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

On the alarm of the Spanish invasion in 1588, he procured an order of the council to prevent the clergy from being cessed by the lord-lieutenants for furnishing arms, and wrote circular letters to the bishops, to take care that their clergy should be ready, with a voluntary appointment of arms, &c. This year the celebrated virulent pamphlet, entitled “Martin Mar-prelate” was published, in which the archbishop was severely handled in very coarse language, but without doing him any injury in the eyes of those whom he wished to please. The same year, the university of Oxford losing their chancellor, the earl of Leicester proposed to elect Whitgift in his stead; but this, being a Cambridge-man, he declined, and recommended his friend sir Christopher Hatton, who was elected, and thus the archbishop still had a voice in the affairs of that university. In 1590, Cartwright being cited before the ecclesiastical commission, for several misdemeanours, and refusing to take the oath ex officio, was sent to the Fleetprison, and the archbishop drew up a paper containing several articles, more explicitly against the disciplinarians than the former, to be subscribed by all licensed preachers. The next year, 1591, Cartwright was brought before the Star-chamber; and, upon giving bail for his quiet behaviour, was discharged, at the motion of the archbishop, who soon after was appointed, by common consent, to be arbitrator between two men of eminent learning in a remarkable point of scripture-chronology. These were Hugh Brouohton the celebrated Hebraist, and Dr. Reynolds, professor of divinity at Oxford. The point in dispute was, “Whether the chronology of the times from Adam to Christ could be ascertained by the holy Scriptures?” The first held the affirmative, which was denied by the latter. (See Broughton, p. 82.)

In 1593, Dr. Bancroft published his “Survey of Discipline,” in which he censured Beza’s conduct in intermeddling with the English affairs in respect of church-government; upon which the latter complained of this usage in a letter to archbishop Whitgift, who returned a long answer; in which, he not only shewed the justice of Dr. Bancroft’s complaint, but further also vindicated Saravia and Sutcliffe, two learned men of the English church, who had written in behalf of the order of episcopacy, against Beza’s doctrine of the equality of ministers of the gospel, and a ruling presbytery. In 1594, fresh complaints being made in parliament of the corruption of the ecclesiastical courts, the archbishop made a general survey of those courts, and their officers; and the same year he put a stop to the passing of some new grants of concealed lands belonging to the cathedrals.

In 1595, when the disputes respecting churth-disciplise appeared to be in a good measure appeased, the predestinarian-controversy took place; and on this occasion, the archbishop had the chief direction in drawing up the famous “Lambeth articles,” in concert with Bancroft, then bishop of London, Vaughan bishop of Bangor, Tindaldean of Ely, Whitaker, and others. Our readers are apprized that these articles are favourable to the doctrines of Calvin. The archbishop’s declaration was, “I know them to be sound doctrines, and uniformly professed in this church of England, and agreeab-le to the articles of religion established by authority.” The archbishop of York made a similar declaration, and the articles were forwarded to Cambridge, accompanied by a letter from Whitgift, recommending that “nothing be publicly taught to the contrary.”

This year (1595) he obtained letters patent from her majesty, and began the foundation of his hospital at. Croydon. The same year he protected the hospital of Harbledown, in Kent, against an invasion of their rights and property: and the queen having made him a grant of all the revenues belonging to the hospital of Eastbridge, in Canterbury, he found out, and recovered next year, some lands fraudulently withheld from it. In 1599, his hospital at Croydon being finished, was consecrated by bishop Bancroft. The founding of this hospital (then the largest in the kingdom) having given rise to an invidious report of the archbishop’s immense wealth and large revenues, he drew up a particular and satisfactory account of all his purchases since he had been bishop, with the sums given for the same, and the yearly value of the lands, and to what and whose uses, together with the yearly value of the archbishoprick.

On the death of queen Elizabeth, in 1602, the archbishop sent Dr. Nevile, dean of Canterbury, into Scotland W king James, in th name of the bishops and clergy of England, to tender their allegiance, and to understand life majesty’s pleasure in regard to the government of the church; and though the dean brought a gracious message to him from the king, assuring his grace that he would maintain the settlement of the church as his predecessor left it, yet the archbishop was for some time not without his fears. The puritans, on the death of the queen, conceived fresh hopes of some countenance, and began to speak with more boldness of their approaching emancipation from ecclesiastical authority. A book had been printed the year before, by some of their party, entitled “The Plea of the Innocents,” and in this year, 163, appeared “The humble Plea of the thousand Ministers for redressing offences in the Church,” at the end of which they required a conference. In October a proclamation was issued concerning a meeting for the hearing aivd determining things said to be amiss in the church. This issued in the famous conference held at Hampton-court, Jan. 14, 16, and 18, an account of which was drawn up by bishop Bariow. It only served to shew the puritans that the king was decidedly against them. vU

Archbishop Whitgift did not survive this conference long. He was not well in December before, but troubled with jaundice, which, together with his age, made him unftt to wait upon the king and court abroad the last summer. But soon after the conference at Hampton-court, going, in his barge to Fulham in tempestuous weather, he caught cold; yet the next Sunday, being the first Sunday in Lent, he went to Whitehall, where the king held a long discourse with him and the bishop of London, about the affairs of the church. His grace going thence to the council-chamber to dinner, after long fasting, he was seized with a paralytic stroke, and his speech was taken away. He was then carried to the lord treasurer’s chamber, and thence, after a while, conveyed to Lambeth. On Tuesday he was visited by the king, who, out of a sense of the importance of his services at this particular juncture, told him, “that he would pray to God for his life; and that if he could obtain it, he should think it one of the greatest temporal blessings that could he given him in tins kingdom.” The archbishop would have said something to the king, but his speech failed him, so that he uttered only imperfect words. But so much of his speech was heard, repeating earnestly with his eyes and hands lifted up, “Pro Eeclesia Dei I” Being still desirous to have spoken his mind to the king, he made two or three attempts to write to him; but was too far gone, and the next day, being February the 29th, he died. “Whether grief,” says Strype, “was the cause of his death, or grief and fear for the good estate of the church under a new king and parliament approaching, mingling itself with his present disease, might hasten his death, I know not,” But Camden says, “Whilst the king began to contend about the liturgy received, and judged some things fit to be altered, archbishop Whitgift died with grief.” “Yet surely,” says Strype, “by what we have heard before related in the king’s management of the conference, and the letter he wrote himself to the archbishop, he had a better satisfaction of the king’s mind. To which I may add, that there was a `Directory,‘ drawn up by the Puritans, prepared to be offered to the next parliament, which, in all probability, would have created a great deal of disturbance in the house, having many favourers there; which paper the aged archbishop was privy to, and apprehensive of. And therefore, according to another of our historians, upon his death-bed, he should use these words, c Et nunc, Domine, exaltata est Anima mea, quod in eo tempore succubui, quando mallem episcopatfts mei Deo reddere rationem, quam inter homines exercere; i. e And now, O Lord, my soul is lifted up, that I die in a time, wherein I had rather give up to God ati account of my bishoprick, than any longer to exercise it among men.’”

He was interred in the parish church of Croydon, where a monument was erected, with an inscription to his memory. He is described as being in person of a middle stature, a grave countenance, and brown complexion, black hair and eyes. He wore his beard neither long nor thick. He was small-boned, and of good agility, being straight and weli shaped in all his limbs, to the light habit of his body, which began somewhat to spread and fill out towards his latter years. His learning seems to have been confined to the Latin language, as Hugh Broughton often objected to him, nor does he appear to have been much skilled in the deeper points of theology; but he was an admired and diligent preacher, and took delight in exercising his talent that way; it was, however, in ecclesiastical government that his/brte lay, in the administration of which he was both indefatigable and intrepid. It is by his conduct in this that his character has been estimated by posterity, and has been variously estimated according to the writer’s regard for, or aversion to, the constitution of the church of England.

In his expences it appears that he was liberal and even munificent. Both when bishop of Worcester and archbishop of Canterbury, he took for many years into his house a number of young gentlemen, several of quality, to instruct them, as their tutor, reading to them twice a day in mathematics and other arts, as well as in the languages, giving them good allowance and preferments as occasion offered. Besides these, he kept several poor scholars in his house till he could provide for them, and prefer them, and maintained others at the university. His charitable hospitality extended likewise to foreigners. He relieved and entertained at his house for many years together several distressed ministers (recommended by Beza and others) out of Germany and France, who were driven from their own homes, some by banishment, others by reason of war, shewing no less bounty to them at their departure. Sir George Paule assures us, that he remitted large sums of his own purse to Beza.

He was naturally of a warm temper, which however he learned to correct as he advanced in years. Cecil earl of Salisbury said of him, after his death, that “there was nothing more to be feared in his government, especially towards his latter time, than his. mildness and clemency.” The judicious Hooker confirms this opinion, by averring that “He always governed with that moderation, which useth by patience to suppress boldness.” It does not appear that he printed any thing except what we have mentioned in the controversy with Cartwright, but in Strype’s Life of him, are many of his letters, papers, declarations, &c. the whole, like all Strype’s lives, forming an excellent history of the times in which he lived.

, the puritan dean of Durham, the son of William Whittingham, esq. by a daughter of Haughton, of Haughton Tower, was born in the city of Chester, in 1524. In his sixteenth year he became a commoner of Brasenose college, Oxford, where he made great proficiency in literature. After taking his degree of bachelor of arts, he was elected fellow of All Souls in 1545, and two years afterwards was made one of the seniors of Christ-church, on the foundation oi Henry VIII. In May 1550, having obtained leave to travel for three yearsj he passed his time principally at Orleans, where he married the sister of Calvin. He returned to England in the latter end of the reign of Edward VI. but, as he was a staunch adherent to the doctrines of the reformation, he found it necessary to leave home, when queen Mary came to the throne, and joined the exiles at Francfort. Here he became one of those who took part against the ceremonies of the Church of England being observed among the exiles, and afterwards became a member of the Church of Geneva. On the Scotch reformer, Knox, leaving that society to return to his own country, Whittingham was prevailed upon by Calvin to take orders in the Geneva form, and was Knox’s successor. While here, he undertook, along with other learned men of the same society, an English translation of the Bible, which was not completed when those employed upon it had an opportunity to return to England, on the accession of queen Elizabeth. Whittingham, however, remained at Geneva to finish the work, during which time he translated into metre five of the Psalms, inscribed W. W. of which the 119th was one, together with the ten commandments, and a prayer, all which make part of the collection known by the names of Sternhold and Hopkins. Soon after his return to England, he was employed to accompany Francis, earl of Bedford, on his embassy of condolence for the death of the French king, in 1560. And he attended Ambrose, earl of Warwick, to Havre de Grace, to be preacher there, while the earl defended it against the French; and Wood says, he preached nonconformity in this place. Warwick appears to have had a very high opinion of him, and it was by his interest that Whittingham was promoted to the deanery of Durham in 1563, which he enjoyed for sixteen' years. During this time he was one of the most zealous opponents of the habits and ceremonies, and so outrageous in his zeal against popery, as to destroy some of the antiquities and monuments in Durham cathedral, and even took up the stone coffins of the priors of Durham, and ordered them to be used as troughs for horses to drink in.

Notwithstanding his opposition to the habits, when in 1564 the order issued for wearing them, he thought proper to comply, and being afterwards reproached for this by one who was with him at Geneva, he quoted a saying of Calvin’s, “that for external matters of order, they might not neglect their ministry, for so should they, for tithing of mint, neglect the greater things of the law.” It had been well for the church had this maxim more generally prevailed. Whittingham did essential service to government in the rebellion of 1569, but rendered himself very obnoxious at court, by a zealous preface, written by him, to Christopher Goodman’s book, which denied women the right of government. He was probably in other respects obnoxious, generally as a nonconformist, which at last excited a dispute between him and Dr. Sandys, archbishop of York. In 1577 the archbishop made his primary visitation throughout the whole of his province, and began with Durham, where a charge, consisting of thirty- five articles, was brought against Whittingbam, the principal of which was his being ordained only at Geneva. Whittingham, refused to answer the charge, but denied in the first place the archbishop’s power to visit the church of Durham. On this Sandys proceeded to excommunication. Whittingbam then appealed to the queen, who directed a eowimission to the archbishop, Henry earl of Huntington, lord president of the north, and Dr. Hutton, dean of York, to hear and determine the validity of his ordination, and to inquire into the other misdemeanours contained in the articles; but, this commission ended only in some countenance being given to Whitaker by the earl and by Dr. Hutton, the latter of whom went so far as to say, that “Mr. Whittinghgm wasordained in a better sort than even the archbishop himself.” Sandys then obtained another opmmission directed to himself, the bishop of Durham, and 10rd president, the chancellor of the diocese, and some others. This was dated May 14, 1578, and maybe seen in Rymer’s Feedera, vok XV. Here, as Whittingham had Bothing to produce but a certinqate or call from the church of Geneva, it was objected to, but the lord president said that “it would be ill taken by all the godly and learned, both at home and abroad, that we allow of popish massing priests in our ministry, and disallow of ministers leade in the reformed church.” It does not appear that any thing was determined, and Whittingham’s death put an end to the question. He died June 10, 1579, in the sixty-fifth year of his age, and his remains were interred in the cathedral of Durham, with a monumental inscription, which was afterwards destroyed by another set of innovators. He appears to have been a man of talents for business, as well as learning, and there was a design at one time of advancing him at court. He published little except some few translations from foreign authors to promote the cause of the reformation, and he wrote ome prefaces.

, one of our early grammarians, was born in Lichfield about 1480, and educated under the famous grammarian, John Stanbridge, in the school adjoining to Magdalen college, Oxford. He afterwards made a considerable progress in philosophy, but took more pleasure in classical and grammatical studies, in which he fancied himself destined to shine. In 150.1 he began to teach a grammar-school, probably in London, as all his publications were dated thence. In the beginning of 1513, he supplicated the congregation of regents of the university of Oxford, by the name of Robert WhittingtOn, a secular chaplain, and a scholar of the art of rhetoric, that whereas he had spent fourteen years in the study of the said art, and twelve years in teaching, “it might be sufficient for him that he might be ia'ureated.” This being granted, he composed an hundred verses which were stuck up in public places, especially on the doors of St. Mary’s church, and was solemnly crowned with a wreath of laurel, &c. that is, he was made doctor of grammar, an nnusual title and ceremony, and the last of the kind. This appears to have conferred no academical rank, for he was afterwards admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts. From this time, however, he called himself in several of his works Protovates Angli<e, an assumption which his fellow-grammarians, Herman and Lily, did not much relish. He appears indeed to have been very conceited of his abilities, and to have undervalued those who were at least his equals. Yet historians allow him to have been an excellent Greek and Latin scholar, and a man of a facetious turn, but too much given to personal satire both in conversation, and in his literary disputes with Lily, Aldridge, and others. He was alive in 1530, but' how long afterwards does not appear. He wrote a great many grammatical treatises, some of which must have long been in use in schools, for they went through many editions. They are enumerated by Wood, and, more correctly, by Mr.Dibdin in his Typographical Antiquities. Warton also mentions a few of them, and says that some of.his Latin poetry is in a very classical style, and much, in the manner of the earlier Italian poets.

, author of a very curious account of the Russian empire, was son of Richard Whitwonh, esq. of Blowerpipe, in Staffordshire, who, about the time of the revolution, had settled at Adbaston. He married Anne Moseley, niece of sir Oswald Moseley, of Cheshire, by whom he had six sons and a daughter: Charles; Richard, lieutenant-colonel of the queen’s own royal regiment of horse; Edward, captain of a man of war; Gerard, one of the chaplains to king George the First; John, captain of dragoons; Francis, surveyor-general of his majesty’s woods, and secretary of the island of Barbadoes, father of Charles Whitworth, esq. member of parliament in the beginning of the present reign for Minehead in Somersetshire; and Anne, married to Tracey Pauncefort, esq. of Lincolnshire.

Charles, the eldest son, was bred under that accomplished minister and poet Mr. Stepney; and, having attended him through several courts of Germany, was, in 1702, appointed resident at the diet of Ratisbon. In 1704 he was named envoy -extraordinary to the court of Petersburg!), as he was sent ambassador-extraordinary thither on a more solemn and important occasion, in 1710. M. de Matueof, the Czar’s minister at London, had been arrested in the public street by two bailiffs, at the suit of some tradesmen, to whom he was in debt. This affront had like to have been attended with very serious consequences. The Czar demanded immediate and severe punishment of the offenders, with threats of wreaking his vengeance on all English merchants and subjects established in his dominions. In this light the menace was formidable, and the Czar’s memorials urged the queen with the satisfaction which she had extorted herself, when only the boat and servants of the earl of Manchester had been insulted at Venice. Mr. Whitworth had the honour of terminating this quarrel. In 1714, he was appointed plenipotentiary to the diet of Augsbourg and Ratisbon; in 1716, envoy-extraordinary and plenipotentiary to the king of Prussia; in 1717, envoy-extraordinary to the Hague. In 1719, he returned in his former character to Berlin; and in 1721 the late king rewarded his long services by creating him baron Whitworth of Galway, in the kingdom of Ireland. The next year his lordship was entrusted with the affairs of Great Britain at the congress of Cambray, in the character of ambassador-extraordinary and plenipotentiary. He returned home in 1724, and died the next year at his house in Gerard street, Londou. His body was interred in Westminster-abbey.

His “Account of Russia, as it was in the year 1710,” was published by the late lord Orford at Strawberry-hill, who informs us that besides this little piece, which must retrieve and preserve his character from oblivion, lord Whitworth left many volumes of state letters and papers in the possession of his relations. One little anecdote of him lord Orford was told by the late sir Luke Schaub, who had it from himself. Lord Whitworth had had a personal intimacy with the famous Czarina Catherine, at a time when her favours were not purchased, nor rewarded at so extravagant a rate as that of a diadem. When he had compromised the rupture between the court of England and the Czar, he was invited to a ball at court, and taken out to dance by the Czarina. As they began the minuet, she squeezed him by the hand, and said in a whisper, “Have you for got little Kate?” 1

Lord Whitworth’s ms Account of Russia was communicated to lord Orford, by Richard Owen Cambridge, esq. having been purchased by him in a very curious set of books, collected by Mons. Zolman, secretary to the late Stephen Poyntz, esq. This little library relates solely to Russian history and affairs, and contains, in many languages, every thing that perhaps has been written on that country.

, an eminent physician, born at Edinburgh Sept. 6, 1714, was the son of Robert Whytt, esq, of Beunochy, advocate. This gentleman died six months before the birth of our author, who was also deprived of his mother before he had attained the seventh year of his age. After receiving the first rudiments of school-education, he was sent to the university of St. Andrew’s; and after the usual course of instruction there, in classical, philosophical, and mathematical learning, he came to Edinburgh, where he entered upon the study of medicine, under those eminent teachers, Monro, Rutherford, Sinclair, Plummer, Alston, and Innes. After learning what was to be acquired in this university, he visited other countries in the prosecution of his studies, and after attending the most eminent teachers at London, Paris, and Leyden, he had the degree of M. D. conferred upon him by the university of Rheims in 1736, being then in the twenty-second year of 'his age. Upon his return to his own country, he had the same honour conferred upon him by the university of St. Andrews, where he had before obtained, with applause, the degree of M. A. In 1737, he was admitted a licentiate of medicine in the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, and the year following he was raised to the rank of a fellow of the college. From the time of his admission as a licentiate, he practised physic at Edinburgh; and the reputation which he acquired for medical learning, pointed him out as a fit successor for the first vacant chair in the university. Accordingly, when Dr. Sinclair, whose eminent medical abU lities, and persuasive powers of oratory, had contributed not a little to the rapid advancement of the medical school of Edinburgh, found that the talents which he possessed, could no longer be exerted consistently with his advanced age, he resigned his academical appointments in favour of Dr. Whytt

This admission into the college took place June 20, 1746, and Dr. Whytt began his first course of the Institutions of Medicine at the commencement of the next winter session, in which the abilities he displayed were answerable to the expectations his fame had excited. The Latin tongue was then the language of the university of Edinburgh, and he both spoke and wrote in Latin with singular propriety, elev gance, and perspicuity. At that time the system and sentiments of Boerhaave, which, notwithstanding their errors, must challenge the admiration of the latest ages, were very generally received by the most intelligent physicians in Britain. Dr. Whytt had no such idle ardour for novelties as to throw them entirely aside because he could not follow them in every particular. Boerhaave’s “Institutions,” therefore, furnished him with a text for his lectures; and he was no less successful in explaining, illustrating, and establishing the sentiments of the author, when he could freely adopt them, than in refuting them by clear, connected, and decisive arguments, when he had occasion to differ from him. The opinions which he himself proposed, were delivered and enforced with such acuteness of invention, such display of facts, and force of argument, as could rarely fail to gain universal assent from his numerous auditors, and he delivered them with becoming modesty and diffidence.

