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

The care of his fortune, which Clarendon imputes to him in a degree little less than criminal, was either not constant or not successful; for, having inherited a patrimony of three thousand five hundred pounds a year in the time of James the First, and augmented it at least by one wealthy marriage, he left, about the time of the revolution, an income of not more than twelve or thirteen hundred; which, when the different value of money is reckoned, will be found perhaps not more than a fourth part of what he once possessed. Of this diminution, part was the consequence of the gifts which he was forced to scatter, and the fine which he was condemned to pay at the detection of his plot; and if his estate, as is related in his Life, was sequestered, he had probably contracted debts when he lived in exile; for we are told, that at Paris he lived in splendor, and was the only Englishman, except the lord St. Alban’s, that kept a table. His unlucky plot compelled him to sell a thousand a year; of the waste of the rest there is no account, except that he is confessed by his biographer to have been a bad ceconomist. He seems to have deviated from the common practice; to have been a hoarder in his first years, and a squanderer in his last. Of his course of studies, or choice of books, notbing is known more than that he professed himself unable to read Chapman’s translation of Homer without rapture. His opinion concerning the duty of a poet is contained in his declaration, that “he would blot from his works any line, that did not contain some motive to virtue.” For his merit as a poet, we may refer with confidence to Johnson, whose life of Waller we have generally followed in the preceding sketch, and on which he appears to have bestowed more than usual pains, and is in his facts more than usually accurate. English versification, it is universally allowed, is greatly indebted to Waller, and he is every where elegant and gay. To his contemporaries he must have appeared more rich in invention, than modern critics are disposed to allow, because, as Johnson observes, they have found his novelties in later books, and do not know or inquire who produced them first. Dr. Warton thinks it remarkable that Waller never mentions Milton, whose Comus, and smaller poems, preceded his own; and he ae* counts for this by Milton’s poetry being unsuitable to the French taste on which Waller was formed *.

ject by bishop Atterbury, who was the and borrowed a fine allusion to prince

editor of the edition of Waller’s Poems Arthur’s Shield, aud the name of Gloprinted in 1690, and speaks thus in riana, from Spenser; but he was not

to him, neither Den ham, nor Cowley, old, and, as I suppose, he had no taste

and upon whose turn of verse he that shew his, acquaintance with the

he writes against, and seems pleased think him acquainted with the Greek

Fruition;" and, besides, he well knew than Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Some

ticularly in that sort of verse and man- the story of it I mean, for as to, the

Sandys, and Mr. Evelyn: he knew every where into Waller’s English; as

Ben Jonson and Fletcher he commends (who yet was far from being a perfect in good earnest; their dramatic works master of him). As for his cloud-corngave him no pain; that sort of writing pel/ing, and two or three more comhe never pretended to. Denham’s high pound words, I believe he went not to

Hill“deserved some return. translation, perhaps Chapman’s.” select a few more particulars of Waller. Speaking of his plot, he says, “He had much ado then to save his life; and in order to it, sold his estate, in Bedfordshire, about 1300l. per aim. to Dr. Wright, M. D. for 10,000l. (much under value) which was procured in twenty-fours time, or else he had been hanged. With this money he bribed the House, which was the. first time a House of Commons was ever bribed” “His intellectuals are very good yet (1680), but he growes feeble. He is somewhat above a middle stature, thin body, not at all robust: fine thin skin, his face somewhat of an olwaster: his hayre frized, of a brownish colour; full eie, popping out and workinge, ovall faced, his forehead high and full of wrinkles. His head but small, braine very hott, and apt to be cholerique. Quanta doctius, eo iracundior. Cic. He is somewhat magisteriall, and hath received a great mastership of the English language. He is of admirable elocution, and graceful, and exceeding ready.” “Notwithstanding his great witt and maisteresse in rhetorique, &c. he will oftentimes be guilty of mispelling in English, H v e writes a lamentable hand, as bad as the scratching of a hen.”

, an eminent parliamentary general, was born in 1597. He was descended, as well as the preceding poet, from the ancient family of the Wallers of Spendhurst, in the county of Kent; and received at Magdalen-ball and Hart-hall, Oxford, his first education, which he afterwards completed at Paris. He began his military career in the service of the confederate princes against the emperor, in which he acquired the reputation of a good soldier, and upon his return home, was distinguished with the honour of knighthood. He was three times married; first to Jane, daughter and heiress of sir Richard Reynell, of Ford in Devonshire, by whom he had one daughter, Margaret, married to sir Wiliiana Courtenay of Powderham castie, ancestor of the present lord viscount Courtenay; secondly, to the lady Anne Finch, daughter of the first earl of Winchelsea, by whom he had one son, William, who was afterwards an active magistrate for the county of Middlesex, and a strenuous opposer of all the measures of king Charles the Second’s government; and one daughter, Anne, married to sir Philip Harcourt, from whom is descended the present earl of that name. Of the family of Sir William’s third wife, we are not informed.

Sir Wilfem Waller was elected a member of the long parliament for Andover; and having suffered under the severity of the star-chamber, on the occasion of a private quarrel with one of his wife’s relations, as well as imbibed in the course of his foreign service early and warm prejudices in favour of the presbyterian discipline, he became a determined opponent of the court. While employed at the head of the parliamentary forces, under the earl of Essex, he was deputed to the command of the expedition against Portsmouth, when colonel Goring, returning to his duty, declared a resolution of holding that garrison for his majesty. In this enterprise, sir William conducted himself with such vigour and ability, that he reduced the garrison in a shorter time and upon better terms than could have been expected; and afterwards obtained the direction of several other expeditions, in which he likewise proved remarkably successful. After many signal advantages, however, he sustained some defeats by the king’s, forces, particularly at Roumlway Down near the Devizes, and at Cropready-bridge in Oxfordshire. On each or those occasions, the blame was thrown by him on the jealousy of other officers; and neither the spirit nor the judgment of his own operations were ever questioned. The independents, who weie becoming the strongest party, both in the army and the parliament, had wished him to become their general, on terms which, either from conscience or military honour, he could not comply with. By the famous self-denying ordinance he was removed from his command, but still maintained so great an influence and reputation in the army, as rendered him not a little formidable to the rising party; and he was thenceforth considered as a leader of the presbyterians against the designs of the independents. He was one of the eleven members impeached of high treason by the army. This forced him to withdraw for some time; but he afterwards resumed his seat in parliament, until, in 1648, with fifty others, he was expelled by the army, and all of them committed to ifferent prisons, on suspicion of attachment to the royal cause. He was afterwards committed to custody on suspicion of being engaged in sir George Booth’s insurrection, m Aug. 1658, but in November was released upon bail. In Feb. 1659 he was nominated one of the council of state, and was elected one of the representatives of Middlesex, in the parliament which began April 25, 1660. He died at Osterley-park in Middlesex, Sept. 19, 1668, and was buried in the chapel in Tothill-street, Westminster. Mr. Seward very erroneously says he was buried in the Abbey-chnrch at Bath. It is his first wife who was buried there, but there is a monumental statue of sir William, as well as of the lady, which perhaps occasioned the mistake. There is a tradition that when James II, visited the Abbey, he defaced the nose of sir William upon this monument, which Mr. Warner in his “History of Bath” allows to be defaced, but Mr Seward asserts that “there appear at present no traces of any disfigurement.” Of a circumstance so easily ascertained, it is singular there should be two opinions. Anthony Wood gives, as the literary performances of sir William Waller, some of his letters and dispatches respecting his victories, but the on,ly article which seems to belong to that class is his “Divine meditations upon several occasions; with a daily directory,” Lond. 1680, 8vo. These were written during his retirement, and give a very faithful picture of his honest sentiments, and of his frailties and failings. Wood also mentions his “Vindication for taking up arms against the king,” left behind in manuscript, in which state it remained until 17y3, when it was published under the title of “Vindication of the Character and Conduct of sir William Waller, knight; commander in chief of the parliament forces in the West: explanatory of his conduct in taking up arms against king Charles I. Written by himself And now first published from the original manuscript. With an introduction by the editor,” 8vo. The ms. came from one of the noble families descended from him. It appears to be written with great sincerity, as well as precision, and contains many interesting particulars, relative to the democratical parties which struggled for superiority after the king had fallen into their power. The style seems to bear a stronger resemblance to that of the age of James the First, or his immediate predecessor, than to the mode of composition generally practised in England about the middle of the last century. If any thing can confirm the declaration that sir William was actuated solely by disinterested motives, it is the veneration which he professes to entertain for the constitution of his country. He avows himself a sincere friend to the British form of government, consisting of king, lords, and commons; and it appears, that, from the beginning, his imputed apostacy from the cause of public freedom, or rather of democratical tyranny,- ought justly to he ascribed to the cabals of the republican leaders, and not to any actual change which had ever taken place in his own sentiments. The volume, indeed, is not only valuable as an ingenuous and explicit vindication, but as a composition abounding with shrewd observation’s, and rendered interesting by the singular manner, as well as the information of the author, who seems to have been no less a man of vivacity and good sense, than of virtue and learning.

, an eminent English mathematician, was born Nov. 2S, 1616, at Ashford in Kent, of which place his father of the same names was then minister, but did not survive the birth of this his eldest son above six years. He was now left to the care of his mother, who purchased a house at Ashford for the sake of the education of her children, and placed him at school there, until the plague, which broke out in 1625, obliged her to remove him to Ley Green, in the parish of Tenterden, under the tuition of one James Movat or Mouat, a native of Scotland, who instructed him in grammar. Mr. Movat, says Dr. Wallis, “was a very good schoolmaster, and his scholar I continued for divers years, and was by him well grounded in the technical part of grammar, so as to understand the rules and the grounds and reasons of such rules, with the use of them in such authors, as are usually read in grammar schools: for it was always my affectation even from a child, in all parts of learning or knowledge, not merely to learn by rote, which is soon forgotten, but to know the grounds or reasons of what I learn, to inform my judgment as well as furnish my memory, and thereby make a better impression on both.” In 1630 he lost this instructor, who was engaged to attend two young gentlemen on their travels, and would gladly have taken his pupil Wallis with them; but his mother not consenting on account of his youth, he was sent to Felsted school in Essex, of which the learned Mr. Martin Holbeach was then master. During the Christmas holidays in 1631, he went home to his mother at Ashford, where finding that one of his brothers had been learning to cypher, he was inquisitive to know what that meant, and applying diligently was enabled to go through all the rules with success, and prosecuted this study at spare hours on his return to Felsted, where also he was instructed in the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues, and in the rudiments of logic, music, and the French language.

In 1632 he was sent to Cambridge, and admitted of Emanuel college, under the tuition first of Mr. Anthony Burgess, afterwards rector of Sutton Colfield; next of Thomas Horton, afterwards master of Queen’s college, and lastly of the celebrated Benjamin Whichcot. It is not improbable that he had his divinity from the first two, and somewhat of his style from the last of these tutors. At his first entrance upon academical studies, he was reconciled to having staid a year or two longer at school than appeared necessary, or than he liked, since he found that owing to the knowledge he had accumulated in that time, he was now able to keep pace with those who were some years his seniors. “I found,” he says, “that beside the improvement of what skill I had in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages (which I pursued with diligence) and other philologic studies, my first business was to be the study of logic. In this I soon became master of a syllogism, as to its structure and the reason of its consequences, however cryptically proposed, so as not easily to be imposed on by fallacious or false syllogisms, when I was to answer or defend; and to manage an argument with good advantage, when I was to argue or oppose; and to distinguish ambiguous words or sentences, as there was occasion; and was able to hold pace with those, who were some years my seniors, and had obtained the reputation of a good disputant. And indeed I had the good hap all along, both at school and in the university, to be reputed (if not equal) not much inferior to those of the best of my rank. From logic I proceeded to ethics, physics, and metaphysics (consulting the schoolmen on such points), according to the methods of philosophy then in fashion in that university. And I took into the speculative part of physic and anatomy, as parts of natural philosophy; and, as Dr. Glisson (then public professor of physic in that university) hath since told me, I was the first of his sons, who, in a public disputation, maintained the circulation of the blood, which was then a new doctrine, though I had no design of practising physic. And I had then imbibed the principles of what they now call the new philosophy; for I made no scruple of diverting from the common road of studies then in fashion to any part of useful learning; presuming that knowledge is no burthen; and, if of any part thereof I should afterwards have no occasion to make use, it would at least do me no hurt; and what of it I might or might not have occasion for, I could not then foresee. On the same account I diverted also to astronomy and geography, as parts of natural philosophy, and to other parts of mathematics; though at that time they were scarce looked upon with us as academical studies then in fashion. As to divinity, on which I had an eye from the first, I had the happiness of a strict and religious education all along from a child. Whereby I was not only preserved from vicious courses, and acquainted with religious exercises, but was early instructed in the principles of religion and catechetical divinity, and the frequent reading of scripture and other good books, and diligent attendance on sermons: and whatever other studies I followed, I was careful not to neglect this: and became timely acquainted with systematic and polemic divinity, and had the repute of a good proficient therein.” The length of this extract we trust will be excused, as it is but seldom we attain that interesting part of biography, the progress of early studies.

Soon after his admittance into Emanuel college, he was chosen of the foundation, and admitted a scholar of the house, but by the statutes he was incapable of a fellowship, it being provided that there should not be more than one fellow of the same county at the same time, and there was already one of the county of Kent, Mr. Wellar, who continued in the college long after Mr. Wallis left it. Wallis, however, was so highly esteemed by the society, that when he declared his design of leaving the college, Dr. Richard Holdsworth, then master, and the fellows, had a consultation about founding a new fellowship on his account, that he might not remove from them. But the times growing confused, there was no room for executing such a design, and Mr. Wail is removed to Queen’s college in Cambridge, where he was chosen fellow, and continued so, till by his marriage he vacated his fellowship. In Hilary term 1636-7, he took the degree of bachelor of arts, and about four years after that of master; and then removed to Queen’s, probably in consequence of the interest of Dr. Horton, his former tutor, and now master of that college.

Being designed for the church, he had studied divinily with great care, and now was admitted to holy orders by Dr. Walter Curie, bishop of Winchester. In 1641 he left college to be chaplain to sir William Darley, at Bustercramb in Yorkshire. In the following year he acted in the same capacity to lady Vere, widow of sir Horatio Vere. It was during her occasional residence in London that he was enabled to discover his surprising talent in decypheringj and as this had an important effect on his future life and fame, it may be necessary to give his own account of the discovery. “About the beginning of our civil wars, in th* year 1642, a chaplain of sir William Waller’s, one evening as we were sitting down to supper at the lady Vere’s in London, with whom I then dwelt, shewed me an intercepted letter written in cypher. He shevyed it me as a curiosity (and it was indeed the first thing I had ever seen written in cyphers), and asked me, between jest and earnest, whether I could make any tiling of it; and he was surprized, when I said, upon the first view, perhaps I might, if it proved no more but a new alphabet. It was about ten o'clock, when we rose from supper. I then withdrew to my chamber to consider it; and by the number of different characters therein (not above 22 or 23) I judged, that it could not be more than a new alphabet, and in about two hours time, before I went to bed, I had decyphered it; and I sent a copy of it. so decyphered the next morning to him from whom I had it. And this was my first attempt at decyphering. This unexpected success on an easy cypher was then looked upon as a great matter; and I was somewhile after pressed to attempt one of another nature, which was a letter of Mr. secretary Windebank, then in France, to his son in England, in a cypher hard enough, and not unbecoming a secretary of state. It was in numeral figures, extending in number to above seven hundred, with many other characters intermixed; but not so hard as many that I have since met with. I was backward at first to attempt it, and after I had spent some time upon it, threw it by as desperate; but after some months resumed it again, and had the good hap to master it. Being encouraged by this success beyond expectation, I afterwards ventured on many others, some of more, some of less difficulty; and scarce missed of any that I undertook for many years, during our civil wars, and afterwards. But of late years the French, methods of cypher are grown so intricate beyond what it was wont to be, that I have failed of many, tho' I have mastered divers of them. Of such decyphered letters there be copies of divers remaining in the archives of the Bodleian library in Oxford, and many more in my own custody, and with the secretaries of state.” The copies of decyphered letters, mentioned by Dr. Wallis to be in the archives of the Bodleian library, were reposited by him there in 1653, and are in the doctor’s own hand-writing, with a memorandum at the beginning, to this purpose: “A collection of several letters and other papers, which were at several times intercepted, written in cypher,' decyphered by John Wallis, professor of geometry in the university of Oxford; given to the public library there,” anno domin‘t 1653. This part of our author’s skill gave him afterwards no small trouble, and might possibly have been of very bad consequences to him, had he not had some friends in power, particularly the earl of Clarendon and sir Edward Nicholas secretary of state, who valued him for his great learning and integrity, and were sensible of his affection for the royal family, and his loyalty to the king, and the many good services he had done his majesty before the restoration. The doctor’s enemies soon after the restoration eiH deavoured to represent him as an avowed enemy to the royal family; and to prove this they reported, that he had during the civil wars decyphered king Charles I.’s letters taken in his cabinet at Naseby; and that the letters so decyphered by him were to be seen in the books of cyphers, which our author had given to the university. This report being revived upon the accession of king James II. to the crown, the doctor wrote a letter in his own vindication to his great friend Dr. John Fell, bishop of Oxford/dated April 8, 1685 which was as follows

“I understand there have of late been complaints made of me, that I decyphered the late king’s letters, meaning those taken in the late king’s cabinet at Naseby- fight, and after printed. As to this, without saying any thing, whether it be now proper to repeat what was done above forty years ago, the thing is quite otherwise. Of those letters and papers (whatever they were) I never saw any one of them but in print; nor did those papers, as I have been told, need any decyphering at all, either by me or anybody else, being taken in words at length just as they were printed, save that some of them were, I know not by whom, translated out of French into English. ‘Tis true, that afterwards some other letters of other persons, which had been occasionally intercepted, were brought to my han’ds; some of which 1 did decypher, and some of them I did not think fit to do, to the displeasing of some, who were then great men. And I managed my selfe in that whole busi^ ness by such measures, as your lordship, I think, would not bee displeased with. I did his majesty who then was (king Charles the first) and his 'friends many good offices, as I had opportunity both before and after that king’s death; and ventured farther to do them service, than perhaps some, of those, who now complaine of mee, would have had the courage to do, had they been in my circumstances. And I did tp his late majesty, k. Charles the second, many good services both before and since his restauration, which himselfe has been pleased divers times to profess to mee with great kindnes. And if either my lord chancellor Clarendon, or Mr. secretary Nicholas, or his late majesty, were now alive, they would give mee a very different character from what, it seemes, some others have done. And I thinke his majesty that now is kn<Mves somewhat of it, and some other persons of honour yet -alive, &c.”

In our authorities are other proofs of his innocence in this matter; but we presume it cannot be denied that he had been of service to the republican government by this peculiar talent. He had always joined with them, and in 1653 he had the sequestered living of St. Gabriel, Fenchurch- street, granted to him. The same year he published in 4to, Truth tried; or, Animadversions on the Lord Brooke’s Treatise of the nature of Truth'.“His mother dying this year, he became possessed of a handsome fortune. In 1644 he was appointed one of the scribes or secretaries to the assembly of divines at Westminster, to whose conduct and views he gives a very different colouring from what we meet with in most of the publications of that time.” The parliament,“he asserts,” had a great displeasure against the order of bishops, or rather not so much against the order, as the men, and against the order for their sakes; and had resolved upon the abolition of episcopacy as it then stood, before they were agreed what to put instead of it; and did then convene this assembly to consult of some other form to be suggested to the parliament, to be by them set up, if they liked it, or so far as they should like it. The divines of this assembly were, for the generality of them, conformable, episcopal men, and had generally the reputation of pious, orthodox, and religious protestants; and (excepting the seven independents, or, as they were called dissenting brethren) I do not know of any nonconformist among them as to the legal conformity then required. Many of them were professedly episcopal, and, I think, all of them so episcopal, as to account a well-regulated episcopacy to be at least allowable, if not desirable and advisable; yet so as they thought the present constitution capable of reformation for the better. When I name the divines of this assembly, I do not include the Scots commissioners, who, though they were permitted to be present there, and did interpose in the debates, as they saw occasion, yet were no members of that assembly, nor did vote with them, but acted separately in behalf of the church of Scotland, and were zealous enough for the Scots presbytery, but could never prevail with the assembly to declare for it. On the other hand, the independents were against all united church government of more than one single congregation, holding that each single congregation, voluntarily agreeing to make themselves a church, and choose their own officers, were of themselves independent, and not accountable to any other ecclesiastical government, but only the civil magistrate, as to the public peace; admitting indeed that messengers from several churches might meet to consult in common, as there might be occasion, but without any authoritative jurisdiction* Against these, the rest of the assembly was unanimous, (and the Scots commissioners with them) that it was lawful by the word of God for divers particular congregations (beside the inspection of their own pastor and other officers) to be united under the same common government; and such communities to be further subordinate to provincial and national assemblies; which is equally consistent with episcopal and presbyterian principles. But whether with or without a bishop or standing president of such assemblies, was not determined or debated by them. When any such point chanced to be suggested, the common answer was, that this point was not before them, but was precluded by the ordinance by which they sat; which did first declare the abolition of episcopacy (not refer it to their declaration), and they only to suggest to the parliament somewhat in the room of that so abolished, And this is a true account of that assembly as to this point (and when as they were called presbyterians, it was not in the sense of anti-episcopal, but anti-independents), which I have the more largely insisted on, because there are not many now living who can give a better account of that assembly than I can. To this may be objected their agreement to the covenant, which was before I was amongst them. But this, if rightly understood, makes nothing against what I have said. The covenant, as it came from Scotland, and was sent from the parliament to the assembly, seemed directly against all episcopacy, and for setting up the Scots presbytery just as among them. But the assembly could not be brought to assent to it in those terms, being so worded as, to preserve the government of the church of Scotland, and to reform that of England, and so to reduce it to the nearest uniformity. But before the assembly could agree to it, it was thus mollified, to preserve that of Scotland (not absolutely, but) against the common enemy; and to reform that of England (not so as it is in Scotland, but) according to the word of God, and the exarnpleof the best reformed churches; and to endeavour the nearest uniformity; which might be as well by reforming that of Scotland, as that of England, or of both. And whereas the covenant, as first brought to them, was against popery, prelacy, heresy, schism, profaneness, &c. they would by no means be persuaded to admit the word prelacy, as thus standing absolute. For though they thought the English episcopacy, as it then stood, capable of reformation for the better in divers things, yet to engage indefinitely against all prelacy, they would not agree. After many days debate on this point (as I understood from those who were then present) some of the parliament, who then pressed it, suggested this expedient, that by prelacy they did not understand all manner of episcopacy or superiority, but only the present episcopacy, as it now stood in England, consisting of archbishops, bishops, and their several courts and subordinate officers, &c. And that if any considerable alteration were made in any part of this whole frame, it was an abolition of the present prelacy, and as much as was here intended in these words; and that no more was intended but a reformation of the present episcopacy in England. And in pursuance of this it was agreed to be expressed with this interpretation; prelacy, that is, church government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deans, deans and chapters, arch-deacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy. And with this interpretation at length it passed; and the Scots commissioners in behalf of their church agreed to those amendments. I know some have been apt to put another sense upon that interpretation; but this was the true intendment of the assembly, and upon this occasion."

Some of these sentiments belong not only to the assembly, but to our author; and, as he retained them to the last, were probably the cause of his having so little preferment afterwards when he was a favourite at court, and much employed as a decypherer.

In March of this year, 1644, he married Susanna, daughter of John and Rachel Clyde of Northiam, Northamptonshire. In 1645, the weekly meetings, which gave birth to the Royal Society, being proposed, he attended them along with Dr. John Wilkins (afterwards bishop of Chester), Dr. Jonathan Goddard, Dr. George Ent, Dr. Giisson, Dr. Merret, doctors in physic, Mr. Samuel Foster, then professor of astronomy at Gresham college, Theodore Haak, a German of the palatinate, and then resident in London, who is said to have first suggested those meetings, and many others. These meetings were held sometimes at Dr. Goddard’s lodgings in Wood-street, sometimes in Cheapside, and sometimes at Gresham college, or some place near adjoining.

In 1647, he happened to meet with Oughtred’s “Clavis,” of which he made himself master in a few weeks, and discovered a new method of resolving cubic equations, which he communicated to Mr. Smith, professor of mathematics at Cambridge, with whom he held a literary correspondence upon mathematical subjects for some years. The Independents having now acquired the superiority, our author joined with some other ministers of London, in subscribing a paper, entitled “A testimony to the truth of Jesus Christ, and to the solemn league and covenant: as also against the errors, heresies, and blasphemies of these times, and the toleration of them.” Not long after this, he exchanged St. Gabriel Fenchurch-.street, for St. Martin’s Ironmonger-lane; and in 1648, subscribed, as minister of that church, to the remonstrance against putting the king to death; and to a paper entitled “A curious and faithful representation of the judgments of ministers of the Gospel within the province of London, in a letter from them to the General and his Council of War.” Dated Jan. 17, 1648.

