the bishop’s speech, and then spoke the substance of it himself.” This calumny Mr. Wynne refuted with so much spirit, that Walpole thought proper to omit the note in the subsequent editions of his “Catalogue.”

, an ancient Scottish chronicler, was most probably born during the reign of David II. king of Scotland, which commenced in 1309, and terminated in 1370. He was a canon regular of St. Andrew’s, and prior of the monastery of St. Serf, situated in the inch or island of Lochleven in the county of Kinross. In the chartulary of the priory of St. Andrew’s, there are several public instruments of Andrevr Wynton as prior of Lochleven, dated between the years 1395 and 1413. He was therefore contemporary with Barboiir; to whose merit he has on various occasions paid a due tribute of applause. His “Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland”' was undertaken at the request of sir John Wemyss, the ancestor of the present noble family of that name. Wynton’s life must have been prolonged at least till 1420, for he mentions the death of Robert, duke of Albany, which happened in the course of that year.

, a German of great abilities and learning, was born at Augsburg in 1532, of very poor parents, and the love therefore of learning, which he discovered from his infancy, would have been fruitless if he had not met with a patron, in Wolfgang Relinger, a senator of Augsburg. This gentleman made him be supported at the public expence, till his progress in literature procured him admittance into the colleges, where the city maintained a certain number of students. In 1549 he was sent to the university of Tubingen, and afterwards to that of Basil, where he became an excellent Greek and Latin scholar. Melchior Adam affirms, that he took a master of arts degree at Basil in 1556; but Bayle is of opinion, that this date must be a mistake; for he thinks it improbable, that a man who had employed himself vigorously in study, and possessed such excellent natural talents, did not take that lower degree till his 24th year. Xylander certainly wrote his Latin version of Dion Cassius in 1557; at which time he was so good a scholar, that he employed but seven months in this work; for the truth of which he appeals to Mr. Herwat, a senator of Augsburg and his patron, to whom he dedicates it. Having given ample proof of his learning, and especially of his uncommon skill in the Greek tongue, he was invited in 1558 to Heidelberg, to take possession of the Greek professor’s chair, then vacant. In 1566, the elector-palatine Frederic III, and the duke of Wirtemberg, having called an assembly of the clergy to hold a conference upon the eucharist, about which there were great disputes, Xylander was chosen by the elector as secretary of the assembly, together with Osiander, who was named by the duke he executed the same office upon a similar occasion in 1581. Excessive application to study is supposed to have brought an illness upon him, of which he died in February 1576, aged forty-three years.