From the time that he first entered upon an academical appointment, till 1756, his prelections were confined to the institutions of medicine alone. But at that period his learned colleague, Dr. Rutherford, who was then professor of the practice of medicine, found it necessary to retire; and on this occasion, Dr.Whytt, Dr. Monro senior, and Dr. Cullen, each agreed to take a share in an appointment in which their united exertions promised the highest advantages to the university. By this arrangement, students who had an opportunity of daily witnessing the practice of three such teachers, and of hearing the grounds of that practice explained, could not fail to derive the most solid advantages. In these two departments the institutions of medicine in the university, and the clinical lectures in the royal infirmary (which were first begun by Dr. Rutherford) Dr. Whytt’s academical labours were attended with the most beneficial consquences both to the students, and to the university. But not long after the period we have last mentioned, his lectures on the former of these subjects underwent a very considerable change. About this time the illustrious Gaubius, who had succeeded to the chair of Boerhaave, published his “Institutiones Pathologiae.” This branch of medicine had indeed a place in the text which Dr.Whytt formerly followed, but, without detracting from the character of Boerhaave, it may justly be said, that the attention he had bestowed upon it was not equal to its importance. Dr T Whytt was sensible of the improved state in which pathology now appeared in the writings of Boerhaave’s successor; and he made no delay in availing himself of the advantages which were then afforded. Accordingly, in 1762, his pathological lectures were entirely new modelled. Following the publication of Gaubius as a text, he delivered a comment, which was heard by every intelligent student with the most unfeigned satisfaction. For a period of more than twenty years, during which he was justly held in the highest esteem as a lecturer at Edinburgh, it may readily be supposed that the extent of his practice corresponded to his reputation. In fact he received both the first emoluments, and the highest honours, which could there be obtained. With extensive practice in Edinburgh, he had numerous consultations from other places. His opinions on medical subjects were daily requested by his most eminent contemporaries in every part of Britain. Foreigners of the first distinction, and celebrated physicians in the most remote parts of the British empire, courted an intercourse with him by letter. Besides private testimonies of esteem, many public marks of honour were conferred upon him both at home and abroad. In 1752, he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society of London; in 176!, he was appointed first physician to the king in Scotland; and in 1764, he was chosen president of the royal college of physicians at Edinburgh.

At an early period of life, soon after he had settled as a medical practitioner in Edinburgh, he married Miss Robertson, sister to general Robertson, governor of New York; by her he had two children, both of whom died in infancy, and their mother did not long survive them. A few years after he again entered into the married state with Miss Balfour, sister to James Balfour, esq. of Pilrig. By this lady he had fourteen children, six of whom only survived him. His wife died in 1764, and it is not improbable that the many deaths in his family, and this last loss had some share in hastening his own; for in the beginning of 1765 his health was so far impaired, that he became incapable of his former exertions. A tedious complication of chronical ailments, which chiefly appeared under the form of Diabetes, was not to be resisted by all the medical skill which Edinburgh could afford and at length terminated in death, April 15, 1766, in the fifty- second year of his age.

Dr. Whytt’s celebrity as an author was very great. His first publication was, “An Essay on the Vital and other Involuntary motions of animals,” which was written fifteen years before publication in 1751. His next publication was his “Essay on the virtues of Lime-water and Soap in the cure of the stone,” 1752, part. of which had appeared several years before in the “Edinburgh Medical Essays.” His “Physiological Essays,” were first published in 1755. In 1764 appeared his principal work, entitled “Observations on the nature, causes, and cure of those disorders which are commonly called nervous, hypochondriac, and hysteric.” The last of his writings, “Observations on the Dropsy of the Brain,” did not appear till two years after his death, when all his works were collected and published in one volume quarto, under the direction of his son, and of his intimate friend the late sir John Pringle. Besides these five works, he wrote many papers which appeared in different periodical publications; particularly in the Philosophical Transactions, the Medical Essays, the Medical Observations, and the Physical and Literary Essays.

, Wicliff, de Wyclif, or Wiclef (John), a very learned English divine in the fourteenth century, and the first champion of that cause which was afterwards called Protestantism, was born at a village then called Wickliffe, from which he took his surname, near Richmond in Yorkshire, in 1324. Of the parents of one who lived in so remote a period, it cannot be expected that we should be able to procure any account. He was sent early to Oxford, and was first admitted commoner of Queen’s college, and afterwards of Merton, where he became probationer, but not fellow, as has been usually reported. While he resided here, he associated with some of the most learned men of the age who were members of that college, and it is said that Geoffry Chaucer was at one time his pupil. Among his contemporaries, he was soon distinguished both for study and genius. He acquired all the celebrity which a profound knowledge of the philosophy and divinity then in vogue could confer, and so excelled in wit and argument as to be esteemed more than human. Besides the learning of the schools, he accumulated a profound knowledge of the civil and canon law, and of the municipal laws of our own country, which have been rarely an object of attention until the establishment of the Vinerian professorship. He also not only studied and commented upon the sacred writings, but translated them into English, and wrote homilies on several parts of them; and to all this he added an intimate acquaintance with the fathers of the Latin church, with St. Austin and St. Jerome, St. Ambrose and St. Gregory.

With these acquisitions, he did not hastily obtrude the novel opinions to which they had given rise. He was thirty-six years of age before his talents appeared to the world, and even then they were called forth rather by necessity than choice. In 1360 he became the advocate for the university against the incroachments made by the mendicant friars, who had been very troublesome from their first establishment in Oxford in 1230, and had occasioned great inquietude to the chancellor and scholars, by infringing their statutes and privileges, and setting up an exempt jurisdiction. Their misconduct had decreased the number of students from thirty thousand to six thousand, parents being afraid to send their children to the university, where they were in danger of being enticed by these friars from the colleges into convents; and no regard was paid to the determination of parliament in 1366, that the friars should receive no scholar under the age of eighteen. But Wickliffe now distinguished himself against these usurpations, and, with Thoresby, Bolton, Hereford, and other colleagues, openly opposed the justification which the friars had advanced in favour of their begging trade from the example of Christ and his apostles. Wickliffe also wrote several tracts against them, particularly “Of Clerks Possessioners,” “Of the Poverty of Christ, against able Beggary,” and “Of Idleness in Beggary.” These were written, with an elegance uncommon in that age, in the English language, of which he may be considered as one of the first refiners, while his writings afford many curious specimens of old English orthography. His controversies gave him such reputation in the university, that, in 1361 he was advanced to be master of Baliol college; and four years after he was made warden of Canterbury-hall, founded by Simon de Islip, archbishop of Canterbury, in 1361, and now included in Christ-church. The letters of institution, by which the archbishop appointed him to this wardenship, were dated 14 Dec. 1365, and in them he is styled, “a person in whose fidelity, circumspection, and industry, his grace very much confided; and one on whom he had fixed his eyes for that place, on account of the honesty of his life, his laudable conversation, and knowledge of letters.” Wickliffe amply fulfilled these expectations, till the death of the archbishop in 1366, who was succeeded in che archiepiscopal dignity by Simon Langham. This prelate had been a monk, and being inclined to favour the religious against the seculars, was easily persuaded by the morrks of Canterbury to eject Wickliffe in 1367 from his wardenship, and the other seculars from their fellowships. He also issued out his mandate, requiring WicklifFe and all the scholars to yield obedience to Wodehall as their warden. This Wodehall had actually been appointed warden by the founder, but he was at such variance with the secular scholars, that the archbishop was compelled to turn him and three other monks out of his new-founded hall, at which time he appointed Wickliffe to be warden, and three other seculars to be scholars. The scholars now, however, refused to yield obedience to Wodehall, as being contrary to the oath they had taken to the founder, and Langham, irritated at their obstinacy, sequestered the revenue, and took away the books, &c. belonging to the balL Wickliffe, and his expelled fellows, appealed to the pope, who issued a bull, dated at Viterbo 28 May, 1370, restoring Wodehall and the monks, and imposing perpetual silence on Wickliffe and his associates. As this bull was illegal, and interfered with the form of the licence of mortmain, the monks in 1372 screened themselves by procuring the royal pardon, and a confirmation of the papal sentence, for which they paid 200 marks, nearly 800l. of our money.

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

It must be allowed, however, that his boldness increased with his sufferings. In 1372 he took his degree as doctor of divinity, and read lectures with great applause, in which he more strongly opposed the follies and superstitions of the friars, exposed their corruptions, and detected their practices without fear or reserve. The conduct of the court of Rome in disposing of ecclesiastical benefices and dignities to Italians, Frenchmen, and other aliens, became so notorious and oppressive, that in 1374, the king issued out a commission for taking an exact survey of all the dignities and benefices throughout his dominions, which were in the hands of aliens. The number and value of them appeared enormous, and he determined to send seven ambassadors to require of the pope that he would not interfere with the reservation of benefices. He had tried a similar embassy the yea before, which procured only an evasive concession. On the present occasion Wickliffe was the second person nominated, and, with the other ambassadors, was met at Bruges by the pope’s nuncio, two bishops and a provost. This treaty continued two years, when it was concluded that the pope should desist from making use of reservations of benefices. But the very next year, the treaty was broken, and a long bill-was brought into parliament against the papal usurpations, as the cause of all the plagues, injuries, famine, and poverty of the realm. They remonstrated that the tax paid to the pope amounted to five times as much as the tax paid to the king; and that God had given his sheep to the pope to be pastured, not fleeced. Such language encouraged Wickliffe, who boldly exposed the pride, avarice, ambition, and tyranny of the pope, in his public lectures and private conversation; and the monks complained to the pope that Wickliffe opposed the papal powers, and defended the royal supremacy; on which account, in 1376 they drew up nineteen articles against him, extracted from his public lectures ard sermons, of which some notice will be taken hereafter. It may be sufficient to add in this place, that they tended to oppose the rights which the popes had assumed, and to justify the regal,' in opposition to the papal pretensions of an ecclesiastical liberty, or an exemption of the persons of the clergy, and the goods of the church from the civil power, in advancing such opinions, he had the people on his side, and another powerful protector appeared for him in Henry Percy, earl-marshal. This alarmed the court of Rome, and Gregory XL issued several bulls against Wickliffe, all dated May 22, 1377. One was directed to the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London, whom he delegated to examine into the matter of the complaint; another was dispatched to the king himself, and a third to the university of Oxford. In the first, addressed to the two prelates, he tells them, “he was informed that Wickliffe had rashly proceeded to that detestable degree of madness, as not to be afraid to assert, and publicly preach, such propositions, as were erroneous and false, contrary to the faith, and threatening to subvert and weaken the estate of the whole church.” He therefore required them to cause Wickliffe to be apprehended and imprisoned by his authority; and to get his confession concerning his propositions and conclusions, which they were to transmit to Rome; as also whatever he should say or write, by way of introduction or proof. But, if Wickliffe could not be apprehended, they were directed to publish a citation for his personal appearance before the pope within three months. The pope requested the king to grant his patronage and assistance to the bishops in the prosecution of Wickliffe. In the bull to the university, he says, the heretical pravity of Wickliffe tended “to subvert the state of the whole church, and even the civil government.” And he orders them to deliver him up in safe custody to the delegates.

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

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

About this time, the fatigued he underwent in his attendance on the delegates, threw him into a dangerous illness on his return to Oxford. The mendicant friars took this opportunity to send a deputation to him, representing the great injuries he had done to them by his sermons and writings, and, as he was at the point of death; exhorting him to recant. Wickliffe, however, recovering his spirits at this unintended acknowledgment of the success of his writings, raised himself on his pillow, and replied, “I shall not die, but live to declare the evil deeds of the friars.” On his recovery he embraced every opportunity in his lectures, sermons, or writings, of exposing the Romish courts and detecting the vices of the clergy, both religious and secular; and his efforts were supported by certain proceedings of the parliament, which in 1380 rendered foreign ecclesiastics incapable of holding any benefices in England; and at the same time petitioned the king to expel all foreign monks, lest they should instil notions into the people repugnant to the welfare of the state.

But what gave most uneasiness to his enemies, was his having undertaken to translate the Holy Scriptures into English. These had never been translated, except by Richard Fitz-ralph, archbishop of Armagh, and John de Trevisa, a Cornish-man, who both lived in the reign of Edward III. Mr. Lewis is of opinion that Wickliffe began his translation about 1379 or 1380. But it is more probable that it was his chief employment for the last ten years at least of his life, and he had the assistance of some of his followers. He translated from Latin into the vulgar tongue, the twenty-five canonical books of the Bible, which he reckoned in the following order, and we transcribe as a specimen of the style and spelling of his language. “1. Genesis. 2. Exodus. 3. Levitici. 4. Numeri. 5. Deuteronomi. 6. Josue. 7. ludicum, that encloseth the story of Ruth, 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. ben the 4 Bokes of Kyngand tweie Bokes of Paralipomenon. 14. Is Esdre, that comprehendeth Neemy. 15. Is Hester. 16. Is Job. 17. Psalter. 18. 19. 20, ben the 3 Bokes of Solomon. 21.22.23. 24, ben the four great prophets. 25. Is a Boke of 12 small Prophets, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdie, Jonas, Michee, Nahum, Abacuc, Sophonie, Aggie, Zacharie, and Malachie.” He adds, “That whatever boke is in the Olde Testament without these 25 aforesaid, shal be set among Apocrypha, that is, withouten autoritie of belive. Therefore as holie chirch redith Judith and Tobit, and the Bokes of Machabeis but receiveth not thos amonge holi scriptures; so the chirch redith these 2 Bokes Ecclesiastici, and Sapieme to edifying of the people, not to confirme the autoritie of techyng of holi chirch. And that therefore he translated not the 3 ne 4 Boke of Esdree that ben Apocrypha.” The books of the New Testament he reckons in this order. “The 4 Gospellers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; 12 Epistles of Poule; 7 small Epistles; the Dedes of Apostles, and the Apocalyps, which ben fulli of autoritie of byleve.” Mr. Lewis observes, he translated word for word, without always observing the idioms or proprieties of the several languages; by which means this translation in some places is not very intelligible to those who do not understand Latin. The reason why he made his version from the Vulgate was, not that he thought it the original, or of the same authority with the Hebrew and Greek text, but because he did not understand those languages well enough to translate from them.

Of this translation several manuscript copies are extant in the libraries of our universities, the British museum, and other public and private collections. The New Testament was published in 1731 fol. by Mr. John Lewis, minister of Margate; with a History of the English Translations of the Bible; which History was reprinted in 1739, 8vo, with large additions. Of the style we shall now exhibit a farther, and more perfect specimen, in these three verses of Romans viii. 28, 29, 30. “And we when, that to men that louen God alle thing is worchen to gidre into good to hem that aftir purpose been clepid seyutis. For thilk that he knew bifore, he bifore ordeynyde bi grace to be maad lyk to the ymage of his Sone, that he be the firste bigeten among manye britheren. And thilke that he bifore ordeynyde to blisse, hem he clepide, and whiche he clepide hem he justifiede, and which he justifiede, and hern he glorifiede.”

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

The persecution which followed plainly proves this to be the case. After the death of the queen, Anne of Luxemburg, in 1394, who was a favourer of the Wickiffites, the archbishop, Courtney, assembled a court of bishops, in the monastery of the preaching friars, London, who declared fourteen conclusions of Wickliffe and others, heretical and erroneous. It is said that Wickliffe was prevented from appearing at this court by his friends, who thought that a plot was laid to seize him on the road. His cause, however, was undertaken by the chancellor of Oxford, the two proctors, and the greatest part of the senate, who, in a letter, sealed with the university seal, and sent to the court, highly commended his learning, piety, and orthodox faith. His particular friends and followers, Dr. Nicholas Hereford, Dr. Philip Rapingdon, and John Ayshton, M. A. defended his doctrines both in this court and in the convocation. The archbishop still persisted in his endeavours to punish the Wickliffites, but their doctrines increased, while Wickliffe himself, although obliged to quit his professorship at Oxford, lived peaceably at Lutterworth, still divulging his principles, and increasing the number of his followers. In 1382, soon after he left Oxford, he was seized with the palsy; and about the same time the pope cited him to appear at Rome, to which he sent an excuse, pleading, that “Christ had taught him to obey God rather than man.” He was seized with a second stroke of palsy on Innocent’s day 1384, as he was in his church of Lutterworth, and soon after expired, in the sixtieth year of his age.

On the 5th of May, 1415, the council of Constance condemned forty-five articles maintained by Wickliffe, as heretical, false, and erroneous. His bones were ordered to be dug up and cast on a dunghill; but this part of his sentence was not executed till 1428, when orders were sent by the pope to the bishop of Lincoln to have it strictly performed. His remains, which had now lain in the grave forty-four years, were dug out and burnt, and the ashes cast into an adjoining brook, called the Swift. It is said that the gown which Wickliffe wore now covers the communion-table of the church of Lutterworth.

The principles which this eminent reformer endeavoured to introduce may be gathered from the nineteen articles before-mentioned, which were extracted from his public lectures and sermons, by the monks, and sent to the pope. It appears that he held the doctrine of predestination in as strong a sense as any who have since supported it, and, in the opinion of a late writer, carries it much farther than any modern or ancient writers have attempted. He was, indeed, an absolute necessitarian, and among certain articles extracted from his works by Thomas Netter (commonly called Thomas of Walden, who flourished about 1409) we find the following, “That all things come to pass by fatal necessity; that God could not make the world otherwise than it is made; and that God cannot do any thing which he doth not do.” Other less unguarded expressions have been laid to his charge, of which Fuller observes, that were all his works extant, “we might read the occasion, intention, and connection of what he spake, together with the limitations, restrictions, distinctions, and qualifications, of what he maintained. There we might see what was the overplus of his passion, and what the just measure of his judgment.” He maintained, with the church in after-times, the doctrine of pardon and justification by the alone death and righteousness of Christ. The several points in which he differed from the then established popery were these; the reading of the bible in the vulgar tongue, and making them the sole rule of a Christian’s faith and practice, without faith in tradition, or any human authority; his opposing the pope’s supremacy and infallibility; his rejecting and condemning transubstantiation, indulgences, confession, and absolution, extreme unction; the celibacy of the clergy; forced vows of chastity; prayers to, and worship of saints, shrines and pilgrimages. But the opinions which rendered him most obnoxious in his day, were those which struck at the temporal dominion of the pope, and which occasioned many of his followers to be persecuted in the subsequent reigns of Richard II. Henry IV. and Henry V.

His works are very voluminous, yet he seems not to have engaged in any great work. They are, more properly speaking, tracts, some of which were written in Latin, and some in English; some were on school-questions; others on subjects of more general knowledge; but the greatest part on divinity. Mr. Gilpin has given a list of the more remarkable. Bale has a more particular account. Some are preserved in Trinity and Corpus colleges, Cambridge, a few in Trinity college, Dublin, in the Bodleian, and in the British museum. Mr. Baber, in his late edition of the New Testament, has given the fullest and most accurate account of these. The following list comprises all that have been printed 1. “Trialogus,” a dialogue in Latin, between Truth, Falsehood, and Wisdom,“printed somewhere in Germany, about 1525, 4to, pp. 175. This is very scarce, having been mostly destroyed by the Romanists, but a new edition of it was printed at Frankfort, 1733, 4to. 2.” Wicklif’s Wicket, or, a learned and godly treatise of the Sacrament,“Norimberg, 1546, 8vo, and Oxford, 1612, 4to. 3.” The pathway to perfect knowledge, or Wickliffe’s Prologue to the Bible,“published by Robert Crowley, 1550, 12mo. 4.” The dore of the Holy Scripture,“1540, 8vo. 5.” De Christianorum villicatione,“in English, published in 1582, under the name of R. Wimbledon. 6.” A Complaint of John Wickliffe, exhibited to the king and parliament.“7.” A Treatise of John Wickliffe against the order of Friars.“These two were published together at Oxford in 1608, 4to, by Dr. James, from two ms copies, one in Bene't college, Cambridge, the other in the Bodleian library. 8.” Why poor Priests have no Benefices,“published by Mr. Lewis in his life of Wickliffe, Who has also published there, his Determination, Confessions, and large extracts from his works remaining in ms. together with his New Testament. His opinions are also particularly detailed in Dr, Thomas James’s” Apologie for John Wickliffe, shewing his conformitie with the pew Church of England;" collected chiefly out of his ms works in the Bodleian library, and printed at Oxford, 1608, 4to, now very scarce.

We have mentioned Lewis’s edition of Wickliffe’s New Testament. Of this a new, elegant, and very correct second edition was published in 1810 by the rev, Henry Hervey Baber, M. A. F. R. S. librarian of printed books in the British museum, in a 4to volume. To this are prefixed “Memoirs of the Life, opinions, and writings” of Wickliffe, to which we would refer our readers for much original information and ingenious research and a very learned “Historical account of the Saxon and English versions of the Scriptures, previous to the opening of the fifteenth century.” It was the intention of this excellent editor to have attempted an edition of Wickliffe’s translation of the Old Testament, but no sufficient encouragement, we add with surprize and shame, has yet been offered to so important an addition to our translations of the Holy Scriptures.

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

The ministry of De Witt being charged with great events, the honour of the commonwealth, as well as of the pensionary, required that they should be written; and Wicquefort was selected as the properest person for such a work. He wrote this history under the inspection, as well as protection, of the pensionary, who furnished him vxithsuch memoirs as he wanted, and he had begun the printing of it when, being accused of holding st-cret correspondence with the enemies of the States, he wa> made prisoner at the Hague in March 1676; and, November following, condemned to perpt tual imprisonment, and to the forfeiture of all his effects. His son published this sentence in Germany the year after, with remarks, which he addressed to the plenipotentiaries assembled then at Nimeguen to treat of peace: but these powers did not think proper to meddle with the affair. Wicquefort amused himself with continuing his history of the United Provinces, which he interspersed, as was natural for a man in his situation, with satirical strokes, not only against the prince of Orange, whom he personally hated, but also against the government and the court of justice who had condemned him. This work was published at the Hague in 1719, with this title, “L'Histoire des Provinces Unies des Pays-Bas, depuis le parfait etablissement de cet Etat par la Paix de Munster:” it contains 1174 pages in folio, 246 of which were printed off when the author was thrown into prison.