Notwithstanding this opposition to the ruling powers, he was in June following appointed by the parliamentary visitors, Savilian professor of geometry at Oxford, in room of Dr. Peter Turner, who was ejected; and now quitting his church, he went to that university, entered of Exeter college, and was incorporated master of arts. Acceptable as this preferment was, he was not an inattentive observer of the theological disputes of the time; and when Baxter published his “Aphorisms of Justification and the Covenant,” our author published some animadversions on them, which Baxter acknowledged were very judicious and moderate. Before the end of this year, Wallis, in perusing the mathematical works of Torricelli, was particularly struck with what. he found there of Cavalleri’s method of indivisibles, this being the first time he had heard or seen any thing of that method, and conceived hopes of attaining by it some assistance in the problem concerning the quadrature of the circle. He accordingly spent a very considerable time in studying it, but found some insuperable difficulties, which, with what he had accomplished, he communicated to Mr. Seth Ward, then Savilian professor of astronomy, Rook, professor of astronomy at Gresham college, and Christopher Wren, then fellow of All Souls, and several other eminent mathematicians at that time in Oxford, but not meeting with the assistance he wished, he desisted from the farther pursuit. In 1653, he published a grammar of the English tongue, for the use of foreigners in Latin, under this title: “Grammatica Linguse Anglicanae, cum Tractatu de Loquela seu Sonorum Formatione,” in 8vo. In the piece “De Loquela,” &c. he tells us, that “he has philosophically considered the formation of all sounds used in articulate speech, as well of our own as of any other language that he knew; by what organs, and in what position, each sound was formed; with the nice distinctions of each, which in some letters of the same organ are very subtle: so that by such organs, in such position, the breath issuing from the lungs will form such sounds, whether the person do or do not hear himself speak.” This we shall find he afterwards endeavoured to turn to an important practical use. In 1654, he was admitted to the degree of D.D. after performing the regular exercise, which he printed afterwards, and in August of that year, made some observations on the solar eclipse, which happened about that time. About Easter, 1655, the proposition in his “Arithmetica Infinitorum,” containing the quadrature of the circle, being printed, he sent it to Mr. Oughtred; and soon after, in the same year, he published that treatise in 4to, dedicated to the same eminent mathematician. To this he prefixed a treatise on conic sections, which he sdtin a new light, considering them as absolute planes, constituted of an infinite number of parallelograms, without any relation to the cone, and demonstrated their properties from his new method of infinites.

About the same time, Hobbes published his “Elementorum Philosophise sectio prima, de corpore,” in which he pretended to give an absolute quadrature of the circle. This pretence Dr. Wallis confuted the same year, in a Latin tract, entitled “Elenchus Geometrise Hobbianse; 17 which being written with some asperity, so provoked Hobbes, that in 1656 he published it in English, with the addjtion of what he called” Six Lessons to the Professors of Mathematics in Oxford,“4to. Upon this Dr. Wallis wrote an answer in English, entitled,” Due Correction for Mr. Hobbes; or, School Discipline for not saying his Lessons right,“1656, in 8vo; to which Mr. Hobbes replied in a pamphlet, with the title of” 2TIFMAI, &c. or, Marks of the absurd Geometry, Rural Language, Scottish Church Politics, and Barbarisms, of John Wallis,“c. 1657, 4to. This was immediately rejoined to by Dr. Wallis in” Hob* biani Puncti Dispunctio,“1657; and here this controversy seems to have ended at this time: but four years after, 1661, Mr. Hobbes printed” Examinatio & emendatio Matheoiaticorum hodiernorum, in sex Dialogis;“which occasioned Dr. Wallis to publish, the next year,” Hobbius Heautontimorumenos," in 8vo, addressed to Mr. Boyle. Although Dr. Wallis was universally allowed to have the best of the argument in this controversy, Hobbes being notoriously deficient in mathematical science, yet none or* his answers to Hobbes were inserted in the collection of his mathematical works, published in 1699, 3 vols.'fol. because, as he says himself, he had no inclination to trample on the ashes of the dead, although it was his duty to expose the fallacious reasoning of Hobbes when alive*.

In 1656 he published a work on the angle of contact, in which he exposes the opinion of Peletarius. In the foU lowing year, having completed his plan of lectures, he published the whole, in two parts, under the title of “Mathesis Universalis, sive Opus Arithmeticum.” While this was in the press, he' received a challenge from Mr. Fermat of Toulouse, which engaged him in an epistolary dispute with that gentleman, as well as- with Mr. Frenicle of Paris. The problem was “Invenire cubum, qui additis omnibus suis partibus aliquotis confieiat quadratum.” This challenge had been sent by Fermat to Frenicle, Schooten, and Huygens. Dr. Wallis sent a solution of it before the end of March, which being objected to both by Frenicle and Fermat, occasioned a dispute which was carried on this year and part of the next, after which both these gentlemen acknowledged the sufficiency of Wallis’ s solution, with the encomium of being the greatest mathematician in Europe. Wallis, however, having heard that Frenicle was about to publish the correspondence, and being, from some circumstances in his conduct, a little suspicious of misrepresentation, requested sir Kenelm Digby, then at Paris, through whose hands the whole had passed, to give his consent to the publication of it by the doctor himself, which being readily granted, it appeared in 1658, under the title of “Commercium Epistolicum.”

In the same year, on the death of Dr. Gerard Langbaine, Dr. Wallis was chosen to succeed him in the place of “Gustos Archivorum” to the university. But he was not elected to this office without some struggle. Dr. Richard Zouch, a learned civilian, who, as his friend Mr. Henry Stubbe represents the. case, had been an assessor in the vice chancellor’s court for, thirty years and more, and was well versed in the statutes, liberties, and privileges of the Universit3 T stood in opposition to our author. But the election being carried for Dr. Wallis, provoked Mr. Stubbe, a great admirer of Mr. Hobbes, to publish a pamphlet entitled, “The Savilian Professor’s Case stated:” London, 1658, in 4to. Dr. Wallis replied to this; and Mr. Stubbe republished his case with enlargements, and a vindication of it against the exceptions of Dr. Wallis. Anthony Wood, who is inveterately prejudiced against Dr.Wallis, gives a suitable misrepresentation of this affair. In July of the same year (1658) he received a letter from sir Kenelrn Digby, in which were contained two prize questions’ proposed by M. Pascal, for squaring and finding the gravity of some sections of the cycloid; and though he had never before considered' that curve, yet he sent a solutiorr to both the questions, but too, late, it would appear, according to the time fixed at Paris, for him to receive the prizes. This however occasioned hi& publishing in 1659, a letter “De Cissoide.et corporibus inde genitis.”

It appears that just before the restoration, he had done considerable service to the royal cause by his art of decyphering, and on that event, Charles II. received him very graciously, and he was not only confirmed in both his places, of SaviMan professor, and keeper of the archives, but likewise was made one of the king’s chaplains in ordinary. In 1661 he was one of the divines who were appointed to review the book of Common Prayer. He afterwards complied with the terms of the act of. uniformity, and continued a steady conformist to the church of England until his death.

We have already mentioned his Grammar of the English tongue, published in 1653. By some observations in & that work, he had been led to suppose it possible to teach the deaf and dumb to speak. On this it is probable he had wade many experiments; and communicated what he had tried to his friends, who now were desirous to bring the matter to the test. Accordingly he was persuaded to employ his skill on one Daniel Whalley of Northampton, who had been deaf and dumb from a child. About January, 1661-2, he began to teach this person, and with such success, that in little more than a year, he taught him to pronounce distinctly even the most difficult words, and to express his mind in writing. He was likewise able to read distinctly the greater part of the Bib!e, could express himself intelligibly in ordinary affairs, understand letters written to him, and write answers to them, if not elegantly, yet so as to be understood. This being known, attracted the curiosity of the public in no common degree. Whalley was brought to the Royal Society, May the 21st, 1662, and to their great satisfaction, pronounced 'distinctly enough such words as were proposed to him by the company; and though not altogether with the usual tone or accent, yet so as easily to be understood. He did the like several times at Whitehall in the presence of his “majesty, prince Rupert, and others of the nobility; and the doctor was desired to try his skill on Alexander Popham, esq. a son of lady Wharton, by her former husband, admiral Popham. His mother, it is said, when she was big with him, received a sudden fright, in consequence of which his head and face were a little distorted, the whole right side being somewhat elevated, and the left depressed, so that the passage of his left ear was quite shut up, and that of the right ear proportionally distended and too open. However Dr. Holder says, that he was not so deaf, but that he could hear the sound of a lute string, holding one end of it in his teeth; and when a drum was beat fast and loud by him, he could hear those, who stood behind him, calling him gently by his name. When he was of the age of ten or eleven years, he was recommended to the care of Dr. William Holder, then rector of Blechindon in Oxfordshire, and taken by him into his house in 1659, where he learned to speak and pronounce his name, and some other words. Of this Wood gives us the following account; that Dr. Holder” obtained a great name for his most wonderful art in making a young gentleman, Alexander Popham, who was born deaf and dumb, to speak; that he was the first that is remembered ever to have succeeded therein in England, or perhaps in the world; and because it was a wonderful matter, many, curious scholars went from Oxford to see and hear the person speak.“However this be, three years after, viz. in 1662, this young gentleman was sent by his relations to Dr. Wallis, for him to teach him to speak, as he had taught Mr. Whalley. Wood owns, that Mr. Popham being called home by his friends, he began to lose what he had been taught by Dr. Holder. And Dr. Wallis observes, that both Mr. Whalley and Mr. Popham, notwithstanding the proficiency they had made under him in learning to speak, were apt to forget, after their departing from him, much of that nicety, which before they had, in the distinct pronouncing some letters, which they would recover, when he had been occasionally with them to set them right, they wanting the help of an ear to direct their speaking, as that of the eye directs the hand in writing. 14 For which reason,” says he, “a man, who writes a good hand, would soon forget so to do, if grown blind. And therefore one, who thus learns to speak, will, for the continuance and improvement of it, need somebody continually with him, who may prompt him, when he mistakes.” Dr. Wallis remarks likewise, that Dr. Holder had attempted to teach Mr. Popham to speak, “but gave it over.” This seems very likely to be true, because his friends did not send him again to Dr, Holder, but desired Dr. Wallis to teach him. However that be, a dispute took place between the two doctors. A letter of Dr. Wallis concerning this cure was inserted in the “Philosophical Transactions” of July 1670. This was represented, as if he had vainly assumed to himself the glory of teaching this young gentleman to speak, without taking any notice of what had been before done to him by Dr. Holder, who therefore published in 1678 at London in 4to, “A Supplement to the Philosophical Transactions of July 1670, with some Reflections on Dr. Wallis’ s Letter there inserted.” To this Dr. Wallis replied the very same year, entitling his papers, which were directed to the lord viscount Brouncker, president of the Roya.1 Society, “A Defence of the Royal Society, and the Philosophical Transactions, particularly those of July 1670, in answer to the Cavils of Dr. William Holder,” London, 1673, in 4to. To this Dr. Holder made no reply. The reverend and learned Mr. John Lewis of ?crgate observes, in a ms life by him of Dr. Wallis communicated to the authors of the General Dictionary, that without lessening Dr. Holder’s great abilities, it is a plain and certain fact, that Dr. Wallis had, in his tract `De Loquela,' discovered the theory of this by considering very exactly, what few attended to, the accurate formation of all sounds in speaking; without which it were in vain to set about this task. This tract was printed no less than six years before Dr. Holder undertook to try his skill of teaching a dumb man to speak on Mr. Popham. And it is no disingenuous reflection to suppose, that Dr. Holder had seen it, and profited by it; whereas it does not appear, that Dr. Wallis could have the least hint from him, when he at first taught Mr. Whalley. But Wood, to shew how just and equitable a judge he was of this difference, tells us, that he knew full well, that Dr. Wallis at any time could make black white, and white black, for his own ends, and had a ready knack of sophistical evasions. Base reflections, which confute themselves, and expose their inventor 1“However, Dr. Wallis published his method of instructing persons deaf and dumb to speak and understand a language, which was printed in the Philosophical Transactions. And” I have,“says he,” since that time, upon the same account, taught divers persons (and some of them very considerable) to speak plain and distinctly, who did before hesitate and stutter very much; and others to pronounce such words or letters, as before they thought impossible for them to do, by teaching them how to rectify such mistakes in the formation, as by some impediment or acquired customs they had been subject to."

Dr. Wallis had become one of the first members of the Royal Society, and was a very considerable contributor to their early stock of papers, particularly on mathematical subjects. In 1663, at the request of sir Robert Moray, he wrote his “Cono-cunseus, or Shipwright’s circular wedge,” and a treatise “De Proportionibus,” in vindication of Euclid’s definition in the fifth book of his Elements. This he dedicated to lord Brouncker, with whom he lived in the most friendly communication of studies till his lordship’s death. In the same year, he gave the first demonstration of that most important and useful problem, concerning “the laws of motion in the collision of bodies.” In 1666, he framed a new hypothesis to solve the phaenoinena of the tide, of which no tolerable account had then appeared. This, after further investigation, he published in 1668, under the title of “De ystu maris hypothesis nova;” and the next year, the first part of his treatise “De motu,” which was generally esteemed his master-piece. The whole was completed in 1671, under the title of “Mechanic, sive de motu tractatus geometric us.” In 1673, he published in Latin “Horqccii opera posthuma” (see Horrox), to which he subjoined Flamsteed’s “Discourse of the equation of time.” He also employed some of his leisure hours in correcting, for his own private use, and supplying the defects found in all the manuscript copies of Archimedes’s “Arenarius t Dimensio Circuli.” This he printed in 1676, at dean Fell’s request, to-convince the public of the necessity of publish! tig a collection of the ancient mathematicians; a scheme which, a few. years before,- had been dropped for want of encouragement.

About this time, the university having determined to publish an Oxford Almanack, their right to do so was disputed by the Company of Stationers. Dr. Wallis was entrusted with the management of the suit, which was fjnally determined in favour of the university. In 168O, he published, from the best manuscripts, “Glaudii Ptolemsei opus harmonicum,” Gr. et Lat. with -notes; to which he afterwards added an appendix, “.De veterum harmonica ad hodiernum comparata *,” as also “P.orphyrii in harmonica Ptoleimei Commentarius,” &c. In 1684, he published his “Algebra,” in English, containing the history of that art, and the successive improvements, from its first appearance in Europe to his own invention of -the “Arithmetic of Infinites;” to which he afterwards added the infinitesimal method of Leibnitz, and that of fluxions by sir Isaac Newton. In the following year he published three dissertations, on Melchisedeck, Job, and the titles of the Psalms. In 1687, his “Institutio Logica” appeared; and nearly about the same time he edited “Aristarchus Samius de magnitudine solis et lunae,” with “Pappi libri secundi collectionum inathematicorum hactenus desiderati fragmentum.” In the same year, 1689, he wrote a letter to sir Samuel Morland at Utrecht, proving, in at least fifty instances, how much Des Cartes borrowed his pretended improvements in Algebra from our countryman Harriot; and this charge, our readers may recollect, has been more recently conhrmed. (See Harriot.)

In 1690, he published “The doctrine of the Blessed Trinity briefly explained;” on which he received a written letter, subscribed W. J. with the post-mark September 23, returning him thanks for his book. This letter he printed, and in answer to it-published a second letter dated September 27, 1690, and afterwards a third, dated October 28, 1690. Before this third letter was published there came out a pamphlet, entitled “Dr. Wallis’s Letter touching the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity answered by his Friend.” This occasioned the doctor to add a postscript dated November the 15th, 1690. Soon after came out a tract, entitled “An -Answer to-Dr. Wallis’s three letters,” and another entitled “The Arian’s Vindication of himself against Dr. Wallis’s fourth letter on the Trinity.” This produced a fifth letter of the doctors on the same subject, dated February 14, 1690-1. " Observations’- were likewise made on these four letters concerning the Trinity and Creed of Athanasius. This induced the doctor to write a sixth letter, dated March the 14th, 1690-1. W. J. wrote the doctor a second letter, which was answered by the doctor in a seventh letter, who likewise published three sermons on John xviL 3. and afterwards an eighth letter, dated November the 23d, 139 1

He had also a controversy on infant-baptism, which occasioned his writing a tract “De Pgedobaptismo” and another on the Sabbath, with Thomas Bampfield, a counsellor at law, who, in 1691, published a work to prove that the Sabbath should be observed on Saturday rather than on Sunday. In answer to this Dr. Wallis produced his “Defence of the Christian Sabbath,” 1692, two editions of which were quickly sold. Bampfield wrote a reply, to which Dr. Wallis rejoined, and there the dispute ended.

The last affair in which Dr. Wallis appears to have been consulted was on the scheme for altering the style, which he opposed on various reasons, and it was accordingly laid aside; but has since been established without any of the inconveniences either in astronomical'calculations, or otherwise, of which he was afraid. Towards the end of his life the curators of the university-press made a collection of his mathematical works, which were printed at Oxford 1699, in three -volumes in folio, with this title, “Johannis Wallis S. T. P. Gedmetriae Professoris Saviliani in celeberrima Academia Oxoniensi, Opera Mathematica, tribus Voluminibus -contenta.” This edition was dedicated to king William III. Dr. Wallis died at the Savilian professor’s house in New" college lane, Oxford, Oct. 28, 1703, in his eighty-eighth year, and was interred in St. Mary’s, where a monument was erected by his son, John Wallis, esq. a barrister. This son was born December the 26th, 1650, and placed by his father in Trinity college, in Oxford, and afterwards admitted of the Inner Temple, London, where he proceeded barrister-at-law February 1, 1681-2. He married Elizabeth daughter of John and Mary Harris, of Soundels, or Soundess, by Nettlebed, in Oxfordshire, afterwards heiress to her brother Taverner Harris, whose mother descended from Richard Taverner, a learned lawyer in king Henry VlII/s time, and high sheriff of the county of Oxford. By this match Mr. Wallis became possessed of a good estate called Soundess. His wife died August the 8th, 1693, leaving three children surviving her, viz. John, Mary, and Elizabeth.

Anne, the doctor’s eldest daughter, was born June 4, 1656, and married, December 23, 1675, to John Blencow, of an ancient family at Marston St. Laurence, in Northamptonshire, then barrister-at-law, and afterwards knighted, and promoted to be one of the barons of the exchequer, and afterwards one of the justices of the king’s bench. It has been said, that the promotion of this gentleman to these honourable posts was owing to the doctor, who having excused himself on account of his age from accepting the offer of a bishopric, told his friends that he had a son-inlaw a barrister-at-law and that if they would promote him, he should be as much obliged as if he was promoted himself. The doctors daughter had by sir John seven children, viz. John, Mary, Anne, Thomas, William, Elizabeth, and Susanna, who were all living in 1696,

Elizabeth, the doctor’s youngest daughter, was born September 23, 1658, and married February 21, 1681, to William Benson, son to George and Mary Benson, of Towcester, in Northamptonshire, who dying on November 5, 1691, left her a widow without any children.

Mr. Lewis observes, that the doctor “was happy in the enjoyment of a vigorous constitution of body, and of a mind, which was strong, serene, and calm, and not soon ruffled and discomposed;” and that, “though whilst he Jived he was looked on by the most rigid and zealous partymen in the university with a jealous eye, and suspected as not thoroughly well affected to the Monarchy and Church of England, he was yet very much honoured and esteemed by others of a better temper and judgment, and of more knowledge and larger thoughts. By these, both at home and abroad, was he reckoned the glory and ornament of his country, and of the university in particular.” In this character his talents are certainly not over-rated. It is therefore with some surprize that we perceive him slightly noticed by a late mathematical biographer, as “distinguished more by industry and judgment than genius,” Surely higher praise is due to the man whose discoveries “constituted the germ from which some of the most important of the Newtonian discoveries originated.”

During his latter years he was much employed as a decypherer for government, but the very great services he performed by means of this uncommon faculty, were very ill rewarded. Indeed, he seldom received more than the pay of a copyist, when he certainly might have secured his own terms, and made his fortune at once. But it is among the best parts of his character that, in all situations, he was unambitious and independent. Courtiers’ promises, as he shrewdly observes, are like certain medicines, if they do not operate quickly, it is not ifkely they will at all. The elector of Brandenburgh sent him a gold chain and medal of great value, which the editor of his sermons, published 1791, disposed of some years ago, as old gold, but not without first offering it for sale to the Oxford and British museums, and to several antiquaries. In 1700 king William granted Dr. Wallis an annuity of 100l. per annum, with survivorship to his grandson, Mr. William Blencoe, on condition of his teaching the latter his art of decyphering.

, a worthy English divine, and botanical writer, was born in 1714, in or near the parish of Ireby, in Cumberland. He was of Queen’s college, Oxford, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1740, and acquired some reputation as a sound scholar. Though possessed of good natural abilities, and no small share of acquired knowledge, he lived and died in an humble station. His disposition was so mild, and his sense of duty so proper, that he passed through life without a murmur at his lot. Early in life he married a lady near Portsmouth, where he at that time resided on a curacy. For fifty-six years they enjoyed the happiness of their'matrimonial connexion an happiness that became almost proverbial in their neighbourhood. After spending a few years in the south of England, he became curate of Simonburn, in Northumberland; and while here, indulged his taste for the study of botany, and filled his little garden with curious plants. This amusement led him gradually into deeper researches into natural history; and, in 1769, he published a “History of Northumberland,” 2 vols. 4to, the first of which, containing an account of minerals, fossils, &c. found in that country, is reckoned the most valuable. In other respects, as to antiquities, &c. it is rather imperfect, and unconnected. His fortune, however, did not improve with the reputation which this work brought him, and a dispute with his rector occasioned him to leave his situation, when he and his wife were received into the family of a clergyman who had formerly been his friend at college. He was curate for a short time at Haughton, near Darlington, in 1775, and soon afterwards removed to Billingham, near Stockton, where he continued until increasing infirmities obliged him to resign. He then removed to the village of Norton, where he died July 23, 1793, in the seventyninth year of his age. About two years before his death a small estate fell to him by the death of a brother; and to the honour of the present bishop of Durham (but certainly not to the surprize of any one that knows that munificent prelate), when the circumstances and situation of Mr. Wallis were represented to him, he allowed him an annual pension from the time of his resigning his curacy. From a sense of gratitude, Mr. Wallis, just at the close of life, was employed in packing up an ancient statue of Apollo, found at Carvoran, a Roman station on the wall, on the confines of Northumberland, as a present to the learned Daines Barrington, brother to the bishop. In the earlier part of his life Mr. Wallis published a volume of letters to a pupil, on entering into holy orders.

, D. D. and F. R, S. was an English Benedictine monk, and a Roman catholic bishop also senior bishop and vicar apostolic of the western district, as well as doctor of theology of the Sorbonne. He died at Bath in 1797, in the seventy-sixth year of his age; and the forty-first of his episcopacy. He was the last survivor of those eminent mathematicians who were concerned in regulating the chronological style in England, which produced a change of the style in this country in 1752. Besides some ingenious astronomical essays in the Philosophical Transactions, he printed several separate works, both on mathematics and theology; as, 1. “Analyse cles Mesures des Rapports et des Angles,” 1749, 4to, being an extension and explanation of Cotes’ s '“Harmonia Mensurarum.” 2. “Theorie du monument des Aspides,” 1749, 8vo. 3. “De inaequalitatibus motuum Lunarium,” 1758, 4to. 4. “An Explanation of the Apocalypse, Ezekiel’s Vision,” &c. By the fire at Bath in the time of the riots, 1780, several valuable manuscripts which he had compiled in the course of his life and travels through many countries, were irretrievably lost.

, earl of Orford, grandson of sir Edward Walpole, K. B. and third son of Robert Waipole, M. P. for Castle-Rising, in Norfolk, was born at Houghton, in Norfolk, Aug. 26, 1676. He received the first rudiments of learning at a private seminary at Massingham, in Norfolk, and completed his education on the foundation at Eton, Walpole was naturally indolent, and disliked application, but the emulation of a public seminary, the alternate menaces and praises of his master, Mr. Newborough, the maxim repeatedly inculcated by his father, that he was a younger brother, and that his future fortune in life depended solely upon his own exertions, overcame the original inertness of his disposition. Before he quitted Eton, he had so considerably improved himself in classical literature, as to bear the character of an excellent scholar. In April 1696 he was admitted a scholar of King’s college, Cambridge. On the death of his elder surviving brother in 1698, becoming heir to the paternal estate, he resigned his scholarship. Singular as it may appear, he had been designed for the church; but on his destination being altered by the death of his brother, he no longer continued to prosecute his studies with a view to a liberal profession. His father, indeed, appears to have been in a great measure the cause of this dereliction of his studies, for he took him from the university to his seat at Houghton, where his mornings being engaged in farming, or in the sports of the field, and his evenings in convivial society, he had no leisure, and soon lost the inclination, for literary pursuits. In July 1700, he married Catherine, daughter of sir John Shorter, lord mayor of London, and his father dying, he inherited the family estate of somewhat more than 2000l. a year.

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,

In two years time a misunderstanding appeared amongst his majesty’s servants; and it became evident that the interest of secretary Stanhope and his adherents began to outweigh that of the exchequer, and that Wai pole’s power was visibly on the decline. King George had purchased of the king of Denmark the duchies of Bremen and Verden, which his Danish majesty had gained by conquest from Charles XII. of Sweden. The Swedish hero, enraged to see his dominions publicly set to sale, conceived a resentment against the purchaser, and formed a design to gratify his revenge on the electorate of Hanover. Upon a message sent to the House of Commons by the king, secretary Stanhope moved fora supply, to enable his majesty to concert such measures with foreign princes and states as might prevent any change or apprehensions from the designs of Sweden for the future. This occasioned a warm debate, in which it was remarkable that Walpole kept a profound silence. The country-party insisted that such a proceeding was contrary to the act of settlement. They insinuated that the peace of the empire was only a pretence, but that the security of the new acquisitions was the real object of this unprecedented supply; and they took occasion to observe too, that his majesty’s own ministers seemed to be divided. But Walpole thought proper, on this surmise, to speak in favour of the supply, which was carried by a majority of four voices only. In a day or two he resigned all his places to the king; and, if the true cause of his defection from the court had been his disapprobation of the measures then pursuing, his conduct would have been considered in this instance as noble and praiseworthy. But they who consider the intrigues of party, and that he spoke in favour of these measures, will find little room to suppose that his resignation proceeded from any attachment to liberty or love of his country. He resigned most probably with a view to be restored with greater plenitude of power; and the number of his friends, who accompanied him in his resignation, prove it to have been a mere factious movement. On the day of his resignation he brought in the famous sinking-fund bill: he presented it as a country-gentleman; and said he hoped it would not fare the worse for having two fathers; and that his successor (Mr. Stanhope) would bring it to perfection. His calling himself the father of a project, which has since been so often employed to other purposes than were at first declared, gave his enemies frequent opportunity for satire and ridicule; and it has been sarcastically observed, that the father of this fund appeared in a very bad light when viewed in the capacity of a nurse. In the course of the debates on this bill, a warm contest arose between Walpole and Stanhope on some severe reflections thrown upon him, the former lost his usual serenity of temper, and replied with great warmth and impetuosity. The acrimony on both sides produced unbecoming expressions, the betraying of private conversation, and the revealing a piece of secret history, viz. “the scandalous practice of selling places and reversions.” A member said on the occasion, “I am sorry to see these two great men fall foul of one another however, in my opinion, we must still look on them as patriots and fathers of their country and, since they have by mischance discovered their nakedness, we ought, according to the custom of the East, to cover it, by turning our backs upon them.”