, a divine and poet, the sixth son of Mr. John Yalden, of Sussex, was born at Exeter in 1671. Having been educated in the grammar-school belonging to Magdalen college, Oxford, he was, in 1690, at the age of nineteen, admitted commoner of Magdalen Hall, under the tuition of Josiah Pullen, a man whose name is still remembered in the university. He became next year one of the scholars of Magdalen college, where he was distinguished by a declamation, which Dr. Hough, the president, happening to attend, thought too good to be the speaker’s. Some time after, the doctor, finding him a little irregularly busy in the library, set him an exercise, for punishment; and, that he might not be deceived by any artifice, locked the door. Yalden, as it happened, had been latelyreading on the subject given, and produced with little difficulty a composition which so pleased the president that he told him his former suspicions, and promised to favour him. Among his contemporaries in the college were Addison and Sacheverell, men who were in those times friends, and who both adopted Yalden to their intimacy. Yalden continued throughout his life to think, as probably he thought at first, yet did not lose the friendship of Addison. When Namur was taken by king William, Yalden made an ode . He wrote another poem, on the death of the duke of Gloucester. In 1700 he became fellow of the college, and next year entering into orders, was presented by the society with the living of Willoughby, in Warwickshire, consistent with his fellowship, and chosen lecturer of moral philosophy, a very honourable office. On the accession of queen Anne he wrote another poem; and is said, by the author of the “Biographia,” to have declared himself one of the party who had the distinction of high-churchmen. In 1706 he was received into the family of the duke of Beaufort. Next year he became D. D. and soon after he resigned his fellowship and lecture; and, as a token of his gratitude, gave the college a picture of their founder. The duke made him rector of Chalton and Cleanville, two adjoining towns and benefices in Hertfordshire; and he had the prebends, or sinecures, of Deans, Hains, and Pendles, in Devonshire. In 1713 he was chosen preacher of Bridewell Hospital, upon the resignation of Dr. Atterbury. From this time he seems to have led a quiet and inoffensive life, till the clamour was raised about Atterbury’s plot. Every loyal eye was on the watch for abettors or partakers of the horrid conspiracy; and Dr. Yalden, having some acquaintance with the bishop, and being familiarly conversant with Kelly his secretary, fell under suspicion, and was taken into custody. Upon his examination he was charged with a dangerous correspondence with Kelly. The correspondence he acknowledged; but maintained that it had no treasonable tendency. His papers were seized; but nothing was found that could fix a crime upon him, except two words in his pocket-book, f< thorough- paced doctrine.“This expression the imagination of his examiners had impregnated with treason; and the doctor was enjoined to explain them. Thus pressed, he told them that the words had lain unheeded in his pocket-book from the time of queen Anne, and 'that he was ashamed to give an account of them; but the truth was, that he had gratified his curiosity one day by hearing Daniel Burgess in the pulpit, and these words were a memorial hint of a remarkable sentence by which he warned his congregation to” beware of thorough-paced doctrine, that doctrine, which, coming in at one ear, paces through the head, and goes out at the other.“Nothing worse than this appearing in his papers, and no evidence arising against him, he was set at liberty. It will not be supposed that a man of this character attained high dignities in the church; but he still retained the friendship, and frequented the conversation of a very numerous and splendid body of acquaintance. He died July 16, 1736, in the sixty-sixth year of his age. Of his poems which have been admitted into Dr. Johnson’s collection, his” Hymn to Darkness“seems to be his best performance, and is, for the most part, imagined with great vigour, and expressed with great propriety. His” Hymn to Light" is not equal to the other. On his other poems it is sufficient to say that they deserve perusal, though they are not always exactly polished, though the rhymes are sometimes very ill sorted, and though his faults seem rather the omissions of idleness than the negligences of enthusiasm.

, a distinguished lawyer, is said to have been born at Easton Mauduit, in Northamptonshire, June 29, 1566, but as the register of his baptism, July 5, of that year, occurs at Islington, it is more likely that he was born there, where his father, sir Christopher (then Mr. Yelverton, and a student at Gray’s Inn) had, it is probable, country lodgings. He was educated for some time at Oxford, but removed afterwards to Gray’s Inn for the study of the law. In 1606 he was elected Lent-reader, being then, Wood says, “accounted a religious gentleman, and a person well read in the municipal laws.” In 1613 he wasappointed solicitor-general, and received the honour of knighthood by the interest of Carr, earl of Somerset, and on March 17, 1616, was advanced to the higher office of attorney general; but having given offence, as it is said, to the favourite Buckingham, he was accused in the star-chamber of illegal proceedings in his office, and by a sentence of that court deprived of his place, imprisoned in the Tower, and heavily fined. Being afterwards brought before the lords, he made a speech which was so offensive to the king and his favourite, that he was fined 10.000 marks for the reflections which he had cast on his majesty, and 5000 for the insult offered to Buckingham. But by one of those unaccountable changes which occur among politicians of all ages, he became soon afterwards in great favour with the very man whose enmity had cost him so dear, and was, through his interest, made one of the justices of the king’s bench, and afterwards of the common pleas, which last place he retained till his death; and had not the duke been untimely cut off, he would in all probability have been made lord-keeper of the great seal, as he was esteemed one of the first lawyers of his time. He died Jan. 24, 1630, at his house in Aldersgate-street, and was interred in the parish church of Easton Mauduit.

The integrity and abilities with which he presided in the court of chancery, during the space of almost twenty years, appears from this remarkable circumstance, that only three of his decrees were appealed from, and even those were afterwards affirmed by the House of Lords. On May 12th, 1740, he was nominated one of the lords justices for the administration of the government during his majesty’s absence: also on April 21st, 1743, and in 1745. In 1746' he was appointed lord high steward of England, for the trials of the earls of Kilmarnock and Cromartie, and lord Balmerino: and in 1747 for the trial of lord Lovat. In 1748 he was again one of the lords justices; and on July 31, 1749, was unanimously chosen high steward of the university of Cambridge, on the resignation of the duke of Newcastle, who was elected chancellor; and the year after was again one of the lords justices, and the same in 1752.