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

, an eminent lawyer, and speaker of the House of Commons, during the usurpation, was of an ancient family in Northumberland, and was educated partly at Oxford and partly at Cambridge. He afterwards entered pf Qray’s-inn, to study the law, in which he advanced with considerable rapidity, and was chosen recorder, first of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and secondly of York. He was knighted by Charles I. in 1639 at York, and, as recorder, congratulated his majesty both at York and Berwick, when he was on his way to be crowned king of Scotland. Both his addresses on this occasion are said to have been perfectly courtly and even fulsome, but he was soon to change his style as well as his opinions. Being returned member of parliament for Berwick, he became a warm advocate for the liberty then contested; avowed himself in religion, one of the independent sect, and took the covenant. In June 1647, he was so much a favourite with the parliament that they appointed him one of the commissioners of the great seal, which office he was to retain for one year, but held it till the king’s death. The parliament also named him, in Oct. 1648, one in their call of Serjeants, and soon after declared him king’s s’erjeant. But far as he had gone with the usurping powers, he was by no means pleased with the commonwealth form of government, and immediately after the king’s death, surrendered his office of keeper of the great seal, first upon the plea of bad health, and when that was not allowed, he set up some scruples of conscience. The parliament, however, as he continued to allow their authority, in requital of his former services, ordered that he should practice within the bar, and gave him a quarter’s salary more than was due. His merit also recommended him to Cromwell, who heaped honours and great employments upon him. In April 1654, he was appointed a commissioner of the great seal and a commissioner of the treasury, for which he received a saJary of 100Q/.; and all his conscientious scruples seemed now at an end. In August of the same year, he was elected member of parliament for the city of York; and in the following year, became a committee-man for ejecting scandalous ministers in the north riding of that county.

In 1656, he represented both Northumberland and the city of York in parliament, and being chosen Speaker, was approved by Cromwell. His salary as speaker was 1829l. besides 5l. for every private act, and the like sum for every stranger made a free denizen; when ill he appointed Whitelock for his deputy, as we noticed in the life of that statesman. In June 1658 he was appointed lord chief baron of the exchequer, and in Jan. 1660, one of the council of state and a commissioner of the great seal. He was returned both for Berwick and York in the parliament called in this year, and by some interest in the court of the restored king, Charles II. he was included in the call of serjeants, June 1, 1660. It was thought somewhat singular, and even mean that be should have submitted to this, as he had so long borne that title, had filled high offices in the state, was by no means a young man, and was possessed of a considerable fortune. With regard to his fortune, however, he had suffered some loss. He and Thomas Coghill, esq. had purchased the manor of Crayke, belonging to Durham cathedral, which was now ordered to revert to the church again. On the other hand, as some compensation, he was appointed temporal chancellor for life of thai bishopric. He died May 13, 1664, and was buried in the chancel of St. Giles’s in the Fields, where a handsome monument against the north wall was placed by his four surviving daughters, ten years after, but it does not now exist Although sir Thomas had drank deep in the spirit of the times, we are told that his great abilities were only equalled by his integrity, and it was probably the latter which procured him favour after the restoration. He married Frances, daughter of lord Fairfax, of Cameron, and sister of lord Fairfax, the parliamentary general; she died in 1649, and likewise lies buried in St. Giles’s.

Mr. Noble, from whose “Memoirs of Cromwell” we have borrowed the above account, says that sir Thomas published in 1660 “Analecta Eborensia, or some remains of the ancient city of York,” &c. but this is a mistake. He only left a ms. account, under the title of <r Analecta Eboracentia or some remains of the ancient city of York, collected by a citizen of York.“Mr. Gough informs us that the above ms. was in the hands of Thomas Fairfax of Menston, eq, Sir Thomas began his researches in Charles I's time, and after the restoration ohWed to print this work, and dedicate it to the city of York, who seem to have refused it on account of the indifference he shewed to their interests when he represented them in Cromwell’s parliament. Upon this he is said to have expressly forbid his descendants to publish it. Besides the Menston ms. there was another copy at Durham, in the Shaftoe family, one of whom married a daughter of the author Mr. Drake had the use of one among the city records, and another from sir Richard Smyth of St. Edmund’s Bury, which he thinks was prepared by the author himself for the press, and might have passed through different hands on the death of lord Fairfax, and dispersion of his effects. Another copy, or perhaps one of those just mentioned, is among Mr. Gough’s topographical treasures in the Bodleian library. There are some of sir Thomas’s public speeches in Rushworth’s” Collections," and others, according to Wood, were printed separately.

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

Wieland was the author of a prodigious number of works (of which there is an edition extending to forty-two volumes, quarto), both in prose and verse, poems of all kinds, and philosophical essays, dialogues, tales, &c. Of these, the “Oberon,” (by Mr. Sotheby’s elegant translation) the “Agathon,” and some others, are not unknown, although they have never been very popular, in this country. In what estimation he is held in his own, may appear from one of the many panegyrics which German critics have pronounced on his merit: “No modern poet has written so much, or united so much deep sense with so much wit, such facility and sweetness. It may be truly said of him, that he has gone through the wide domain of human occupations, and knows all that happens in heaven and in earth. A blooming imagination and a creative wit; a deep, thinking, philosophical mind; fine and just sense, and a thorough acquaintance with both the moderns and ancients, are discernible in all his various writings. Re knows how to make the most abstract metaphysical ideas sensible, by the magic of his eloquence; he can make himself of all times and all countries; he observes the customs of every country, and knows how to join truth with miracles, sensible with spirited imagery, and romance with the most profound morality. In the `Agathon' he seems a Grecian; and in the `Fairy Tales’ a knight-errant; who wanders amidst fairies, vizards, and monsters. All his tales abound in portraits, comparisons, and parallels, taken from old and modern times, full of good sense and truth. The understanding, the heart, and the fancy, are equally satisfied. His verse is easy; there is not a word too much, or an idle false thought. He is as excellent in comical portraits as in the delineations of manners. The knowledge of Epicurus, the muses of frolic and satire, of romance and fairy land; the solidity of Locke, and the deep sense of Plato; Grecian eloquence, and Oriental luxuriance, what excites admiration in the writings of the best masters, are united in his immortal works.” Such is the opinion of his countrymen; to which, however, it is our duty to add, that in many of his works the freethinkingsystem is predominant, and that the moral tendency of others is very doubtful.

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

, a learned divine of the reformed religion, was born at Mansfeld in Upper Saxony in 1523. His parents, who were of the middle rank, perceiving his love of learning, gave him a good education at school, whence he was sent to the university of Wirtemberg, where he studied the arts and languages for about three years; attending, at the same time, the lectures of Luther and Melancthon. He became also acquainted with other contributors to the reformation, as Gruciger, Justus Jonas, &c. and heard the Greek lectures of Vitus. In 1541, by the advice of his tutors and friends, he went to Noriberg, where he was made master of St. Lawrence-school, and taught there for three years; but being desirous of adding to his own knowledge, under the ablest instructors, he returned to Wirtemberg again. There he commenced M. A. before he was twenty-two years old, and begun the study of divinity, which he engaged in with gr/eat assiduity, until the events of the war dispersed the students of this university. He then was invited to his native place, Mansfeld, where he was ordained, and is said to have been the first who was ordained after the establishment of the Protestant religion. He soon became a very useful and popular preacher, and on the week-days read lectures to the youth in logic and philosophy. While here, at the request of the superintendent, John Spangenberg, he wrote a confutation of Sidonius’s popish catechism, which was afterwards printed both in Latin and Dutch. He wrote also a confutation of George Major, who held that a man is justified by faith, but not saved, &c. He was one of those who strongly opposed the Interim.

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

, a late amiable and ingenious writer, was the only son of Dr. Joseph Wilcocks, of whom we have the following particulars. He waa born in 1673, and was educated at Magdalen-college, Oxford, where he formed a lasting friendship with Mr. Boulter, afterwards primate of Ireland; Mr. Wilcocks was chosen a demy of his college at the same election with Boulter and Addison, and from the merit and learning of the elect, this was commonly called by Dr. Hough, president of the college, “the golden election.” He was ordained by bishop Sprat, and while a young man, went chaplain to the English factory at Lisbon; where, as in all the other scenes of his life, he acquired the public love and esteem, and was long remembered with grateful respect. While here, such was his sympathy and his courage, that although he had not then had the small-pox, yet when that dreadful malady broke out in the factory, he constantly attended the sick and dying. On his return to England, he was appointed chaplain to George I. and preceptor to his royal granddaughters, the children of George II. He also had a prebend of Westminster, and in 1721 was made bishop of Gloucester, the episcopal palace of which he repaired, which for a considerable time before had stood uninhabited; and thus he became the means of fixing the residence of future bishops in that see. In 1731 he was translated to the bishopric of Rochester, with which he held the deanry of Westminster. Seated in this little diocese, he declined any higher promotion, even that of the archbishopric of York, frequently using the memorable expression t>f bishop Fisher, one of his predecessors, “Though this my wife be poor, I must not think of changing her for one more opulent.” The magnificence of the west-front of Westminster-abbey, during his being dean, is recorded as a splendid monument of his zeal for promoting public works, in suitable proportion to his station in life. He wouJd doubtless have been equally zealous in adorning and enlarging his cathedral at Rochester, had there been ground to hope for national assistance in that undertaking; but its episcopal revenues were very inadequate to the expence. He was constantly resident upon his diocese, and from the fatigue of his last Visitation there, he contracted the illness which terminated his life by a gradual decay, March 9, 1756, aged eighty-three. He was buried in a vault in Westminster-abbey, under the consistory court, which he had built the year before, by permission from the Chapter. His son erected a monument for him next to that of Dr. Pearce. He married Jane, the daughter of John Milner, esq. sometime his Britannic majesty’s consul at Lisbon, who died in her twenty-eighth year. By her he hd Joseph, the more immediate subject of the present article.

Mr. Joseph Wilcocks was born in Dean’s-yard, Westminster, Jan. 4, 1723, during the time his father was bishop of Gloucester, and a prebendary of Westminster. Jn 1736 he was admitted upon the foundation at Westminsterschool, whence he was elected to Christ-church, Oxford in 1740, and proceeded regularly to the degree of M. A. in 1747. He very early distinguished himself at college, and obtained the second of three prizes before the end of the year he entered, the first of them being gained by his friend and contemporary, Mr. Markham, afterwards archbishop of York.As his estate was considerable he chose no particular profession, but devoted his property to various acts of beneficence, and his time to study. He was particularly attentive to biblical learning, and to every thing that could promote the cause of piety. His humility and diffidence were carried rather to an extreme; and from the same excess in the sensibility of his conscientious feelings, he forebore to act as a magistrate, having for a short time undertaken it as a justice, in the county of Berks. Having in early life paid his addresses to a lady whom his father deemed it imprudent for him to marry in point of circumstances, he submitted to parental authority, but continued unmarried ever after.

His mode of life, however, though exemplary in the highest degree, in point of conduct, is not one of those that furnish many or striking events; and we cannot better hold forth that example to the imitation of others, than in the following artless narrative of one of his old servants.

One of his very amiable qualities was to consider himself as a citizen of the world, and mankind in general as his brethren and friends; consequently, he endeavoured to do them all the good in his power. I think I may also safely say, the great rule of his life and conduct was to be a true disciple and follower of all the beneficent actions of our Saviour, and to interweave his examples into his daily exercise and practice. He used to rise early, and was a very great oeconomist of his time; labouring to keep a most exact account of all his domestic concerns, and every thing that belonged to his receipts and expenditure. Even his numerous gifts and charities, I believe,were daily committed to paper, and all looked over in the evening, and balanced, noting every error and deficiency; and if he did not perceive he had done one or more acts of charity and beneficence, he thought he had lost a dayl He was the most dutiful and affectionate son, the most kind nephew, cousin, or relation to all who stood in any degree of “kindred. To servants, workmen, and tenants, the most gentle and beneficent; and to his poor neighbours an affectionate father, paying for schooling for their children, and even erecting schools, which is, perhaps, too well known to require mentioning. When travelling, he would inquire at the inns, who was in sickness or necessity in the place, leaving money for their relief. He frequently released debtors from prison, and had great charity to beggars. He frequently sent medical assistance to the sick, and gave large sums to hospitals; when abroad, he gave large sums also to poor convents, and to the necessitous of all countries and religions. He was always ready to assist every increase or improvement of learning, witness the very large and laborious share he took in assisting the collation of the Hebrew text of the Bible, by opening many of the foreign libraries in Europe, through his interest and labour, and employing professors to collate at his own expence. His humanity to the brute creation was very great, and his tenderness even to insects. He preserved a reverential respect for the place of his nativity, for the places where he had received his education, and for those who hail been companions of his youth; likewise fortne memory of those who had been in any way instrumental in forming his morals and perfecting his learning; and this was preserved even to their friends and posterity.”

These, and many other acts of beneficence, both of a public and private nature, the latter always performed with the utmost delicacy, are specified at large in the very interesting memoirs prefixed to the last edition of his “Roman Conversations,” by Mr. Bickerstaff, the successor of Mr. Brown, the bookseller, to whom he bequeathed that edition, with an express provision, “to indemnify him from any loss which might be incurred by the expences of the first edition.” His classical taste, contracted by long reading, led him to Italy, and it appears to have been in the once “metropolis of the world,” that he laid the foundation of the “Roman Conversations,” his principal work, which may justly be recommended to the young, and indeed to readers in general. In it he separates the truth of Roman history from the errors which disfigure it, bestowing just praise on the real patriots of Rome, and equally just censure on those whose patriotism was only feigned; and distinguishing between the insidious arts of demagogues, and the integrity of true friends to the public. In nice investigations of character, he appears to be free from prejudice, attentive to truth, and often strikingly original in his remarks. The chief defect is a want of regard to style, and a prolixity of remark and digression, which perhaps will be more easily pardoned by the old than the young, fur whom the work was chiefly calculated; yet it is a work which cannot fail to be perused by every student of Roman history with the greatest advantage. It is calculated to excite religious and moral reflections on that history, and to adapt and direct the study of it to the, best and wisest purposes of a Christian education.

In the “Carmina Quadragesimalia” are many good verses written by Mr. Wilcocks, who also was the compiler of the “Sacred Exercises,” now in use at Westminsterschool. We are not informed of any other publication from his pen, except a little piece in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. liii. entitled “An Account of some subterraneous Apartments, with Etruscan Inscriptions and paintings, discovered at Civita Turchino, in Italy.” These, we are told, were explored as here described, at the sole expence of our author.

Mr. Wilcocks died, of repeated attacks of the palsy, Dec. 23, 1791, at the close of his sixty-ninth year. He left behind him the “Roman Conversations” prepared for the press. They were composed by him, indeed, at an early period of his present majesty’s reign; but modest diffidence would not allow him to publish them in his lifetime, otherwise than by printing off a few copies, which he distributed among his intimate friends. With the hope, however, that the work might be more extensively useful, and particularly to younger minds, he gave directions that it should appear soon after his decease. Accordingly, in May 1792, the first volume was published; but, in consequence of a written injunction left by the worthy author, the second volume did not come out until a year after. In 1797, a new and much corrected edition was published by Mr. Bickerstaff, with memoirs of the author, to which we are indebted for the preceding sketch. Many particulars of Mr. Wilcocks’s life are evidently, although under some disguise, interwoven in his “Roman Conversations.”

, a tailor, who, from an extraordinary love of study, became a professor of the Oriental languages, was born in the city of Norwich about 1684, where he was educated at a grammar-school till he was almost qualified for the university; but his friends, wanting fortune and interest to maintain him there, bound him apprentice to a tailor, with whom he served seven years, and afterwards worked seven years more as a journeyman. About the end of the last seven years, he was seized with a fever and ague, which continued with him two or three years, and at last reduced him so low as to disable him from working at his trade. In this situation he amused himself with some old books of controversial divinity, in which he found great stress laid on the Hebrew original of several texts of scripture; and, though he had almost lost the learning he had obtained at school, his strong desire of knowledge excited him to attempt to make himself master of that language. He was at first obliged to make use of an English Hebrew grammar and lexicon; but, by degrees, recovered the knowledge of the Latin tongue, which he had learned at school. On the recovery of his health, he divided his time between his business and his studies, xvhich last employed the greatest part of his nights. Thus, self-taught, and assisted only by his great genius, he, "by dint of continual application, added to the knowledge of the Hebrew that of all or most of the oriental Ianguages, but still laboured in obscurity, till at length he was accidentally discovered. The worthy Dr. Prideaux, dean of Norwich, being offered some Arabic manuscripts in parchment, by a bookseller of that city, thinking, perhaps, that the price demanded for them was too great, declined buying them; but, soon after, Mr. Wild hearing of them, purchased them; and the dean, on calling at the shop and inquiring for the manuscripts, was informed of their being sold. Chagrined at this disappointment, he asked of the bookseller the name and profession of the person who had bought them; and, being told he was a tailor, he bad him instantly to run and fetch them, if they were riot cut in pieces to make measures: but he was soon relieved from his fears by Mr. Wild’s appearance with the manuscripts, though, on the dean’s inquiring whether he would part with them, he answered in the negative. The dean then asked hastily what he did with them: he replied, that he read them. He was desired to read them, which he did. He was then bid to render a passage or two into English, which he readily performed, and with great exactness. Amazed at this, the dean, partly at his own expence, and partly by a subscription raised among persons whose inclinations led them to this kind of knowledge, sent him to Oxford; where, though he was never a member of the university, he was by the dean’s interest admitted into the Bodleian library, and employed for some, years in translating or making extracts out of Oriental manuscripts, and thus bad adieu to his needle. This appears to have been some time before 1718. At Oxford, he was known by the name of the Arabian tailor. He constantly attended the library all the hours it was open, and, when it was shut, employed most of his leisure-time in teaching the Oriental languages to young gentlemen, at the moderate price of half a guinea a lesson, except for the Arabic, for which he had a guinea, and his subscriptions for teaching amounted to no more than 20 or 30l. a year. Unhappily for him, the branch of learning in which he excelled was cultivated but by few; and the reverend Mr. Gagnier, a Frenchman, skilled in the Oriental tongues, was in possession of all the favours the university could Bestow in this way, being recommended by the heads of colleges to instruct young gentlemen, and employed by the professors of these languages to read public lectures in their absence.

Mr. Wild’s person was thin and meagre, and his stature moderately tall. He had an extraordinary memory; and, as his pupils frequently invited him to spend an evening with them, he would often entertain them with long and curious details out of the Roman, Greek, and Arabic, histories. His morals were good; he was addicted to no vice, but was sober, temperate, modest, and diffident of himself, without the least tincture of vanity. About 1720 he removed to London, where he spent the remainder of his life under the patronage of Dr. Mead. When he died is not known, but in 1734, which is supposed to have been after his death, was published his translation from the Arabic of “Mahomet’s Journey to Heaven,” which is the only piece of his that was ever printed. The writer of his life informs us that it was once suspected that he was a Jesuit in disguise, but for this there appears to have been no foundation. Before he went to Oxford, we have the following notice respecting him in a letter from Dr. Turner to Dr. Charlett, dated Norwich, March 4, 1714. “A taylor of this town, of about thirty years of age, ha within seven years, mastered seven languages, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac, Arabic, and Persic. Mr. Professor Ockley being here since Christmas has examined him, and given him an ample testimonial in writing of his skill in the Oriental languages. Our dean also thinks him very extraordinary. But he is very poor, and his landlord lately seized a Polyglot Bible (which he had made shift to purchase) for rent. But there is care taken to clear his debts, and if a way could be thought of to make him more useful, I believe we could get a subscription towards part of his maintenance.” This we find by the above narrative was accordingly done.

, a nonconformist divine, poet, and wit, was born at St. Ives in Huntingdonshire in 1609, and was educated at the university of Cambridge. In 1642 he was created bachelor of divinity at Oxford, and, probably had the degree of doctor there also, as he was generally called Dr. Wild. In 1646 he was appointed rector of Aynho in Northamptonshire, in the room of Dr. Longman, ejected by the parliamentary visitors; and on this occasion Calamy’s editor gives us one of his witticisms. He and another divine had preached for the living, and Wild being asked whether he or his competitor had got it, he answered “We have divided it; I have got the Ay, and he the No.” Wood says he was “a fat, jolly, and boon presbyterian,” but Calamy asserts that those who knew him commended him not only for his facetiousness, but also his strict temperance and sobriety; and he was serious, where seriousness was wanted. He was ejected from Aynho at the restoration. He died at Oundle, in Northamptonshire in 1679, aged seventy. His works afford a curious mixture. 1. “The tragedy of Christopher Love at Tower-hill,” Lond. 1660, a poem in one sheet 4to. 2. “Iter Boreaie, attempting something upon the successful and matchless march of the L Gen. George Monk from Scotland to London,” ibid. 1660, 4to, in ridicule of the republican party. This was at that time a favourite subject, and Wood mentions three other Iter Borealt’s by Eades, Corbet, and Master. 3. “A poem on the imprisonment of Mr. Edmund Calamy in Newgate,” 1662, printed on a broad sheet, which produced two similar broadsheets in answer, the one “Antiboreale, an answer to a lewd piece of poetry upon Mr. Calamy, &c.” the other “Hudibras on Calamy’s imprisonment and Wild’s poetry.” These, with his Iter Boreaie, and other pieces of a similar cast and very indifferent poetry, but with occasional flashes of genuine humour, were published together in 1668 and 1670. Wood mentions “The Benefice, a comedy,” written in his younger years, but not printed till 1689. Wood adds, that there “had like to have been” a poetical war between Wild and Flaxman, but how it terminated he knows not. Wild had the misfortune to have some of his poems printed along with some of lord Rochester’s. He has a few serrrjons extant.