In the next session of parliament Walpole opposed the ministry in every thing; and even Wyndham or Shippen did not exceed him in patriotism. Upon a motion in the House for continuing the army, he made a speech of above an hour long, and displayed the danger of a standing army in a free country, with all the powers of eloquence. Early in 1720 the rigour of the patriot began to soften, and the complaisance of the courtier to appear; and he was again appointed paymaster of the forces, and several of his friends were found soon after in the list of promotions. No doubt now remained of his entire conversion to courtmeasures; for, before the end of the year, we find him pleading as strongly for the forces required by the waroffice as he had before declaimed against them, even though at this time the same pretences for keeping them on foot did not exist.

It was not long before he acquired full ministerial power, being appointed first lord commissioner of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer; and, when the king went abroad in 1723, he was nominated one of the lords justices for the administration of government, and was sworn sole secretary of state. About this time he received another distinguished mark of the royal favour; his eldest son, then on his travels, being created a peer, by the title of Baron Walpole of Walpole. In 1725 he was made knight of the bath; and, the year after, knight of the garter. Into any detail of the measures of his administration, during the Jong time he remained prime or rather sole minister, it would be impossible to enter in a work like this. They are indeed so closely involved in the history of the nation and of Europe, as to belong almost entirely to that department. His merit has been often canvassed with all the severity of critical inquiry and it is difficult to discern the truth through the exaggerations and misrepresentations of party. But this difficulty has been lately removed in a very great measure by Mr. Coxe’s elaborate “Memoirs of sir Robert Walpole,” a work admirably calculated to abate the credulity of the public in the accounts of party-writers. Although sir Robert had been called “the father of corruption” (which, however, he was not, but certainly a great improver of it), and is said to have boasted that he knew every man’s price *, yet, in 1742, the opposition

the people “the swinish multitude,” those men have their price," and in the

bert Walpole did not say, as usually 4to edit. prevailed, and he was not any longer able to carry a majority in the House of Commons. He now resigned all his places, and fled for shelter behind the throne. But there is so little appearance of his credit receiving any diminution that he was soon after created earl of Orford, and most of his friends and dependants continued in their places. The king too granted him a pension of 40QO/. in consideration of his long and faithful services.

The remainder of his life he spent in tranquillity and retirement, and died, 1745, in his seventy- first year. Whatever objections his ministerial conduct may be liable to, yet in his private character he is universally allowed to have had amiable and benevolent qualities. That he was a tender parent, a kind master, a beneficent patron, a firm friend, an agreeable companion, are points that have been seldom disputed; and Pope, who was no friend to courts and courtiers, has paid him, gratis, a handsomer compliment on the last of these heads than all this liberality could ever purchase. In answer to his friend, who persuades him to go and see sir Robert, he says,

“Seen him I have, but in his happier hour Of social pleasure, ill exchang‘d for pow’r; Seen him, uncumber'd with the venal tribe, Smile without art, and win without a bribe.”

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.

By Mr. Coxe’s memoirs, lord Walpole is placed in a far more important point of view than he had heretofore ob-r tained, and it appears that no one could be more intrusted with the secret springs of ministerial action; but ne partook of the obloquy which followed his brother, and has consequently been misrepresented by those compilers of history who depend for their information on party pamphlets. Lord Hardwicke said of him, that “he negociate'd with firmness and address; and with the love of peace, which was the system of his brother, he never lost sight of that great object, keeping up the sources of national strength and wealth, He was a great master of the commercial and political interests of this country, and deservedly raised to the peerage.” Mr. Coxe adds, that his moral conduct was irreproachable; that he was sincere in his belief of Christianity, and zealous and constant in performing the duties of religion and that he maintained an unimpeachable character for truth and integrity, as well in his public as in his private capacity.

He wrote many political pieces, “with knowledge, but in a bad style,” as his nephew says, “yet better than his speeches.” Among these are, 1. “The case of the Hes^ sian troops in the pay of Great Britain,” Lond. 1730. 2. “The Interest of Great Britain steadily pursued, in answer to a pamphlet, entitled” The case of the Hanover forces, impartially and freely examined, Part I.“1743. This” Case“was written by lord Chesterfield and Mr. Waller. 3.” A Letter to a certain distinguished patriot and applauded orator, on the publication of his celebrated speech on the Seaford petition, in the Magazines,“&c. 1748. 4.” Complaints of the Manufacturers, relating to the abuses in marking the sheep, &c.“1752. 5.” Answer to the latter part of lord Bolingbroke’s Letters on the study of history," printed in 1763. Some other pamphlets are attributed to lord Walpole in our authority, but rather on doubtful evidence.

, third and youngest son of sir Robert Walpole, first earl of Orford, by his first wife Catherine Shorter, was born in 1718, and received the early part of his education at Eton, where he first became known to the celebrated Mr. Gray, whose friendship at that early period he cultivated, and whose esteem and re^ gard he retained, until the difference arose between them which we have noticed in our account of that celebrated poet. From Eton he went to KingVcollege, Cambridge; but, according to the practice of men of rank and fortune at that time, left the university without taking any degree. While there he wrote “Verses in Memory of King Henry the Sixth, founder of the college,” which are dated Feb. 2, 1738, and are probably the first production of his pen. In the same year he was appointed inspector-general of the exports and imports; a place which he soon after exchanged for that of usher of the exchequer. To these were added the post of comptroller of the pipe and clerk of the estreats; all which he held unto his death.

Finding himself disinclined to enter so early into the business of parliament, he prevailed on his father to permit him to go abroad, and Mr. Gray consented to accompany him in his travels. They left England on the 29th of March, 1739, and took their route by the way of France to Italy, viewing whatever was remarkable in the several places they visited, and at some of them, particularly Florence, residing several months. About July 1741 the two friends came to a rupture, and parted at Reggio, each pursuing his journey homewards separately. Of this quarrel, the circumstances, as we have remarked in Mr. Gray’s article, are not clearly known; but Mr. Walpole enjoined Mr. Mason to charge him with the chief blarre, confessing, that more attention, complaisance, and deference, to a warm friendship, and superior judgment and prudence, might have prevented a rupture which gave much uneasiness to them both, and a lasting concern to the survivor. A reconciliation is said to have been effected between them by a lady who wished well to both parties; but the cordiality which had subsisted between them never wholly returned, as Mr. Walpole was entirely unnoticed by Mr. Gray in his last will. Mr. Walpole, however, was the first person to whom, in 1750, Mr. Gray communicated his celebrated “Elegy in a Country Church-yard,” and by him it was communicated to several persons of distinction. In 1758, also, Walpole employed Mr. Bentley to ornament an edition of his friend’s poems with beautiful designs and engravings, and printed it at his own press at Strawberry-hill.

On Mr. Walpole’s return to England, he was chosen member for Callington, in the parliament which met in June 1741, and had soon an opportunity of evincing, that he was not likely to become either a silent or inactive member. On the 23d of March 1741-2, on a motion being made for an inquiry into the conduct of sir Robert Walpole for the preceding ten years, he opposed the proposition in a speech of some length, with great spirit, and greatly to the credit of his filial piety. He was not, however, a frequent speaker, and had no great relish for parliamentary duties. In 1747, he was chosen for the borough of Castle Rising, and for King’s Lynn, in 1754 and 1761. The tenor of his life was not much varied by accident or adventure; though about 1749 he narrowly escaped the pistol of a highwayman, the relation of which we shall give in his own words, in one of his “Worlds.” “An acquaintance of mine was robbed a few years ago, and very neat shot through the head by the going-off of the pistol of the accomplished Mr. Maclean; yet the whole affair was conducted with the greatest good-breeding on both sides. The robber, who had only taken a purse this way because he had that morning been disappointed. of marrying a great fortune, no sooner returned to his lodgings, than he sent the gentleman two letters of excuses, which with less wit than the epistles of Voiture, had ten times more natural and easy politeness in the turn of their expression. In the postscript he appointed a meeting at Tyburn at twelve at night, where the gentleman might purchase again any trities he had lost; and my friend has been blamed for not accepting the rendezvous, as it seemed liable to be construed by ill-natured people into a doubt of the honour of a man who had given him all the satisfaction in his power for having unluckily been near shooting him through the head.”

“The World” was a well-known periodical paper, x iri which he assisted the editor Mr. Moore, by writing Nos. 6, 8, 10, 14, 28, 103, 168, 195, and the concluding “World Extraordinary,” containing the character of Henry Fox, then secretary at war, afterwards lord Holland.

In 1752, his first publication (except some Poems in Dodsley’s collection, and ajeu d'espritin the “Museum”) appeared, entitled “Ædes Walpoliana,” describing his father’s magnificent palace at Houghton, in Norfolk, and the noble collection of pictures it contained, which the pecuniary embarrassments of. the late earl of Orford (Mr. Walpole’s nephew) obliged him to dispose of to the empress of Russia. It is remarkable that Mr. Walpole, as appears by one of his letters in the British Museum, with all his family-partiality and taste for the arts, thought the value of this collection greatly over-rated.

In 1757 he published "A Letter from Xo-Ho, a Chinese philosopher at London, to his friend Lien-Chi at Pekin: a spirited and elegant performance, chiefly on the politics of the day. It went through five editions in a fortnight.

This year he set up a printing-press at Strawberry-hill, at which most of his own performances, and some curious works of other authors were printed. Its first production was Gray’s Odes, and this was followed by the edition and translation of part of Hentzner’s Travels, lord Wliitworth’s account of Russia, Life of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, &c. By limiting the number of copies of each work, and parting with them only as presents, he created a species of fame and curiosity after the productions of his press, which was then quite new, and unquestionably very gratifying to himself. We need not analyze this kind of reputation, as it is now better known in ours than in his days. In this way, in 1761, he printed at Strawberry-hill two volumes of his “Anecdotes of Painting in England,” compiled from the papers of Mr. George Vertue, purchased at the sale of the effects of that industrious antiquary. It will be allowed, that the remains of Mr. Vertue could not have fallen into better hands. In 1763, another volume was added, and also the Catalogue of Engravers; and, in 1771, the whole was completed in a fourth volume, to which was added “The History of the Modern Taste in Gardening.” In 1764, on the dismission of general (afterward marshal) Conway from the army for a vote given in parliament, he defended his friend’s conduct in a pamphlet, entitled “A Counter Address to the Public, on the late dismission of a general officer,” 8vo.

In 1766, happened the famous quarrel between David Hume and John Jacques Rousseau, in which the former appears to have acted with the most distinguished generosity, friendship, and delicacy; and the latter, with his usual suspicion, wildness, and eccentricity. On this occasion, Mr. Walpole wrote a pretended letter from the king of Prussia to Rousseau, which found its way into the public prints, and contributed to widen the breach between the two contending philosophers. As a jeu d'esprit this composition did honour to his wit; but it has been delicately said that had he suppressed it, his reputation for a conciliatory disposition, and true benevolence of mind, would have lost nothing of its lustre.

Previously to the dissolution of parliament, in 1768, Mr. Walpole had determined to retire from public business; and, accordingly, in a very handsome letter to the mayor of Lynn, declined the honour of representing his constituents any longer.

The same year, Mr. Walpole published his “Historic Doubts of the Life and Reign of King Richard III.” 4to. This performance endeavours to establish the favourable idea given of this monarch by sir George Buck, the historian; but this defence did not receive universal assent: it was controverted in various quarters, and generally considered as more ingenious than solid. It was answered by Frederick Guy Dickens, esq. in a 4 to volume; and the evidence from the wardrobe- roll was controverted by Dr. Milles and Mr. Masters, in papers read before the Society of Antiquaries; and now it was discovered that Mr. Walpole, who affected the utmost humility as an author, and most politely deferred to the opinion of others, could not bear the least contradiction, and one or both of these latter pieces gave him so much disgust, that he ordered his name to be struck out of the list of members, and renounced the honour annexed to it from his connection with the body of antiquaries. Yet in this plausible work, the character of Richard is in some measure cleared from many of the enormities charged upon him by historians and poets; and, particularly, the absurdity of representing him as a mass of personal deformity, is justly exposed.

It was about this time that the transaction took place for which he has suffered the greatest censure, though, when every circumstance is duly weighed, perhaps but little blame will attach to his memory. We allude to the affair of Chatterton, whose fate was attributed by many to the neglect and supercilious behaviour of Mr. Walpole. How justly, we have already given our opinion. (See Chattrrton, p. 183-4), and from that opinion we are not disposed to depart, although, from subsequent information, it may be allowed that Walpole had in scarcely any instance in his life displayed the liberality of patronage, and in very few, the steadiness of friendship.

In 1768, Mr. Walpole printed fifty copies of his tragedy of the “Mysterious Mother,” which, as usual, were distributed among his particular friends, but with injunctions of secrecy. The horrible story on which it is founded he professed to have heard when young, and that it happened in archbishop’s Tillotson’s time: but he soon discovered that it had appeared in bishop Hall’s works, and that it had actually been twice dramatised, however unfit such a shocking case of incest is to be presented to the public eye. Of this indeed the author was aware; “The subject,” he says, “is so horrid, that I thought it would shock rather than give satisfaction to an audience. Still I found it so truly tragic in the two essential springs of terror and pity, that I could not resist the impulse of adapting it to the scene, though it should never be practicable to produce it there. I saw too that it would admit of great situations of lofty characters, and of those sudden and unforeseen strokes which have singular effect in operating a revolution in the passions, and in interesting the spectator. It was capable of furnishing not only a contrast of characters, but a contrast of vice and virtue in the same character: and by laying the scene in what age and country I pleased, pictures of ancient manners might be drawn, and many allusions to historic events introduced to bring the action nearer to the imagination of the spectator. The moral resulting from the calamities attendant on unbounded passion, even to the destruction of the criminal person’s race, was obviously suited to the purpose and object of tragedy.” This tragedy, however, remained for some years tolerably concealed from the public at large, until about 1783, when some person, possessed of a copy, began to give extracts from it in Woodfall' s Public Advertiser, which produced the following private letter from the author, dated Berkeley-square, Nov. 8. 1783.

"Mr. H. Walpole sends his compliments to Mr. Woodfall, and does intreat him to print no more of the Mysterious Mother, which it is a little hard on the author to see retailed without his consent. Mr. Walpole is willing to make Mr. Woodfall amends for any imaginary benefit he might receive from the impression, though as copies of the play have been spread, there can be little novelty in it; and at this time the public must be curious to see more interesting articles than scenes of an old tragedy on a disgusting subject, which the author thinks so little worthy of being published, that after the first small impression, he has endeavoured to suppress it as much as lies in his power; and which he assures Mr. Woodfall he would not suffer to be represented on the stage, if any manager was injudicious enough to think of it. % '<i **

“Mr.Walpole trusts that Mr. Woodfall will not communicate this letter to any body, and will be much obliged to him if he will let him know what satisfaction Mr. Woodfall will expect for suppressing all farther mention of him and his play.”

This letter, the original of which is now before us, is very characteristic of that double traffic which Mr. Walpole too frequently endeavoured to carry on between the public and himself, and which seems to have ended only in deceiving both. With all his efforts to “suppress it as much as possible,” he had at this time printed the tragedy in the first volume of his collected works intended for sale, and begun some years before.

From this period no circumstance of importance occurred in the course of Mr. Walpole’s life until 1791, when, by the death of his nephew, he succeeded to the title of earl of Orford. The accession of this honour, and of the fortune annexed to it, made no alteration, in any respect, in his manner of living, nor did he take his seat in the House of Peers. He still pursued the same unvaried tenor of life, devoting himself to the conversation of his friends and to the pursuits of literature. He had been early afflicted with the gout, which, as he advanced in years, acquired strength, though it did not disqualify him either for company or conversation. The same spirit of inquiry, and the same ardour of pursuit, prevailed almost to the latest period of his life. He was capable of enjoying the society of his friends until a very short time before his death, which happened on the 2d March 1797.

By his will, which contains twenty-two sheets, besides the addition of seven codicils, by one of which he directed that his body might be opened and afterwards privately interred, he bequeathed to Robert Berry, esq. and his two daughters, Mary and Agnes Berry, all his printed works and manuscripts, to be published at their discretion, and for their own emolument. To these two ladies he gives 4000l. each; and, for their lives, the house and garden late Mrs. Clive’s, with the long meadow before the same, and all the furniture there; after their deaths or marriages, to go to the same uses as Strawberry-hill; and with a restriction not to let the house for longer than a year. By the same codicil he also directs all the boxes containing his prints, books of prints, &c. to be conveyed to Strawberryhill, to remain as heir-looms appurtenant to that estate; and makes it a particular request to the person in possession of his favourite residence, that the books, and every article of furniture there, may be preserved with care, and not disposed of, nor even reuioved. But all the letters written to him by such of his friends as shall be living at the time of his death, are to be returned to the writers.

Strawberry-hill he bequeathed to the hon. Mrs. Anne Darner, and a legacy of 2000l. to keep it in repair, on condition that she resides there, and does not dispose of it to any person, unless it be to the countess dowager of Waldegrave, on whom and her heirs it is entailed. He died worth 9 l,Oqo/. 3 percents. This villaof Strawberry-hill, so often mentioned, was originally a small tenement, built in 1698, by the earl of Bradford’s coachman, as a lodging-house. Colley Gibber was one of its first tenantsand after him, successively, Talbot, Bishop of Durham, the marquis of Carnarvon, Mrs. Chevevix, the toy-woman, and lord John Philip SackvilLe. Mr W. purchased.it 1747, began to fit it up in the Gothic style 1753, and completed it 1776. He permitted it to be shewn, by tickets, to parties of four, from May to October, between the hours of twelve and three, and only one party a day. The best concise account of this villa, and its valuable contents, that has hitherto appeared, may be found in Mr. Lysons’s “Environs of London-.” A catalogue raisonnée of its furniture was drawn up by the noble owner, printed at Strawberry-hill m 1774, and is now anipng his works. He devoted a great part of his life and fortune to the embellishment of this villa, which has long been viewed as one of the greatest curiosities near the metropolis. la it he had amassed a collection of pictures, prints, and drawings, selected with great taste.

His intervals of leisure, health, and spirits, he employed in the works above mentioned, most of which have been favourites with the public, although they are of very opposite merits. He was alternately a poet, an historian, a politician, an antiquary, and a writer of dramas and romances. Of all his works his own opinion appeared to be humble but this was mere affectation, for he was pertinacious in maintaining what he had once asserted and being possessed of' kee*n powers of controversy, he betrayed all the irascibility of the author, while he affected to be considered only is a gentleman writing for his amusement. In his latter days he determined to vindicate his claims to literary rank, and employed himself in preparing for the press that splendid and complete edition of his works, which was published the year after his death, and was bought up with avidity, as an important addition to every library. He had begun to print this edition as far back as 1768, and nearly two volumes were completed at his private press.

Of his poetry, no very high character 4 has been formed; yet, like his prose, it often surprises by unexpected flashes of wit, and epigrammatic turns of expression and illustration, in which he evidently delighted. His “Mysterious Mother” is, indeed, of very superior merit, and has occasioned a general regret that he should have chosen a subject so unfit for public performance. For nervotis, simple, and pathetic language, each appropriated to the several persons of the drama; for striking incidents; for address in conducting the plot; and for consistency of character uniformly preserved through the whole piece; the late editor of the Biographia Dramatica thinks it equal, if not superior, to any play of the last century. The “Castle of Ofrrahto” is his only original work in prose which displays great powers. It passed through many editions, and received new popularity when the story was dramatized in 1782 by captain Jephson. It ought not to be less a favourite now, when a passion for the marvellous seems to prevail like art epidemic with the writers and readers of romance. Of his compilations, the most useful is, “The Anecdotes of Painting and Engraving.” This was avowedly formed from materials left by Vertue, but it is also evident that the arrangement, the principles, the taste, and every thing not technical, is Mr. Wa4 pole’s. It is a just complaint that he did not continue to improve and enlarge what had been. so well received, what will ever be a standard book, and. has, probably in no inconsiderable degree, led to the advancement of the arts in this country.

One of the predominant features in Mr. Walpole’s character was, a veneration for birth and rank, to which he certainly had pretensions in the long list of his ancestors) although among them we find few distinguished benefactors to their country. This passion, however, which in his political career he joined with principles that have not beaw thought connected with it> led him to search after those illustrious examples in whom birth and rank have been allied with genius. His industry soon produced the pleasing compilation entitled “A Catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors,” which, although greatly enlarged in the edition published with his works, has been thought meagre by those who did not consider that he professed to give a catalogue only. To what size and importance might it not have swelled, had he given the lives of the authors on the scale usually allowed in biographical compilations? In this work, the chief excellence is in his characters: they are admirable as portraits; and, like portraits, they have some of the faults, as well as beauties, of the most celebrated masters. We have often referred, and been greatly indebted, to Mr. Park’s splendid, accurate, and highly improved edition of this work, published in 1806, 5 vols. 8vo.

The letters to general Conway and his other friends, which he left for publication with his works, have been much admired. They exhibit his taste, his disposition, his friendship, and all his peculiarities, to the greatest advantage. It cannot be doubted that he valued those compositions, as he had kept copies of them for so many years, with a view to publication; and as he was always of opinion that the English made a very poor figure in letter-writing, it is not unfair to suppose that he might wish to remove this reproach, with what success, it is not necessary here to inquire. It must be observed, however, that his wit has many marks of effort and labour, that it recurs too often, and that he is too often disposed to treat serious subjects with unbecoming levity. If he was not an infidel, he was at least a sneerer; and while in one place he almost predicts the revolution in France, and in another execrates the atrocities with which it was accompanied, he seems unconscious that his own principles vyere not very remote from those which precipitated the destruction of the throne and the altar.

Mr. Walpole valued highly his talent for letter-writing, and many have regarded him as the best letter- writer of his day. If they had 'said the most lively, or the most witty, thev would have been nearer the truth. But whatever the particular merit of his correspondence, it has since proved fatal to his personal character in a very important feature. Letter-writing seems to have been with him a species of patronage, of grace and favour conferred upon his literary contemporaries, on whom he bestowed no other favours. Whatever else he might disappoint them in, they were sure to receive a letter full of praise, and Mr. Waipole’s praise was once thought of considerable importance. But since his printed correspondence has been compared with many hundred letters now extant that never were intended for the press, the evidence ofhis insincerity, of his extreme vanity, and duplicity towards those whom he most lavishly flattered, is too full and clear to admit of any hesitation in pronouncing that these degrading meannesses belonged to him in no common degree. One very gross instance of his treacherous correspondence may be seen in Stewart’s Life of Dr. Robertson; but more, and perhaps fuller, proofs exist in -his correspondence with the late Rev. William Cole of Milton, tiowin the British Museum.

Lord Orfprd’s intellectual defects, says a critic of great candour and ability, were those of education, and temper and habit, and not those of nature. “His rank, and his father’s indulgences, made him a coxcomb; nature made him, in my opinion, a genius of no ordinary kind. The author of” The Cattle of Otranto“possessed invention, and pathos, and eloquence, which, if instigated by some slight exertion, might have blazed to a degree, of which common critics have no conception.”

, 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.

Burnet says of him: “He was the honestest and learnedest man I ever knew among them, and was indeed, in all points of controversy, almost wholly a protestant. But he had senses of his own, by which he excused his adheiing to the church of Rome, and maintained, that with these he could continue in the communion of that church without sin, &c. He was an honest and able man, much practised in intrigues, and knew well the methods of the Jesuits and other missionaries.”

He wrote various controversial pamphlets, chiefly in vindication of his conduct as to the above remonstrance; and a history of it, under the title of “The History, &c. df the Loyal Formulary, or Irish Remonstrance, in 1661,” 1674, folio. He wrote also “A Prospect of the State of Ireland from the year of the world 1756 to the year of Christ 1652,” Lond. 1682, 8vo; but this he brought down no farther than 1172, his style and tedious digressions not being relished.

, 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.

“And knowing Walsh, would tell me I could write.”

In his “Essay on Criticism,” he had given him more splendid praise, and, in the opinion of his learned commentator, sacrificed a little of his judgment to his gratitude. He died in 1708, aged forty-six years. He is known more by his familiarity with greater men than by anything done or written by himself. His works are not numerous, nor of great merit. In 1691, he published, with a preface written by his friend and advocate Dryden, “A Diaipgue concerning Women, being a Defence of the Sex,” in 8vo and, the year after, “Letters and Poems, amorous and gallant,” published in what is called “Dryden’s Miscellany.” These were republished among the “Works of the Minor Poets,” printed in 1749, with other performanceSj consisting chiefly of elegies, epitaphs, odes, and songs, in which he discovers more elegance than vigour, and seldom rises higher than to be pretty.