, earl of Hardwicke, the eldest son of the preceding, was born Dec. 20, 1720. At the school of Dr. Newcome, at Hackney, he received the first rudiments of his education, and from that seminary, on 26th May, 1737, was removed to Bene'c college, Cambridge, under the tuition of the Rev. Dr. Salter. In the year following ha was appointed one of the tellers of the exchequer, in the room of sir Charles Turner, bart. deceased. In 1740 he. left college, and soon after married lady Jemima Campbel, only daughter of John lord viscount Glenorchy, by the lady Amabel Grey, eldest daughter of Henry duke -of Kent, at whose decease she succeeded to the title of marchioness Grey and baroness Lucas of Crudwell. By this marriage he became possessed of a large part of the duke’s estate, together with his seat of Wrest-house, near Silsoe, in Bedfordshire. He early engaged as a legislator. In 1741 he was chosen member for Ryegate, in Surrey, and in 1747 one of the representatives for the county of Cambridge, as he was also in 1754 and 1761. At the installation of the duke of Newcastle, as chancellor of the university of Cambridge, in 1749, he had the degree of LL.D. conferred upon him. In 1764 he succeeded his father in his title and estate; and after a strong contention for the office of lord high steward of the university, he obtained that honour against Lord Sandwich. The infirm state of his lordship’s health, combined with his attachment to literary pursuits, prevented him from attending to, or joining in, the politics of the day. He had the honour, however, of a seat in the cabinet during the existence of that short-lived administration in 1765, of which lord Rockingham was the head, but without any salary or official situation which, though repeatedly offered to- him, he never would accept. He died May 16, 1790.

As his connection with the proBigate duke of Wbarton has been thought a very objectionable part of his history, it is at least necessary to explain how it arose. His father had been well acquainted with lady Anne Wharton, the first wife of the marquis of Wharton, and she, who was celebrated by Burnet and Waller for her poetical talents, added some verses to dean Young’s visitation sermon. Wharton, after the dean’s death, was kind to Young, but died in 1715. Next year the young marquis, afterwards duke, began his travels, and the year following went to Ireland, and it is conjectured that our poet went with him. Whether this was the case or not, it is certain that he looked up to him afterwards as his patron.

From a paper in “The Englishman” it would appear that Young began his theatrical career so early as 1713, but his tirst play, “Busiris,” was not brought upon the stage till 1719, and was dedicated to the duke of Newcastle, “.because,” he says, “the late instances he had received ­of his grace’s undeserved and uncommon favour, in an affair of some consequence, foreign to the theatre, had taken from him the privilege of chusing a patron.” This dedication also he afterwards suppressed. In 1721 his most popular tragedy, “The Revenge,” made its appearance, and being left at liberty now to chuse his patron, he dedicated it to the duke of Wharton. That he ever had such a patron, Young took all the pains in his power to conceal from the world, by excluding this dedication from his works. He probably indeed was very soon ashamed of it, for while he was representing that wretched nobleman as an amiable character, Pope was perhaps beginning to describe him as “the scorn and wonder of his days,” and it is certain that even at this time Wharton’s real character was well known. His obligations to the duke of Wharton appear to have consisted both of promises and money. Young, about 1719, had been taken into the Exeter family as tutor to the young lord Burleigh. This circumstance transpired on a singular occasion. After Wharton’s death, whose affairs were much involved, among other legal questions, the court of chancery had to determine whether two annuities granted by Wharton to Young, were far legal considerations. One was dated March 24, 1719, and the preamble stated that it was granted in consideration of advancing the public good by the encouragement of learning, and of the love he bore to Dr. Young, &c. This, as his biographer remarks, was commendable, if not legal. The other was dated July 10, 1722; and Young, on his examination, swore that he quitted the Kxeter family, and refused an annuity of 100l. which had be^n offered him for his lite if he would continue tutor to lord BnrJeigh, upon the pressing solicitations of the duke of Wharton, and his grace’s assurances of providing for him in a much more ample manner It also appeared that the duke had given him a bond for 600l. dated March 15, 1721, in consideration of his taking several journeys, and being at great essences in order to be chosen member of parliament at the duke’s desire, and in consideration of his not taking two livings of 200l. and 400l. in the gift of All Souls’ college, on his grace’s promises of serving and advancing him in the world It was for Cirencester that Young stood the unsuccessful contest. Such were the obligations he owed to Wharton; how becoming Young’s character, may be left to the reader.