, an ingenious mathematician, was born in Nottinghamshire, and educated at the Blue Coat school of Nottingham. Of his early history we have little information, but it appears that he kept an academy at Bingham, in the above county, for some years, and afterwards was preferred to the living of Sulney, where he died at an advanced age, Oct. 30, 1802. In his latter days he had a remarkably strong and retentive memory, as a proof of which, he told a friend that he made a common practice of solving the most abstruse questions in the mathematics without ever committing a single figure, &c. to paper till finished and, upon its being observed how much pen and paper might assist him!" he replied, “I have to thank God for a most retentive memory and so long as it is enabled to exercise its functions, it shall not have any assistance from art.” When is mind was occupied in close study, he always walked to and fro in an obscure part of his garden, where he could neither see nor be seen of any one, and frequently paced, in this manner, several miles in a day.

Though so skilful in mathematics, he did not favour the world with any separate publication bearing his own name, and often used the signature of Eumenes; but he poured much light upon the regions of science through the medium of those periodical publications which are chietiy devoted to mathematical researches. He contributed a number of valuable articles to Martin’s “Miscellaneous Correspondence,” between the years 1755 and 1763, particularly an excellent paper, in which he made it his business to prove that the moon’s orbit was always concave, with respect to the sun He began his contributions to the “Gentleman’s Diary” in 1759, when that performance was conducted by Mr. T. Peat. In the same year he commenced his communications to the “Ladies’ Diary,” which was edited by professor Simpson, of Woolwich. In 1773 and 1774 hecarried on a spirited but amicable controversy, in Dr Hutton’s “Miscellanea Mathematica,” with Mr. John Dawson, of Sedbergh, a gentleman well known at Cambridge, and the tutor of many pupils who have been senior-wrangiers of that university. The subject of this controversy was “the velocity of water issuing from a vessel when put in motion.” In 1780 his friend Dr. Hutton procured for him the editorship of the “Gentleman’s Diary,” an honour which he had long wished to attain, and he was highly gratified by the circumstance. From that period his valuible communications to this publication always appeared under the character of Eumenes, and those in the Ladies’ Diary under that of Amicus. The prize-question in the Diary for 1803 is by Mr. Wildbore, and is a very curious and intricate question in the diophantine algebra.

At an early period of life he was a reviewer of the Philosophical Transactions, in which trust, as well as several others committed to his care and inspection, he so well acquitted himself, that he was solicited to become a member of the royal society; but this honour he very modestly declined, in a letter to the then president, remarking, amongst other things, “that his ambition had never led him to visit the metropolis; and if he accepted the honour of being one of that learned society, he should wish, not to be a passive, but an active member; to be which he supposed that it would be necessary for him to come forward in the world, which he had not the least inclination to do, preferring his village retirement infinitely beyond the `busy hum of men,‘ and to be styled `the humble village pastor,’ without the addition of the initials F. R. S.” He was intimately acquainted, by correspondence, with many learned men (for he scarcely ever saw any of them), particularly with Dr. Hutton, for whom he entertained a very high esteem.

, a lawyer, and a very prominent character during the usurpation, was the eldest son of a lawyer, as his father is said to have been serjeant George Wilde of Droitwich, in Worcestershire. He was of Baliol college, Oxford, and in 1610, when he took his degree of M. A. was a student in the Inner Temple. Of this society he became Lent reader 6 Car. I. afterwards a serjeant at law, one of the commissioners of the great seal in 1643, and in Oct. 1648, chief baron of the exchequer, and one of the council of state. In 1641 he drew up the impeachment against the bishops, and presented it to the House of Lords, and was prime manager not only in that, but on the trial of archbishop Laud. “He was the same also,” says Wood, “who, upon the command, or rather desire, of the great men sitting at Westminster, did condemn to death at Winchester one captain John Bucley, for causing a drum to be beat uf) for God and king Charles, at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, in order to rescue his captive king in 1647.” Wood adds, that after the execution of Burley, Wilde was rewarded with 1000l. out of the privy purse at Derby-house, and had the same sum for saving the life of major Edmund Rolph, who had a design to have murdered the king. When Oliver became protector “he retired and acted not,” but after Richard Cromwell had been deposed he was restored to the exchequer. On the restoration he was of course obliged to resign again, and lived in retirement at Hampstead, where he died about 1669, and was buried at VVherwill, in Hampshire, the seat of Charles lord Delawar, who had married his daughter. Wilde married Anne, daughter of sir Thomas Harry, of Tonge castle, serjeant at law and baronet, who died in. 1624, aged only sixteen, “being newly delivered of her first born.” She lies buried in Tonge church, in Staffordshire.

Such are the particulars Wood has given of this lawyer, and they are in general supported by Clarendon and other contemporary authorities, and attempted to be contradicted only by Oldmixou and Neal. Oldmixon’s evidence will not be thought to weigh much against Clarendon’s. Neal calls him "A great lawyer, and of unblemished morals; and after the restoration of king Charles II. was made lord chief baron, and esteemed a grave and venerable judge.' 7 But it is grossly improbable that such a man should have been thus promoted, and it is besides expressly contrary to fact, for sir Orlando Bridgeman was chief baron at the trial of the regicides, and was succeeded by judge Hale. It was the rump parliament only who bestowed the honour on Wilde.

Neal, perhaps, we know others have, confounded his favourite hero, serjeant Wilde, which was his only legitimate title, with sir William Wild, who was recorder of London in 1659, created a baronet Sept. 13, 1660, appointed king’s serjeant Nov. 10, 1661, and made one of the justices of the common pleas in 1668. He was advanced to be a justice of the court of king’s bench Jan. 21, 1672. In 1661 and 1674 he published “Yelverton’s Reports,” in French. He died Nov. 23, 1679, leaving issue sir Felix Wilde, of St. Clement Danes, in Middlesex, bart. The title is now extinct. Sir William Wilde was indeed “a grave and venerable judge,” and it must not be forgot to his honour, that, because he disbelieved the evidence of the perjured Bedloe, in the popish plot, he was deprived of his office a few months before his death.

, a very singular political character in the early part of the present reign, was born Oct 17. 1727, O. S. in St. John’s street, Clerkenwell, where his father, Nathaniel, carried on in a very extensive way the trade of a distiller, and lived in the true style of ancient English hospitality, to which both he and his lady were always particularly attentive. Their house was consequently much frequented, particularly by many characters of distinguished rank in the commercial and literary world. It was in such society that their son John imbibed that taste for letters which he continued to cultivate through life. His education, therefore, though liberal, was domestic; and, though not severe, yet sufficiently sober. His philosophy (thai uf enjoying the world, and passing laughingly through it) was all his own, and adopted in compliance with his view of human nature. And this he was himseJf very willing to have believed. His parents (one of them at least) were not of the church of England; and Mr. Wilkes having passed his school years partly at Hertford, and partly in Buckinghamshire, was sent, not to either of our English universities, but with a private tutor, to the university of Leyden, where his talents attracted much notice.

In 1749 he married Miss Mead, heiress of the Meads of Buckinghamshire, from which marriage probably originated his connection with that county. This lady was about ten years older than himself, that is, about thirtytwo. Their dispositions, we are told, were perfectly dissimilar, yet he treated her for a time with decent respect. Afterwards he became quite alienated from her, and a final separation took place in 1757. So depraved were his morals, and so destitute was he of a sense of honour, that amidst the distresses which his loose pleasures brought upon him, he endeavoured to defraud this lady of the annuity stipulated in the articles of separation; but this was prevented by a law-suit. In April 1754-, he offered himself as a candidate to represent in parliament the borough of Berwick, and addressed the electors in terms not ill according with that political spirit which afterwards marked his public conduct. He was not, however, successful, but in July 1757, was elected burgess for Aylesbury, and was again chosen at the general election in 1761 for the same place. Before this period he had formed connections with various inen of rank, but not of the purest character for morals, who seem to have admitted him into their society as a companion who was not likely to lay them under any restraint. He had, however, formed some connections of a better stamp. It appears that as early as 1754 he was known to lord Temple, and to Mr. Pitt, afterwards lord Chatham.

In 1762 he began to engage in political discussion. In March of that year he published “Observations on the papers relative to the rupture with Spain, laid before both houses of parliament on Friday, Jan. 29, 1762.” As much of his information on this subject was supplied by lord Temple (who, with Mr. Pitt, had retired from the cabinet in consequence of a negative being put upon their proposition for an immediate war with Spain) the success of this pamphlet is little to be wondered at. As he did not put his name to it, it was ascribed to Dr. Douglas, or Mr. Manduit, by the sly suggestions of the real author. In the beginning of June following he commenced his celebrated paper called “The North Briton.” The purpose of this was ostensibly to expose the errors of the then ministry, and hold them up to public contempt, but really, to give the author that sort of consequence that might lead to advantages which his extravagant mode of living had by this time rendered necessary. We have his own word that he had determined to take advantage of the times and to make his fortune, and that he soon formed an idea of what would silence and satisfy him. “If government,” says he, “means peace or friendship with me, I then breathe no longer hostility. And, between ourselves, if they would send me ambassador to Constantinople, it is all I should wish.” Again, “It depends on them (the ministry) whether Mr. Wilkes is their friend or their enemy It he starts as the latter, he will lash them with scorpions, and they <ire already prepared; I wih, however, we may be friends; and I had rattier follow the plan I had marked out in my letter from Geneva/' alluding to the embassy to Constantinople. In a subsequent letter he says,” If the ministers do not find employment for me, I am disposed 10 find employment for them." In these extracts we have anticipated the order of time, for they were written in 1764, when he was an exile, but they are necessarily introduced here to unfold the real character of Mr. Wilkes, and to determine to what species of patriots he belonged. We see nt the same time here how very near the most popular character of the age was to dropping into comparative obscurity, and at what a cheap rate the ministry might have averted the hostility of Wilkes, and all its consequences, which we have always considered as more hurtful than beneficial to his country.

In the mean time he went on publishing his “North Britons,” which, although written in an acute and popular style, and unquestionablv very galling to ministers, had not produced any great commotion, nor seemed likely to answer the authors purpose. Ministerial writers were employed to write against him, and in this way a literary warfare might have gone on for years, without any of the consequences he expected. One duel, indeed, he had with lord Talbot, but neither party was hurt, and Wiikes was not benefited. At length, therefore, he began to think he had been too tame, or that ministers were become too callous, and with a view to a provocation, which could not fail to irritate, he made a rude attack on his majesty in No. 45 of the “North Briton,” which appeared on the 23d of April 1763, and on the morning of the 30th Mr. Wilkes was served by a king’s messenger with a general warrant, in consequence of which he was on the same morning conveyed to the Tower. That “a warrant to apprehend and seize, together, with their papers, the authors, printers, and publishers of a work,” without naming who those authors, printers, and publishers were even suspected to be, has an appearance of illegality, cannot be denied. But in justice to the secretaries of state who signed it, it should be remembered, that for a hundred years the practice of their office had been to issue such; and that in so doing they did no more than what precedents seemed to justify. That they did not, however, in this case, act wisely the event shewed. Upon his commitment to the Tower, an application was instantly made to the court of common pleas for his habeas corpus, and he was brought up on the 3d of May. On the 4th he was dismissed from his situation as colonel of the Buckinghamshire militia. On the 6th the validity of his warrant of commitment was argued, his plea of privilege was allowed, and he was in consequence discharged. He immediately erected a printing-press in his house in George-street, published a narrative of the transactions in which he' had been engaged, and renewed the publication of the “North Briton.” He visited Paris a few months after, and was there challenged, in the month of August, by a captain Forbes, who, standing forth as the champion of Scotland, asked satisfaction of him, as the editor and conductor of the “North Briton,” for the calumnies heaped upon his native country. Mr. Wilkes behaved on this occasion with much moderation, and declared himself no prize-fighter. Being again urged, however, though in terms of politeness, he half complied, but being in the mean while put under an arrest, he pledged his honour not to fight on French ground. When set at liberty he proceeded to Menin, and there awaited his challenger, but no meeting took place.

The winter now advancing, Mr. Wilkes returned to England, previous to the opening of parliament, and resumed his labours in the “North Briton,” which soon after involved him in another duel with Mr. Martin, member for Camelford, and late secretary to the treasury. In this Wilkes received a dangerous wound in the groin; but appeared in parliament on the first day of the session, and had risen to address the chair of the speaker on the subject of his privilege, as a member of that house, having been violated. It had usually been considered as the established custom of parliament to enter upon the discussion of breaches of privileges before all other matters, In this instance the custom was overruled, and a message from the sovereign was conveyed to the commons, informing them, that J. Wilkes, esq. was the author of a most seditious and dangerous paper, and acquainting them with the measures which had been resorted to by the servants of the crown. The house, the proofs of the libel being entered upon, proceeded to vote, that No. 45 of the “North Britain” was, as it had been represented to be, a false, scandalous, and malicious libel, &c: and it was ordered to be burnt by the common hangman. A day having been appointed for the hearing of Mr. Wilkes’s defence against the charge of being the author of the libel, he thought it proper to acquaint the hoase of the incapacity occasioned by his wound, and further time was in consequence allowed him. The house, however, suspecting some unnecessary delay, appointed Dr. Heberden and Mr. Hawkins to attend him, in addition to his own physician and surgeon; and further, ordered them to report the state of his health. Mr. Wilkes politely rejected the offer of their visit. The house, he said, had desired them to visit him, but had forgotten to desire him to receive them, which he most certainly should not. At the same time, in vindication of the professional gentlemen whom he himself had employed, he sent for Dr. Duncan, one of his majesty’s physicians in ordinary, and Mr. Myddleton, one of his majesty’s serjeant-surgeons, humorously telling them, that as the House of Commons thought it fit that he should be watched, he himself thought two Scotchmen most proper for his spies. About a week after he suddenly withdrew to France; a retreat which prudence rendered very necessary, his circumstances being very much involved.

From Paris, where he sought an asylum, he certified to the speaker of the House of Commons, by the signatures of the physician of the king of France, and other gentlemen, his confinement to his room, and the impossibility, from his state of health, of his venturing to undertake the journey back to England. In the mean time, although the House of Commons had neglected his complaint of privilege, he derived his first considerable triumph from the verdict found for him in the court of common pleas. He had early brought his action against Robert Wood, esq. the under secretary of state, for the seizure of his papers, as the supposed author of the “North Briton.” It was tried before a special jury on the 6th of December, and 1000l. danlages were given. The charge to the jury, delivered by lord chief justice Pratt, concluded thus: “This warrant is unconstitutional, illegal, and absolutely void; it is a general warrant, directed to four messengers, to take up any persons, without naming or describing them with any certainty, and to apprehend them together with their papers. If it be good, a secretary of state can delegate and depute any of the messengers, or any even from the lowest of the people, to take examinations, to commit, or to release, and do every act which the highest judicial officers the law knows, can do or order. There is no order in our law-books that mentions these kinds of warrants, but several that in express words condemn them. Upon the maturest consideration, I am bold to say, that this warrant is illegal; but I am far from wishing a matter of this consequence to rest solely on my opinion; I am only one of twelve, whose opinions I am desirous should be taken in this matter, and I am very willing to allow myself to be the meanest of the twelve. There is also a still higher court, before which this matter may be canvassed, and whose determination is final; and here I cannot help observing the happiness of our constitution in adiiiitting these appeals, in consequence of which, material points are determined on the most mature consideration, and with the greatest solemnity. To this admirable delay or the law (for in this case the law’s delay may be styled admirable) I believe it is chiefly owing that we possess the best digested, and most excellent body of law which any nation on the face of the globe, whether ancient or modern, could ever boast. If these higher jurisdictions should declare my op-nion erroneous, I submit, as will become me, and kiss the rod; but I must say, I shall always consider it as a rod of iron for the chastisement of the people of Great Britain.”

We have already mentioned in our account of lord Camden how very popular this decision made him throughout the kingdom, and the same enthusiasm made it be considered as a complete triumph on the part of Mr. Wilkes, who, however, perhaps, thought differently of it, conscious that he had other battles to fight in which he might not be so ably supported. On Jan. liJ, 1764, he was expelled from the House of Commons; and on Feb. 21 was convicted in the court of King’s Bench for re- publishing the 46 North Briton, No. 45,“and also upon a second indictment, for printing and publishing an <; Essay on Woman.” This was an obscene poem which he printed at his private press, but can scarcely be said to have published it, as he printed only a very small number of copies (about twelve) to give away to certain friends. The great offence was (and this was complained of in the House of Lords), that he had annexed the name of bishop Warburton to this infamous poem, and it was hoped, by the ministry, that holding Mr. Wilkes forth as a profligate, might cure the public of that dangerous and overpowering popularity they were about to honour him with. But this was another of their erroneous calculations.- The populace at this time, at least the populace of London, were more anxious about general warrants, which might affect one in ten thousand, than about morals, which are the concern of all; and even some of the better sort could see no immediate connection between Wilkes’s moral and political offences.

In the mean time being found guilty on both informalions, and neglecting to make any personal appearance, when called upon to receive the judgment of the court of King’s Bench, he Was, towards the close of the year, outlawed. He had again repaired to France, whence he addressed a letter, in defence of his conduct, to the electors of Aylesbury, which, like all his publications, was read with much avidity. It was in this year (1764), and when at Paris, that he addressed those letters to his friends, of which we have already given extracts, to prove that, whatever his popularity, he had no very high expectations from it, and had sense. enough to perceive that his deranged circumstances could be restored only by making peace with administration. His terms, we have seen, were not exorbitant, and might probably have been agreed to, had they been known, which it is doubtful whether they were.

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

No attention was paid to this petition, and probably he had no great reliance on it, but as he had so long been the idol of the people of London, on the 16th of the same month, he offered himself a candidate to represent the city of London. In this he did not succeed, although at the close of the poll on the 23d he was found to have polled 1247 votes. Not disheartened at this failure, he immediately declared his intention of becoming a candidate for the county of Middlesex, and on the 28th was chosen by a vast majority. On the 27th of April he was taken up on a capias utlagatum, and committed to the King’s Bench, and on the 18th of June was sentenced, on the two verdicts against him, to be imprisoned twenty- two months, to pay two fines of 500l. each, and to give security for his good behaviour for seven years, himself in 1000l. and two sureties in 500l. each. This judgment was far milder than had been expected by the public, and it is said that Mr. Wilkes might have made his peace with government at this time, but one condition was proposed to him in which he could not concur, namely, not to present a petition relative to his case, which he had told the freeholders of Middlesex he should present. He conceived that a public pledge had been given to the contrary, and from this public pledge he resolved not to withdraw. The petition was accordingly laid before the House on the following day by sir J. Mawbey, and was received as the declaration of a second war.

On the 10th of May, 1768, the populace had assembled in great numbers about the neighbourhood of the King’s Bench prison, where Mr. Wilkes was in confinement. The riot-act was read by the justices of Surrey, and the mob not dispersing, the military was ordered to fire: several persons were slightly wounded, some more seriously, and one was killed on the spot. Lord Weymouth, the secretary of state, had written to the magistrates a letter dated April 17, exhorting them to firmness in the suppression of any popular tumult which might arise: and lord Barrington, the secretary at war, returned thanks, after the 10th of May, in the name of his majesty, to the officers and soldiers of that regiment of guards, which had been employed upon the occasion. These two letters were transmitted to the newspapers by Mr. Wilkes, accompanied with some prefatory remarks, in which he termed the unhappy transaction a massacre. Of these remarks he avowed himself, at the bar of the House of Commons, to be the author. The remarks were voted libellous, and he, as the author of them, was expelled but his conduct appearing? still more meritorious in the eyes of his constituents, hewas re-chosen on the 16th of February, 1769, without opposition. On the following day he was declared by a majority of the House of Commons incapable of being electee! into that parliament, and the election was vacated, upotv the principle that the expulsion of a- member of parliament was equivalent to exclusion but notwithstanding this resolution, he was a third time elected, again without opposition; a Mr. Dingley indeed offering himself as a candidate, but without the least success. In April, Wilkes was elected a fourth time by a majority of 1143 votes against "Mr. Luttrell, a new candidate who had only 296. and the same day the House of Commons confirmed Mr. Luttrell’s election. These proceedings were not carried on, however, without long discussions in the fiouse, and a warm controversy from the press, in which many eminent writers took a part.