, 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.

His negociations and dispatches during the above embassy were collected by sir Dudley Digges, and published in 1655, folio, with this title, “The complete Ambassador; or, two Treatises of the intended Marriage of queen Elizabeth, of glorious memory; comprised in Letters of Negotiation of sir Francis Walsingham, her resident in France. Together with the answers of the lord Burleigh, the earl of Leicester, sir Thomas Smith, and others. Wherein, as in a clear Mirrour, may be seen the faces of the two Courts of England and France, as they then stood; with many remarkable passages of State, not at all mentioned in any history." These papers display WaUingham’s acuteness, discernment, and fitness for the trust that was reposed in him.

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.”

Walsingham had then an audience of the Scotch king, and after several other private conferences with him, set out again for England. But during his stay in Scotland he declined having any intercourse with the earl of Arran, < c for be esteemed the said earl,“says Melvit,” a scorner of religion, a sower of discord, and a despise* of true and honest men; and therefore he refused to speak with him, or enter into acquaintance; for he was of a contrary nature, religious, true, and a lover of all honest men.“Arran, in resentment, did every thing he could to affront Walsingham; but the latter, on his, return, made a very advantageous representation to Elizabeth, of the character and abilities of king James. Hume observes, that Elizabeth’s chief purpose in employing Walsingbam on an embassy” where so little business was to be transacted, was Ab Jearn, from a man of so much penetration and discernment, the real character of James. This young prince possessed very good parts, though not accompanied with that vigour and industry which his station required; and as he excelled in general discourse and conversation, Walsingham entertained a higher idea of his talents than he was afterwards found, when real business was transacted, to have fully merited.“Lloyd, who imputes universal genius to Walsingham, says, that he could ^ as well fit the humour of king James with passages out of Xenophon, Thucydides, Plutarch, or Tacitus, as he could that of Henry king of France with Rabelais’s conceits, or the Hollander with mechanic discourses.”

Sir Francis Walsingham was not only assiduous in the discharge of those important trusts which were immediately committed to him, or were connected with his office a’s secretary of statej but he was also zealous to promote every public-spirited design, especially what regarded trade and navigation, which the English were at this time extending with great success to all parts of the world. Among others he patronized the celebrated Hakluyt in his studies and discoveries, and also promoted sir Humphrey Gilbert’s voyage for the settling of Newfoundland, by procuring him a sum of money and two ships from the merchants of Bristol.

In 1586, that “the distance between the churches (of Rome and England) should be made wide enough,” Antony Wood informs us that a new divinity-lecture was founded at Oxford by sir Francis, <<a man of great abilities in the schools of policy, an extreme hater of the popes and church of Rome, and no less a favourer to those of the puritan party.“in the letters which sir Francis addressed to the chancellor of the university on this occasion, he ays, f. whereas it is found by good experience, that the learning in popery, and in superstition, whereof our Englishmen of late years trained in the seminaries beyond the sea o greatly glory, and so much hurt her majesty’s good subjects, when they come to this realm from thence, hath by no means grown and taken root so deeply in those seminaries as by certain public teachers in those seminaries that read and handle only common places of their false religion, which some call dictates, whereby the English Jesuits, and late made priests beyond sea, though in truth of small or no reading at all themselves, yet make a great shew of learning: I cannot but marvel, and much mislike, that, in our universities here at home, as great care is not had -for advancement of true religion of God here pro.­fessedy by some more lectures of divinity to be read, especially the handling the principal parts of our religion, whereby no doubt but that the ministry of the churches of this realm, which should spring from the university, would be not only better to deliver all true doctrine, but also to confute upon every occasion the contrary,” &c. The first lecturer nominated by sir Francis, was the celebrated Dr. John llainolds (See Rainolds, p. 494), but the lecture was only of the temporary kind, and is supposed to have ceased on the founder’s death. J Mcifmi

In the same year, 1586, he displayed his usual sagacity and vigilance in the management of every thing relative, to the detection of Babington’s conspiracy against queen Elizabeth; and in October was one of the commissioners appointed to try Mary queen of Scotland. In the course of this trial Mary indirectly charged sir Francis with counterfeiting her letters and cyphers, and with practising both against her life and her son’s. Upon this sir Thomas rose up, and protested that his heart was free from all malice against the Scottish queen. “I call God,” says he, “to witness, that as a private person I have done nothing unbeseeming an honest man; neither in my public condition, and quality have I done any thing unworthy of my place. I confess, that out of my great care for the safety of the queen and realm, I have curiously endeavoured to search and sift out all plots and designs against the same. If Ballard (one of the persons concerned in Babington’s conspiracy) had offered me his assistance, I should not have refused it; yea, I would have rewarded him for his pains and service. If I have tampered any thing with him, why did be not discover it to save his life?” With this answer queen Mary said she was satisfied; and she desired sir Francis “not to be angry that she had spoken so freely what she had heard reported, and that he would give no more credit to those that slandered her, than she did to such as accused him.”

Soon after this sir Francis was made chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. As to his share in baffling the designs of the court of Spain, Welwood, in his “Memoirs,” informs us that Walsingham, by a refined piece of policy, defeated, for a whole year together, the measures that the Spanish monarch had taken for fitting out his armada to invade England. “The vast preparations,” he says, “that were making for a considerable time in Spain, kept all Europe in suspense, and it was not certain against whom they were designed; though it was the general opinion they were to subdue the Netherlands all at once, which Spain was sensible could not be done without a greater force by sea as well as land, than had hitherto been employed for that service. Queen Elizabeth thought fit to be upon her guard, and had some jealousies that she might be aimed at: but how to find it out was the difficulty, which at length Walsingham overcame. He had intelligence from Madrid, that Philip had told his council that he had dispatched an express to Rome with a letter written with his own hand to the pope, acquainting him with the true design of his preparations, and asking his blessing upon ity which for some reasons he would not disclose to them till the return of the courier. The secret being thus lodged with the pope, Walsingham, by means of a Venetian priest retained at Rome as his spy, got a copy of the original letter, which was stolen out of the pope’s cabinet by a gent tleman of the bed-chamber, who took the keys out of the pope’s pocket w.hile he slept. And upon this intelligence Walsingham found a way to retard the Spanish invasion for a whole year, by getting the Spanish bills protested at Genoa, which should have supplied them with money to carry on their preparations.” In our article of Thomas Sutton, founder of the Charter-house, we have mentioned that this gentleman was Walsingham’s chief agent in getting these bills protested.

Of the remainder of sir Francis Walsingham' s life we have few particulars. It appears, that, in 1589, he entertained queen Elizabeth at his house at Barn Elms, and, as was usual in all her majesty’s visits, her whole court. Previously to this visit, the queen had taken a lease of the manor of Barn- Elms, which was to commence after the expiration of sir Henry Wyai’s, in 160O. Her interest in this lease she granted by letters patent, bearing date the twenty-first year of her reign, to sir Francis Walsingham and his heirs. Sir Francis, in addition to his other dignities, was a knight of the garter, and recorder of Colchester. He passed his latter days mostly in this retirement at Barnes, and when any of his former gay companions came to see him and told him he was melancholy, he is said to have replied, “No, I am not melancholy; I am serious; and 'tis fit I should be so. Oh! my friends, while we laqgh, all things are serious round about us: God is serious, who exerciseth patience towards us: Christ is ser,ious, who shed his blood for us: the Holy Spirit is serious, in striving against the obstinacy of our hearts: the holy scriptures bring to our ears the most serious things in the world: the holy sacraments represent the most serious and awful matters: the whole creation is serious in serving God and us: all that are in heaven and hell are serious: how then can we be gay?”

Sir Francis Walsingham died April 6, 1590, at his town house in Seethinglane, so poor, it is said, that his friends were obliged to bury him in St. Paul’s late at night, in the most private manner; in confirmation of which fact, no certificate of his funeral appears to have been entered at the Heralds 7 college, as was usual when any person of consequence was interred in a manner suitable to his rank. How he became so poor must now be a matter of conjecture. In the early part of his public life we have seen that he expended his own fortune in the service of his country, and what he gained by his official employments was not, probably, more than sufficient to keep up his rank.

His only surviving daughter had the singular lot of being wife to three of the most accomplished men of the age, sir Philip Sidney, the earl of Essex, and the earl of Clanricard. She died at Barn-Elms, June 19, 1602, and was buried the next night privately, near her husband in St. Paul’s cathedral.

Sir Francis Walsingham was a puritan in his religious principles, and at first a favourer of them in some matters of discipline. To them he offered, in 1583, in the queen’s name, that provided they would conform in other points, the three ceremonies of kneeling at the communion, wearing the surplice, and the cross in baptism, should be expunged out of the Common-prayer. But they replying to these concessions in the language of Moses, that “they would not leave so much as a hoof behind,” meaning, that they would have the church-liturgy wholly laid aside, and not be obliged to the performance of any office in it; so unexpected an answer lost them in a great measure Walsingham’s affection. His general character has been thus summed up, from various authorities: “He was undoubtedly one of the most refined politicians, and most penetrating statesmen, that ever any age produced. He bad an admirable talent both in discovering and managing the secret recesses of human nature: he had his spies in most courts of Christendom, and allowed them a liberal maintenance; for his grand maxim was, that” knowledge is never too dear.“He spent his whole time and faculties in the service of the queen and her kingdoms; on which account her majesty was heard to say that” in diligence and sagacity he exceeded her expectation.“He is thought (but this, we trust, is unfounded) to have had a principal hand in laying the foundation of the wars in France and Flanders; and is said, upon his return from his embassy in France, when the queen expressed her apprehension of the Spanish designs against that kingdom, to have answered*” Madam, be content, and fear not. The Spaniard hath a great appetite, and an excellent digestion. But I have fitted him with a bone for these twenty years, that your majesty shall have no cause to dread him, provided, that if the fire chance to slack which I have kindled, you will be ruled by me, and cast in some of your fuel, which will revive the “flame.” He would cherish a plot some years together, admitting the conspirators to his own, and even the queen’s presence, very familiarly; but took care to have them carefully watched. His spies constantly attended on particular men for three years together; and lest they should not keep the secret, he dispatched -them into foreign parts, taking in new ones in their room. His training of Parry, who designed the murder of the queen; the admitting of him, under the pretence of discovering the plot, to her majesty’s presence; and then letting him go where he would, only on the security of a centinel set over him, was an instance of reach and hazard beyond common apprehension. The queen of Scots’ letters were all carried to him by her own servant, whom she trusted, and were decyphered for him by one Philips, and sealed up again by one Gregory; so that neither that queen, nor any of her correspondents ever perceived either the seals defaced, or letters delayed. Video et taceo, was his saying, before it was his mistress’s motto. He served himself of the court factions as the queen did, neither advancing the one, nor depressing the other. He was familiar with Cecil, allied to Leicester^ and an oracle to Hadcliffe earl of Sussex. His conversation was insinuating, and yet reserved. He saw every man, and none saw him. “His spirit,” says Lloyd, “was as public as his parts; yet as debonnaire as he was prudent, and as obliging to the softer but predominant parts of the world, as he was serviceable to the more severe; and no less dextrous to work on humours than to convince reason* He would say, he must observe the joints and flexures of affairs; and so could do more with a story, than others could with an harangue. He always surprized business, and preferred motions in the heat of other diversions; and if he must debate it, he would hear all, and with the advantage of foregoing speeches, that either cautioned or confirmed his resolutions, he carried all before him in conclusion, without reply. To him men’s faces spake as much as their tongues, and their countenances were in* dexes of their hearts. He would so beset men with questions, and draw them on, that they discovered themselves whether they answered or were silent. He maintained fifty-three agents and eighteen spies in foreign courts; and for two pistoles an order had all the private papers in Europe. Few letters escaped his hands; and he could read their contents without touching the seals. Religion was the interest of his country, in his judgment, and of his soul; therefore he maintained it as sincerely as he lived it. It had his head, his purse, and his heart. He laid the great foundation of the protestant constitution as to its policy, and the main plot against the popish as to its ruin.”

In “Cottoni Posthuma, or divers and choice pieces of sir Robert Cotton,” &c. is a short article entitled “Sir Francis Walsingham’s anatomising- of Honesty, Ambition, and Fortitude” but the book ascribed to him, entitled “Arcana Aulica; or, Walsyngham’s Manual, or prudential Maxims,” which has been printed several times, is of more doubtful authority.

, 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.

, a learned English bishop, and editor of the celebrated Polyglott Bible* was born at Cleaveland in the North Riding of Yorkshire, in 1600. He was admitted sizer of Magdalen college, Cambridge, under Mr. John Gooch, but in 1616 removed to Peter-House college, where he took a master of arts degree in 1623. About that time, or before, he taught a school, and served as a curate in Suffolk, whence he removed to London, and lived for a little time as assistant or curate to Mr. Stock, rector of Allhallows in Bread-street. After the death of Mr. Stock, he became rector of St. Martin’s Orgar in London, and of Sandori in Essex; to the latter of which he was admitted in January 1635, and the same day to St. Giles’s-in-theFields, which he quitted soon after. The way to preferment lay pretty open then to a man of his qualities; for, he' had not only uncommon learning, which was more regarded then than it had been of late years, but he was also exceedingly zealous for the church and king. In 1639, he commenced doctor of divinity; at which time he was prebendary of St. Paul’s and chaplain to the king. He possessed also another branch of knowledge, which made him very acceptable to the clergy: he was well versed in the laws of the land, especially those which relate to the patrimony and liberties of the church. During the controversy between the clergy and inhabitants of the city of London, about the tithes of rent, he was very industrious and active in behalf of the former; and upon that occasion made so exact and learned a collection of customs, prescriptions, Jaws, orders, proclamations, and compositions, for many hundred years together, relating to that matter, (an abstract of which was after wards published,) that the judge declared, “there could be no dealing with the London ministers if Mr. Walton pleaded for them.” Such qualities, however, could only render him peculiarly obnoxious to the republican party, and accordingly, when they had assumed the iuperiority, he was summoned by the House of Commons as a delinquent; was sequestered from his living of St. Martin’s Orgar, plundered, and forced to fly; but whether be went to Oxford directly, or to his other living of Sandon in Essex, does not appear. It is, however, certain that he was most cruelly treated at that living likewise, being grievously harassed there and once, when he was sought for by a party of horse, was forced to shelter himself in a broom-field. The manner of his being sequestered from this living is a curious specimen of the principles of those who were to restore the golden age of political justice. Sir Henry Mild may and Mr. Ashe, members of parliament, first themselves drew up articles against him, though no way concerned in the parish, and then sent them to Sandon to be witnessed and subscribed. Thus dispossessed of botli his livings, he betook himself for refuge to Oxford, as according to Lloyd, he would otherwise have been murdered,

On August 12, 1645, he was incorporated in the university of Oxford. Here it was that he formed the noble scheme of publishing the Polyglott Bible; and, upon the decline of the king’s cause, he retired to the house of Dr. William Fuller, his father-in-law, in London, where, though frequently disturbed by the prevailing powers, he lived to complete it. The “Biblia Polyglotta” was published at London in 1657, in 6 vols. folio; wherein the sacred text was, by his singular care and oversight, printed, not only in the vulgar Latin, but also in the Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, Samaritan, Arabic, Æ'thiopic, Persic, and Greek, languages each having its peculiar Latin translation joined therewith, and an apparatus fitted to each for the better understanding of those tongues. In this great work, so far as related to the correcting of it at the press, and the collating of copies, he had the assistance of several learned persons; the chief of whom was Mr. Edmund Castell, afterwards professor of Arabic at Cambridge. Among his other assistants were Mr. Samuel Clarke of Mertou college, and Mr. Thomas Hyde of Queen’s college, Oxford: he had also some help from Mr. Whelock, Mr. Thorndike, Mr. Edward Pocock, Mr. Thomas Greaves, &c. Towards printing the work, he had contributions of mqney from many noble persons and gentlemen, which were put intothe hands of sir William Humble, treasurer for the said work. The Prolegomena and Appendix to it were attacked in 1659, by Dr. John Owen, in “Considerations,” &c. who was answered the same year by Dr. Walton, in a piece under the title of “The Considerator considered: or, a brief View of certain Considerations upon the Biblia Polyglotta, the Prolegomena, and Appendix. Wherein, among other things, the certainty, integrity, and the divine authority, of the original text is defended against the consequences of Atheists, Papists, Ariti-Scripturists, &c. inferred from the various readings and novelty of the Hebrew points, by the author of the said Considerations; the Biblia Polyglotta and translations therein exhibited, with the various readings, prolegomena, and appendix, vindicated from his aspersions and calumnies; and the questions about the punctuation of the Hebrew text, the various readings, and the ancient Hebrew character, briefly handJed,” 8vo. These prolegomena, which have always beeti admired, and afford indeed the principal monument of his learning, consist of sixteen parts: 1. Of the nature, origin, division, number, changes, and use of languages. 2. Of letters, or characters, their wonderful use, origin and first invention, and their diversity in the chief languages. 3. Of the Hebrew tongue, its antiquity, preservation, change, excellency, and use, ancient characters, vowel points, and accents. 4. Of the principal editions of the Bible. 5. Of the translations of the Bible. 6. Of the various readings in the Holy Scripture. 7. Of the integrity and authority of the original texts. 8. Of the Masora, Keri, and Ketib, various readings of the Eastern and Western Jews, Ben Ascher, and Ben Napthali, and of the Cabala. 9. Of the Septuagint, and other Greek translations. 10. Of the Latin Vulgate. 11. Of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the versions of the same. 12. Of the Chaldee language, and versions.13. Of the Syriac tongue, and versions. 14. Of the Arabic language and versions. 15. Of the Ethiopia tongue and versions; and, 16. Of the Persian language and versions. As these instructive prolegomena were highly valued by scholars on the continent, they were reprinted at Zurich in 1573, fol. by Heidegger, with Drusius’s collection of Hebrew proverbs; and about 1777 Dr. Dathe printed an edition at Leipsic in 8vo, with a preface containing many judicious and learned remarks on several of Dr. Walton’s opinions.

Nine languages, as we have observed, are used in this Polyglott, yet there is no one book in the whole Bible printed in so many. In the New Testament, the four evangelists are in six languages; the other books only in five; tnd those of Judith and the Maccabees only in three. The Septuagint version is printed from the edition at Rome in 1537. The Latin is the Vulgate of Clement VILI. But for these and many other particulars of the history and progress of this work, so great an honour to the English press, we must refer to Dr. Clark’s Bibliographical Dictionary, and that invaluable fund of information, Mr. Nichols’s Literary Anecdotes. The alterations in the preface to the Polyglott, in which the compliments to Cromwell are omitted or altered so as to suit Charles II. have been long the topic of curious discussion, which has had the effect to give a factitious value to the copies that happen to have the preface unaltered. This was a few years ago in some measure destroyed by Mr. Lunn, the bookseller, who printed a fac simile of the republican preface, as it has been called, which may be added by the possessors of the royal copies.

After the restoration, Dr. Walton had the honour to present the Polyglott Bible to Charles II., who made him chaplain in ordinary, and soon after promoted him to the bishopric of Chester. In September 1661, he went to take possession of his see; and was met upon the road, and received with such a concourse of gentry, clergy, militia both of the city and county, and with such acclamations of thousands of the people, as had never been known upon any such occasion. This was on the 10th of September, and on the 11th he was installed with much ceremony; “a day,” says Wood, “not to be forgotten by all the true sons of the Church of England, though cursed then in private by the most rascally faction and crop-eared whelps of those parts, who did their endeavours to make it a May-game and a piece of foppery.” This glory, however, which attended bishop Walton, though it seems to have been great, was yet short-lived; for, returning to London, he died at his house in Aldersgate-street, Nov. the 29th following, and was interred in St. Paul’s cathedral, where a monument with a Latin inscription was erected to his memory, of which a broken stone now only remains, with a few words of the inscription, in the vault of St. Faith’s under St. Paul’s. Dr. Walton was twice married. His first wife was Anne, of the Claxton family of Suffolk. She died May 25, 1640, aged forty-three, and was buried in the chancel of Sundon church, where a handsome monument was erected to her memory. His second wife was Jane, daughter to the celebrated Dr. Fuller, vicar of St. Giles’s Cripplegate. Dr. Walton had published at London, in 1655, “Introdu'ctio ad lectionem Linguarum Orientalium,” in 8vo.

, a gallant naval officer, memorable for the brevity of his dispatches, appears to have been of obscure origin, nor is any thing known of his history until his appointment, in 1692, to be first lieutenant of the Devonshire, an eighty- gun ship. From this time we have only accounts of his removals from one ship to another, without any opportunity of particularly displaying his courage, until 1718, when he commanded the Canterbury of sixty guns, and was sent under the command of sir George Byng to the Mediterranean. On the 1 Ith of August, the British fleet, then off Sicily, which had during the preceding day^ and night, been in pursuit of the Spaniards, having come up so close to them as to render an engagement unavoidable, the marquis de Mari, one of their rear admirals, separated from the body of the fleet, and ran in for the Sicilian shore, with six ships of war, and all the gallies, store-ships, bomb-ketcbes, and fire-ships. Captain Walton was immediately detached after them with six ships of the line, by the commanderiri-chief, who himself pursued the remainder, and soon Jbegan the attack, the issue of which was, that he captured four Spanish ships of war, one of them mounting sixty guns, commanded by rear admiral Mari himself, one of fifty-four, one of forty, and one of twenty-four guns, with a bomb-vessel and a ship laden with arms; and burnt one ship of war mounting fifty-four guns, two of forty, and one of thirty, a fire-ship, and a bomb-ketch. It may admit of some dispute, whether this brave officer derived a greater degree of popular favour from the gallantry of his conduct, or the very singular account he rendered of it to his commander-in-chief, and to the world. The whole of his dispatches were comprised in the following laconic note "Sir, Canterbury, off Syracuse, Aug. 16, 1718.

“We have taken and destroyed all the Spanish ships and vessels that were upon the coast, the number as per margin. I am, &c. George Walton.”

His behaviour on this occasion procured him the honour of knighthood immediately on his return. He afterwards rose by the usual gradations to the rank of admiral of the blue, and was employed in various expeditions, but without having any opportunity of acquiring additional distinction. In 1735 he retired altogether from active service on a pension of 600l. a year, and died in 1740.

, a celebrated writer on the art of angling, and the author of some valuable lives, was born at Stafford in August 1593. His first settlement in London, as a shopkeeper, was in the Royal Burse in Cornhill, built by sir T. Gresharn, and finished in 1567. In this situation he could scarcely be said to“have had elbow-room; for, the shops over the Burse were but seven feet and a half long, and five wide; yet he carried on his trade till some time before 1624, when” he dwelt on the north side of Fleet- street, in a house two doors west of the end of Chancery-lane, and abutting on a messuage known by the sign of the Harrow;“by which sign the old timber -house at the south-west corner of Chancery-lane, in Fleet-street, till within these few years, was known. A citizen of this age would almost as much disdain to admit of a tenant for half his shop, as a knight would to ride double; though the brethren of one of the most ancient orders of the world were so little above this practice, that their common seal was the device of two riding one horse. He married probably about 1632; for in that year he lived in a house in Chancery-lane, a few doors higher up on the left hand than the former, and described by the occupation of a sempster or milliner. The former of these might be his own proper trade; and the latter, as being a feminine occupation, might be carried on by his wife: she, it appears, was Anne, the daughter of Mr, Thomas Ken, of Furnival’s-inn, and sister of Thomas, afterwards Dr. Ken, bishop of Bath and Wells. About 1643 he left London, and, with a fortune very far short of what would now be called a eompetencv, seems to have retired altogether from business. While he continued in London, his favourite recreation was angling, in which he was the greatest proficient of his time; and, indeed, so great were his skill and experience in that art, that there is scarcely any writer on the subject since his time who has not made the rules and practice of Walton his very foundation. It is, therefore, with the greatest propriety that Langbaine calls him” the common father of all anglers." The river that he seems mostly to have frequented for this purpose was the Lea, which has it source above Ware in Hertfordshire, and falls into the Thames a little below Blackwall; unless we will suppose that the vicinity of the New River to the place of his habitation might sometimes tempt him out with his friends, honest Nat. and R. Roe, whose loss he so pathetically mentions, to spend an afternoon there. In 1662 he was by death deprived of the solace and comfort of a good wife, as appears by a monumental inscription in the cathedral church of Worcester.