In 1719, Dr. Young published ^A paraphrase on part of the book of Job,“prefixed by a dedication to the lord chancellor Parker, which he omitted afterwards, and of whom, says his biographer, he clearly appears to have had no kind of knowledge. Of his” Satires“it is not easy to fix the dates. They probably came out between 1725 and 1728, and were afterwards published collectively under the title of” The Universal Passion.“In his preface he says that he prefers laughing at vice and folly, a different temper than that in which he wrote his melancholy” Night Thoughts.“These satires were followed by” The Installment,“addressed to sir Robert Walpote, but afterwards suppressed: and by” Ocean, an Ode,“accompanied by an” Ode to the King, pater patria“an” Essay on Lyric Poetry,“both afterwards omittedby him. Perhaps no writer ever rejected so many of his own performances, nor were the>e juvenile effusions, for he was now forty-six or forty-seven years old; and at this age, he entered into orders, April 1728, and was soon after appointed chaplain to king George II. It is said by one of the biographers of Pope, but the story is scarcely credible, that when he determined on the church, he did not address himself to any eminent divine for instructions in theology, but to Pope, who jocularly advised the diligent perusal of Thomas Aquinas, and this, Ruffhead says, had almost brought on an irretrievable derangement. But as we have seen that Young had once refused two livings in the gift of All Souls, it is surely not improbable that he had then studied in the theological faculty, although at the duke of Wharton’s persuasion, he had been induced to think of political life. One thing, after taking orders, he thought becoming his new character. He withdrew his tragedy of” The Brothers," which was already in rehearsal, and when at last it was performed in 1753, he made up the profits to the sum of iOOO/. and gave the money to the society for the propagation of the gospel in foreign parts. We know not that that society has been so honoured since, and it certainly never was so before.

In 1752, he was recommended by the celebrated cardinal. Quirini as a director of the public library of Brescia, a re-< commendation which, however, had no effect. But two years after, his name being already known to the reigning duke of Modena, under whose auspices he had undertaken and continued his literary history of Italy, he was appointed director of the Ducal library, a place formerly held by Muratori, and on his death tendered to the learned father Corsini, of the university of Pisa, who had declined it, from his invincible attachment to his native place. He associated to himself, in the direction of the Ducal library, those two excellent friends and brothers, who were also co-operators in the compilation of the Literary History, father Dominic Troilo of Macerata, and father Joachim Gabardi of Carpi; who afterwards retained the same place under the celebrated father Granelli, and his successor, the illustrious Tiraboschi. Without any interruption to his higher literary pursuits, the improvements which he made in this situation are recorded highly to the honour of Zaccaria:. he enlarged the apartment devoted to the library; introduced a better classification of books, enriched it with new articles, and compiled a catalogue raisonne" of every branch, which, to the regret of many intelligent persons, was never published.

, an excellent enamel painter, was born at Dresden about 1684, and came to England in 1706, where he studied under Boit, and not only surpassed him, but rivalled Petitot. For a great number of years Zincke had as much business as he could execute; and when at last he raised his price from twenty to /thirty guineas, it was occasioned by his desire of lessening fus fatigue; for no man, so superior in his profession, was less intoxicated with vanity. He was particularly patronized by George II. and his queen, and was appointed cabinet-painter to Frederick, prince of Wales. Her late foyal highness, the princess Amelia, had ten portraits of the royal family by him of a larger than his usual size. These she presented in 1783 to the prince of Wales, now Prince Regent. William, duke of Cumberland, bought several of his best works, particularly his beautiful copy of Dr. Mead’s queen of Scots by Isaac Oliver.