In the mean time, Wilkes, now within the walls of the King’s Bench, was approaching nearer to those substantial rewards which he valued more than the erapty noise of a triumph. From the time of his first election for Middlesex in March 1768,. through the whole of 1769, and even far into 1772, he was the sole unrivalled political idol of the people, who lavished upon him all in their power to bestow, as if willing, to prove that in England it was possible for an individual to be great and important through them alone. A subscription was opened for the payment of his debts, and 20,000l. are said in a few weeks to have been raised for that purpose, and for the discharging his fine. A newly established society for the support of the “Bill of Bights” presented him with 300l. Gifts of plate, of wine, of household goods, were daily heaped upon him. An unknown patriot conveyed to him in a handsomely embroidered purse five hundred guineas. An honest chandler enriched him with a box containing of candles, the magic number of dozens, forty-five. High and low contended with each other who most should serve and celebrate him. Devices aod emblems of all descriptions ornamented the trinkets conveyed to his prison: the most usual was the cap of liberty placed over his crest: upon others was a bird with expanded wings, hovering over a cage, beneath a motto, “I love liberty.” Every wall bore his name, and very window his portrait. In china, in bronze, in marble, he stood upon the chimney-piece of half the houses in the metropolis: and he swung upon the sign-post of every village, and of every great road throughout the environs of London.

In November 1769, he brought his action, which had been prevented by his absence abroad, against lord Halifax, for false imprisonment, and the seizure of his papers, and obtained a verdict of 4000l. On the 17th of April, 1770, he was discharged from his imprisonment. On the 24th he was sworn as alderman of the ward of Farringdori Without. It was, however, soon discovered that there was a difference of opinion in many points between him and several of his former friends. Early in 1771 a rupture between him and Mr. Home (afterwards Home Tooke) produced hostilities in the newspapers, and both parties exerted their abilities in abusing each other with much acrimony, to the great entertainment of the public, though., little to their own credit. After some time it was fotind that the world was perverse enough to believe both the gentlemen in their unfavourable representation of each other. Mr. Wilkes soon saw this effect of the controversy, and wisely withdrew from it on being chosen sheriff on the 3d of July, 1771. His antagonist also, being left to himself without an opponent, and feeling the disgrace which he had brought on himself, also prudently and silently quitted the field, discomfited and disappointed.

On the 8th of October, 1772, Mr. Wilkes was by the livery elected one of the persons to be selected for lord mayor, but was not chosen by the court of aldermen; and the same circumstance happened the succeeding year. On the third year (1774) he was again elected in the same manner, and approved by the court of aldermen. On the 20th of October he was again elected member for the county of Middlesex, and was permitted to take his seat without molestation. The popularity which he had hitherto enjoyed was now to suffer some diminution. In the beginning of 1776 sir Stephen Theodore Jaosseii resigned the office of chamberlain, and Mr. Wilkes was a candidate to succeed him; when, notwithstanding every exertion in his favour, and every art employed, he lost his election, and Mr. alderman Hopkins was chosen, by a majority of 177. He made another effort in the succeeding year with equal ill success; and on a third attempt in 1778, was again rejected, having only 287 votes against 1216. His situation at this time was truly melancholy: his interest in the city appeared to be lost; a motion to pay his debts had been rejected in the common council; he was involved in difficulties of various kinds; his creditors were clamorous; and such of his property which could be ascertained, and amongst the rest his books, had been taken in execution: those who formerly supported him were become cold to his solicitations, and languid in their exertions, and the clouds of adversity seemed to gather round him on every side, without a ray of light to cheer him. While in this forlorn state, Mr. Hopkins died in 1779, and Mr. Wilkes at length obtained an establishment, which, profiting by experience, rendered the remainder of his life easy and comfortable. On the 1st of December he was chosen chamberlain, by a majority of 1972 votes, and continued to fill the office with credit to himself, and to the satisfaction of his constituents, during the rest of his life, in spite of some feeble attempts at opposition to him.

In 1782, upon the dismission from office of the ministers who conducted the war against America, the obnoxious resolutions against him were, at length, upon his own motion, expunged from the journals. This was the crown of those political labours, which more immediately concerned his own personal actions. He thenceforward deemed himself “a fire burnt out.” His popularity was fast decaying, and although he took the popular side in the contest betwixt Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox in 1783, and thereby secured his election in 1784, he did not venture to be acandidate in the general election of 1790. That he was pretty well tired of “his followers,” appears from a short letter to his daughter, written in 1784, in which he says, “yesterday was saered to the powers of dullness, and the anniversary meeting of the Quintuple Alliance when I was obliged to eat stale fish, and swallow sour port, with sir Cecil Wray, Mr. Martin the banker, Dr. Jebb, &c. to promote the grand reform of parliament. I was forced inta the chair, and was so far happy as to be highly applauded, both for a long speech, and my conduct as president through an arduous day. I have not, however, authenticated to the public any account of the day’s proceeding, nor given to the press the various new-fangled toasts which were the amusement of the hour, and should perish with it.” This insincerity he was at no pains to disguise, and after he had obtained his wishes as to situation, he appeared always sufficiently candid in ridiculing the persons who had brought him to it.

Though now far advanced in years, he shewed no decay of intellect. His short congratulatory addresses spoken as chamberlain to those public characters, who received between 1790 and 1797 the freedom of the city, were his last public exertions. He died Dec. 26, 1797, aged seventy, at his house in Grosvenor-square; and his remains were interred in a vault in Grosvenor chapel, South Audley-street, according to the directions of his will, being near to where he died. A hearse and three mourning-coaches, and Miss Wilkes’ s coach, formed the cavalcade; and eight labouring men, dressed in new black cloaths, bore the deceased to the place of interment, for which each man received a guinea besides the suit of cloaths. He has also directed a tablet to be placed to his memory, with these few lines

Wilkes was perhaps the most popular political character that ever had been known, or perhaps will ever be known again, for, by imposing on the credulity, he has added to the experience of mankind, and it will be difficult, although we have seen it tried, for any other pretender to imitate Wilkes with equal effect. At one period of his life, he obtained a very dangerous influence over the minds of the people; his name was sufficient to blow up the flames of sedition, and excite the lower orders of the community to acts of violence against his opponents in a manner something allied to madness. After great vicissitudes of fortune, he found himself placed in a state of independence and affluence; gradually declined from the popularity he had acquired, and at last terminated a turbulent life in a state of neglected quiet. Reviewing the present state of the country, and comparing it with that in which he began his exertions, though some advantages may be placed to his account, we hesitate in giving him credit for those beneficial consequences which his admirers are apt to ascribe to him. We believe he was a patriot chiefly from accident, a successful one it must be owned, but not originating in principle. This was thought even in his life-time, but it has been amply confirmed by two publications which have since appeared; the one “Letters from the year 1774 to the year 1796 of John Wilkes, esq. addressed to his daughter,” 1804, 4 vols. 12mo, with a well-written memoir of his life, of which we have occasionally availed ourselves; the second, “The Correspondence of John Wilkes, esq. with his friends, printed from the original manuscripts, in which are introduced Memoirs of his Life, by John Almon,” 1805, 5 vols. 8vo, a publication in which Mr. Almon is the greatest admirer and the greatest enemy to Mr. Wilkes’s character he ever had.

Of Wilkes’s private character, blackened, with no sparing hand, in the latter of these publications, there are parts which always conciliated esteem. He was a gentleman of elegant manners, of fine taste, and of pleasing conversation. Amidst all the vicissitudes of his life, he spared some hours for the cultivation of classical learning, and in 1790, paid his worthy deputy (of the ward) John Nichols, esq. whom he highly and deservedly esteemed, the compliment of publishing from his press, for the use only of particular friends, splendid editions of the characters of Theophrastus andthepoemsofCatullus; and hehad also made considerable progress in a translation of Anacreon. His own letters and speeches were collected in 1769, 3 vols. 12mo, his speeches, by himself, in 1787, J vol. 8vo, to which, in 1788, he added a single speech in defence of his excellent friend, Mr. Hastings on which he justly prided himself; it being, perhaps, the ablest exculpation of that gentleman which has appeared in print. Many other of his occasional effusions are scattered through the newspapers and magazines of the day, and the principal have been reprinted in Mr. Almon’s book.

, an English antiquary and physician, was the eldest son of Mr. Richard Wilkes, of Willenhall, in the county of Stafford, a gentleman who lived upon his own estate, and where his ancestors had been seated since the time of Edward IV. His mother was Lucretia, youngest daughter of Jojias Asteley, of Woodeaton, in Staffordshire, an ancient and respectable family. He was born March 16, 1690-91, and had his school-education at Trentham. He was entered of St. John’s college, Cambridge, March 13, 1709- 10, and was admitted scholar in 1710. On April 6, 1711, he attended Mr. Saunderson’s mathematical lectures, aud ever after continued a particular friendship with that gentleman. In the preface to “Saunderson’s Elements of Algebra,” the reader is told, that whatever materials had been got together for publishing Saunderson’s life, had been received, among other gentlemen, from Mr. Richard Wilkes. He took the degree of B.A. January 1713-14; and was chosen fellow Jan. 21, 1716-17; and April 11, 1716, was admitted into lady Sadler’s Algetra Lecture, and took the degree of M. A. at the commencement of 1717; also July 4, 1718, he was chosen Linacre Lecturer. It does not appear that he ever took any degrees in medicine. He seems to have taken pupils and taught mathematics in the college from 1715 till tfet time thathe left it. It is not known when he took deacon’s orders, but a relation of his remembered his having preached at Wolverhampton. He also preached some time at Stow, near Chartley. The disgust he took to the ministry has been imputed to his being disappointed in the hope of preferment in the church, and he thought he could make his talents turn to better account, and accordingly began to practise physic at Wolverhampton, Feb. 1720, and became veryeminent in his profession. On the 24th June 1,725, he married Miss Rachel Manlove, of Lee’s-hill, near Abbots Bromley in Staffordshire, with whom he had a handsome fortune, and from that time he dwelt with his father at Willenhall. In the beginning of 1747 he had a severe fit of illness, during which, among other employments, he composed a whimsical epitaph on himself, which may be seen in Shaw’s History of Staffordshire. His wife dying in May 1756, he afterwards married in October the same year, Mrs. Frances Bendish (sister to the late Rev. sir Richard Wrottesley, of WYottesley, bart.) who died Dec. 24, 1798, at Froxfield, Hampshire, at a very advanced age. Dr. Wilkes died March 6, 1760, of the gout in his stomach, greatly lamented by his tenants, to whom he had been an indulgent landlord, and by the poor to whom he had been a kind and liberal physician and friend.

He published an excellent “Treatise on the Dropsy,” and during the time that the distemper raged in Staffordshire among the horned cattle, he published a pamphlet, entitled “A Letter to the Gentlemen, Farmers, and Graziers, in the county of Stafford,” calculated to prevent, or cure that terrible plague. Among other things, he meditated a new edition of Hudibras, with notes, &c. As an antiquary he is principally known by his valuable collections for the history of Staffordshire. His chef-d'oeuvre, says Mr Shaw, is a general history from the earliest and most obscure ages to his own times, drawn up with great skill and erudition, which Mr. Shaw has made the basis of his own introduction. This, with his other manuscripts, were long supposed to have been lost, and were not indeed brought to light until 1792, when they fell into the hands of Mr. Shaw, who has incorporated them in his valuable history.

, a Scotch poet of some fame in his day, was born in the parish of Dalmeny, in the county of West Lothian, Oct. 5, 1721. His father, although a small farmer, and poor and unfortunate, endeavoured to give him a liberal education, which he appears to have improved by diligence. At the age of thirteen, he was sent to the university of Edinburgh, where he made a rapid progress in learning, but before he completed his academical course, tois father died, leaving him no other inheritance than his small farm, and the care of three sisters. Necessity thus turned his attention to the study of agriculture, which he cultivated with sc- much success, although upon a confined scale, that he acquired a solid reputation as a practical farmer, and was enabled to provide for himself and his sisters. He still, however, prosecuted his studies, and at the accustomed period was admitted a preacher in the church of Scotland.

For some years this made no alteration in his mode of life; and as a clergyman he only occasionally assisted in some neighbouring churches, while he devoted his principal time to his farm and his studies. He appears to have been early ambitious of the character of a poet, and having read Homer, as Don Quixote read romances, he determined to sally forth as his rival, or continuator; and this enthusiasm produced “The Epigoniad,” published in 1753. Ou this poem he is said to have employed fourteen years, which ill agrees with what his biographers tell us of his propensity to poetry, and the original vigour of his mind; for after so much labour it appeared with all the imperfections of a rough sketch. Its reception by the English public was not very flattering, but in his own country “The Epigoniad” succeeded so well, that a second edition was called for in 1759, to which he added a dream in the manner of Spenser. Yet, as this edition was slowly called for, an extraordinary appeal from the general opinion was made by the celebrated Hume, who wrote a very long encomium on the “Epigoniad,” addressed to the editor of the Critical Review. This has been inserted in the late edition of the “English. Poets,” and those who knew Mr. Hume’s taste, friendship, or sincerity, will be best able to determine whether he is serious.

A few years before the publication of the first edition, Wilkie was ordained minister of Ratho, and in 1759 was chosen professor of natural philosophy in the university of St. Andrew’s. In 1766 the university conferred upon bim the degree of doctor in divinity. In 1768, he published his “Fables,” which had less success than even his “Epigoniad,” although they are rather happy imitations of the manner of Gay, and the thoughts, if not always original, are yet sprightly and just. After a lingering illness, he died Oct. 10, 1772. The private character of Dr. Wilkie appears to have been distinguished for those singularities, which are sometimes found in men of genius, either from early unrestrained indulgence, or from affectation. His biographers have multiplied instances of his slovenly and disgusting manners, exceeding what we have almost ever heard of; yet we are told he preserved the respect of his contemporaries and scholars. His learning, according to every account, xvas extensive, and much of it acquired at a very early age.

, a learned divine and editor, was born in 1685, but when, or where educated we are not told. His name does not appear among the graduates of either university, except that among those of Cambridge, we find he was honoured with the degree of D.D. in 1717. Two years before this, he was appointed by archbishop Wake te succeed Dr. Benjamin Abbot, as keeper of the archiepiscopal library at Lambeth and in three years drew up a very curious catalogue of all the Mss. and printed books in that valuable collection. As a reward for his industry and learning, archbishop Wake collated him to the rectory of Mongham-Parva, in Kent, in April 1716, to that of Great Chart in 1719, and to the rectory of Hadleigh in the same year. He was also constituted chaplain to the archbishop and collated to the rectories of Monks-Ely and Bocking; appointed commissary of the deanery of Bocking, jointly and severally with W. Beauvoir; collated to a prebend of Canterbury in 1720, and collated to his grace’s option of the archdeaconry of Suffolk in May 1724. In consequence of these last preferments, he resigned the former, and was only archdeacon of Suffolk and rector of Hadleigh and Monks-Ely at his death, which happened 8ept. 6, 1745, in the sixtieth year of his age. He married, Nov. 27, 1725, the eldest daughter of Thomas lard Fairfax of Scotland, a lady who survived him, and erected a monument to his memory at Hadleigh.

Dr. Wilkins’s publications were, 1, “Novum Testamenturn Copticum,” Oxon. 1716, 4to. 2. A fine edition, with additions, of the “Leges Saxonicae,” Lond. 1721, fol.; 3. An edition of “Selden’s. works,” begun in 1722, and finished in 1726, very highly to the credit of Dr.Wilkins, as well as of his learned printer, Bowyer, Lond. 3 vols. folio. This work was published by subscription, in a manner that would now be thought singular. The small paper copies were paid for at the rate of two-pence a sheet, which amounted to 6l. 145. the large paper at three-pence a sheet, amounting to lOl. 2s. 4. “Concilia Magnse Britanniæ,” 1736, 4 vols, fol. Besides these he wrote the preface on the literary history of Britain, which is prefixed to bishop Tanner’s “Bibliotheca.”

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

Wilkins had two characteristics, neither of which was calculated to make him generally admired: first, he avowed moderation, and was kindly affected towards dissenters, for a comprehension of whom he openly and earnestly contended: secondly, he thought 'it right and reasonable to submit to the powers in being, be those powers who they would, or let them be established how they would. And this making him as ready to swear allegiance to Charles II. after he was restored to the crown, as to the usurpers, while they prevailed, he was charged with being various and unsteady in his principles; with having no principles at all, with Hobbism, and every thing that is bad. Yet the greatest and best qualities are ascribed to him, if not unanimously, at least by many eminent and good men. Dr. Tillotson, in the preface to some “Sermons of Bishop Wilkins,” published by him in 1682, animadverts upon a slight and unjust character, as he thinks it is, given of the bishop in Mr. Wood’s “Historia & Antiquitates Universitatis Oxoniensis;” “whether by the author,” says he, “or by some other hand, I am not curious to know:” and concludes his animadversions in the following words: “Upon the whole, it hath often been no small matter of wonder to me, whence it should come to pass, that so great a man, and so great a lover of mankind, who was so highly valued and reverenced by all that knew him, should yet have the hard fate to fall under the heavy displeasure and censur6 of those who knew him not; and that he, who never did any thing to make himself one personal enemy, should have the ill fortune to have so many. I think I may truly say, that there are or have been very few in this age and nation so well known, and so greatly esteemed and favoured, by so many persons of high rank and quality, and of singular worth and eminence in all the learned professions, as our author was. And this surely cannot be denied him, it is so well known to many worthy persons yet living, and hath been so often acknowledged even by his enemies, that, in the late times of confusion, almost all that was preserved and kept up, of ingenuity and good learning, of good order and government in the university of Oxford, was chiefly owing to his prudent conduct and encouragement: which consideration alone, had there been no other, might bave prevailed with some there to have treated his memory with at least common kindness and respect.” The other hand, Dr. Tillotson mentions, was Dr. Fell, the dean of Christ church, and under whose inspection Wood’s Athenæ Oxonienses“was translated into Latin and who, among other alterations without the privity of that compiler, was supposed to insert the poor diminishing character of bishop Wilkins, to be found in the Latin version. The friendship which subsisted between our author and Dr. Tillotson is a proof of their mutual moderation, for Wilkins was in doctrine a strict and professed Calvinism We need quote no more to prove this, than what has been already quoted by Dr. Edwards in his” Veritas Redux,“p. 553.” God might (says Dr. Wilkins) have designed us for vessels of wrath; and then we had been eternally undone, without all possible remedy. There was nothing to move him in us, when we lay all together in the general heap of mankind. It was his own free grace and bounty, that madehim to take delight in us, to chuse us from the rest, and to sever us from those many thousands in the world who shall perish everlastingly.“Gift of Prayer, c, 28. In his” Ecclesiastes,“section 3, he commends to a preacher, for his best authors, Calvin, Jiuiius, P. Martyr. Musculus, Pargeus, Piscator, Rivet, Zanchius, &c. 9” most eminent for their orthodox sound judgement.“Burnet, in his Life of Sir Matthew Hale, printed irt 1682, declares of Wilkins, that” he was a man of as great a mind, as true a judgement, as eminent virtues, and of as good a soul, as any he ever knew “and in his” History“he says, that, though” he married Cromwell’s sister, yet he made no other use of that alliance but to do good offices, and to cover the university of Oxford from the sourness of Owen and Goodwin. At Cambridge he joined with those who studied to propagate better thoughts, to take men off from being in parties, or from narrow notions, from superstitious conceits, and fierceness about opinions. He was also a great observer and promoter of experimental philosophy, which was then a new thing, and much looked after. He was naturally ambitious, but was the wisest clergyman I ever knew. He was a lover of mankind, and had a delight in doing good.“The historian mentions afterwards another quality Wilkins possessed in a supreme degree; and that was, says he,” a courage, which could stand against a current, and against all the reproaches with which ill-natured clergymen studied to load him."

All the works of bishop Wilkins are esteemed ingenious and learned, and many of them particularly curious and entertaining. His first publication was in 1638, when he was only twenty-four years of age, of a piece, entitled “The Discovery of a new World or, a Discourse tending to prove, that it is probable there may be another habitable World in the Moon with a Discourse concerning the possibility of a passage thither,” in 8vo. The object of this singular work may appear from the fourteen propositions which he endeavours to establish, some of which have often been quoted in jest or earnest by subsequent wits or philosophers. He contends, I. That the strangeness of this opinion is no sufficient reason why it should be rejected, because other certain truths have been formerly esteemed ridiculous, and great absurdities entertained by common consent. II. That a plurality of worlds does not contradict any principle of reason or faith. III. That the heavens do not consist of any such pure matter, which can privilege them from the like change and corruption, as these inferior bodies are liable unto. IV. That the moon is a solid compacted opacous body. V. That the moon hath not any light of her own. VI. That there is a world in the moon, hath been the direct opinion of many ancient, with some modern mathematicians, and may probably be deduced from the tenets of others. VII. That those spots and brighter parts, which by our sight may be distinguished hi the moon, do shew the difference betwixt the sea and land in that other world. VIII. That the spots represent the sea, and the brighter parts the land. IX. That there are high mountain^ deep vallies, and spacious plains in the body of the moon. X. That there is an atmosphere, or an orb of gross vaporous air immediately encompassing the body of the moon. XI. That as their world is otv moon, so our world is their moan. XII. That it is probable there may be such meteors belonging to that world in the moon as there are with us. XIII. That it is probable there may be inhabitants in this other world; but of what kind they are, is uncertain. XIV. That it is possible for some of our posterity to find out a conveyance to this’Other world; and if there be inhabitants there, to have. commerce with them. Under this head he observes, that " if it be here inquired, what means there may be conjectured for our ascending beyond the sphere of the earth’s magnetical vigour; I answer, says he, 1. it is not perhaps impossible, that a man may be able to rlye by the application of wings to his owne body; as angels are pictured, and as Mercury and Daedalus are fained, and as hath been attempted by divers, particularly by a Turke in Constantinople, as Busbequius relates. 2. If there be such a great Ruck in Madagascar, as Marcus Polus the Venetian mentions, the feathers in whose wings are twelve foot long, which can scope up a horse and his rider, or an elephant, as our kites doe a mouse; why then it is but teaching one of these to carry a man, and he may ride up thither, as Ganyined does upon an eagle, 3. Or if neither of these ways will serve, yet I doe seriously and upon good grounds affirme it possible to make a flying chariot; in which a man may sit, and give such a motion into it, as shall convey him through the aire. And this perhaps might be made large enough to carry divers men at the same time, together with foode for their viaticum, and commodities for traffique. It is not the bignesse of any thing in this kind, that can hinder its motion, if the motive faculty be answerable thereunto. We see a great ship swimme as well as ar small corke, and an eagle flies in the aire as well as a little gnat. This engine may be contrived from the same principles by which Archytas made a wooden dove, and Regiomontanus a wooden eagle. I conceive it were no difficult matter, if a man had leisure, to shew more particularly the meanes of composing it. The perfecting of such an invention would be of such excellent use, that it were enough, not only to make a man, but the age also wherein he lives. For besides the strange discoveries, that it might occasion in this other world, it would be also of inconceivable advantage for travelling above any other conveiance that is now in use. So that notwithstanding all these seeming impossibilities, 'tis likely enough, that there may be a meanes invented of journying to the moone. And how happy shall they be, that are first successefull in this attempt?