Living, while in London, in the parish of St. Dunstan in the West, of which Dr. John Donne, dean of St. Paul’s, was vicar, he became of course a frequent hearer of that excellent preacher, and at length, as he himself expresses it, his convert. Upon his decease, in 1631, sir H. Wotton requested Walton to collect materials for a life of the doctor, which sir Henry had undertaken to write; but, sir Henry dying before he had completed the life, Walton undertook it himself; and in 1640 finished and published it, with a collection of the doctor’s sermons, in folio. Sir H. Wotton dying in 1639, Walton was importuned by King to undertake the writing of his life also and it was finished about 1644. The precepts of angling, that is, the rules and directions for taking fish with a hook and line, till Walton’s time, having hardly ever been reduced to writing, were propagated from age to age chiefly by tradition; but Walton, whose benevolent and communicative temper appears in almost every line of his writings, unwilling to conceal from the world those assistances which his long practice and experience enabled him, perhaps the best of any man of his time, to give, in 1653 published in a very elegant manner his K Complete Angler, or Contemplative Man’s Recreation,“in small 12mo, adorned with exquisite cuts of most of the fish mentioned in it. The artist who engraved them has been so modest as to conceal his name; but there is great reason to suppose they are the work of Lombart, who is mentioned in the” Sculptura“of Mr. Evelyn; and also that the plates were of steel.” The Complete Angler“came into the world attended with en. comiastic verses by several writers of that day. What reception in general the book met with may be naturally inferred from the dates of the subsequent editions; the second came abroad in 1655; the third in 1664; the fourth in 1668, and the fifth and last in 1676, Sir John Hawkins bad traced the several variations which the author from time to time made in these suhsequent editions, as well by adding new facts and discoveries as by enlarging on the more entertaining parts of the dialogue. The third and fourth editions of his book have several entire new chapters; and the fifth, the last of the editions published in his life-time, contains no less than eight chapters more than the first, and twenty pages more than the fourth. Not having the advantage of a learned education, it may seem unaccountable that Walton so frequently cites authors that have written only in Latin, as Gesner, Cardan, Aldrovandus, Rondeletius, and even Albertus Magnus; but it may be observed, that the voluminous history of animals, of which the first of these was author, is in effect translated into English by Mr. Edward Topsel, a learned divine, chaplain, as it seems, in the church of St. Botolph, Aldersgate, to Dr. Neile, dean of Westminster: the translation was published in 1658, and, containing in it numberless particulars concerning frogs, serpents, caterpillars, and other animals, though not of fish, extracted from the other writers above-named, and others, with their names to the respective facts, it furnished Walton with a great variety of intelligence, of which in the later editions of his book he has carefully availed himself: it was therefore through the medium of this translation alone that he was enabled to cite the other authors mentioned above; vouching the authority of the original writers, as he elsewhere does sir Francis Bacon, whenever occasion occurs to mention his natural history, or any other of his works. Pliny was translated to his hand by Dr. Philemon Holland; as were also Janus Dubravius” de Piscinis & Piscium natura,“and Lebault’s” Maison Rustique,“so often referred to by him in the course of his work. Nor did the reputation of” The Complete Angler“subsist only in the opinions of those for whose use it was more peculiarly calculated; but even the learned, either from the known character of the author, or those internal evidences of judgment and veracity contained in it, considered it as a work of merit, and for various purposes referred to its authority. Dr. Thomas Fuller, in his” Worthies,“whenever he has occasion to speak of fish, uses his very words. Dr. Plot, in his” History ofMaffordshire,“has, on the authority of our author, related two of the instances of the voracity of the pike, and confirmed them by two other signal ones, that had then lately fallen out in that county. These are testimonies in favour of Walton’s authority in matters respecting fish and fishing; and it will hardly be thought a diminution of that of Fuller to say, that he was acquainted with, and a friend of, the person whom he thus implicitly commends. About two years after the restoration, Walton wrote the life of Mr. Richard Hooker, author of the” Ecclesiastical Polity:“he was enjoined to undertake this work by his friend Dr. Gilbert Sheldon, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, who, by the way, was an angler. Bishop King, in a letter to the author, says of this life,” I have often seen Mr. Hooker with my father, who was afterwards bishop of London, from whom, and others at that time, I have heard of the most material passages which you relate in the history of his life.“Sir William Dugdale, speaking of the three posthumous books of the” Ecclesiastical Polity,“refers the reader” to that seasonable historical discourse lately compiled and published, with great judgment- and integrity, by that much-deserving person Mr. Isaac Walton."

The life of Mr. George Herbert, as it stands the fourth and last in the volume in which that and the three former are collected, seems to have been written the next after Hooker’s: it was first published in 1670. Walton professes himself to have been a stranger to the person of Herbert; and though he assures us his life of him was a free-will offering, it abounds with curious information, and is no way inferior to any of the former. Two of these lives, viz. those of Hooker and Herbert, we are told, were written under the root of Walton’s good friend and patron Dr. George Morley, bishop of Winchester; which seems to agree with Wood’s account, that, after his quitting London, he lived mostly in the families of the eminent clergy of that time;" and none who consider the inoffensiveness of his manners and the pains he took in celebrating the lives and actions of good men, can doubt his being much ' beloved by them.

In 1670, these lives were collected and published in octavo, with a dedication to the above bishop of Winchester, and a preface, containing the motives for writing them; this preface is followed by a copy of verses, by his intiniate friend and adopted son, Charles Cotton, of Beresford in Staffordshire, esq. the author of the second part of the Complete Angler.“The” Complete Angler“having, in the space of twenty. three years, gone through four editions, Walton, in 1676, and in the eighty-third year of his age, was preparing a fifth, with additions, for the press; when Cotton wrote a second part of that work. Cotton submitted the manuscript to Walton’s perusal, who returned it with his approbation, and a few marginal strictures; and in that year they were published together. Cottons book had the title of” The Complete Angler; being instructions how to angle for a trout or grayling, in a clear stream, Part II." and it has ever since been received as a second part of Walton’s book. In the title-page is a cipher, composed of the initial letters of both their names; which cipher, Cotton tells us, he had caused to be cut in stone, and set up over a fishing- house that he had erected near his dwelling, on the bank of the little river Dove, which divides the counties of Stafford and Derby.

Cotton’s book is a judicious supplement to Walton’s; for, it must not be concealed, that Walton, though he was so expert an angler, knew but little of fly-fishing; and indeed he is so ingenuous as to confess, that the greater part of what he has said on that subject was communicated to him by Mr. Thomas Barker, and not the result of his own experience*. And of Cotton it must be said, that, living in a country where fly-fishing was, and is, almost the only practice, he had not oply the means of acquiring, but actually possessed, more skill in the art, as also in the method of making flies, than most men of his time. His book is in fact a continuation of Walton’s, not only as it teaches at large that branch of the art of angling which Walton had but slightly treated on, but as it takes up Venator, Walton’s piscatory discipline, just where his master had left him.

Walton was now in his eighty-third year, an age, which, to use his own words, " might have procured him a writ of ease f, and secured him from all farther trouble in that

tnoured gossiping old man, and seems first publication of Walton’s book, viz.

had been admitted into the most am- “Barker’s Delight, or the Art of Abassadors kitchens that had come to giiug.” And, for that singular veia,of

England for forty years, and 'drest fish humour that runs through it, a most

he spent a great deal of time, and, it judge, or vhe state and degree of a

seems, money too, in fishing; and, in Serjeant at law. Dugdale, Oiig. Jurid.

the latter part of his life, dwelt in an p. 139. alms-house near the Gatehouse, at kind;“when he undertook to write the life of bishop Sanderson, which was published, together with several of the bishop’s pieces, and a sermon of Hooker’s, 1677, in 8vo. It was not till long after that period when the faculties of men begin to decline, that Walton undertook to write this life; yet, far from being deficient in any of those excellences that distinguish the former lives, it abounds with the evidences of a vigorous imagination, a sound judgment, and a memory unimpaired; and for the nervous sentiments and pious simplicity displayed in it, let the concluding paragraph, pointed out by Dr. Samuel Johnson, be considered as a specimen:” Thus this pattern of meekness and primitive innocence, changed this for a better life. It is now too late to wish that mine may be like his, for I am in the eighty-fifth year of my age, and God knows it hath not; but I most humbly beseech Almighty God that my death may: and I do earnestly beg, that, if any reader shall receive any satisfaction from this very plain and as true relation, he will be so charitable as to say, Amen!“Such were the persons, whose virtues Walton was laudably employed yi celebrating; and it is observable, that not only these, but the rest of Walton’s friends *, were eminent royalists; and that he himself was in great repute for his attachment to the royal cause will appear by a relation which sir John Hawkins has quoted from Ashmole’s” History of the Garter."

Besides the works of Walton above-mentioned, there are extant, of his writing, verses on the death of Dr. Donne, beginning, “Our Donne is dead;” verses to his reverend friend the author of the “Synagogue,” printed together with Herbert’s “Temple;” verses before Alexander Brome’s “Poems,” 1646, and before Cartwright’s “Plays and Poems,” 1651. He wrote also the lines under an engraving of Dr. Donne, before his “Poems,” 1635.

Dr. Henry King, bishop of Chichester, in a letter to Walton, dated in Nov. 1664, says, that he had done much for sir Henry Savile, his contemporary and familiar friend; which fact connects very well with what the late Mr. Des Maizeaux, some years since, related to Mr. Oldys, that

friends, we find Abp. Usher, Abp. Sbel- Cramner, Dr. Hammond, Mr. Chilclon. Bp. Morton, B p. King, Up. Bar- lingworth, Michael Drayton, and lhat

l.mr, Dr. Fuller, Dr. Price, Dr. Wood- celebrated scholar and critic Mr. John

ford, Dr. Featly, Dr. Holdsworth, sir Hales of Eton. there were then several letters of Walton extant, in the Ashmolean Museum, relating to a life of sir Henry Savile, which Walton had entertained thoughts of writing. He also undertook to collect materials for a life of Hales. Mr. Anthony Farringdon, minister of St. Mary Magdalen, Milkstreet, London, had begun to write the life of this memorable person, but, dying before he had completed it, his papers were sent to Walton, with a request from Mr. Fulman, who had proposed to himself to continue and finish it, that Walton would furnish him with such information as was to his purpose. Fulman did not live to complete his design; but a life of Mr. Hales, from other materials, was compiled by the late Mr. Des Maizeaux, and published by him in 1719, as a specimen of a new “Biographical Dictionary.” In 1683, when he was ninety years old, Walton published “Thealma and Clearchus, a pastoral history, in smooth and easy verse, written long since by John Chalkhil, esq. an acquaintance and friend of Edmund Spenser:” to this poem he wrote a preface, containing a very amiable character of the author. He lived but a very little time after the publication of this poem for, as Wuod says, he ended his days on the 15th of Dec. 1683, in the great frost, at Winchester, in the house of Dr. William Hawkins, a prebendary of the church there, where he lies buried.

In the cathedral of Winchester, on a large black flat marble stone, is an inscription to his memory, the poetry of which has very little to recommend it. Of the various editions of Walton’s Angler, and other works on the same subject, an accurate catalogue is given in the British Bibliographer, vol. II. Of his “Lives” a much improved edition was published by Dr. Zouch in 1796, 4to, reprinted since in 8vo. The life of Walton followed in the preceding sketch, is principally that by sir John Hawkins, in his edition of the Angler. Dr. Zouch’s is perhaps more elegant, but has few additional facts. "

, an upright statesman, was the son and heir of sir George Wandesforde, knight, of Kirklington, in Yorkshire, and was born at Bishop Burton, in the East Riding of that county, in Sept. 1592. His family was very ancient and honourable, the pedigree beginning with Geoffrey de Clusters, of Kirklington, in the reign of Henry II. He was taught by his virtuous mother the rudiments of the English tongue, and of the Christian religion, and sent, as soon as it was proper, to the free-school of Wells, and there instructed in due course in the Latin and Greek languages. About the age of fifteen he was judged fit for the university, and admitted of Clare-hall, Cambridge, under the tuition of Dr. Milner. Here, it is supposed,his acquaintance commenced with Mr. Wentwortb, afterwards earl of Strafford, which grew into the strictest friendship and fraternal affection. Mr. Wandesforde is said to have made great progress at college in the arts and sciences, and the knowledge of things natural, moral, and divine; but applied himself closely at the same time to the study of the classics, and particularly to oratory, as appears from his subsequent speeches in parliament. At the age of nineteen he was called from the university by his father’s death, to a scene of important business, the weighty regulation of family affairs, with an estate heavily involved; his necessary attention to which prevented him from pursuing the studies preparatory to the church, which he had originally chosen as a profession, and now relinquished.

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.

His lordship died Dec. 3, 1640, and his loss was universally lamented, says Lodge, being a man of great prudence, moderation, integrity, and virtue. Lord Straiford, on hearing of his death/, is said to have uttered the following apostrophe: “I attest the ete x rnal God, that the death of my cousin Wandesforde more affects me than the prospect of my own; for in him. is lost the richest magazine of learning, wisdom, and piety, that these times could boast.”

His lordship was reported by his daughter to have read over the whole Bible yearly, and to have made “great remarks upon it.” These remarks, with other “Collections in Divinity,” are said to be lost, and so it was for some time surmised, were his valuable “Instructions to his Son,” an excellent manual of piety and wisdom, till a duplicate copy was discovered which had been privately transcribed, and from which the work was printed under the care of the author’s great-great-grandson, Thomas Comber, LL. D. in 1777, 12mo, with a second volume in 1778, containing memoirs of the life and death of lord-deputy Wandesforde.

, a literary antiquary of great learning and accuracy, was the son of the rev. Nathanael Wanley, some time vicar of Trinity-church in Coventry. This Nathanael Wanley was born at Leicester in 1633, and died in 1680. Besides the vicarage of Trinity-church, it is probable that he had another in Leicestershire, from the following title-page, “Vox Dei, or the great duty of self reflection upon a man’s own wayes, by N. Wanley, M. A. and minister of the gospel at Beeby in Leicestershire,” London, 1658. He was of Trinity-college, Oxford, B. A. 1653, M. A. 1657, but is not mentioned by Wood. The work which now preserves his name is his “Wonders of the Little World,” 1678, fol. a work to be classed with Clark’s “Examples,” 2 vols. fol. or Turner’s “Remarkable Providences,” containing a vast assemblage of remarkable anecdotes, &c. many of which keep credulity on the stretch. As these were collected by Mr. Wanley from a number of old books, little known, or read, it is not improbable that such researches imparted to his son that taste for bibliographical studies which occupied his whole life. At least it is certain that Humphrey, (who was born at Coventry, March 21, 1671-2, and was bred first a limner, and afterwards some other trade), employed all his leisure time, at a very early period, in reading old books and old Mss. and copying the various hands, by which he acquired an uncommon faculty in verifying dates. Dr. Lloyd, then bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, sent him to Edmund-hall, Oxford, of which Dr. Mill was then principal, whom he greatly assisted in his collations of the New Testament. Hearne says, that during his stay in this hall, he attended but one lecture, which was in logic, which he swore he could not comprehend. Dr. Charlett, master of University-college, hearing of Wanley’s attention to matters of antiquity, induced him to remove to his own college, which he soon did, residing at the master’s lodgings, who, says Hearne, “employed him in writing trivial things, so that he got no true learning.” He certainly acquired the learned languages, however, although it does not appear that he attended much to the usual course of academic studies, or was ambitious of academic honours, as his name does not appear in the list of graduates. By Dr. Charlett’s means he was appointed an under-keeper of the Bodleian library, where he assisted in drawing up the indexes to the catalogue of Mss. the Latin preface to which he also wrote. Upon leaving Oxford, he removed to London, and became secretary to the society for propagating Christian knowledge; and at Dr. Hickes’s request, travelled ovor the kingdom, in search of Anglo-Saxon Mss. a catalogue of which he drew up in English, which was afterwards translated into Latin by the care of Mr. Thwaites, and printed in the “Thesaurus Ling. Vet. Septen.” Oxon. 1705, fol. He was soon after employed in arranging the valuable collections of Robert earl of Oxford, with the appointment of librarian to his lordship. In this employment he gave such particular satisfaction, that he was allowed a handsome pension by lord Harley, the earl’s eldest son and successor in the title, who retained him as librarian till his death. In Mr. Wanley’s Harleian Journal, preserved among the Lansdowne Mss. in the British Museum, are several remarkable entries, as will appear by the specimens transcribed below.

Mr. Wanley remained in this situation until his death, which happened July 6, 1726, and was occasioned by a dropsy. He was twice married, first to a widow, with several children; the second time, only a fortnight before his death, to a very young woman, to whom he left his property, which was considerable.

About 1708, he first began to compile the catalogue of lord Oxford’s Mss. and proceeded as far as No. 2407 of the present printed catalogue. Throughout the whole, he shews great learning and judgment, and his strictures are so just, that there is much reason to lament his not having lived to put the finishing hand to a work, for which he was in every respect so well qualified. This, which was said of Wanley, in the preface to the first edition of the printed catalogue in 1762, may still be repeated, without any disrespect to his successors, because it is to be feared that much useful information was lost by his death. Besides these labours, Wanley published a translation of Ostervald’s “Grounds and principles of the Christian relicrion, explained in a catechetical discourse for the instruction of young people.” This was revised by Dr. Stanhope, and primed at London, 1704, 8vo. Hearne, who seems to have had a pique at Wanley, represents him as an unsteady, capricious man; and of this there are some evidences in his own journal. Hearne likewise asserts that he was imprudent and dissipated, but for this we have no other proof, and if he left considerable property, he had not been unwise in that respect. There is an original picture of him in the Bodleian library; another, half-length, sitting, in the possession of the Society of Antiquaries. A mezzotinto print of him was scraped by Smith, in 1718, from a painting by Hill.

, 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.

, a heraldic writer and antiquary, was the son of Benjamin Warburton, of Bury in Lancashire, by Mary, his wife, eldest daughter, and at length heiress of Michael Buxton, of Buxton, in Derbyshire. He was born Feb. 28, 1681-2. According to Mr. Grose, he received no education, and was originally an exciseman; Mr. Grose adds that he was ignorant not only of the Latin, but of his native language, and so far from understanding mathematics, he did not even understand guaging, which, “like navigation, as practised by our ordinary seamen, consists only in multiplying and dividing certain numbers, or writing by an instrument, the rationale of both which they are totally ignorant of.” It appears from Mr. Brooke Somerset’s notes, that Toms, who owed his rise to him, told that gentleman that he had great natural abilities, but no education. Grose observes, that “his life was one continued scene of squabbles and disputes with his brethren, by whom he was despised and detested.” Toms remarks, that “though his conduct was faulty, yet he was extremely illused, especially by the younger Anstis, who was of a violent tyrannical disposition,” and there seems reason to suspect that his quarrelsome disposition, rather than his incapacity, has occasioned many of the discreditable reports which have accompanied his name. As a collector of antiquities he appears to have been indefatigable.

The first appearance he made in public was in 1716, when he published his map of Northumberland. In 1719 he was elected a fellow both of the Royal and Antiquary societies, and could not then, we presume, have been thought the ignoramus which he has since been represented. He remained a member of the Society of Antiquaries to the last, but was ejected from the Royal in June 1757, in consequence of not having made his annual payments for a great number of years. In June 1720 he was created Somerset herald, and appears to have been constantly at variance with the superiors of the college. In 1722-3 he published in four closely printed 4to pages, “A List of the Nobility and Gentry of the counties of Middlesex, Essex, and Hertford, who have subscribed, and ordered their coats of arms to be inscribed on a new map of those counties, which is now making by John Warburton, esq.” In August 1728, he gave notice, that “he keeps a register of lands, houses, &c. which are to be bought, sold, or mortgaged, in England, Scotland, or Wales, and if required, directs surveys thereof to be made: also solicits grants of arms, and performs all other matters relating to the office of a herald. For which purpose daily attendance is given at his chambers in the Heralds’ office, near Doctors Commons, London. He answers letters post-paid, and advertises, if required.” This quackery did not probahly raise him very high in the opinion of his brethren. In 1749, he published a map of Middlesex on two sheets of imperial atlas, with the arms of the nobility and gentry on the borders. But the earl marshal, supposing these to be fictitious, by his warrant commanded him not to take in any subscriptions for arms, nor advertise or dispose of any maps, till the right of such person respectively to such arms were first proved, to the satisfaction of one of the kings of arms. In his book of “London and Middlesex illustrated,” after observing the above injunction of the earl marshal, he subjoins, “which person’s (Anstis) partiality being well known to this author, he thought it best to have another arbitrator joined with him, and therefore made choice of the impartial public, rather than submit his performance wholly to the determination of a person so notoriously remarkable for knowing nothing at all of the matter. 7 ' After censuring the notion, that trade and gentility are incompatible, as a doctrine fitted only for a despotic government, and judiciously remarking the moral impossibility there would soon be of proving descents and arms for want of visitations, he returns to attack the heads of the college, by saying, that such proofs are obstructed by the exorbitant and unjustifiable fees of three heralds, called kings at arms, who receive each 30l. for every new grant. In his” London and Middlesex illustrated," he gave the names, residences, genealogy, and coat- armour of the nobility, principal merchants, and other eminent families, emblazoned in their proper colours, with references to authorities.

In 1753, Mr. Warburton published “Vallum Romanum, or the History and Antiquities of the Roman Wall, commonly called the Picts Wall, in Cumberland and Northumberland,” with plates and maps, 4to. These, with some prints, are the whole of his publications, but he had an amazing collection of Mss. books, prints, &c. relating to the history and antiquities of England, which were dispersed by auction after his death. He had also, but unfortunately lost, a large collection of old dramas, of which a catalogue, with remarks, appears in the Gentleman’s Magazine for September 1815. Mr. Warburton died at his apartments in the college of arms, May 11, 1759, aged seventy -eight, and was buried on the 17th in the south aisle of St. Bennet’s church, Paul’s Wharf. A peculiar circumstance attended his funeral. Having a great abhorrence to the idea of worms crawling upon him when dead, he ordered that his body should be inclosed in two coffins, one of lead, the other of oak: the first he directed should be filled with green broom, hather, or ling. In compliance with his desire, a quantity, brought from Epping forest, was stuffed extremely close round his body. This fermenting, burst the coffin, and retarded the funeral, until part of it was taken out.

Mr. Warburton married twice: one of his wives was a widow with children, for he married her son, when a minor, to one of his daughters. Amelia, another, married Oct. 23, 1750, to captain John Elphinston, afterwards viceadmiral and commander-in-chief of the Russian fleet, who died very greatly respected by the late empress, Catherine IL who created him knight of the order of St. George: he was deservedly honoured and beloved by all who knew him. This gallant officer died in November 1789, at Cronstat, after a short illness. By his last wife, our author had John Warburton, esq. who resided many years in Dublin, and was pursuivant to the court of exchequer in Ireland: he married, in 1756, Ann-Catherine, daughter of the rev. Edward-Rowe Mores, rector of Tunstal in Kent, and sister of Edward-Rowe Mores, esq. M.A. and F.R. and A. S., so well known for his skill in antiquity, and the large collections of choice Mss. and books he left at his death, which were sold by Mr. Paterson in 1779. This Mr. W T arbarton, leaving Dublin, became one of the exons belonging to his majesty’s yeomen of the guard at St. James’s. Mr. Noble says, that going into France since the troubles in that kingdom, he was one of the few English who fell victims to the sanguinary temper of the usurpers, being guillotined for a pretended sedition, by order of the national convention committee at Lyons, in December 1793; but a correspondent in the Gentleman’s Magazine says that the Mr. Warburton, who was guillotined, was the nephew and not the son of the herald.

, an English prelate of great abilities and eminence, was born at Newark-upon-Trent, in the county of Nottingham, Dec. 24, 1698. His father was George Warburton, an attorney and town-clerk of the place in which this his eldest son received his birth and education. His mother was Elizabeth, the daughter of William Hobman, an alderman of the same town; and his parents were married about 1696. The family of Dr. Warburton came originally from the county of Chester, where his great-grandfather resided. His grandfather, William Warburton, a royalist during the rebellion, was the first that settled at Newark, where he practised the law, and was coroner of the county of Nottingham. George Warburton, the father, died about 1706, leaving his widow and five children, two sons and three daughters, of which the second son, George, died young; but, of the daughters, one- survived her brother. The bishop received the early part of his education under Mr. Twells, whose son afterwards married his sister Elizabeth; but he was principally trained under Mr. Wright, then master of Okehamschool in Rutlandshire, and afterwards vicar of Campden in Gloucestershire. Here he continued till the beginning of 1714, when his cousin Mr. William Warburton being made head -master of Newark-school, he returned to his native place, and was for a short time under the care of that learned gentleman. During his stay at school, he did not distinguish himself by any extraordinary efforts of genius or application, yet is supposed to have acquired a competent knowledge of Greek and Latin. His original designation was to the same profession as that of his father and grandfather; and he was accordingly placed clerk to Mr. Kirke, an attorney at East Markham in Nottinghamshire, with whom he continued till April 1719, when he was qualified to engage in business upon his own account. He was then admitted to one of the courts at Westminster, and for some years continued the employment of an attorney and solicitor at the place of his birth. The success he met with as a man of business was probably not great. It was certainly insufficient to induce him to devote the rest of his life to it: and it is probable, that his want of encouragement might tempt him to turn his thoughts towards a profession in which his literary acquisitions would be more valuable, and in which he might more easily pursue the bent of his inclination. He appears to have brought from school more learning than was requisite for a practising lawyer. This might rather impede than forward his progress; as it has been generally observed, that an attention to literary concerns, and the bustle of an attorney’s office, with only a moderate share of business, are wholly incompatible. It is therefore no wonder that he preferred retirement to noise, and relinquished what advantages he might expect from continuing to follow the law. It has been suggested by an ingenious writer, that he was for some time usher to a school, but this probably was founded on his giving some assistance to his relation at Newark, who in his turn assisted him in those private studies to which he was now attached; and his love of letters continually growing stronger, the seriousness of his temper, and purity of his morals, concurring, determined him to quit his profession for the church. In 1723 he received deacon’s orders from archbishop Dawes and his first printed work then appeared, consisting of translations from Cæsar, Pliny, Claudian, and others, under the title of “Miscellaneous Translations in Prose and Verse, from Roman Poets, Orators, and Historians,” 12mo. It is dedicated to hig early patron, sir Robert Sutton, who, in 1726, when Mr. Warburton had received priest’s orders from bishop Gibson, employed his interest to procure him the small vicarage of Gryesly in Nottinghamshire. About Christmas, 1726, he came to London, and, while there, was introduced to Theobald, Concanen, and other of Mr. Pope’s enemies, the novelty of whose conversation had at this time many charms for him, and he entered too eagerly into their cabals and prejudices. It was at this time that he wrote a letter to Concanen, dated Jan. 2, 1726, very disrespectful to Pope, which, by accident, falling into the hands of the late Dr. Akenside, was produced to most of that gentleman’s friends, and became the subject of much speculation. About this time he also communicated to Theobald some notes on Shakspeare, which afterwards appeared in that critic’s edition of our great dramatic poet. In 1727, his second work, entitled “A Critical and Philosophical Enquiry into the Causes of Prodigies and Miracles, as related by Historians,” &c. was published in 12mo, and was also dedicated to sir Robert Sutton in a prolix article of twenty pages. In 1727 he published a treatise, under the title of “The Legal Judicature in Chancery stated,” which he undertook at the particular request of Samuel Burroughs, esq. afterwards a master in Chancery, who put the materials into his hands, and spent some time in the country with him during the compilation of the work. On April 25, 1728, by the interest of sir Robert Sutton, he had the honour to be in the king’s list of masters of arts, created at Cambridge on his majesty’s visit to that university. In June, the same year, he was presented by sir Robert Sutton to the rectory of Burnt or Brand Broughton, in the diocese of Lincoln, and neighbourhood of Newark, where he fixed himself accompanied by his mother and sisters, to whom he was ever a most affectionate relative. Here he spent a considerable part of the prime of life in a studious retirement, devoted entirely to letters, and there planned, and in part executed, some of his most important works. They, says his biographer, who are unacquainted with the enthusiasm which true genius inspires, will hardly conceive the possibility of that intense application, with which Mr. Warburton pursued his studies in this retirement. Impatient of any interruptions, he spent the whole of his time that could be spared from the duties of his parish, in reading and writing. His constitution was strong, and his temperance extreme; so that he needed no exercise but that of walking; and a change of reading, or study, was his only amusement.

Several years elapsed after obtaining this preferment, before Mr. Warburton appeared again in the world as a writer. In 1736 he exhibited a plan of a new edition of Velleius Paierculus, which he printed in the “Bibliotheque Britannique, ou Histoire des Ouvrages des Savans de la Grande Bretagne, pour les mois’ Juillet, Aout, & Sept. 1736. A la Haye.” The design never was completed. Dr. Middleton, in a letter to him dated April 9, 1737, returns him thanks for his letters, as well as the Journal, which, says he, “came to my hands soon after the date of my last. I had before seen theforce of your critical genius very successfully employed o'n Shakspeare, but did not know you had ever tried it on the Latin authors. I am pleased with several of your emendations, and transcribed them into the margin of my editions; though not equally with them all. It is a laudable and liberal amusement, to try now and then in our reading the success of a conjecture but, in the present state of the generality of the old writers, it can hardly be thought a study fit to employ a life upon, at least not worthy, I am sure, of your talents and industry, which, instead of trifling on words, seem calculated rather to correct the opinions and manners of the world.” These sentiments of his friend appear to have had their due weight; for, from that time, the intended edition was laid aside, and never afterwards resumed. It was in this year, 1736, that he may be said to have emerged from the obscurity of a private life into the notice of the world. The first publication, which rendered him afterwards famous, now appeared, under the title of “The Alliance between Church and State; or, the necessity and equity of an established religion and a test-law, demonstrated from the essence and end of civil society, upon the fundamental principles of the law of nature and nations.” In this acute and comprehensive work he discusses the obligation which lies upon every Christian community to tolerate the sentiments, and even the religious exercises of those who, in the incurable diversity of human opinion, dissent from her doctrines; and the duty which she owes to herself of prohibiting by some test the intrusion into civil offices of men who would otherwise endanger her existence by open hostility, or by secret treachery. His biographer, bishop Kurd, remarks, that this work was neither calculated to please the high church divines, nor the low but, he adds, that “although few at that time were convinced, all were struck by this essay of an original writer, and could not dissemble their admiration of the ability which appeared in the construction of it.” “There was, indeed,” continues Hurd, “a reach of thought in this system of church policy, which would prevent its making its way at once. It required time and attention, even in the most capable of its readers, to apprehend the force of the argumentation, and a more than common share of candour to adopt the conclusion, when they did. The author ha^i therefore reason to be satisfied with the reception of his theory, such as it was; and having thoroughly persuaded himself of its truth, as well as importance, he continued to enlarge and improve it in several subsequent editions; and in the last, by the opportunity which some elaborate attempts of his adversaries to overturn it, had afforded him, he exerted his whole strength upon it, and has left it in a condition to brave the utmost efforts of future criticism.” The late bishop Horsley, in his “Review of the case of the Protestant Dissenters” published in 1787, says that Warburton has in this work “shewn the general good policy of an establishment, and the necessity of a test for its security, upon principles which republicans themselves cannot easily deny. His work is one of the finest specimens that are to be found, perhaps, in any language, of scientific reasoning applied to a political subject.”

In the close of the first edition of the “Alliance” was announced the scheme of “The Divine Legation of Moses,” in which he had at this time made a considerable progress. The first volume of this work was published in January 1737-8, under the title of “The Divine Legation of Moses demonstrated on the principles of a religious deist, from the omissions of the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments in the Jewish dispensation: in six books.” This was, as the author afterwards observed, fallen upon in so outrageous and brutal a manner as had been scarcely pardonable had it been “The Divine Legation of Mahomet.” It produced several answers, and so much abuse from the authors of “The Weekly Miscellany,” that in less than two months he was constrained to defend himself in “A Vindication of the Author of the Divine Legation of Moses, from the aspersions of the Country Clergyman’s Letter in the Weekly Miscellany of February 14, 1737-8,” 8vo. The principle of the “Divine Legation” was not less bold and original than the execution. That the doctrine of a future state of reward and punishment was omitted in the books of Moses, had been insolently urged by infidels against the truth of his mission, while divines were feebly occupied in seeking what was certainly not to be found there, otherwise than by inference and implication. But Warburton, with an intrepidity unheard of before, admitted the proposition in its fullest extent, and proceeded to demonstrate from that very omission, which in all instances of legislation, merely human, had been industriously avoided, that a system which could dispense with a doctrine, the very bond and cement of human society, must have come from God, and that the people to whom it was given must have been placed under his immediate superintendence. But it has been well observed, that although in the hands of such a champion, the warfare so conducted might be safe, the experiment was perilous, and the combatant a stranger: hence the timid were alarmed, the formal disconcerted; even the veteran leaders of his own party were scandalized by the irregular act of heroism; and he gave some cause of alarm, and even of dissatisfaction, to the friends of revelation. They foresaw, and deplored a consequence, which we believe has in some instances actually followed; namely, that this hardy and inventive champion has been either misconceived or misrepresented, as having chosen the only firm ground on which the divine authority of the Jewish legislator could be maintained; whereas that great truth should be understood to rest on a much wider and firmer basis: for could the hypothesis of Warburton be demonstrated to be inconclusive; had it even been discovered (which, from the universal knowledge of the history of nations at present is impossible) that a system of legislation, confessedly human, had actually been instituted and obeyed without any reference to a future state, still the divine origin and authority of the Jewish polity would stand pre-eminent and alone. Instituted in a barbarous age, and in the midst of universal idolatry, a system which taught the proper unity of the Godhead; denominated his person by a sublime and metaphysical name, evidently implying self-existence; which, in the midst of fanatical Bloodshed and lust, excluded from its ritual every thing libidinous or cruel, (for the permission to offer up beasts in sacrifice is no more objectionable than that of their slaughter for human food, and both are positively humane,) the refusal in the midst of a general intercommunity of gods, to admit the association of any of them with Jehovah: all these particulars, together with the purity and sanctity of the moral law, amount to a moral demonstration that the religion came from God.

Warburton’s Divine Legation, says the same masterly writer to whom we are indebted for the preceding observavations, is one of the few theological, and still fewer controversial works, which scholars perfectly indifferent to such subjects will ever read with delight. The novelty of the hypothesis, the masterly conduct of the argument, the hard blows which this champion of faith and orthodoxy is ever dealing about him against the enemies of both, the scorn with which he represses shallow petulance, and the inimitable acuteness with which he exposes dishonest sophistry, the compass of literature which he displays, his widely extended views of ancient polity and religion, but, above all, that irradiation of unfailing and indefectible genius which, like the rich sunshine of an Italian landscape, illuminates the whole, — all these excellences will rivet alike the attention of taste, and reason, and erudition, as Jong as English literature shall exist while many a< standard work, perhaps equally learned and more convincing, is permitted to repose upon the shelf. But it is in his episodes and digressions that Warburton'S powers of reason and brilliancy of fancy are most conspicuous. They resemble the wanton movements of some powerful and half-broken quadruped, who, disdaining to pace along the highway under a burden which would subdue any other animal of his species, starts aside at every turn to exercise the native elasticity of his muscles, and throw off the waste exuberance of his strength and spirits. Of these the most remarkable are his unfortunate hypothesis concerning the origin and late antiquity of the Book of Job, his elaborate and successful Disquisition on Hieroglyphics and Picturewriting, and his profound and original Investigation of the Mysteries.

Mr. Warburton’s extraordinary merit had now attracted the notice of the heir-apparent to the crown, in whose immediate service we find him in June 1738, when he published “Faith working by Charity to Christian edification; a sermon preached at the last episcopal visitation for confirmation in the diocese of Lincoln; with a preface, shewing the reasons of its publication; and a postscript, occasioned by some letters lately published in the Weekly Miscellany: by William Warburton, M. A. chaplain to his royal highness the prince of Wales.” A second edition of “The Divine Legation” also appeared in November 1738. In March 1739, the world was in danger of being deprived of this extraordinary genius by an intermitting fever, which with some difficulty was relieved by a plentiful use of the bark. His reputation was now rising everyday; and he about this time rendered a service tt> Pope, by means of which he acquired an ascendancy over that great poet, which will astonish those who observe the air of superiority which, until this connection, had been shewed in all Pope’s friendships, even with the greatest men of the age. The “Essay on Man” had been now published some years and it is universally supposed that the author had, in the composition of it, adopted the philosophy of lord Bolingbroke, whom on this occasion he had followed as his guide, without understanding the tendency of his principles. In 1758 M. de Crousaz wrote some remarks on it, accusing the author of Spinosism and Naturalism; which falling into Mr. Warburton’s hands he published a defence of the first epistle in “The Works of the Learned,” and soon after of the remaining three, in seven letters, of which six were pri.nted in 1739, and the seventh in June 1740, under the title of “A Vindication of Mr. Pope’s Essay on Man, by the author of the Divine Legation.” The opinion which Mr. Pope conceived of these defences, as well as of their author, will be best seen in his letters. In consequence, a firm friendship was established between them, which continued with much undiminished fervour until the death of Mr. Pope, who, during the remainder of his life, paid a deference and respect to his friend’s judgment and abilities which will be considered by many as almost bordering on servility.

In 1741 the second volume of “The Divine Legation,” in two parts, containing books IV. V. VI. was published; as was also a second edition of the “Alliance between Church and State.” In the summer of that year Mr. Pope and Mr. Warburton, in a country-ramble, took Oxford in their way, where they parted; Mr. Pope, after one day’s stay, going westward; and Mr. Warburton, who stayed aday after him to visit Dr. Conybeare, then dean of Christ Church, returning to London. On that day the vice chancellor, Dr. Leigh, sent a message to his lodgings with the usual compliment, to know if a doctor’s degree in divinity would be acceptable to him; to which such an iuiiswer was returned as so civil a message deserved. About the same time Mr. Pope had the like offer made him of a doctor’s degree in law, which he seemed disposed to accept, until he learnt that some impediment had been thrown in the way of his friend’s receiving the compliment intended for him by the vice-chancellor. He then absolutely refused that proposed to himself. “Mr. Pope,” says Hurd, “retired with some indignation to Twickenham, but consoled himself and his friend with this sarcastic reflection, ' We shall take our degree together in fame, whatever we do at the university?” This biographer also informs us that “the university seemed desirous of enrolling their narmes among their graduates,” but that “intrigue and envy defeated this scheme.” He adds, that this was “the fault of one or two of its (the university’s) members,” a number surely insufficient to produce such an effect. But the real history of this matter seems never to have been given.

Mr. Pope’s affection for Mr. Warburton was of service to him in more respects than merely increasing his fame. He introduced and warmly recommended him to most of his friends, and amongst the rest to Ralph Allen, esq. of Prior Park, whose niece he some years afterwards married. In consequence of this introduction, we find Mr. Warburton at Bath in 1742. There he printed a sermon which had been preached at the abbey-church, on the 24th of October, for the benefit of Mr. Allen’s favourite charity, the general hospital, or infirmary. To this sermon, which was published at the request of the governors, was added, “A* short account of the nature, rise, and progress, of the General Infirmary, at Bath.” In this year also he printed a dissertation on the Origin of Books of Chivalry, at the end of Jarvis’s preface to a translation of Don Quixote, which, Mr. Pope tells him, he had not got over two paragraphs of before he cried out, < Aut Erasmus, aut Dmbolus. 1 “I knew you,” adds he, “as certainly as the ancients did the Gods, by the first pace and the very gait. I have not a moment to express myself in; but could not omit this, which delighted me so much.” Mr. Tyrwhitt, however, has completely demolished Warburton’s system o-n this subject. Pope’s attention to his interest did not rest in matters which were in his own power; he recommended him to some who were more able to assist him; in particular, he obtained a promise from lord Granville, which probably, however, ended in nothing. He appears also to have been very solicitous to bring lord Bolingbroke and Mr. Warburton together, and the meeting accordingly took place, but we are told by Dr. Warton, they soon parted in mutual disgust with each other. In 1742 Mr. Warburton published “A critical and philosophical Commentary on Mr. Pope’s Essay on Man: in which is contained a Vindication of the said Essay from the misrepresentations of Mr. de Resnel, the French translator, and of Mr. de Crousaz, professor of philosophy and mathematics in the academy of Lausanne, the commentator.” It was at this period, when Mr. Warburton had the entire confidence of Pope, that he advised him to complete the Dunciad, by changing the hero,- and adding to it a fourth book. This was accordingly executed in 1742, and published early in 1743, 4to, with notes by our author, who, in consequence of it, received his share of the castigation which Gibber liberally bestowed on both Pope and his annotator. In the latter end of the same year. he published complete editions of “The Essay on Man,” and “The Essay on Criticism:” and,from the specimen which he there exhibited of his abilities, it may be presumed Pope determined to commit to him the publication of those works which he should leave. At Pope’s desire, he about this time revised and corrected the “Essay on Homer,” as it now stands in the last edition of that translation. The publication of “The Dunciad” was the last service which our author rendered Pope in his life-time. After a lingering and tedious illness, the event of which had been long foreseen, this great poet died on the 30th of' May, 1744; and by his will, dated the 12th of the preceding December, bequeathed to Mr. Warburton one half of his library, and the property of all such of his works already printed as he had not otherwise disposed of or alienated, and all the. profits which should arise from any edition to be printed after his death; but at the same time directed that they should be published without any future alterations. In 1744 Warburton’s assistance to Dr. Z. Grey was handsomely acknowledged in the preface to Hudibras; but with this gentleman he had afterwards a sharp controversy (See Grey.) “The Divine Legation of Moses” had now been published some time; and various answers and objections to it had started up from different quarters. In this year, 1744, Mr Warburton turned his attention to these attacks on his favourite work; and defended himself in a manner which, if it did not prove him to be possessed of much humility or diffidence, at least demonstrated that he knew how to wield the weapons of controversy with the hand of a master. His first defence now appeared under the title of “Remarks on several Occasional Reflections, in answer to the Rev, Dr. Middleton, Dr. Pococke, the master of the Charter-house, Dr. Richard Grey, and others; serving to explain and justify divers passages in the Divine Legation as far as it is yet advanced: wherein is considered the relation the several parts bear to each other and the whole. Together with an Appendix, in answer to a late pamphlet, entitled” An Examination of Mr. W's Second Proposition,“8vo. And this was followed next year by” Remarks on several Occasional Reflections; in answer to the Rev. Doctors Stebbing and Sykes; serving to explain and justify the Two Dissertations, in the Divine Legation, concerning the command to Abraham to offer up his son, and the nature of the Jewish theocracy, objected to by those learned writers. Part II. and last;“8vo. Both these answers are couched in those high terms of confident superiority which marked almost every performance that fell from his pen during the remainder of his life. Sept. 5, 1745, the friendship between him and Mr. Allen was more closely cemented by his marriage with his niece, Miss Tucker, who survived him. At this juncture the kingdom was under a great alarm, occasioned by the rebellion breaking out in Scotland. Those who wished well to the then-established government found it necessary to exert every effort which could be used against the invading enemy. The clergy were not wanting on their part; and no one did more service than Mr. Warburton, who published three very excellent and seasonable sermons at this important crisis. I,” A faithful portrait of Popery by which it is seen to be the reverse of Christianity, as it is the destruction of morality, piety, and civil liberty. A sermon preached at St. James’s church, Westminster, Oct. 1745,“Sva. II.” A sermon occasioned by the present unnatural Rebellion, &e> preached in Mr. Allen’s chapel, at Prior Park, near Bath, Nov. 1745, and published at his request,'? 8vo. III. “The nature of National Offences truly stated. A sermon preached on the general fast-day, Dec. 18, 1745,” 1746, 8vo. On account of the last of these sermons he was again involved in a controversy with his former antagonist, Dr. Stebbing, which occasioned “An Apologetical Dedication to the Rev. Dr. Henry Stebbing, in answer to his censure and misrepresentations of the sermon preached on the general fast-day to be observed Dec. 18, 1745,” 1746, 8yo. Notwithstanding his great connections, his acknowledged abilities, and his established reputation, a reputation founded on the durable basis of learning, and upheld by the decent and attentive performance of every duty incident to his station; yet we do not find that he received any addition to the preferment given him in 1728 by sir Robert Sutton (except the chaplaihship to the prince of Wales) until April 1746, when he was unanimously called by the society of Lincoln’s Inn to be their preacher. In November he published “A Sermon preached on the Thanksgiving appointed to be observed the 9th Oct. for the suppression of the late unnatural Rebellion,” 1746, 8vo. In 1747 appeared his edition of “Sbakspeare,” from which he derived very little reputation. Of this edition, the nameless critic already quoted, says, “To us it exhibits a phenomenon unobserved before in the operations of human intellect a mind, ardent and comprehensive, acute and penetrating, warmly devoted to the subject and furnished with all the stores of literature ancient or modern, to illustrate and adorn it, yet by some perversity of understanding, or some depravation of taste, perpetually mistaking what was obvious, and perplexing what was clear; discovering erudition of which the author was incapable, and fabricating connections to which he was indifferent. Yet, with all these inconsistencies, added to the affectation, equally discernible in the editor of Pope and Shakspeare, of understanding the poet better than he understood himself, there sometimes appear, in the rational intervals of his critical delirium, elucidations so happy, and disquisitions so profound, that our admiration of the poet (even of such a poet), is suspended for a moment while we dwell on the excellencies of the commentator.”

In the same year he published, 1. “A Letter from an author to a member of parliament, concerning Literary Property,” 8vo. 2. “Preface to Mrs. Cockburn’s remarks upon the principles and reasonings of Dr. Rutherforth’s Essay on the nature and obligations of Virtue,” &c. 8vo. 3. “Preface to a critical enquiry into the opinions and practice of the Ancient Philosophers, concerning the nature of a Future State, and their method of teaching by double Doctrine,” (by Mr. Towne), 1747, 8vo, 2d edition. In 1748 a third edition of “The Alliance between Church and State corrected and enlarged.” In 1749, a very extraordinary attack was made on the moral character of Mr. Pope from a quarter whence it could be the least expected. His “Guide, Philosopher, and Friend,” lord Bolingbroke, published a book which he had formerly lent Mr. Pope in ms. The preface to this work, written by Mr. Mallet, contained an accusation of Mr. Pope’s having clandestinely printed an edition of his lordship’s performance without his leave or knowledge. (See Pope.) A defence of the poet soon after made its appearance, which was universally ascribed to Mr. Warburton, and was afterwards owned by him. It was called “'A Letter to the editor of Letters on the Spirit of Patriotism, the Idea of a patriot King, and the State of Parties, occasioned by the editor’s advertisement;” which soon afterwards produced an abusive pamphlet under the title of “A familiar epistle to the most Impudent Man living,” &c. a performance, as has been truly observed, couched in Janguage bad enough to disgrace even gaols and garrets. About this time the publication of Dr. Middleton’s “Enquiry concerning the Miraculous Powers,” gave rise to a controversy, which was managed with great warmth and asperity on both sides. On this occasion Mr. Warburton puolished an excellent performance, written with a degree of candour and temper which, it is to be lamented, he did not always exercise. The title of it was “Julian or, a discourse concerning the Earthquake and Fiery Eruption which defeated the emperor’s attempt to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, 1750,” 8vo. A second edition of this discourse, <c with Additions,“appeared in 1751. The critic above quoted has some remarks on this work too important to be omitted.” The gravest, the least eccentric, the most convincing of Warburton’s works, is the ' Julian, or a discourse concerning the Earthquake and Fiery Eruption, which defeated that emperor’s attempt to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, in which the reality of a Divine interposition is shewn, and the objections to it ar are answered/ The selection of this subject was peculiarly happy, inasmuch as this astonishing fact, buried in the ponderous volumes of the original reporters, was either little considered by an Uninquisitive age, or confounded with the crude mass of false, ridiculous, or ill-attested miracles, which “with no friendly voice” had been recently exposed by Middleton. But in this instance the occasion was important: the honour of the Deity was concerned; his power had been defied, and his word insulted. For the avowed purpose of defeating a well-known prophecy, and of giving to the world a practical demonstration that the Christian scriptures contained a lying prediction, the emperor Julian undertook to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem; when, to the astonishment and confusion of the builders, terrible flames bursting from the foundations, scorched and repelled the workmen 'till they found themselves compelled to desist. Now this phenomenon was not, the casual eruption of a volcano, for it had none of the concomitants of those awful visitations: it may even be doubted whether it were accompanied by an earthquake; but the marks of intention and specific direction were incontrovertible. The workmen desisted, the flames retired, they returned to the work, when the flames again burst forth, and that as often as the experiment was repeated.

"But what, it may be asked, is the evidence by which a fact so astonishing is supported Not the triumphant declamations of Christian, even of contemporary Christian writers, who, after all, with one voice, and with little variety of circumstances, bear witness to the truth of it, but that of^ friend of Julian himself, a soldier of rank, an heathen though candid and unprejudiced; in one word, the inquisitive, the honest, the judging Am. Marcellinus. The story is told by that writer, though in his own awkward latinity, very expressively and distinctly. We will add as a specimen of our author’s power, both in conception and language, the following rules for the qualification of an unexceptionable witness.

* Were infidelity itself, when it would evade the force of testimony, to prescribe what qualities it expected in a faultless testimony, it could invent none but what might be found in the historian here produced. He was a pagan, and so not prejudiced in favour of Christianity: he was a dependent, follower, and profound admirer of Julian, and so not inclined to report any thing to his dishonour. He was a lover of truth, and so would not relate what he knew, or but suspected, to be false. He had great sense, improved by the study of philosophy, and so would not suffer himself to be deceived: he was not only contemporary to the fact, but at the time it happened resident near the place. He related it, not as anuncertain hearsay, with diffidence, but as a notorious fact at that time no more questioned in Asia than the project of the Persian expedition: he inserted it not for any partial purpose, in support or confutation of any system, in defence or discredit of any character; he delivered it in no cursory or transient manner; nor in a loose or private memoir; but gravely and deliberately, as the natural and necessary part of a composition the most useful and important, a general history of the empire, on the complete performance of which the author was so intent, that he exchanged a court life for one of study and contemplation, and chose Rome, the great repository of the proper materials, for the place of his retirement.'

“To a portrait so finished, is it possible for the greatest judge of evidence to add a feature to such freedom, fertility, and felicity of language, is it possible for the united powers of taste and genius to add a grace? In the story of the crosses said to have been impressed at the same time on the persons of many beholders, there was probably a mixture of imagination, though the cause might be elec^ trie. This amusing part of the work we merely hint at, in order to excite, not to gratify, the reader’s curiosity: but with respect to the parallel case detected by Warburton, in the works of Meric Casaubon, it is impossible not to admire those wide and adventurous voyages on the ocean of literature, which could enable him to bring together from the very antipodes of historical knowledge, from the fourth to the seventeenth century, from Jerusalem and from our own country, facts so strange, and yet so nearly identical.”

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 *.

* " To the memory of and

of the most sublime Genius, and Dec. 24, 1698.

of what he firmly believed, and was buried near this plate,

the Christian Religion; Dr. Johnson’s character of this literary phenomenon is too remarkable to be omitted. “About this time (1738), Warburton began to make his appearance in the first ranks of learning. He was a man of vigorous faculties, a mind fervid and vehement, supplied by incessant and unlimited inquiry, with wonderful extent and variety of knowledge, which yet had not oppressed his imagination nor clouded his perspicacity. To every work he brought a memory full fraught, together with a fancy fertile of original combinations; and at once exerted the powers of the scholar, the reasoner, and the wit. But his knowledge was too multifarious to be always exact, and his pursuits were too eager to be always cautious. His abilities gave him a haughty consequence, which he disdained to conceal or mollify; and his impatience of opposition disposed him to treat his adversaries with such contemptuous superiority as made his readers commonly his enemies, and excited against the advocate the wishes of some who favoured the cause. He seems to have adopted the Roman emperor’s determination, ‘oderint dum metuant;’ he used no allurements of gentle language, but wished to compel rather than persuade. His style is copious without selection, and forcible without neatness; he took the words that presented themselves: his diction is coarse and impure, and his sentences are unmeasured.” To this character, which has been often copied, we shall subjoin some remarks from the able critic of whom we have already borrowed, and whose opinions seem entitled to great attention.