Having thus finished this discourse, I chanced upon a late fancy to this purpose under the fained name of Domingo Gonzales, written by a late reverend and learned bishop (Godwin); in which (besides sundry particulars, wherein this later chapter did unwittingly agree with it) there is delivered a very pleasant and well contrived fancy concerning a voyage to this other world."

Two years after, in 1640, appeared his “Discourse concerning a new Planet; tending to prove, that it is probable our Earth is one of the planets.” In this he maintains; I. That the seeming novelty and singularity of this opinion can be no sufficient reason to prove it erroneous. 2. That the places of Scripture, which seem to intimate the diurnal motion of the sun or heavens, are fairly capable of another interpretation. 3. That the Holy Ghost in many places of Scripture does plainly conform his expressions to the error of our conceits, and does not speak of sundry things as tjiey are in themselves, but as they appear untt> us. 4. That divers learned men have fallen into great absurdities, whilst they have looked for the grounds of philosophy from the grounds of Scripture. 5. That the words of Scripture in their proper and strict construction do not any where affirm the immobility of the earth. 45.- That there is not any argument from the words of Scripture, principles of nature, or observations in astronomy, which can sufficiently evidence the earth to be in the center of the universe. 7. It is probable that the sun is the center of the world. 8. That there is not any sufficient reason to prove the earth incapable of those motions, which Copernicus ascribes unto it. 9. That it is more probable the earth does move, than the heavens. 10. That this hypothesis is exactly agreeable to common appearances.

His name was not put to either of these works; but they were so well known to be his, that Langrenus, in his map of the moon, dedicated to the king of Spain, calls one of the lunar spots after Wilkins’s name. His third piece, in 1641, is entitled “Mercury; or, the secret and swift Messenger; shewing how a man may with privacy and speed communicate his thoughts to a friend at any distance,” in 8vo. His fourth, -in 1648, “Mathematical Magic; or, the Wonders that may be performed by Mechanical Geometry,” in 8vo. All these pieces were published entire in one volume, 8vo, in 1708, under the title of “The Mathematical and Philosophical Works of the Right reverend John Wilkins,” &c. with a print of the author and general title-page handsomely engraven, and an account of his life and writings. To this collection is also subjoined an abstract of a larger work, printed in 1668, folio, and entitled “An Essay towards a real Character and a philosophical Language.” This he persuaded Ray to translate into Latin, which he did, but it never was published; and the ms. is now in the library of the Royal Society. These are his mathematical and philosophical works. He was also the inventor of the Perambulator, or Measuring wheel. His theological works are, 1. “Ecclesiastes; or, a Discourse of the Gift of Preaching, as it falls under the rules of Art,” 1646. This no doubt was written with a view to reform the prevailing taste of the times he lived in; from which no man was ever farther than Wilkins. It has gone through nine editions, the last in 1718, 8vo. 2. “Discourse concerning the beauty of Providence, in all the rugged passages’ of it,” 1649. 3. “Discourse concerning the Gift of Prayer, shewing what it is, wherein it consists, and how far it is attainable by industry,” &c. 1653. This was against enthusiasm, and fanaticism. These were published in his life-time; after his death, in 1675, Tillotson published two other of his works. 4. “Sermons preached on several occasions” and, 5. “Of the principles and duties of Natural Religion,” both in 8vo. Tillotson tells us, in the preface to the latter, that “the first twelve chapters were written out for the press in his life-time; and that the remainder hath been gathered and made up out of his papers;”

, one of four divines of the name of Wilkinson, who made considerable noise at Oxford during the usurpation, was born in the vicarage of Halifax in Yorkshire, Oct. 9, 1566, and came to Oxford in 158], where he was elected a probationer fellow of Merton college, by the interest of his relation Mr. afterwards sir Henry Savile, the warden. In 1586 he proceeded in arts, and studying divinity, took his bachelor’s degree in that faculty. In 1601 he was preferred to the living of Waddesdon in Buckinghamshire, which he held for forty-six years. He was a man of considerable learning and piety, and being an old puritan, Wood says, he was elected one of the assembly of divines in 1643. He was the author of “A Catechism for the use of the congregation of Waddesdon,” 8vo, of which there was a fourth edition in 1647. He published also “The Debt-Book; or a treatise upon. Romans xiii. 8. wherein is handled the civil debt of money or goods,” Lond. 1625, 8vo and other things, the names of which Wood has not mentioned. He died at Waddesdon March 19, 1647, aged eighty-one, and was buried in his own church, with a monumental inscription. By his wife Sarah, the daughter of Mr. Arthur Wake, another puritan, he had six sons and three daughters. One of his sons, Edward, was born in 1607, and educated at Magdalen-hall, Oxford, which he entered when little more than eleven years old, and completed his degrees in arts at the age of eighteen. He must have been of extraordinary parts, or extraordinary interest, for in 1627, when only twenty, he was chosen professor of rhetoric in Gresham college. All that Ward has been able to discover of him, is, that he held this office upwards of eleven years, and resigned it in 1638. Another of the rector of Waddesdon’s sons, a more distinguished character, is the subject of our next article.

, one of the sons of the preceding, and called Long Harry, to distinguish him from a contemporary and cousin of the same names, who was called Dean Harry, was born at Waddesdon in 1609, and in 1622 became a commoner of Magdalen-hall, where, making great proficiency in his studies, he took the degrees in arts, became a noted tutor, master of the schools, and divinity reader in his hall. In 1638, he was admitted B.D. and preached frequently in and near Oxford, “not,” says Wood, “without girds against the actions, and certain men of the times,” by which we are to understand that he belonged to that growing party which was hostile to the ecclesiastical establishment. Of this he gave so decided a proof in a sermon preached at St. Mary’s in Sept. 1640, in which he inveighed against the ceremonies, &c. that he was ordered to recant, and a form drawn up accordingly. But as he peremptorily refused to sign this, well knowing that the power of the church was undermined, he was suspended from preaching, &C; within the university and itsprecincts, according to the statute. Immediately, however, on the meeting of the Long parliament, he complained to the House of Commons of the treatment he had met with from the vice chancellor: and the committee of religion not only took off his suspension, but ordered his sermon to be printed, as suiting their views.

With this encouragement Wilkinson went on preaching what he pleased without fear, but removed to London, as the better scene of action, where he was made minister of St. Faith’s, under St. Paul’s, and one of the assembly of divines. He was also a frequent preacher before the parliament on their monthly fasts, or on thanksgiving days. In 1645 he was promoted to the rectory of St. Dunstan’s in the West. Soon after he was constituted one of the six ministers appointed to go to Oxford (then in the power of parliament), and to establish preachings and lectures upon presbyterian principles and forms. He was also made one of the visitors for the ejection of all heads of houses, fellows, students, &c. who refused compliance with the now predominant party. For these services he was made a senior fellow of Magdalen college (which, Wood says, he kept till he married a holy woman called the Lady Carr), a canon of Christ church, doctor of divinity, and, after Cheynel’s departure, Margaret professor. Of all this he was deprived at the restoration, but occasionally preached in or about London, as opportunity offered, particularly at Clapham, where he died in September 1675, and his body, after lying in state in Drapers’ hall, London, was buried with great solemnity in the church of St. Dunstan’s. His printed works are entirely “Sermons” preached before the parliament, or in the “Morning Exercise” at Cripplegate and Southwark, and seem to confirm part of the character Wood gives of him, that “he was a good scholar, always a close student, an excellent preacher (though his voice was shrill and whining),” yet, adds Wood, “his sermons were commonly full of dire and confusion, especially while the rebellion lasted.”

, denominated sometimes Junior, but commonly called Dean Harry, to distinguish him from the preceding, was the son of the rev. William Wilkinson of Adwick, or Adwickstreet, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, the brother of the first Henry Wilkinson, rector of Waddesdon; and consequently cousin to the preceding Long Harry. He was born at Adwick in 1616, and was educated in grammar at a school in All Saints parish, Oxford. He entered a commoner of Magdalen-hall in 1631, took the degrees in arts, was admitted into holy orders, and became a noted tutor, and moderator or dean of Magdalen-hall. Being of the same principles with his relations, he quitted the university in 1642, and going to London, took the covenant, and became a frequent preacher. On the surrender of Oxford to the parliamentary forces, he returned thither, and was created bachelor of divinity, and made principal of his hall, and moral philosophy reader of the university. He also took the degree of D. D. and became a frequent preacher at the different churches in Oxford. As the governor of a society, Wood ipeaks of him very highly, and his character indeed in this respect was so well established, that he might have remained principal, if he could have conformed. He suffered considerably afterwards for nonconformity, while endeavouring to preach at Buckminster in Leicestershire, Gosfield in Essex, Sible-Headingham, and finally at Connard near Sudbury in Suffolk, where he died May 13, 1690. He was buried at Milding near Lavenham, in Suffolk. Wood says “he was a zealous person in the way he professed, but overswayed more by the principles of education than reason. He was very courteous in speech and carriage, communicative of his knowledge, generous and charitable to the poor; and so public-spirited (a rare thing, adds Wood, in a presbyterian), that he always minded the common good, more than his own concerns.” He was a considerable benefactor to Magdalen -hall, having built the library, and procured a good collection of books for it.

He published, in Latin, various “Condones,” and “Orationes,” delivered at Oxford on public occasions; and several English sermons, besides the following, 1. “Catalogus librorum in I3ibl. Aul. Magd. Oxon.” Oxford, 1661, 8vo. 2. “The doctrine of contentment briefly explained, &c.” Lond. 1671, 8vo. 3. “Characters of a sincere heart, and the comforts thereof,” ibid. 1674, 8vo. 4. “Two Treatises concerning God’s Atl-Sufficiency, &c.” ibid. 1681, 8vo. In this last work we find a singular anecdote, which he says was communicated to him by archbishop Usher, with whom he was well acquainted. Our readers probably know that the Marian persecution never reached Ireland, and if the following be true, the Irish protestants had a very narrow escape from that tyranny. “A commission de Hereticis comburendis (for burning of heretics) was sent to Ireland from queen Mary, by a certain doctor, who, at his lodgings at Chester, made his boast of it. One of the servants in the inn, being a well-wisher to protestants, took notice of the words, and found out a method to get away the commission, which he kept in his own hands. When the commissioner came to Ireland, he was entertained with great respect. After some time he appeared before the lords of the council, and then opened his box to shew his commission, but there was nothing in it but a pack of cards. On this he was committed to prison and threatened exceedingly; but upon giving security he was released, returned to England, and obtained a new commission; as soon, however, as he came to Chester, the report arrived of queen Mary’s death, which stopt his farther journey.”

, brother of the rector of Waddesdon, first-mentioned, and uncle to the two Henrys, was born in Halifax, and educated at Oxford, where he was very celebrated. He became fellow of Magdalen college, and in 1605, when Henry, prince of Wales, was matriculated of Magdalen college, Mr. Wilkinson, then B. D. was appointed his tutor, as high a mark of respect as could well be paid, and a striking proof of the respect in which he was then held. In the same year Mr. Wilkinson was made principal of Magdalen-hall; and Wood says, that under his government, in 1624, and before, there were three hundred students in the hall, of which number were forty or more masters of arts, but, Wood adds, “all mostly inclining to Calvinism.” On the commencement of the rebellion, being of the same sentiments as his relations beforementioned, he left Oxford in 1643, and joined the parliamentary party. After the surrender of the city of Oxforo! to the parliamentary forces in 1646, he returned to Magdalen-hall, and resumed his office as principal until 1648, when he resigned it on being advanced to be president of Magdalen-college. He had the year before been appointed one of the visitors of the university. He did not, however, live long to enjoy any of these honours, for he died Jan. 2, 1649, and was interred in the church of Great Milton in Oxfordshire. It does not appear that Dr. John Wilkinson published any thing; the greater part of his life he spent as the governor of the two societies of Magdalenhall and Magdalen-college. Notwithstanding his reputation in his early years, Wood gives him the character of being “generally accounted an illiterate, testy, old creature, one that for forty years together had been the sport of the boys, and constantly yoked with Dr. Kettle: a person of more beard than learning, &c.” It is unnecessary to copy more of this character, which agrees so ill with what Wood says of him in his account of Magdalen-hall, that we are almost inclined to think he is speaking of another person. There is much confusion in some of the accounts given of these Wilkinsons, and we are not quite sure that we have been enabled to dispell it; but Wood so expressly mentions a John Wilkinson Magdalen-hall, as one of the visitors of Oxford, and afterwards a physician, that we suspect he has mixed the characters of the two. On this account the story of Dr. John Wilkinson having robbed the college of some money, which is related by Fuller and Heylin, must remain doubtful, for Wood attributes it to Henry Wilkinson, the vice-president.

, a learned physician, was born November 12, 1757, at the Hill, near Sedbergh in Yorkshire, where his father resided, in the enjoyment of extensive medical reputation and practice. He was educated in the principles of the Quakers, and received his scholastic tuition exclusively at Sedbergh, at the grammar-school of that place, under the care of the reverend Dr. Bateman, and the celebrated Mr. Dawson. The medical profession had long been determined upon as the object of his future pursuit, and he commenced his studies, in that science at Edinburgh, in the autumn of 1777. After the usual residence of three years in that university, he received the degree of doctor in 1780, when he published an inaugural dissertation, “De Jecinoris Inflammatione.”

In the autumn of the same year, he repaired to the metropolis with the view of obtaining farther medical information, and attended lectures with great assiduity. An arrangement had been made some time previously with Dr. Trotter, a relative, and a physician of some eminence at Darlington, in the county of Durham, but advanced in life, in consequence of which he intended to decline practice in that place, in favour of his young friend, as soon as he had completed his studies. When in London, Dr. Willan was introduced to Dr. Fothergill, who, from a just estimate of his talents and acquirements, recommended him to try his fortune in the metropolis, and offered him his assistance. Dr. Fothergill, however, died in the month of December, in that year; and in the commencement of the following year, 1781, the death of Dr. Trotter also occurred; upon which Dr. Willan immediateJy went feo Darlington, where he remained about a year; during which period be analyzed the sulphureous water at Croft, a village about four miles from that place, and wrote a small treatise respecting its chemical and medicinal qualities, containing also a comparison of its properties with those of the Harrogate waters. This tract was published in 1782, with the title of “Observations on the Sulphur water at Croft, near Darlington:” and a second edition was printed a few years afterwards.

In the beginning of 1782, not succeeding in practice at Darlington, Dr. Willan determined to return to London, where the Public Dispensary, in Carey-street, being opened in the commencement of 1783, chiefly accomplished by the exertions of some of his friends, he was appointed sole physician to it; and under his humane and active superintendence, together with that of his able and benevolent colleague, Mr. John Pearson, the surgeon to the institution, the new Dispensary speedily flourished, and became one of the most extensive and respectable establishments of its kind in London. In March 1785, having passed his examinations before the College of Physicians with great credit, he was admitted a licentiate of that body; on which occasion he addressed some congratulatory Greek verses to the board of censors.

About 1786 he engaged in the office of teacher, and delivered lectures on the principles and practice of medicine at the Public Dispensary. But his success, we believe, in this undertaking, was inconsiderable. At a subsequent period he received, as pupils at the Dispensary, young physicians who had recently graduated, and who were initiated into actual practice, under his superintendence, among the patients of the institution; a mode of tuition from which they derived much practical knowledge, and were gradually habituated to the responsibility of their professional duties. Upwards of forty physicians, almost all of whom have subsequently attained professional reputation, or now occupy responsible situations, both in this country and abroad, have received the benefit of this instruction.

From the moment when Dr. Willan settled in London, he pursued his professional avocations with an indefatigable industry and attention, of which there are, perhaps, few examples. He never quitted the metropolis for any consideration of health or pleasure, during a period of thirty years. For many years he conducted the medical department of two dispensaries, (having subsequently been favoured with an appointment to the Finsbury Dispensary, in addition to that of Carey-street), during which his unremitting attention to the progress of the diseases which came under his care, is evinced by the prodigious collection of cases, which he has recorded in ms. mostly in a neat Latin style, in which he wrote with great fluency. During the whole of his career, he was not less assiduously employed in examining the records of medicine, both ancient and modern, than in the actual observation of diseases; of which the learning and critical acumen displayed in his publications, as well as the mass of manuscript coU lections which he has left behind, afford abundant proof. His habits of domestic privacy enabled him to dedicate a large portion of time to these researches; and indeed to the unabating ardour with which he applied himself to them, must be attributed that premature injury of his health, which shortened the period of his life.

Dr. Willan’s advance to public reputation, and to the consequent emoluments of the profession, was regularly progressive, though slow; and his publications, especially his treatise on the diseases of the skin, upon which his posthumous reputation will principally rest, finally placed his professional character upon high ground. In the spring of 1791, he had the honour of being chosen a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. He had been early attached to antiquarian researches, and in his juvenile days had, with considerable industry and accuracy, collected from the Odyssey a history of the manners of the primeval times of Greece. Latterly he communicated some papers to this society, of which, however, he declined the honour of publication; particularly, a collection of provincial words, and an elaborate essay on the practice of “Lustration by Need-fire,” (scarcely extinct in some of the northern counties,) which led him into a curious and extensive research, respecting similar practices in ancient times, and the mythological superstitions connected with them. It was not until the month of February 1809, that he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society.

The increase of his professional avocations, which had compelled him some time before to resign his office in the Finsbury Dispensary, led him, in 1800, to wish to lessen the fatigue of his duties at the Public Dispensary; and accordingly his friend and pupil, t)r. T. A. Murray, wa appointed his colleague in that year. This active and intelligent physician, through whose exertions, aided by the society for bettering the condition of the poor, the Fever institution of the metropolis was established, was unfortunately cut off in February 1802, by the contagion of fever, caught in the infected apartments of the first patients who were admitted into the institution. Dr. Willan, who had strenuously recommended this establishment, wat nominated one of its physicians extraordinary. In December 1803, finding his private practice incompatible with a proper attention to the concerns of the Dispensary, which he had now superintended for the space of nearly twenty-­one years, he resigned his office. The governors of the charity, in testimony of their gratitude for his services and esteem for his character, nominated him consulting physician, and made him a governor for life, and likewise presented him with a piece of plate, of the value of fifty guineas, inscribed with a testimonial of their attachment and respect.

For several years previous to his resignation, Dr. Willan’s fame and character had been fully established, and the emoluments derived from his practice very ample. He had during the preceding course of years, resided successively in Ely-place, Holborn, and in Red Lion-square, in connection with the family before-mentioned; and lastly, on his marriage in the spring of 1801, he settled in Bloomsbury-square. He was now not only generally consulted, especially by persons labouring under cutaneous diseases, but was also deferred to on all occasions by his professional brethren, as the ultimate appeal on these subjects: for, however generally skilled in every other department of medical practice, his reputation for peculiar knowledge on this point had certainly excluded him, in some measure, from that universal occupation in his profession, to which he was so well entitled.

From his childhood Dr. Willan had been of a delicate constitution; his complexion in early life being pale and feminine, and his form slender. His extremely regular and temperate mode of life, however, had procured him an uninterrupted share of moderate health, and latterly even a certain degree of corpulency of person, though without the appearance of robust strength. In the Winter of 1810, some of his friends had remarked a slight shrinking of bulk and change in his complexion; but it was not till the following spring that symptoms of actual disease manifested themselves, and increased rapidly. With a view to obtain some respite from professional fatigue, as well as the advantage of a better air, he took a house in June 1811 at Craven-hill, about a mile from town, on the Ux bridge- road, where he spent his time, with the exception of two or three hours in the middle of the day, when he went to Bloomsbury-square, to receive the patients who came thither to consult him; but the probability of becoming phthisical, under the influence of an English winter, induced him to accede to the strenuous recommendation of some of his friends, and to undertake a voyage to Madeira. He accordingly embarked on the 10th of October, and arrived at Madeira on the 1st of December. By perseverance in an active course of medicine, after his arrival at Funchall, all his bad symptoms were considerably alleviated; insomuch that, in the month of February, he meditated a return to the south of England in April, But this alleviation was only temporary: his disease was again aggravated; the dropsy, and its concomitant obstruction to the functions, increased; and with his faculties remaining entire to the last, he expired on April 7, 1812, in the fifty-fifth year of his age.