“Warburton’s whole constitution, bodily as well as mental, seemed to indicate that he was born to be an extraordinary man: with a large and athletic person he prevented the necessity of such bodily exercises as strong constitutions usually require, by rigid and undeviating abstinence. The time thus saved was uniformly devoted to study, of which no measure or continuance ever exhausted his understanding, or checked the natural and lively flow of his spirits. A change in the object of his pursuit was his only relaxation; and he could pass and n pass from fathers and philosophers to Don Quixote, in the original, with perfect ease and pleasure. In the mind of Warburton the foundation of classical literature had been well laid, yet not so as to enable him to pursue the science of ancient criticism with an exactness equal to the extent in which he grasped it. His master-faculty was reason, and his master-science was theology; the very outline of which last, as marked out by this great man, for the direction of young students, surpasses the attainments of many who have the reputation of considerate divines. One deficiency of his education he had carefully corrected by cultivating logic with great diligence. That he has sometimes mistaken the sense of his own citations in Greek, may perhaps be imputed to a purpose of bending them to his own opinions. After all, he was incomparably the worst critic in his mother tongue. Little acquainted with old English literature, and as little with those provincial dialects which yet retain much of the phraseology of Shakespeare, he has exposed himself to the derision of far inferior judges by mistaking the sense of passages, in which he would have been corrected by shepherds and plowmen. His sense of humour, like that of most men of very vigorous faculties, was strong, but extremely coarse, while the rudeness and vulgarity of his manners as acontrovertist removed all restraints of decency or decorum in scattering his jests about him. His taste seems to have been neither just nor delicate. He had nothing of that intuitive perception of beauty which feels rather than judges, and yet is sure to be followed by the common suffrage of mankind: on the contrary, his critical favours were commonly bestowed according to rules and reasons, and for the most part according to some perverse and capricious reasons of his own. In short, it may be adduced as one of those compensations with which Providence is ever observed to balance the excesses and superfluities of its own gifts, that there was not a faculty about this wonderful man which does not appear to have been distorted by a certain inexplicable perverseness, in which pride and love of paradox were blended with the spirit of subtle and sophistical reasoning. In the lighter exercises of his faculties it may not unfrequently be doubted whether he believed himself; in the more serious, however fine-r spun his theories may have been, he was unquestionably honest. On the whole, we think it a fair subject of speculation, whether it were desirable that Warburton’s education and early habits should have been those of other great scholars. That the ordinary forms of scholastic institution would have been for his own benefit and in some respects for that of mankind, there can be no doubt. The gradations of an University would, in part, have mortified his vanity and subdued his arrogance. The perpetual collisions of kindred and approximating minds, which constitute, perhaps, the great excellence of those illustrious seminaries, would have rounded off‘ some portion of his native asperities; he would have been broken by the academical curb to pace in the trammels of ordinary ratiocination; he would have thought always above, yet not altogether unlike, the rest of mankind. In short, he would have become precisely what the discipline of a college was able to make of the man, whom Warburton most resembled, the great Bentley. Yet all these advantages would have been acquired at an expence ill to be spared and greatly to be regretted. The man might have been polished and the scholar improved, ’but the phenomenon would have been lost. Mankind might not have learned, for centuries to come, what an untutored mind can do for itself. A self-taught theologian, untamed by rank and unsubdued by intercourse with the great, was yet a novelty; and the manners of a gentleman, the formalities of argument, and the niceties of composition, would, at least with those who love the eccentricities of native genius, have been unwillingly accepted in exchange for that glorious extravagance which dazzles while it is unable to convince, that range of erudition which would have been cramped by exactness of research, and that haughty defiance of form and decorum, which, in its rudest transgressions against charity and manners, never failed to combine the powers of a giant with the temper of a ruffian.”

Bishop Warburton’s widow was re-married, at Wyke in Dorsetshire, in August 1781, to the rev. John Stafford Smith. B.D. his lordship’s chaplain, who, in her right, became owner of Prior Park. In 1788, a handsome edition of the bishop’s Works was carefully printed, from his last corrections and improvements, in 7 volumes 4to, at the v expence of Mrs. Smith, under the immediate superintendence of bishop Hurd. This edition was followed in 1794 by a “Discourse, by way of general preface to the 4to edition of bishop Warburton’s Works, containing some account of the life, writings, and character of the author.” For many reasons this “Life” appeared to be unsatisfactory, and two very important faults were imputed to it. It was partial, and it was defective. It will however always be read, as the last, and evidently an elaborate production of bishop Hurd, and as the ablest apology that can be offered for the failings of his friend. Since bishop Kurd’s death, the characteristics of both the author and biographer were amply displayed in a volume of very curious “Letters” which passed between Warburton and Hurd during a long course of years. To these must be added, although we less approve the motive and the spirit which produced such a publication, a volume that appeared in 1789, with the title, “Tracts by Warburton and a Warburtonian, not admitted in their works,” 8vo. Throughout Mr. Nichols’s “Literary Anecdotes,” likewise, but especially in vol. V. may be found many interesting particulars of bishop Warburton and his friends, and many of his letters, contributed from various authentic sources.

, a poet and miscellaneous writer, was of low extraction, and born in Oxfordshire about 1667. Jacob said of him, in his Lives of the Poets, that he kept a public house in the city, but in a genteel way, which was much frequented by those who were adverse to the Whig administration. Ward, however, was affronted when he read this account, not because it made him an enemy to the Whigs, or the keeper of a public house, but because his house was said to be in the city. In a book, therefore, called “Apollo’s Maggot,” he declared this account to be a great falsity, protesting that his public house was not in the city, but in Moorfelds. Oldys says he lived a while in Gray’s-­Inn, and for some years after kept a public house in Moorfields, then in Clerkenwell, and lastly a punch-house in Fulwood’s-Rents, within one door of Gray’s-Inn, where he would entertain any company who invited him with many stories and adventures of the poets and authors he had acquaintance with. He was honoured with a place in the “Dunciad” by Pope, whom, however he contrived to vex, by retorting with some spirit. He died June 20, 1731, and was buried the 27th of the same month in St. Pancras church-yard, with one mourning-coach for his wife and daughter to attend his hearse, as himself had directed in his poetical will, which was written by him June 24, 1725. This will was printed in Appleby’s Journal, Sept. 28, 1731. Ward is most distinguished by his well-known “London Spy,” a coarse, but in some respect a true, description of London manners. He wrote one dramatic piece, called “The Humours of a Coffee-house,” and some poems in the Hudibrastic style, but not “England’s Reformation,” as asserted in Mr. Reed’s edition of the Biog. Dram. 1782. That was the production of Thomas Ward, who will be mentioned hereafter.

, a learned and useful writer, was born in London about 1679. His father was a dissenting minister of the same name, born at Tysoe, in Warwickshire, who married Constancy Rayner, a woman of extraordinary piety and excellence of temper, by whom he had fourteen children. She died in April 1697, when her funeral sermon was preached and printed by the Rev. Walter Crosse; and Mr. Ward survived her twenty years, dying Dec. 28, 1717, in the eighty-second year of his age. Of his numerous family he left only two, a daughter, and the subject of this article.

His son John appears to have early contracted a love for learning, and longed for a situation in which he could make it his chief object. He was for some years a clerk in the navy office, and prosecuted iiis studies at his leisure hour* with great eagerness, and had the assistance of a Dr. John Ker, who appears to have been originally a physician, as he took his degree of M. D. at Leyden, but kept an academy at Highgate, and afterwards in St. John’s-square, Clerkenwell. Mr. Ward continued in the navy-office until 1710, when he resigned his situation, and opened a school in Tenter-alley, Moorfields, which he kept for many years, being more desirous, as he said, to converse even with boys upon subjects of literature, than to transact the ordinary affairs of life with men. In 1712, he became one of the earliest members of a society of gentlemen, who agreed to meet once a week, or as often as their affairs would permit, to prepare and read discourses, each in his turn, upon the civil law, and the law of nature and nations. In the prosecution of this laudable design, they went through the “Corpus Juris civilis,” Grotius “De Jure belli et pacis,” Puffendorff “De officio hominis et civis,” and ended with Cicero “De Officiis.” Some of the society were divines, and some lawyers; and as their affairs from time to time obliged any of them to leave the society, they were succeeded by others. But in order to preserve a perfect harmony and agreement among themselves, it was always a standing rule not to admit any new member, till he was first proposed by one of their number, and approved of by all the rest. This society, with some occasional interruptions, was kept up till Michaelmas-term 1742. Several of the members were afterwards persons of distinction both in church and state, and Mr. Ward continued highly esteemed among them while the society subsisted.

In 1712, he published a small piece in Latin, octavo, entitled “De ordine, sive de venusta et eleganti turn vocabulorum, turn membrorirm sentential collocatione,” &c. When Ainsworth was employed to compile an account of the antiquities collected by Mr. John Kemp, which he published under the title of “Monumenta Vetustatis Kempiana,” Mr. Ward furnished him with the descriptions and explanations of several of the statues and lares, and with the essay “De vasis et lucernis, de amuletis, de ann'uHs et fibulis,” and the learned commentary “De asse et par, tibus ejus,” which had been printed in 1719. About this time Mr. Ward was so eminent for his knowledge of polite literature, as well as antiquities, that on Sept. 1, 1720, he was chosen professor of rhetoric in Gresham college, and, on Oct. 28 following, made his inaugural oration there, “De usu et dignitate artis dicendi.” Gresham-college was then in existence, and the appointment to a professorship a matter of some consequence; but after the venerable building was pulled down, and the lecturers removed to a paltry room in the Royal Exchange, the public ceased to take any interest in them.

that author not approving of the translation of the first edition by Maittaire, which was never printed. In the same year Mr. Ward was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, of which he became a vice-president in 1752, and continued in that office until his death. In 1724, he subjoined to an edition of Vossius’s “Elementa Rhetorica,” printed at London, a treatise “De Ratione interpungendi,” containing a system of clear and easy rules with regard to pointing, superior to what had before appeared on that subject/ In 1726, when Dr. Middleton published his dissertation “De Medicorum apud veteres Romanos degenlium conditione,” Ward answered it, at the suggestion of Mead, and a short controversy took place (See Middleton), which has been already noticed. When Buckley was about to print his splendid edition of Thuanus, Mr, Ward translated his three letters to Dr. Mead into Latin. In 1732, at the request of the booksellers who were proprietors of Lily’s grammar, he gave a very correct edition of it, and in the preface a curious history of that work. The same year he contributed to Horsley’s “Britannia Romana” an “Essay on Peutinger’s table, so far as it relates to Britain.” He had also communicated many remarks to Horsley; and Ward’s copy, now in the British Museum, contains many ms corrections and additions.

In Feb. 1735-6, Mr. Ward was chosen a member of the society of antiquaries, and in 1747, being proposed by Roger Gale, esq. one of the vice-presidents, was elected director on the resignation of Dr. Birch, who, from an inflammation in his eyes, had been prevented for some months from performing the business of it; and in 1755 he was appointed one pf the vice-presidents, which office he held until his death. In 1736 he assisted Ainsworth in the publication of his Dictionary, and performed the same service to the subsequent editors, as long as he lived. In this same year he became a member of the Society for the encouragement of Learning, by printing valuable books at their own expence. During its existence, which, for various reasons, was not long, Mr. Ward had the care of the edition of Maximus Tyrius, to which he contributed the prefatory dedication and in the preface to the edition of “Ælian de animalibus,” the editor Abraham Gronovius is full of acknowledgments to Mr. Ward for his assistance in that work. In Dec. 1740, his “Lives of the Professors of Gresham College” were published at London, in folio, a work which Dr. Birch justly pronounces a considerable addition to the literary history of our country . Of this also there is a copy in the British museum, with considerable ms additions by the author.

In 1741 he translated into Latin the life of Dr. Arthur Johnston, for auditor Benson’s edition of that poet’s Latin version of the Psalms; and in 1750 he addressed a Latin letter to Dr. Wishart, principal of the university of Edinburgh, which was the year following added to the principal^ edition of Volusenus, or Wilson, “De animi tranquillitate.” This probably led to the degree of doctor of laws, which the university of Edinburgh conferred upon Mr. Ward the same year. On the establishment of the British museum in 1753, Dr. Ward was elected one of the trustees, in which office he was singularly useful by his assiduous attendance, advice, and assistance in the formation of that establishment, and the construction of rules for rendering it a public benefit, which it is, however, now in a much higher degree than in Dr. Ward’s time.

He died in the eightieth year of his age, at his apartments at Gresham college, Oct. 31, 1758, and was interred in the dissenters’ burying ground in Bunhill-fields. He had prepared for the press his “System of Oratory, delivered in a course of lectures publicly read at Gresham college,” which was accordingly published in 1758, 2 vols. 8vo. Another posthumous work was published in 1761, entitled “Dissertations upon several passages of the Sacred Scriptures,” 8vo. On these Dr. Lardner published “Remarks,” which he introduces with a high compliment to the learning and piety of the deceased author. A second volume was published in 1774. The papers written by him, and communicated to the Royal Society, are numerous and valuable. They occur from No. 412 to vol. XLIX. He also contributed some to the Society of Antiquaries. He communicated to Mr. Vertne an account of a mosaic pavement found in Littlecote Park, to accompany the engraving, and was the author of the dedication, preface, and notes to Pine’s Horace. By the multitude and value of his works he attained great reputation, and, as we have seen, reached the highest literary honours.

As to his private character, Dr. Birch says that his piety was sincere and unaffected, and his profession as a Christian was that of a protestant dissenter, with a moderation and candour which recommended him to the esteem of those members of the established church who had the pleasure of his acquaintance or friendship. His modesty was equal to his learning, and his readiness to contribute to any work of literature was as distinguished as his abilities to do it. Dr. Lardner and Dr. Benson may be mentioned as acknowledging his assistance in their theological pursuits.

, master of Sidney-Sussex college, Cambridge, a learned divine of the seventeenth century, was born of a good family in the bishopric of Durham, at a place called Bishops-Middleham. He was first sent to Christ’s college, Cambridge, where he became a scholar of the house, whence he was, on account of his extraordinary merit, elected into a fellowship at Emmanuel, and succeeded to the mastership of Sidney-Sussex college on Jan. 5, 1609. On April 29, 1615, he was installed archdeacon of Taunton, and was at that time D. D. and prebendary of Bath and Wells. On Feb. 11, 1617, he was promoted to a stall in the metropolitical church of York, where he had the prebend of Ampleford, which he kept to his death. In 1620 he was vice-chancellor of the university, and the year following was made lady Margaret’s professor of divinity. In 1622 he was at Salisbury with bishop Davenant, his intimate and particular friend, with whom, together with bishops Hall and Carleton, he had been sent by king James to the synod of Dort in 1613, as persons best able to defend the doctrine of the Church of England, and to gain it credit and reputation among those to whom they were sent.

In 1624 he was rector of Much-Munden, in Hertfordshire. He is said also to have been chaplain extraordinary to the king, and to have served in convocation. As he was an enemy to Arminianism, and in other respects bore the character of a puritan, he was nominated one of the committee for religion wlfich sat in the Jerusalem chamber in 1640, and also one of the assembly of divines, but never sat among them, which refusal soon brought on the severe persecution which he suffered. On the breaking out of the rebellion he added to his other offences against the usurping powers, that unpardonable one of joining with the other heads of houses in sending the college plate to the king. He was likewise in the convocation-house when all the members of the university there assembled, many of them men in years, were kept prisoners in the public schools in exceeding cold weather, till midnight, without food or fire, because they would not join in what the republican party required. After this, Dr. Ward was deprived of his mastership and professorship, and plundered and imprisoned both in his own and in St. John’s college. During his confinement in St. John’s he contracted a disease which is said to have put an end to his life, about six weeks after his enlargement; but there seems some mistake in the accounts of his death, which appears to have taken place Sept. 7, 1643, when he was in great want. He was buried in the chapel of Sidney-Sussex college. Of this house he had been an excellent governor, and an exact disciplinarian, and it flourished greatly under his administration. Four new fellowships were founded in his time, all the scholarships augmented, and a chapel and a new range of buildings erected. Dr. Ward was a man of great learning as well as piety, of both which are many proofs in his correspondence with archbishop Usher, appended to the life of that celebrated prelate. Fuller, in his quaint way, says he was “a Moses (not only for slowness of speech) but otherwise meekness of nature. Indeed, when in my private thoughts I have beheld him and doctor Collins (disputable whether more different or more eminent in their endowments) I could not but remember the running of Peter and John to the place where Christ was buried. In which race John came first, as the youngest and swiftest, but Peter first entered into the grave. Dr. Collins had much the speed of him in quicknesse of parts, but let me say (nor doth the relation of a pupil misguide me) the other pierced the deeper into underground and profound points of divinity.”

Of his works were published in his life-time, 1. “Suffragium collegiale theologorum M. Britanniae de quinque controversis remonstrantium articulis; item, concio in Phil. II, 12, 13, de gratia discriminante,” London, 1627, 4to, reprinted 1633. 2. “Eadem concio,” ibid. 1626, 4to, 3. “Magnetis reductorium theologicum, tropologicum, in quo ejus verus usus indicatur,” ibid. 1637, 8vo. The following were published after his death by Dr. Seth Ward, the subject of the following article (but no relation), who, it appears, had kindly administered to his necessities while in confinement. 4. “Dissertatio inter eum et Thomam Gatakerum de baptismatis infantilis vi et efficacia,” ibid. 1652, 8vo. 5. " Determinationes theologies,' 7 ibid. 1658, along with a treatise on justification and prelections on original sin.

, an English prelate, famous chiefly for his skill in mathematics and astronomy, was the son of John Ward an attorney, and born at Buntingford, in Hertfordshire. Wood says he was baptised the 16th of April, 1617; but Dr. Pope places his birth in 1618. He was taught grammar-learning and arithmetic in the school at Buntingford; and thence removed to Sidney college in Cambridge, into which he was admitted in 1632. Dr. Samuel Ward, the master of that college, was greatly taken with his ingenuity and good nature; and shewed him particular favour, partly perhaps from his being of the same surname, though there was no affinity at all between them. Here he applied himself with great vigour to his studies, and particularly to mathematics, his initiation into which, Pope thus relates: “In the college library Mr. Ward found by chance some books that treated of the mathematics, and they being woolly new to him, he inquired all the college over for a guide to instruct him in that way; but all his search was in vain; these books were Greek, I mean unintelligible, to all the fellows of the college. Nevertheless he took courage, and attempted them himself, proprio Marte, without any confederates or assistance, or intelligence in that country, and that with so good success, that in a short time he not only discovered those Indies, but conquered several kingdoms therein, and brought thence a great part of their treasure, which he shewed publicly to the whole university not long after.”

Mr. Ward having taken his master’s degree in 1640, was chosen fellow of his college. In the same year Dr. Cosins, the vice-chancellor, pitched upon Ward to be prevaricator, the same office which is called in Oxford terree filius; and he took so many freedoms in his speech, that the vice-chancellor suspended him from his degree; though he reversed the censure the day following.

The civil war breaking out, Ward was involved not a little in the consequences of it. His good master and patron, Dr. Samuel Ward, was in 1643 imprisoned in St> John’s college, which was then made a gaol by the parliament-forces; and Ward, thinking that gratitude obliged him to attend him, continued with him to his death, which happened soon after. He was also himself ejected from his fellowship for refusing the covenant; against which he soon after joined with Mr. Peter Gunning, Mr. John Barwick, Mr. Isaac Barrow, afterwards bishop of St. Asaph, and others in drawing up a treatise, which was afterwards printed. Being now obliged to leave Cambridge, he resided some time with Dr, Ward’s relations in and about London, and at other times with the mathematician Oughtred, at Albury, in Surrey, with whom he had cultivated an acquaintance, and under whom he prosecuted his mathematical studies. He was invited likewise by the earl of Carlisle and other persons of quality, to reside in their families, with offers of large pensions, but preferred the house of his friend Ralph Freeman, at Aspenden in Hertfordshire, esq. whose sons he instructed, and with whom he continued for the most part till 1649, and then he resided some months with lord Wen man, of Thame Park in Oxfordshire.

He had not been in this noble family long before the visitation of the university of Oxford began; the effect of which was, that many learned and eminent persons were turned out, and among them Mr. Greaves, the Savilian professor of astronomy, who had a little before distinguished himself by his work upon the Egyptian pyramids. Mr. Greaves laboured to procure Ward for his successor, whose abilities in this way were universally known and acknowledged, and effected it. Ward then entered himself of Wadham-college, for the sake of Dr. Wilkins, who was the warden; and, Oct. 1649, was incorporated master of arts. At this time there were several learned men of the university, and in the city, who often met at the warden’s lodgings in Wadham college, and sometimes elsewhere, to improve themselves by making philosophical experiments. Among these were Dr. Wilkins and Mr. Ward, Mr. Robert Boyle, Dr. Willis, Dr. Goddard, Dr. Wallis, Dr. Bathurst, Mr. Rooke, &c. Besides reading his astronomical lectures, Mr. Ward preached frequently, though not obliged to it, for sir Henry Savile had exempted his professors from all university exercises, that they might have the more leisure to attend to the employment he designed them for. Mr. Ward’s sermons were strong, methodical, and clear, and sometimes pathetic and eloquent.

Soon after his arrival at Oxford, he took the engagement, or oath, to be faithful to the commonwealth of England, as it was then established, without a king or house of lords: for, though he had refused the covenant while the king was supposed to be in any condition of succeeding, yet, now these hopes were at an end, and the government, together with the king, was overturned, he thought that no good purpose could be answered by obstinately holding out any longer against the powers that were. In the mean time his first object was to bring the astronomy- lectures, Which had long been neglected and disused, into repute again; and for this purpose he read them very constantly, never missing one reading-day all the while he held the lecture.

About this time, Dr. Brownrig, the ejected bishop of Exeter, lived retired at Sunning in Berkshire; where Mr. Ward, who was his chaplain, used often to wait upon him. In one of these visits, the bishop conferred on him the precentorship of the church of Exeter; and told him, that, though it might then seem a gift and no gift, yet that upon, the king’s restoration, of which the bishop was confident, it would be of some emolument to him. He paid the bishop’s secretary the full fees, as if he were immediately to take possession, though this happened in the very height of their despair; and Ward’s acquaintance rallied him upon it, telling him that they would not give him half a crown for his precentorship. But the professor knew that, let things take what turn they would, he was now safe; and that, if the king ever returned, it would be a valuable promotion, and in fact it afterwards laid the foundation of his future riches and preferment.

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.

In 1667 he was translated to the see of Salisbury; and, in 1671, was made chancellor of the order of the garter, being the first protestant bishop that held that office, which he procured to be annexed to the see of Salisbury, after it had been held by laymen above a hundred and fifty years. Bishop Davenant had endeavoured to procure the sajne, but failed, principally owing to the troubles coming on Ward’s first care, after his advancement to Salisbury, was to repair and beautify his cathedral and palace; and then to suppress the nonconformists and their conventicles in his dioeese. This so enraged their party, that, in 1669, they forged a petition against him, under the hand’s of some chief clothiers; pretending, that they were persecuted, and their trade ruined: but it was made appear at the council-table that this petition was a notorious libel, and that none of those there mentioned to be persecuted and ruined, were so much as summoned into the ecclesiastical court.

Bishop Ward was one of those unhappy persons who have the misfortune to outlive their faculties. He dated his indisposition of health from a fever in 1660, of which he was not well cured; and, the morning he was consecrated bishop of Exeter in 1662, he was so ill, that he did not imagine he should outlive the solemnity. After he was bishop of Salisbury he was seized with a dangerous scorbutical atrophy and looseness: but this was removed by riding-exercise. Yet, in course of time, melancholy and loss of memory gradually came upon him; which, joined with some difference he had with Dr. Pierce, the dean of his church, to whom he had refused an unreasonable request, and who pursued him. with great virulence and malice, at length totally deprived him of all sense. He lived to the Revolution, but without knowing anything of that event, although he subscribed in May 1688 the bishops’ petition against reading king James’s declaration of liberty of conscience, and died at Knightsbridge Jan. 6, 1689, in the seventy-second year of his age. He was interred in his cathedral at Salisbury, where a monument was erected to his memory, by his nephew, Seth Ward, treasurer of the church. The bishop died unmarried.

Mr. Oughtred, in the preface to his “Clavis Mathematica,” calls him “a prudent, pious, and ingenious, person; admirably skilled, not only in mathematics, but also in all kinds of polite literature.” Mr. Oughtred informs us, that he was the first in Cambridge who had expounded his “Clavis Mathematica,” and that, at his importunate desire, he made additions to, and republished that work. Bishop Burnet says, “Ward was a man of great reach, went deep in mathematical studies, and was a very dexterous man, if not too dexterous; for his sincerity was much questioned. He had complied during the late times, and held in by taking the covenant; so he was hated by the high men as a time-server. But the lord Clarendon saw, that most of the bishops were men of merit by their sufferings, but of no great capacity for business. So he brought Ward in, as a man fit to govern the church; and Ward, to get his former errors to be forgot, went into the high notions of a severe conformity, and became the most considerable man on the bishops’ bench. He was a profound statesman, but a very indifferent clergyman.”

In the House of Lords he was esteemed an admirable speaker and a close reasoner, equal at least to the earl of Shaftesbury. He was a great benefactor to both his bishoprics, as by his interest the deanry of Burien, in Cornwall was annexed to the former, and the chancellorship of the garter to the latter. He was polite, hospitable, and generous: and in his life-time, founded the college at Salisbury, for the reception and support of ministers’ widows, and the sumptuous hospital at Buntingford, in Hertfordshire, the place of his birth. His intimate friend, Dr. Walter Pope, has given us a curious account of his life, interspersed with agreeable anecdotes of his friends. Pope’s zeal and style, however, provoked a severe pamphlet from Dr. Thomas Wood, a civilian, called “An Appendix to the Life,” 1679, 12mo, bound up, although rarely, with Pope’s work.

Bishop Ward’s works are, 1. “A Philosophical Essay towards an Eviction of the Being and Attributes of God, the Immortality of the Souls of Men, and the Truth and Authority of Scripture.” Oxford, 1652, 8vo. 2, “De Cometis, ubi de Cometarum natura disseritur, Nova Cometarum Theoria, & novissimae Cometa? historia proponitur. Praelectio Oxonii habita.” Oxford, 1653, 4to. 3. “Inquisitio in Ismaelis Bullialdi Astronomiae Philolaicae fundamenta,” Printed with the book “De Cometis.” 4. “Idea Trigonometric demonstrate in usum juventutis Oxon/' Oxford, 1654, 4to. 5.” Vindiciae Academiarusn: containing some brief Animadversions upon Mr. John Webster’s Book styled The Examen of Academies.“Oxford, 1654, 4to. To thrs book is prefixed an Epistle written to the Author by one who subscribes himself N. S.. and who is supposed to be Dr. John Wilkins, those two letters, being the last of both his names. 6.” Appendix concerning what Mr. Hobbes and Mr. William Deli have published on the same Arguments.“Printed at the end of” Vindiciffi Academiarum.“7.” In Thomse Hobbii Philosophiam Exercitatio Epistolica. Ad ampliss. eruditissimumque virum D. Johannem Wilkinsium S.T.D Collegii Wadhamensis Gardianum. Cui subjungitnr Appendicula ad Calumnias ab eodem Hobbio (in sex Documentis nuperrime editis) in Authorera congestas, ResponsioJ“Oxford, 1656, 8vo. 8.” Astronomia Geometrica, ubi methodus^proponitur, qui primariorum Planetarum Astronomia, sive Elliptica, sive circularis possit Geometrice absolvi." London^ 1656, 8vo. 9. Several Sermons: as I. Against Resistance of lawful Powers, preached November the 5th, 1661, on Rom. xiii. 2. II. Against the Anti-scripturists, preached February the 20th 1669, on 2 Tina. iii. 16. III. Concerning the sinfulness^ danger, an-d remedies of Infidelity, preached February the 16th, 1667, on Heb. iii. 12. London, 1670, 8vo. IV. Sermon before the House of Peers at Westminster, October the 10th, 1666, on Eccles. ii. 9. V. Sermon concerning the strangeness, frequency, and desperate consequence of Impenitency, preached -April the 1st, 1666, soon after the Plague, on Revel, ix. 20. VL Sermon against Ingratitude, on Deut. xxxii. 6. VI 1. An Apology for the Mysteries of the Gospel, preached February the 1.6th, 1672, on Rom. i. 16. Some of which Sermons having been separately printed at several times, were all published in one volume at London, 1674, 8vo. VIII. The Christian’s Victory over Death, preached at the funeral of George dukeofAlbemarle in the Collegiate church of Westminster, April the 30th, 1670, on I Cor. xv. 57. London, 1670, 4to. IX. The Case of Joram, preached before the House of Peers, January the 30th, 1673, on 2 Kings vi. last verse. London, 1674, 4to.

That by which he has chiefly signalized himself, as to astronomical invention, is his celebrated approximation to the true place of a planet, from a given mean anomaly, founded upon an hypothesis, that the motion of a planet, though it be really performed in an elliptic orbit, may yet be considered as equable as to angular velocity, or with an uniform circular motion round the upper focus of the ellipse, or that next the aphelion, as a centre. By this means he rendered the praxis of calculation much easier than any that could be used in resolving what has been commonly called Kepler’s problem, in which the coequate anomaly was to be immediately investigated from the mean elliptic one. His hypothesis agrees very well with those orbits which are elliptical but in a very small degree, as that of the Earth and Venus: but in others, that are more elliptical, as those of Mercury, Mars, &c. this approximation stood in need of a correction, which was made by Bulliald. Both the method, and the correction, are very well explained and demonstrated, by Keill, in his Astronomy, lecture 24.

, whom we mentioned under the article Edward Ward, as being the real author of the Hudibrastic poem called “England’s Reformation,” was, according to Dodd, a learned schoolmaster, who becoming a Roman catholic, in the reign of James II. published several books concerning religion. Dodd says that in these tc he was so successful, that, though a layman, he was able to give diversion to some of the ablest divines of the church of England. He some time rode in the king’s guards; and it was no small confusion to his adversaries, when they understood who it was they engaged with; imagining all the while, they were attacking some learned doctor of the Roman communion.“After the revolution he retired into Flanders, where he died soon after. He left two children, a daughter who became a nun, and a son whom Dodd speaks of as” now (about 1742) a worthy catholic clergyman."

The “books concerning religion” which Dodd ascribes to him, are, 1. “Monomachia; or, a duel between Dr. Tenison, pastor of St. Martin’s, London, and a catholic soldier.” 2. “Speculum Ecclesiasticum.” 3. “The Tree of Life,” taken from a large copper cut. 4. “Errata’s of the Protestant Bible,” 1688, 4to. 5. “The controversy of ordination truly stated,” Lond. 1719, 8vo, which occasioned several treatises on both sides upon that subject; especially that of Le Courayer. 6. “A confutation of Dr. Burnet’s Exposition of the Thirty-nine articles,” a ms. in the English college at Doway. 7. " England’s Reformation, in several cantos, in the Hudibrastic style, 7 ' 4to, printed at Hamburgh, but reprinted at London in 1716, 8vo, and afterwards in 2 vols. 12 mo. This is a malicious and scurrilous history of the changes in religion, from Henry VIHth’s being divorced from Catherine of Arragon, to Oates’s plot in the reign of Charles II.; and is accompanied with many extracts from acts of parliament, state papers, and public records of all sorts. The imitation of Hudibras is tolerably successful, and there is a considerable share of humour, wit, and liveliness, but not enough to atone for the many misrepresentations of fact, and the malignant tendency of the whole.

, an eminent antiquary, was descended from the ancient family of De Ware, or De Warr in Yorkshire, the only remains of which are, or lately were, in Ireland. His grandfather, Christopher Ware, was an early convert to the protestant religion in the beginning of the reign of queen Elizabeth, and that principally by the arguments and persuasion of Fox, the celebrated martyrologist. His father James, who was liberally educated, was introduced to the court of queen Elizabeth, where he soon because noticed by the ministers of state, and in 1588 was sent to Ireland as secretary to sir William Fitz-Wiiliams, the lord deputy. He had not filled this office long before he was made clerk of the common pleas in the exchequer, and afterwards obtained the reversion of the patent place of auditor general, a valuable appointment, which remained nearly a century in his family, except for a short time during the usurpation; and his income having enabled him to make considerable purchases in the county and city of Dublin, &c. his family may be considered as now removed finally to Ireland. While on a visit ui E;i^l md, James I. bestowed on him the honour of knighthood, and as a particular mark of favour, gave his eldest son the reversion of the office of auditor general. He also sat in the Irish parliament which began May 1613, for the borough of Mallow in the county of Cork. He died suddenly, while walking the street in Dublin, in 1632. By his lady, Mary, sister of sir Ambrose Briden, of Maidstone in Kent, he had five sons and five daughters. His eldest son, the subject of this article, was born in Castlestreet, Dublin, Nov. 26, 1594, and discovering early a love of literature, his father gave him a good classical education as preparatory to his academical studies. In 1610, when sixteen years of age, he was entered a fellow commoner in Trinity college, Dublin, under the immediate tuition of Dr. Anthony Martin, afterwards bishop of Meath, and provost of the college; but his private tutor and chamber-fellow was Dr. Joshua Hoyle, an Oxford scholar, and afterwards professor of divinity. Here Mr. Ware applied to his studies with such success, that he was admitted to his degree of M. A. much sooner than usual.

After continuing about six years at college, he improved what he had learned at his father’s house. It was here that he became acquainted with the celebrated Dr. Usher, then bishop of Meath, who discovering in him a taste for antiquities, gave him every encouragement in a study in which himself took so much delight. From this time a close friendship commenced between them, and Usher, in his work “De Primordiis,” took occasion to announce to the public what might be expected from sir James Ware’s labours. In the mean time his father proposed a match to him, which proved highly acceptable to all parties, with Mary, the daughter of Jacob Newman, of Dublin, esq* But this alteration in his condition dicf not much interrupt his favourite studies. He had begun to collect Mss. and to make transcripts from the libraries of Irish antiquaries and genealogists, and from the registers and chartularies of cathedrals and monasteries, in which he spared no e*­pence, and had frequent recourse to the collections of Usher, and of Daniel Molyneux, Ulster king at arms, an eminent antiquary, and his particular friend, whom in one of his works he calls “venerandee antiquitatis cultorem.”

After extending his researches as far as Ireland could afford, he resolved to visit England in quest of the treasures which its public and private libraries contained. Arriving at London in April 1626, he had the happiness to find his friend Usher, then archbishop of Armagh, by whom he was introduced to sir Robert Cotton, who admitted him to his valuable library, and to his friendship, and kept up a constant correspondence with him for the five remaining years of his life. Having furnished himself with many materials from the Cotton collection, the Tower of London, and other repositories (many of which, in his hand-writing, are in Trinity college library) he returned with Usher to Ireland, and immediately published a tract entitled “Archiepiscoporum Cassiliensium et Tuamensium Vitae, duobis expressae commentariolis,” Dublin, 1626, 4to; and two years after, “De prttsulibus Lageniae, sive provincise Dubliniensis, lib. unus,” ibid. 1628, 4to, both which he afterwards inserted in his larger account of the Irish bishops. About the same time he published “Ccenobia Cistertiemia Hi hernia;,” which was afterwards included in his “Disquisitiones de Hibernia.” In the latter end of 1628 he went again to England, and carried with him some Mss. which he knew would be acceptable to sir Robert Cotton: and in this second journey added considerably to his own collections, by his acquaintance with Selden and other men of research and liberality. About the end of the summer 1629 he returned home, and soon after received the honour of knighthood from the hands of the lords justices.

On his father’s death in 1632, he succeeded him in his estate and in the office of auditor-general, of which, in 1643, he procured from the marquis of Ormond, then lord lieutenant, a reversionary grant for his son, also called James, who died in 1689. It appears by a letter which the marquis wrote on this occasion that sir James, “even when his majesty’s affairs were most neglected, and when it was not safe for any man to shew himself for them, then appeared very zealously and stoutly for them,” and, in a word, demonstrated his loyalty in the worst of times. His studies, however, were now somewhat interrupted by the duties of his office, on which he entered in 1633, on the arrival of the lord-deputy Wentworth, afterwards earl of Strafford, who took him into his particular confidence, and consulted him upon all occasions. To render him more useful in the king’s service, he called him to the privycouncil, and th'ere he had frequent opportunities of shewing his address and talents in the most important affairs. This year (1633) he published “Spenser’s view of the state of Ireland,” and dedicated it to the lord-deputy, as he did afterwards Meredith Haiuner’s “Chronicle,” and Campion’s “History of Ireland.”

His talents were not more valued by Strafford, than by the whole body of the clergy. When the two houses of convocation in Jan. 1634 petitioned his majesty, and the lord-deputy, for the settlement of some impropriations in the possession of the crown on a resident clergy, they annexed a schedule of particulars to their petition, setting forth a true state of what they requested. Lest the crown should be deceived in the matters prayed for, they requested that the same should be referred to some able commissioners therein named to examine the contents of the schedule; of whom they desired that sir James Ware should be one, which was accordingly granted, and a report made in their favour. Of the clerical character, sir James held an opinion equally just and humane, for in his office of auditor-general, he always remitted the fees to clergymen and their widows.

In 1639, notwithstanding the hurry of public business, he published “De Scriptoribus Hiberniae, lib. duo,” Dublin, 4to. It is unnecessary to say much of this outline of the history of Irish writers, as it has since been so ably translated, enlarged, and improved by Mr. Harris, forming nearly a half of his second folio. In the same year, sir James was returned a member of parliament for the university of Dublin: of his conduct here, we shall only notice that when a ferment was raised in both houses against the earl of Stratford, sir James exerted his utmost zeal in his defence. When the Irish rebellion broke out in 1641, he closely attended the business of the council, and we see his name to many orders, proclamations, and other acts of state against the rebels. He engaged also with others of the privy-council, in securities for the repayment of considerable sums advanced by the citizens of Dublin, for the support of the English forces sent to quell the rebellion. The marquis of Ormond, lieutenant-general of these forces, reposed great trust in sir James, and advised with him on all important occasions. In 1642, when Charles I. wished for the assistance of these troops against his rebellious subjects at home, he determined on a cessation with the rebels for one year, and in this the marquis of Ormond, sir James Ware, and others of the privy council concurred, rather, however, as a measure of necessity than prudence. This news was very acceptable at the king’s court, then held at Oxford, but the measure was condemned by the parliament. While the treaty of peace with the Irish rebels was pending, the marquis of Ormond, having occasion to send some person* in whom he could confide to the king at Oxford, to inform his majesty of the posture of his affairs in Ireland, and to know his pleasure in relation to those particulars of the treaty which remained to be adjusted, fixed upon lord Edward Brabazon, sir Henry Tichborne, and sir James Ware, as persons acceptable to the king, and not inclined to favour either the popish or parliamentary interest. They arrived at Oxford in the end of 1644, and, while here, such time as sir James could spare from the business on which he was sent, was employed by him in the libraries, or in the company of the men of learning. The university complimented him with the honorary degree of doctor of laws.

While these commissioners were returning to Ireland, they were taken by one of the parliament ships, and sir James, finding there were no hopes of escaping, threw overboard his majesty’s dispatches to the marquis of Ormond. He and his companions were then brought to London and imprisoned ten months in the Tower, but were at last released, in exchange for some persons imprisoned in Dublin, for an attempt to betray the town of Drogheda to fche Scotch covenanters. During his tedious imprisonment, sir James amused himself by writing “An imaginary voyage to an Utopian island,” which was never published, but the ms. remained for many years in the family. When discharged he returned to Dublin, and had an order from the lord-lieutenant and council on the treasury for 7 Is/, for the expences of his journey. As the king’s affairs now became desperate in both kingdoms, he sent instructions to the marquis of Ormond to make peace with the Irish catholics “whatever it cost, so that his protestant subjects there may be secured, and his regal authority preserved.' 7 In what manner this was to be effected belongs to the history of the times. It was on the part of Charles an unfortunate measure, but it was thought a necessary one. Peace was accordingly concluded with the catholics by the earl of Glamorgan, whose conduct in the affair has been well illustrated by Dr. Birch in his” Inquiry into the share king Charles 1. had in the Transactions of the earl of Glamorgan," Lond. 1747 and 1756, 8vo. In the mean time Glamorgan being thought to have exceeded his commission, secretary Digby then in Ireland, accused him at the cpuncil-tabie, Dec. 26, 1645, of suspicion of treason. He was then arrested, and sir James, the earl of Roscoinmon, and lord Lambert, were appointed a committee to inquire into his conduct, and take his examination, which in January following was transmitted to the king.

“During the remainder of the troubles, sir James remained firm to the king’s interest, and zealously adhered to the marquis of Ormond, who ever after entertained a great affection for him. He continued, in Dublin, till the marquis, by the king’s orders, surrendered that place to the parliamentary power in June 1647. At this time sir James Ware was considered as a man of such consequence, that the parliament insisted on his being one of the hostages for the performance of the treaty; and accordingly he repaired, with the earl of Roscommon, and col. Arthur Chichester, to the committee for the management of Irish affairs at Derby-house, London; but as soon as the treaty was 'concluded, and the hostages permitted to depart, he returned to Dublin, and lived for some time in a private station, being deprived of his employment of auditor- general. He was, however, disturbed in this retirement by Michael Jones, the governor of Dublin, who, jealous of his chafacter and consequence, sent him a peremptory order to depart the city, and transport himself beyond seas into what country he pleased, except England. Having chosen France for the place of his exile, Jones furnished him with a pass for himself, his eldest son, and one servant, signed April 4, 1649. He landed at St. Malo’s, whence he removed not long after to Caen in Normandy, and then to Paris, and contracted an acquaintance there with some of the literati, and particularly with Bochart, whose works he much esteemed, and thought his” Hierozoicon" a suitable present for the library of the university of Dublin. After continuing in France about two years, he left it in 1651, and by licence from the parliament came to London on private business, and two years after went to Ireland to look after his estates.

Having now leisure to prosecute his favourite studies, the return to which was now consoling as well as gratifying, he took several journeys to London to publish them, the art of printing being at that time in a very low condition in Ireland. In May 1654 he published the first edition of his antiquities,. under the title of “De Hibernia et antiquitatibus ejus Disquisitiones,” Loncl. 8vo, and a much enlarged and corrected edition in 1658. He also collected the works ascribed to St. Patrick, and published them, with notes, under the title “Opuscula Sancto Patrieio, qui Hibernos ad fidein Christi convertit, adscripta, &c.” Lond. 1656, 8vo.

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.

Returning again to his studies, he began with some pieces of the venerable Bede, published under the title of “Venerabilis Bedae epistolae duae, necnon vitae abbatum Wiremuthensium etGerwiensium, &c.” Dublin, 1664. The same year he published the Annals of Ireland for four reigns, “Rerum Hibernicarum Annales reguantibus Henrico VII. Henrico VIII. Edwardo VI. et Maria, &c.” ibid. 1664, fol.; and the year following his history of the bishops of Ireland, entitled “De Praesulibus Hiberniae Comiaestarius, &c.” ibid. 1665, fol. He was preparing other matters respecting Ireland, but was prevented by his death which took place Dec. 1, 1666, in the seventy-third year of his age. He was buried in the church of St. Werburg, in the city of Dublin, in a vault belonging to his family.

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.

By his wife, sir James Ware had ten children, of whom only two sons and two daughters arrived at maturity. Of the latter, Mary was married to sir Edward Crofton, bart. and Rqse to lord Lambert, afterwards earl of Cavan. His eldest son James succeeded him in his estate and office, and married the daughter of Dixie Hickman, of Kew, in the county of Surrey, esq. and sister to Thomas lord Windsor, who was afterwards created earl of Plymouth. By a general entail raised on this marriage, the estate of the family afterwards came to an only daughter, Mary, who took for her second husband sir John St, Leger, knt. one of the barons of his majesty’s court of exchequer in Ireland, in whom the estate vested. Sir James Ware’s youngest son Robert was in his youth troubled with epilepsy, and afforded no hopes to his father, which induced him to consent to the general entail before mentioned; but this son afterwards recovering a vigorous state of health, sir James had little pleasure in reflecting on what he had done, and to make Robert every amends in his power, laid up 1000l. for every remaining year of his life, which was not above six or seven. Robert married Elizabeth, daughter to sir Henry Piers, of Tristernagh, in the county of Westmeath^ bart. and from this marriage one only son, Henry, survived. Henry married Mary, the daughter of Peter Egerton, of Shaw, in Lancashire, esq. by whom he had two sons, and a daughter Elizabeth, married to Walter Harris, esq. editor of sir James Ware’s works.

Of Robert Ware some farther notice must be taken, as he was a writer of considerable note in his day. He had by those writings appeared so averse to the Roman catholic interest of Ireland in the reign of Charles II. that, fearing the resentment of that party, which he had reason to believe would be severe enough, and being advised by the earl of Clarendon, then lord lieutenant, he removed with his family into England on the same day that lord Tyrcon* nel landed in Ireland to take upon him the government, which he continued until the revolution. Mr. Ware died March 1696, after publishing, I. “The Examinations of Faithful Commin and Thomas Heath,” &c. Dublin, 1671, 4to. 2. “The Conversion of Philip Corwine, a Franciscan Friari to the protestant religion^ in 1569,” ibid. 1681, 4to. 3. “The Reformation of the Church of Ireland, in the life and death of George Brown, sometime archbishop of Dublin,” ibid. 1681, 4to. This stands the first in the English edition of sir James Ware’s Works, Dublin, 1705, fol. and is also reprinted in the “Phoenix,” vol. I. 4. “Foxes and Firebrands or a specimen of the danger and harmony of popery and separation wherein is proved from undeniable matter of fact and reason, that separation from the Church of England is, in the judgment of papists, and by sad experience, found the most compendious way to introduce popery, and to ruin the protestant religion, in two parts,” London, 1680, 4to, Dublin, 1682, 8vo. The first part, with the examinations of Commin and Heath, was published by Dr. John Nalson in 1678, 8vq, and the second part was added by Mr. Robert Ware. 5. “The hunting of the Romish Fox, and the quenching of sectarian firebrands; being a specimen of popery and separation,” Dublin, 1683, 8vo. 6. “Foxes and Firebrands, the third part,” Loud. 1689, 8vo. 7. “Pope Joan; or an account that there was such a she-pope, proved from Romish authors before Luther,” &c. ibid. 1689, 4to. Mr. Ware left also an unfinished and imperfect ms. on the history and antiquities of the city and university of Dublin.

, knight of the order of the polar star, secretary to the royal academy of sciences at Stockholm, F. R. S. one of the eight foreign members of the academy of sciences at Paris, and member of the academies of St. Petersburg, Upsal, Gottingen, Copenhagen, and Drontheim, was born Sept. 22, 1717, and became secretary to the Stockholm academy in 1749. In this country he is probably most known from his tables for computing the eclipses of Jupiter’s satellites, which are annexed to the Nautical Almanac of 1779. We know not that he has published any separate work but in the “Transactions of the Stockholm Academy,” are 52 memoirs by him, besides several in the “Philosophical Transactions,” and in the “Acta Societatis Upsaliensis.” He died at the observatory at Stockholm, Dec. 13, 1783.

, 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.

Warham now, according to lord Bacon, began much to gain upon the king’s opinion, and having executed his office of master of the rolls, as well as his other employments, with great ability, and with much reputation, he was in 1502 made keeper of the great seal of England, and on the first of January following lord high chancellor. In the beginning of 1503 he was advanced to the see of London. In the preceding year the king’s eldest son Arthur prince of Wales was married to Catherine of Arragon, but died soon after, and Henry’s avarice rendering him unwilling to restore Catherine’s dowry, which was 200,000 ducats, he proposed that she should marry his younger son Henry, now prince of Wales. But there being great reason to believe that the marriage between prince Arthur and Catherine had been really consummated, Warham remonstrated, in very strong terms, against this preposterous measure, and told the king, that he thought it was neither honourable, nor well-pleasing to God. In this, however, he was opposed by Fox bishop of Winchester, who insisted that the pope’s dispensation could remove all impediments, either sacred or civil. This marriage, it is well-known, afterwards took place, and was the cause of some of the most important events in English history.

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.

Warham continued to hold his place of chancellor for the first seven years of Henry VIII. but became weary of it when Wolsey had gained such an ascendancy over the king, as to be intrusted with almost the sole administration of public affairs. Warham, says Burnet, always hated cardinal Wolsey, and weuld never stoop to him, esteeming it below the dignity of his see. Erasmus relates of Warham, that it was his custom to wear plain apparel, and that once when Henry VIII. and Charles V. had an interview, and Wolsey took upon him to publish an order, that the clergy should appear splendidly dressed, in silk or damask, Warham alone, despising the cardinal’s commands, came in his usual cloath-s. One misunderstanding between Warham and Wolsey was about the latter’s having the cross carried before him in the province of Canterbury. Warham as primate of all England, had taken umbrage that Wolsey, who was only archbishop of York, should cause the cross to be carried before him in the presence of Warham, and even in the province of Canterbury, contrary to the ancient custom; which was, that the cross of the see of York should not be advanced in the same province, or ia the same place, with the cross of Canterbury, in acknowledgment of the superiority of the latter see. When Warham expostulated with Wolsey on this subject, he appears to have convinced him of the impropriety of his conduct; but rather than desist from it, and lose a dignity he had once assumed, Wolsey contrived how he might, for the future, have a right to it, wkhout incurring any imputation of acting contrary to rule. And though his being a cardinal did not give him the contested right, he knew that he might assume it with a better grace, if he was invested with the legantine character; and therefore he solicited and obtained it, being made the pope’s legate a latere in November 1515. On this, in the following month, the archbishop Warham resigned the seals, and Wolsey was made lord chancellor in his room. There were subsequently many contests between these two great statesmen, in which Warham generally maintained the dignity and independence of his character with great firmness; but Wolsey, as long ag he remained the king’s favourite, was the more powerful antagonist. Still, notwithstanding his superiority, Warham sometimes was enabled to convince him that he stretched his power too far. Of this we have a remarkable instance. Warham had summoned a convocation of the prelates and clergy of his province to meet at St. Paul’s April 20, 1523, and the cardinal had summoned a convocation of his province of York to meet at Westminster at the same time. But as soon as the convocation of Canterbury met, and were about to proceed to business, the cardinal summoned them to attend him April 22, in a legantine council at Westminster. This extraordinary step gave great offence to the prelates and clergy of the province of Canterbury. They indeed obeyed the summons, ljut when they came to treat of business, the proctors for the clergy observed, that their commissions gave them no authority to treat or vote but in convocation. This objection proved unanswerable, and the cardinal, to his great mortification, was obliged to dismiss his legantine council. When, in 1529, Wolsey was deprived of all his honours, the great seal was again offered to Warham, but being now far advanced in years, and displeased with the general proceedings of the court, he declined the offer. In his last year, 1532, he exhibited two instances of weakness, the one in being, with many others however, imposed upon by the pretended visions of Elizabeth Barton, commonly called the Maid of Kent; the other, in a kind of protest, which he left in the hands of a notary, against all the laws that had been made, or that should thereafter be made, by the present parliament, in derogation of the authority of the pope, or the right and immunities of the church. The design of this private protest against those laws to which he had given his consent in public, is not very obvious. Burnet would suggest, that it was a piece of superstitious penance imposed on him by his confessor, in which case it must be accounted an instance of extreme weakness.