By the death of Dr. Willan the profession was deprived of one of its bright ornaments, and of its zealous and able improvers; the sick, of a humane, disinterested, and discerning physician; and the world of an estimable and upright man, while in all the relations of domestic life, indeed, he was an object of general esteem and attachment.

As a professional writer, Dr. Willan appeared early, in his contributions to the periodical works. On his arrival in London, he became a member of a private medical society, which held its meetings at a coffee-house, in Cecilstreet, and which published two volumes of papers, under the title of “Medical Communications,” in 1784 and 1790. In the second of these volumes he published the history of “A remarkable case of Abstinence,” in a hypochondriacal young man, which was uninterrupted for the space of sixty-one days, and terminated fatally. We believe that this was the only medical society of which he was ever a member. Several communications from him were also printed in the London MedicalJournal, edited between the years 1781 and 1790 by Dr. Simmons. In the fourth volume, p. 421, a short letter of his appears, stating the character of a non-descript Byssus, found in the sulphureous waters of Aix; and in the sixth volume of the same Journal, he relates a fatal case of obstruction in the bowels, to which last he appended some useful reflections on the diagnostic symptoms of these obstructions, as occurring in the large or in the small intestines. He has also some communications in the seventh and eighth volumes. After the publication of the eleventh volume of this Journal, Dr. Simmons commenced a new series, under the title of “Medical Facts and Observations” in the third volume of which a paper of Dr. Willan’s appeared, containing a description of several cases of iscuria renalis in children.

In the year 1796, Dr. Willan commenced a series of monthly reports, after the manner of those which Dr. Fothergill had formerly given to the publick, containing a brief accouut of the state of the weather, and of the prevalent diseases in the metropolis. These reports were published in the “Monthly Magazine,” and were continued to 1800, when he collected them into a small volume, and published them in 1801, under the title of “Reports on the Diseases in London.” This little work is pregnant with important and original medical observations; but, from its unassuming pretensions, and desultory arrangement, has not been sufficiently known and valued by the profession.

We are unacquainted with the circumstances which originally drew the attention of Dr. Willan to the subject of cutaneous diseases; but he was led so early as 1784 and 1785, to attend to the elementary forms of eruptions, if we may so speak, upon which he saw that a definite nomenclature could alone be founded, and upon which he erected the ingenious system developed in his large work. At that period, in his notes of cases, he has seldom designated eruptions by their ordinary names; but speaks of papulae scorbuticae, eruptio papulosa, &c. In 1786, his notes exhibit still more decisive proofs of the careful attention which he was directing to this subject, in the minute descriptions (accompanied by slight sketches with the pen), of the forms, magnitude, and progress of eruptions. The zeal with which he was at the same time investigating the original acceptation of the Greek, Roman, and Arabian terms, applied to eruptive diseases, is likewise manifested by his copious collections from authors, and by the occasional alterations of the nomenclature, applied in the cases, before he had finally determined on his arrangement. This was probably decided about 1789; as in the following year his classification was laid before the Medical Society of London, and honoured by the assignment of the Fothergillian gold medal of that year to the author.

It was not till the beginning of 1798, that the first part of this work, including the papulous eruptions, was published, in which, as in the subsequent parts, each variety was represented by a coloured engraving. In 1801 the second part, including the scaly diseases of the skin, appeared; in 1805 the third part, comprising only two genera of rashes, viz. measles and scarlet-fever; and in 1808 the fourth part, comprehending the remainder of the rashes, and the bullas, or large vesications; the whole containing thirty-three plates, and comprising about half of the classification. Four orders, characterized by the appearance of pustules,vesicles, tubercles, and spots, remain unpublished. In the interim, however, from the temporary interest which the investigation of the vaccine question excited, Dr. WiHan was induced so far to anticipate the order of vesicles, as to publish in 1806 a treatise “On Vaccination;” in which he also introduced the subject of chickenpox (another vesicular disease) in consequence of the mistakes which had been committed, in supposing that this was small-pox, when it occurred after vaccination.

In addition to the writings above mentioned, which have been committed to the press, Dr. Willan had left some others in an unfinished state. During three or four years previous to his death he had employed his leisure in a most extensive investigation of the antiquities of medicine, if we may so express ourselves, which he had conducted with his usual felicity of execution. His principal object was the illustration of four subjects, which are enveloped in no small degree of obscurity; namely, 1. The nature and origin of the epidemic or endemic ignis sacer, which was a frequent cause of much mortality in ancient times, and in the middle ages, and has been confounded with the plague, to which it had no resemblance but in its fatality; 2. The evidence of the prevalence of small-pox, measles, and scarlet fever, not only in the first ages of the Christian aera, but at still more ancient periods, of which he has brought together, with great ingenuity, a collection that appears incontrovertibly to establish the affirmative of the question: 3. The history of the leprosy of the middle ages: and 4. That of the lues venerea. The dissertations relative to the two first mentioned topics, Dr. Willan had nearly completed, having re-modelled the second, by the aid of a friendly amanuensis, during his residence in Madeira. They contain a very able and original view of the state of disease in the early ages of the world, not founded upon any fanciful explanation of terms, but deduced from a sagacious developement of facts, which have hitherto been concealed under perplexed and mistaken, but sufficiently intelligible language. He has likewise supported the conclusions which he has drawn by evidence collected from sources not usually resorted to in such researches.

Several years ago, Dr. Willan made a collection of observations in about two thousand patients, with a view to an investigation of medical physiognomy, or temperaments, chiefly in regard to the diseases to which each variety of temperament is peculiarly predisposed, and to the operation of medicines on them respectively. In the prosecution of this inquiry he procured several drawings (portraits) illustrative of the characteristic marks of the more striking varieties. He arrived at some interesting inferences respecting both the physical and moral constitutions connected with these external characters, but he did not deem the matter sufficiently matured to lay before the public.

In conclusion, we must not omit to mention a juvenile work published by Dr. Willan, on a theological subject; namely, a “Life of Christ,” related in the words of the evangelists, of whose details he selected those parts respectively which were most full and explicit; and he illustrated the whole by critical notes and explanations, which were particularly full in regard to the diseases mentioned by those sacred writers. A second edition of this work, with additional illustrations, was published in 1802.

, a learned divine, was born in the city of Ely in 1562. His father, Mr. Thomas Willet, was sub-almoner to Edward VI. and a sufferer during the persecutions in queen Mary’s reign; but in that of queen Elizabeth, was preferred to the rectory of Barley in Hertfordshire, and to a prebend in the church of Ely. His son, who had been a very diligent and successful student while at school, was sent in his fourteenth year to Peter-house, Cambridge, whence he afterwards removed to Christ’s college, and obtained a fellowship. After passing thirteen years in the university, during which he afforded many proofs of extraordinary application and talents, queen, Elizabeth gave him his father’s prebend in Ely, about 1598, the year his father died. One of his name was also rector of Reed, in Middlesex, in 1613, and of Chishall Parva$ in Essex, in 1620, but it is doubtful whether this was the same person. It seems more certain, however, that he had the rectory of Childerley, in Cambridgeshire, and in 1597 that of Little Grantesden, in the same county, for which he took in exchange the rectory of Barley, vacant by his father’s death. He was also chaplain to prince Henry. About this time he married a relation to Dr. Goad, by whom he had eleven sons and seven daughters.

Dr. Willet was usually called a living library, from the great extent of his reading and. of his memory. He was also not less admired as a preacher, not only in his parish, but at court. He also obtained a great, degree of celebrity by his numerous publications, particularly his “Synopsis Papismi; or a general view of papistrie,” a work dedicated to the queen, which, although a folio of 1300 pages, passed through five editions, and was much admired in both universiyes, and by the clergy and laity at large, aa the best refutation of popery, which had then appeared. He died of the consequences of a fall from his horse, at Hoddesdon, in Hertfordshire, Dec. 4, 1621, in the fifty-eighth year of his age. He was interred in the chancel of Barley church, where there is a representation of him at full length, in a praying attitude, and with an inscription, partly Latin and partly English.

Besides his “Synopsis Papismi,” Dr. Willet was the author of many works, principally commentaries on the scriptures; as, 1. “Hexaplaon Genesis and Exodus,” fol. 1632. 2. “On Leviticus,” 1631, fol. 3. “On Daniel,” 1610, fol. 4. “On the Romans,” 16 11, fol. &c. 5. “Tractatus de Salomonis nuptiis, vel Epithalamium in nuptiis inter Comit. Palatinum et Elizabethan! Jacobi regis filiam unicam,” 1612, 4to. 6. “De Gratia geueri humano in primo parente collata, de lapsu Adami,” &c. Leyden, 1609, 8vo. 7. “Thesaurus Ecclesise,” Camb. 1604, 8vo. 8. “De animse natura etviribus.” 9. “Sacra Emblemata,” &c. &c, with others, the titles of which are given very inaccurately by his biographers. One of his descendants was the late Ralph Willet, esq. of Merly, in Dorsetshire, and founder and proprietor of the celebrated Merly library, which was disposed of by auction some months ago.

, an ingenious English lady, was the daughter of a surgeon and physician in South Wales, where she was born in 1706. Her father, Zachariah Williams, during his residence in Wales, imagined that he had discovered, by a kind of intuitive penetration, what had escaped the rest of mankind. He fancied that he had been fortunate enough to ascertain the longitude by magnetism, and that the variations of the needle were equal, at equal distances, east and west. The idea fired his imagination; and, prompted by ambition, and the hopes of splendid recompence, he determined to leave his business and habitation for the metropolis. Miss Williams accompanied him, and they arrived in London about 1730; but the bright views which had allured him from his profession soon vanished. The rewards which he had promised himself ended in disappointment; and the ill success of his schemes may be inferred from the only recompence which his journey and imagined discovery procured. Hg was admitted a pensioner at the Charter-house. When Miss Williams first resided in London, she devoted no inconsiderable portion of her time to its various amusements. She visited every object that merited the inspection of a polished and laudably-inquisitive mind, or could attract the attention of a stranger. At a later period of life she spoke familiarly of these scenes, of which the impression was never erased, though they must, however, have soon lost their allurements. Mr. Williams did not long continue a member of the Charter-house. A dispute with the masters obliged him to remove from this asylum of age and poverty. In 1749 he published in 4to A true Narrative," &c. of the treatment he had met with. He was now exposed to severe trials, and every succeeding day increased the gloominess of his prospects. In 1740 Miss Williams lost her sight by a cataract, which prevented her, in a great measure, from assisting his distresses, and alleviating his sorrows. She still, however, felt her passion for literature equally predominant. She continued the same attention to the neatness of her dress; and, what is more extraordinaryj continued still the exercise of her needle, a branch of female accomplishment in which she had before displayed great excellence. During the lowness of her fortune she worked for herself with nearly as much dexterity and readiness as if she had not suffered a loss so irreparable. Her powers of conversation retained their former vigour. Her mind did not sink under these calamities; and the natural activity of her disposition animated her to uncommon exertions:

In darkness, and with dangers compass’d round.

And solitude!"

In 1746, notwithstanding her blindness, she published the “Life of the emperor Julian, with notes, translated from the French of F. La Bleterie.” In this translation she was assisted by two female friends, whose names were Wilkinson. This book was printed by Bowyer, in whose life, by Nichols, we are informed, that he contributed the advertisement, and wrote the notes, in conjunction with Mr. Clarke and others. The work was revised by Markland and Clarke. It does not appear what pecuniary advantages Miss Williams might derive from this publication. They were probably not very considerable, and afforded only a temporary relief to the misfortunes of her father. About this time, Mr. Williams, who imparted his afflictions to all from whom he hoped consolation or assistance, told his story to Dr. Samuel Johnson; and, among other aggravations of distress, mentioned his daughter’s blindness. He spoke of her acquirements in such high terms, that Mrs. Johnson, who was then living, expressed a desire of seeing her; and accordingly she was soon afterwards brought to the doctor’s house by her father; and Mrs. Johnson found her possessed of such qualities as recommended her strongly for a friend. As her own state of health, therefore, was weak, and her husband was engaged during the greater part of the day in his studies, she gave Miss Williams a general invitation: a strict intimacy soon took place; but the enjoyment of their friendship did not continue long. Soon after its commencement, Mrs. Johnson was attended by her new companion in an illness which terminated fatally. Dr. Johnson still retained his regard for her, and in 17 $2? by his recommendation, Mr. Sharp, the surgeon, undertook to perform the operation on Miss Williams’s eyes, which is x usual in such cases, in hopes of restoring her sight. Her own habitation was not judged convenient for the occasion. She was, therefore, invited to the doctor’s. The surgeon’s skill, however, proved fruitless, as the crystalline humour was not sufficiently inspissated for the needle to take effect. The recovery of her sight was pronounced impossible. Afrer this dreadful sentence, she never left the roof which had received her during the operation. The doctor’s kindness and conversation soothed her melancholy situation: and her society seemed to alleviate the sorrows which his late loss had occasioned.

When Dr. Johnson, however, changed his residence, she returned to lodgings; and, in 1755, her father published a book, in Italian and English, entitled “An Account of an Attempt to ascertain the longitude at sea, by an exact Theory of the magnetical Needle.”

In 1755, Mrs. Williams’s circumstances were rendered more easy by the profits of a benefit-play, granted her by the kindness of Mr. Garrick, from which she received 200l. which was placed in the stocks. While Mrs. Williams enjoyed so comfortable an asylum, her life passed in one even tenour. It was chequered by none of those scenes which enliven biography by their variety. The next event of any consequence, in the history of Mrs. Williams, was the publication of a volume of “Miscellanies in Prose and Verse,” in 1766. Her friends assisted her in the completion of this book, by several voluntary contributions; and 100l. which was laid out in a bridge-bond, was added to her little stock by the liberality of her subscribers. About 1766, Dr. Johnson removed from the Temple, where he had lived, for some time, in chambers, to Johnson’s-court, Fleet-street, and again invited to his house the worthy friend of Mrs. Johnson. The latter days of Mrs. Williams were now rendered easy and comfortable. Her wants were few, and, to supply them, she made her income sufficient. She still possessed an unalterable friend in Dr. Johnson. Her acquaintance was select rather than numerous. Their society made the infirmities of age less intolerable, and communicated a cheerfulness to her situation, which solitary blindness would otherwise have rendered truly deplorable. She died at the house of her friend, in Bolt-court, Fleetstreet (whither they removed about 1775), on the 6th of September, 1783, aged seventy-seven years. She bequeathed all her little effects to a charity, which had been instituted for the education of poor deserted girls, and supported by the voluntary contributions of several ladies.

, a statesman and wit of considerable temporary fame, was the third son of John 1 Hanbury, esq. a South Sea Director, who died in 1734. Charles, who in consequence of the will of his godfather, Charles Williams, esq. of Caerleon, assumed the name of Williams, was born in 1709, and educated at Etdn$ where he made considerable progress in classical literature; and having finished his studies, travelled through various parts of Europe. Soon after his return he assumed the name of Williams, obtained from his father the estate of Coldbrookj and espoused, in 1732, lady Frances Coningsby. youngest daughter of Thomas, earl of Coningsby.

On the death of his father in 1733, he was elected member of parliament for the county of Monmouth, and uniformly supported the administration of sir Robert Walpole, whom he idolized; he received from that minister many early and confidential marks of esteem, and in 1739 was was appointed by him paymaster of the marines. His name occurs only twice as a speaker, in Chandler’s debates: but the substance of his speech is given in neither instance. Sprightliness of conversation, ready wit, and agreeable manners, introduced him to the acquaintance of men of the first talents: he was the soul of the celebrated coterie, of which the most conspicuous members were, lord Hervey, Winnington, Horace Walpole, late earl of Orford., Stephen Fox, earl of Ilchester, and Henry Fox, lord Holland, with whom, in particular, he lived in the strictest habits of intimacy and friendship. At this period he distinguished himself by political ballads remarkable for vivacity, keenness of invective, and ease of versification. In 1746 he was installed knight of the Bath, and soon after, appointed envoy to the court of Dresden, a situation which he is said to have solicited, that its employments might divert his grief for the death of his friend Mr. Winnington. The votary of wit and pleasure was instantly transformed into a man of business, and the author of satirical odes penned excellent He was well adapted for the office of a foreign minister, and the lively, no less than the solid, parts of his character, proved useful in his new employment; flow of conversation, sprightliness of wit, politeness of demeanour, ease of address, conviviality of disposition, together with the delicacy of his table, attracted persons of all descriptions. He had arv excellent tact for discriminating characters, humouring the foibles of those with whom he negotiated, and conciliating those by whom the great were either directly or indirectly governed.

In 1749 he was appointed, at the express desire of the king, to succeed Mr. Legge as minister plenipotentiary at the court of Berlin; but in 1751 returned to his embassy at Dresden. During his residence at these courts, he transacted the affairs of England and Hanover with so much address, that he was dispatched to Petersburg, in a time of critical emergency, to conduct a negociation of great delicacy and importance. The disputes concerning the limits of Nova Scotia, and the possessions of Nortn America threatened a rupture between Great Britain and France; hostilities were pn the point of commencing in America, and France had resolved to invade the Low Countries, and the electorate of Hanover, and to excite a continental war. With this view the cabinet of Versailles proposed to the king of Prussia, to co-operate in invading the electorate, and attacking the dominions of the house of Austria, hitherto the inseparable ally of England. The British cabinet, alarmed at this aspect of affairs, formed a plan of a triple alliance between Great Britain, Austria, and Russia, and to promote the negociatioiY, the king repaired to Hanover, accompanied by the earl of Holdernesse, secretary of state.

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

His sanguine imagination exaggerated the merit of his services; and he fondly expected an instantaneous answer filled with expressions of high applause. Some time, however, elapsed before any answer arrived; at length the expected messenger came; he seized the dispatches, and opened them with extreme impatience, in the presence of his confidential friend, count Poniatowski, afterwards king of Poland. In a few minutes he threw the letter which he was reading on the floor, struck his forehead with both his hands, and remained for some time absorbed in a deep reverie. Turning at length to count Poniatowski, he exclaimed, `““`Would you think it possible? Instead of receiving thanks for my zeal andactivity in concluding the convention, I am blamed for an informality in the signature, and the king is displeased with my efforts to serve him.” This interesting anecdote, Mr. Coxe, from whose “Tour in Monmouthshire” this life is abridged, received from the late king of Poland himself in 1785. To the same work we must refer for a particular detail of the inrigues which baffled the endeavours of sir Charles, and induced him to make repeated and earnest entreaties, in consequence of which, permission was granted for his return, but "he was induced to continue in his post until all his efforts proved unsuccessful, and the empress coalesced with Austria and France. In the midst of this arduous business his health rapidly declined, his head was qccasionally affected, and his mind distracted with vexation; the irregularities of his life irritated his nerves, and a fatiguing journey exhausted his spirits.

Soon after his arrival at Hamburgh, in the autumn of 1757, he was suddenly smitten with a woman of low intrigue, gave her a note for 2000l. and a contract of marriage, though his wife was still living: he also took large doses of stimulating medicines, which affected his head, and he was conveyed to England in a state of insanity, During the passage, he fell from the deck into the hold, and dangerously bruised his side; he was blooded four times on board, an.d four times immediately after his arrival in England. In little more than a month he recovered, and passed the summer at Coldbrook-house. But towards the latter end of 1759, he relapsed into a state of insanity, and expired on the second of November, aged fifty.

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

Sir Charles left by his wife two daughters; Frances, first wife of William Anne, late earl of Essex, and Charlotte, who espoused the honourable Robert Boyle Walsingham, youngest son of the earl of Shannon, a commodore in the navy. On his death without issue male, the estate and mansion of Coldbrook came to his brother George, who died in 1764, and now belongs to his son John Han bury "Williams, esq. the present proprietor.

, an eminent divine among the dissenters, aud a munificent benefactor to their and other societies, both of the learned and charitable kind, was born about 1644, at Wrexham, in the county of Denbigh, in North Wales. No particulars are known of his parents, or of his early years, but it appears that he laboured under some disadvantages as to education, which, however, he surmounted by spirit and perseverance. He says of himself, that “from five years old, he had no employment, but his studies, and that by nineteen he was regularly admitted a preacher.” As this was among the nonconformists, it is probable that his parents or early connections lay among that society. As he entered on his ministry about 1663, when the exercise of it was in clanger of incurring the penalties of the law, he was induced to go to Ireland, and was there invited to be chaplain to the countess of Meath. Some time after he was called to be pastor to a congregation f dissenters assembling in Wood-street, Dublin, in which situation he continued for nearly twenty years, and was highly approved and useful. Here he married Ins first wife, a lady of family and fortune, which last, while it gave him a superior rank and consequence to many of his brethren, he contemplated only as the means of doing good.

During the troubles in Ireland, at the latter end of the reign of king James II. he found it necessary to return to London in 1687, and resided in London. Here he was of great use upon a very critical occasion. Some of the court agents at that time endeavoured to bring the dissenters in the city to address the king upon his dispensing with the penal laws. In a conference at one of their meetings upon that occasion, in the presence of some of the agents, Mr. Williams declared, “That it was with him past doubt, that the severities of the former reign upon the protestant dissenters were, rather as they stood in the way ^arbitrary power, than for their religious dissent, So it were better for them to be reduced to their former hardships, than declare for measures destructive of the liberties of their country; and that for himself, before he would concur in such an address, which should be thought an approbation pf the dispensing power, he would choose to lay down his liberty at his majesty’s feet.” He pursued the argument with such clearness and strength, that all present rejected the motion, and the emissaries went away disappointed. There was a meeting at the same time of a considerable number of the city clergy, waiting the issue of their deliberation, who were greatly animated and encouraged by this resolution of the dissenting ministers. Very recent experience has shewn how much Mr. Williams differs in this matter from his descendants, many of whom have been the professed advocates fqr what is called catholic eman r cipation.

After the revolution, Mr. Williams was not only frer quentiy consulted by king William concerning Irish affairs, with which he was well acquainted, but often regarded at court on behalf of several who fled from Ireland, and were capable of doing service to government. He received great acknowledgments and thanks upon this account, when, in 1700, he went back to that country to visit his old friends, and to settle some affairs, relative to his estate in that kingdom. After preaching for some time occasionally in London, he became pastor of a numerous congregation at Hand-alley in Bishopsgate- street in 1688, and upon the death of the celebrated Richard Baxter in 1691, by whom Jhe was greatly esteemed, he ^succeeded him as one of those who preached the merchants’ -lecture, at Pinners’- hall, Broad-street. But it was not long before the frequent clashings in the discourses of these lecturers caused a division. Mr. Williams had preached warmly against some antinotnian tenets, which giving offence to many persons, a design was formed to exclude him from the lecture. Upon this he, with Dr. Bates, Mr. Howe, and Mr. Alsop, &c. retired and raised another lecture at Salter’s-hall on the same day and hour. This division was soon after increased by the publication of some of Dr. Crisp’s works, (See Crisp) and a controversy took place as to the more or less of antinomianism in these works, which lasted for some years, and was attended with much intemperance and personal animosity. What is rather remarkable, the contending parties appealed to bishop Stillingfleet, and Dr. Jonathan Edwards of Oxford, who both approved of jivhat Mr. Williams had done. Mr. Williams’ s chief publication on the subject was entitled “Gospel Truth stated and vindicated,” 1691, 12mo. The controversy by his friends was called the antinonpian, but by Dr. Crisp’s advocates the neonomian controversy. Mr. Williams was not only reckoned a heretic, but attempts were even made to injure his moral character, which, however, were defeated by the unanimous testimony of all who knew him, or took he trouble to inquire into the ground of such accusations^ In his congregation, it is said, he lost no friend. $H

Some time after the death of his wife, he married in 1701, as his second, Jane, the widow of Mr. Francis Barkstead, and the daughter of one Guill, a French refugee; by her also he had a very considerable fortune, which he devoted to the purposes of liberality. Of his political sentiments, we Jearn only, that he was an enemy to the bill against occasional conformity, and a staunch friend to the union with Scotland. When on a visit to that country in 1709, he received a diploma for the degree of D. D. from the university of Edinburgh, and another from Glasgow, Qne of his biographers gives us the following account of his conduct on this occasion. “He was so far from seeking or expecting thjs honour, that he was greatly displeased with the occasion of it, and with great modesty he entreated Mr. Carstairs, the principal of the college at Edinburgh, to prevent it. But the dispatch was made before that desire of his could reach them. I have often heard Jiim express his dislike of the thing itself, and much more his distaste at the pfficious vanity of some who thought they had much obliged him when they moved for the procuring it; and this, not that he despised the honour of being a graduate in form in that profession in which he was now a truly reverend father; nor in the least, that he refused to receive any favours from the ministers of the church gf Scotland, for whom he preserved a very great esteem, and on many occasions gave signal testimonies of his respect; but he thought it savoured of an extraordinary franity? that the English presbyterians should accept a nominal distinction, which the ministers of the church of Scotland declined for themselves, and did so lest it should break in upon that parity which they so severely maintained; which parity among the ministers of the gospel, the presbyterians in England acknowledged also to be agreeable to that scripture rule, ‘ Whosoever will be greatest among you let him be as the younger,’ Luke xxii. 26 and Matt, xxiii. 8, `Be ye not called Rabbi,' of which text a learned writer says, it should have been translated, `Be ye not called doctors’ and the Jewish writers and expositors of their law, are by some authors styled Jewish Rabbins, by others, and that more frequently, doctors, &c. &c.” Our readers need scarcely be told that this is another point on which Dr. Williams differs much from his successors, who are as ambitious of the honour of being called doctor, as he was to avoid it.

In the latter end of queen Anne’s reign, our author appears to have had extraordinary fears respecting the protestant succession, and that he corresponded very freely with the earl of Oxford upon that subject, who, however, discovering that he had been yet more free in his sentiments in another and more 'private correspondence, withdrew his friendship from him. Soon after, the accession of George I. dispelled his fears, and he was at the head of a body of the dissenting ministers, who addressed his majesty on that auspicious occasion.

Dr. Williams died, after a short illness, Jan. 26, 1715—16, in the seventy- third year of his age. He appears to have been a man of very considerable abilities, and having acquired an independent fortune, had great weight both as a member of the dissenting interest, and as a politician in general. As he had spent much of his life in benevolent actions, at his death he fully evinced, that they were the governing principles of his character. The bulk of his estate fie bequeathed to a great variety of chanties. Besides the settlement on his wife, and legacies to his relations and friends, he left donations for the education of youth in Dublin, and for an itinerant preacher to the native Irish; to the poor in Wood-street congregation, and to that in Hand-alley, where he had been successively preacher; to the French refugees; to the poor of Shoreditch parish, where he lived; to several ministers’ widows; to St. Thomas’s hospital; to the London workhouse; to several presbyterian meetings in the country; to the college of Glasgow; to the society for the reformation of manners; to the society of Scotland for propagating Christian knowledge; to the society for New-England, to support two persons to preach to the Indians; to the maintaining of charity-schools in Wales, and the support of students; for the distribution of Bibles, and pious books among the poor, &c. He also ordered a convenient building to be purchased, or erected, for the reception of his own library, and the curious collection of Dr. Bates, which he purchased for that purpose, at the expence of between five and six hundred pounds. Accordingly, a considerable number of years after his death, a commodious building was erected by subscription among the opulent dissenters, in lledcross-street, Cripplegate, where the doctor’s books were deposited, and by subsequent additions, the collection has become a very considerable one. It is also a depository for paintings of nonconformist ministers, which are now very numerous; of manuscripts, and other matters of curiosity or utility. In this place, the dissenting ministers meet for transacting all business relating to the general body. Registers of births of the children of protestant dissenters are also kept here with accuracy, and have been, in the courts of law, allowed equal validity with parish registers. The librarian, who resides in the house, is usually a minister, chosen from among the English presbyterians, to which denomination the founder belonged. Dr. Williams’s publications, be^ sides his “Gospel Truth stated,” are chiefly sermons preached on occasion of ordinations, or funerals. These were published together in 1738, 2 vols. 8vo, with some account of his life.

, a literary and religious projector of some note, was born at a village near Cardigan, in 1738, and after receiving the rudiments of education, was placed in a school or college at Carmarthen, preparatory to the dissenting ministry; which profession he entered upon in obedience to parental authority, but very contrary to his own inclination. His abilities and acquirements even then appeared of a superior order; but he has often in the latter part of his life stated to the writer of his memoirs, in the Gentleman’s Magazine, that he had long considered it &s a severe misfortune, that the most injurious impressions were made upon his youthful and ardent mind by the cold, austere, oppressive, and unarniable manner in which the doctrines and duties of religion were disguised in the stern and rigid habits of a severe puritanical master. From this college he took the office of teacher to a small congregation at Frome, in Somersetshire, and after a short residence was removed to a more weighty charge at Exeter. There the eminent abilities and engaging manners of the young preacher opened to him the seductive path of pleasure; when the reproof that some elder members of the society thought necessary, being administered in a manner to awaken resentment rather than contrition; and the eagle eye of anger discovering in his accusers imperfections of a different character indeed, but of tendency little suited to a public disclosure, the threatened recrimination suspended the proceedings, and an accommodation took place, by which Mr. Williams left Exeter, and was engaged to the superintendence of a dissenting congregation at Highgate. After a residence there of a year or two, he made his first appearance in 1770, as an author, by a “Letter to David Garrick,” a judicious and masterly critique on the actor, but a sarcastic personal attack qn the man, intended to rescue Mossop from the supposed unjust displeasure of the modern Roscius: this effect was produced, Mossop was liberated, and the letter withdrawn from the booksellers, Shortly after appeared “The Philosopher, in three Conversations,” which were much read, and attracted considerable notice. This was soon followed by “Essays on Public Worship, Patriotism, and Projects of Reformation;” written and published upon the occasion of the leading religious controversy of the day; but though they obtained considerable circulation, they appear not to have softened the asperities of either of the contending parties. The Appendix to these Essays gave a strong indication of that detestation of intolerance, bigotry, and hypocrisy which formed the leading character of his subsequent life, and which had been gradually taking possession of his mind from the conduct of softie of the circle of associates into which his profession had thrown him.

He published two volumes of “Sermons,” chiefly upon Religious Hypocrisy, and then discontinued the exercise of his profession, and his connection with the body of dissenters. He now turned his thoughts to the education of youth, and in 1773, published “A Treatise on Education,” recommending a method founded on the plans of Commenius and Rousseau, which he proposed to carry into effect. He took a house in Lawrence-street, Chelsea, married a young lady not distinguished either by fortune or connection, and soon found himself at the head of a lucrative and prosperous establishment. A severe domestic misfortune in the death of his wife blighted this prospect of fame and fortune: his fortitude sunk under the shock; his anxious attendance upon her illness injured his own health, the internal concerns of the family became disarranged, and he left his house and his institution, to which he never again returned.

During his residence at Chelsea, he became a member of a select club of political and literary characters, to one of whom, the celebrated Benjamin Franklin, he afforded an asylum in his house at Chelsea during the popular ferment against him, about the time of the commencement of the American war. In this club was formed the plan of public worship intended to unite all parties and persuasions in one comprehensive form. Mr. Williams drew up and published, “A Liturgy on the universal principles of Religion and Morality;” and afterwards printed two volumes of Lectures, delivered with this Liturgy at the chapel in Margaret- street, Cavendish-square, opened April 7, 1776. This service continued about four years, but with so little public support, that the expence of the establishment nearly involved the lecturer in the loss of his liberty. As the plan proposed to include in one act of public worship every class of mn who acknowledged the being of a God, and the utility of public prayer and praise, it necessarily left unnoticed every other point of doptrine; intending, that without expressing them in public worship, every man should be left in unmolested possession of his own peculiar opinions in private. This, however, would not satisfy any of the various classes and divisions of Christians; it was equally obnoxious to the churchman and to the dissenter; and as even the original proposers, though consisting only of five or six, could not long agree, several of them attempting to obtain a more marked expression of their own peculiar opinions and dogmas, the plan necessarily expired. Mr. Williams now occupied his time and talents in assisting gentlemen whose education had been defective, and in forwarding their qualifications for the senate, the diplornacy, and the learned professions. In this employment he prepared, and subsequently published, “Lectures ori Political Principles,” and “Lectures on Education,” in 3 vols, His abilities also were ever most readily and cheerfully employed in the cause of friendship and benevolence; and many persons under injury and distress have to acknowledge the lasting benefit of his energetic and powerful pen.

During the alarm in 1780 he published a tract, entitled “A Plan of Association on Constitutional Principles” and in 1782, on occasion of the county meetings and associations, he gave to the public his “Letters on Political Liberty;” the most important perhaps of all his works-, it was extensively circulated both in England and France, having been translated into French by Brissot, and was the occasion of its author being invited to Paris, to assist in the formation of a constitution for that country. He continued about six months in Paris; and on the death of the king, and declaration of war against this country, took leave of his friends of the Girondist party, with an almost prophetic intimation of the fate that awaited them. He brought with him on his return a letter from the minister of war, addressed to lord Grenville, and intended to give Mr. Williams, who was fully and confidentially entrusted with the private sentiments and wishes of the persons then in actual possession of the government of France, an opportunity of conveying those sentiments and wishes to the British ministry. Mr. Williams delivered the letter into the hands of Mr. Aust, the under secretary of state, but never heard from lord Grenville on the subject. Some further curious circumstances relating to this transaction are detailed in a page or two, corrected by Mr. Williams himself, in Bisset’s “History of George III.”

Previously to receiving this invitation he had removed from Russell -street to Brompton, for the purpose of executing an engagement he had formed with Mr. Bowyer, ta superintend the splendid edition of Hume, and write a continuation of the history; but after his return from France he found himself in an extraordinary situation, for at the very time he had been denounced in France as a royalist, he had been branded in his own country as a democrat; and he was informed that his engagement respecting the History of England could not be carried into effect, in consequence, as it was slated, of an intimation having feeen given that the privilege of dedication to the crown would be withdrawn if he continued the work. About this time he published the “Lessons to a young Prince,” and engaged in, and afterwards executed, the “History of Monmouthshire,” in one vol. 4to, with plates by his friend the rev. John Gardnor.

With regard to the circumstance upon which he always seemed inclined to rest his fame, and which was most dear to his heart the establishment of the Literary Fund, he had, so far back as the time of his residence at Chelsea, projected a plan for the assistance of deserving authors in distress; and after several ineffectual attempts, he so far succeeded in 178S and 1789 as to found the institution, and commence its benevolent operations, and with unremitting zeal and activity devoted the full force of his abilities, and the greater part of his time and attention, to foster and support the infant institution. He had the heartfelt satisfaction of seeing it continually rise in public estimation, and at length honoured with the illustrious patronage of his royal highness the prince of Wales, who generously bestowed an annual donation for the purpose of providing a house for the use of the society, and expressly desired that Mr. Williams should reside in it. A singular and striking work, written by Mr. Williams and several of his zealous and able coadjutors, who each put their names to their own several productions, was given by the public under the title of “The Claims of Literature; explanatory of the Nature, Formation, and Purposes of the Institution.”

During the peace of Amiens Mr. Williams again visited Paris, and is supposed to have been then intrusted with some confidential mission from the government of his own country, his remarkable figure having previously been noticed entering the houses of several of the higher members of the then administration. On his return he published a much enlarged edition of a little work which the alarm of invasion had induced him to write, entitled “Regulations of Parochial Police;” and he is thought to have been the author of a sort of periodical publication which appeared about that time in numbers, “Egeria; or Elementary Studies on the Progress of Nations in Political Economy, Legislation, and Government;” but which does not appear to have been continued beyond the first volume. The last acknowledged work that proceeded from his prolific pen was, “Preparatory Studies for Political Reformers.” It is curious and instructive to observe -thrf marked aad striking effect produced by his experience of reform and reformers in the struggles of, and consequent upon, the French revolution'; his diction retain3 its full vigour, but his anticipations are much less sanguine, and his opinions on the pliability of the materials ort which reformers are to operate, or in other words, on the real character of human nature, seem much changed. About five years before his death he was seized with a severe paralytic affection, from which he partially recovered, but continued to suffer the gradual loss of his corporeal and mental powers; his memory became very considerably impaired, and for some length of time preceding his decease he was unable to walk or move without assistance. The tender assiduities of an affectionate niece soothed the sorrows of declining nature, and received from him the most affecting and frequent expressions of gratitude. The state of his mind cannot be so well depicted as by himself in the following letter, one of the last he ever wrote, and addressed to a clergyman of the church of England, in the country:

“I am now drawing near my end, and am desirous to conclude my days in peace. I have outlived almost all my relations and all my acquaintance and I am desirous to exchange the most sincere and cordial forgiveness with those I have in any sort offended. I had once a great regard for you; why it was not continued I have forgotten. Indeed, a paralytic stroke has greatly destroyed my memory, and will soon destroy me. I take leave of my friends and acquaintance; among others I take leave of you. I greatly esteemed you and your worthy father, and I hope you will only remember what you saw commendable and good in me, and believe me very sincerely yours. D. W.”

It will readily be supposed that this letter brought the gentleman immediately to town; and his friendly offices of kindness contributed very much during the last two years to the comfort and consolation of his suffering friend, who breathed his last on Saturday morning, the 29th of June, 1816, and was interred the Saturday following, in St. Anne’s church, Soho, under this inscription:

In the words of his friend, captain Thomas Morris, “The distinguishing traits of Mr. Williams’s character were, a boundless philanthropy and disinterestedness; studious of every acquisition that forms the taste, but applying the strength of his genius to the arts of government and education as objects of the highest importance to the welfafe of nations and the happiness of individuals. In his dre&s elegantly plain; in domestic life attentive to the niceties of decorum; in public politely ceremonious; in all his manners dignified and distinguished; in conversation elevated; in his person tall and agreeable, having a commanding look softened with affability.”

A review of the life and writings of this remarkably gifted man strongly illustrates the observation, that political and moral philosophy, theories of government and education, even when displayed with splendid ability, and enforced with the most engaging benevolence, and with the best and most earnest motives of doing good, are found by a painful experience to be wholly inadequate to the task of reforming mankind, if employed without the aid of Christianity; it is the Gospel alone that can reach the weak and erring heart of man, and found the reformation and im provement of societies upon the purity, the virtue, and the piety of individuals. But to this very necessary knowledge Mr. Williams was a stranger. In early life he appears to have formed himself on the model of the Voltaires, Rousseaus, D'Alemberts, and other French writers of a similar stamp. They unfortunately had to operate on weak minds, and produced incalculable mischief. David Williams, by bringing forward his opinions and his schemes in a country where genuine religion is understood, and at all times ably defended, sunk under the argument and ridicule which he had to encounter, and became a harmless visionary.

, bishop of Ossory, in Ireland, was born at Caernarvon, in North Wales, about 1589. In 1603 he was sent to Oxford by his uncle but this relation failing to support him, he was, after two years, received at Cambridge by the kindness of a friend, and admitted of Jesus college, where he took his degrees in arts, and after entering into holy orders, was appointed curate of Hanwell, in Middlesex. Afterwards the earl of Southampton gave him the rectory of Foscot, in Buckinghamshire; and he was for some years lecturer of St. Peter’s, Cheapside, London. While in this situation, he informs us, “his persecutions began from the puritans,” who took offence at something he had preached and printed; and it was now he published his first book, called “The Resolution of Pilate,” which neither Harris nor Wood mention among his works; and another called “The Delight of the Saints. A most comfortable treatise of grace and peace, and many other excellent points, whereby men may live like saints on earth, and become true saints in heaven,” Lond. 1622, /di. reprinted 1635. His boldness in the pulpit raised him many enemies, but their persecutions were for some time of no avail, until at length they prevailed on the bishop of London to suspend him. This appears to have been in his twenty-seventh year, when, notwithstanding, he went back, to Cambridge and took his degree of B. D. On his return to London he found friends in Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, and in the chancellor Egerton, who gave him the Jiving of Llan-Lechyd, in the diocese of Bangor, worth lOQl. and a better rectory than what he was suspended from by the bishop of London. He now found a new enemy. Refusing another living in exchange for what -he had just got, the bishop of Bangor presented certain articles against him ex officio, and he was again obliged to appeal to the Arches. The bishop of Bangor being in town, the archbishop of Canterbury sent for them both, and checked the bishop for his prosecution, and gave Mr. Williams a licence to preach through several dioceses of his province.

After remaining four years in the diocese of Bangor, in which the bishop’s conduct made him uneasy, he went to Cambridge, and took his degree of D. D. and returning to London became domestic chaplain to the earl of Montgomery (afterwards earl of Pembroke) and tutor to his children, and was promoted to be chaplain to the king, prebendary of Westminster, and dean of Bangor, to the last of which preferments he was instituted March 28, 1634; and he held this deanery in commendam till his death. He says that, “before he was forty years old, he narrowly escaped being elected bishop of St. Asaph.” He remained in the enjoyment of these preferments about twelve years y and in 1641 was advanced to the bishopric of Ossory, but the Irish rebellion breaking out in less than a month after his consecration, he was forced to take refuge in England, and joined the court, being in attendance on his majesty, as one of his chaplains, at the battle of Edge-hill, Oct. 23, 1642. He remained also with the king during the greater part of the winter at Oxford, and then retired to Wales to be at more leisure to write his “Discovery of Mysteries, or the plots of the parliament to overthrow both church and state,” published at Oxford, 1643, 4to. In the following year he published his “Jura majestatis; the rights of kings both in church and state, granted, first by God, secondly, violated by rebels, and thirdly, vindicated by the truth,” Oxford, 4to. He had also published in 1643, at the same place, “Vindiciae regum, or the Grand Rebellion,” c.

In the mean time he was employed to go to London to try to bring over the earl of Pembroke to the royal cause (two of whose sons were with the king at Oxford, and had been the bishop’s pupils). This task he undertook, surrounded as it was with danger, and obnoxious as he knew himself to be by his publications. The negociation failed, and the earl was so incensed, that Dr. Williams had reason to think he would deliver him up to parliament, who had recently ordered his last mentioned publication to be burnt. He contrived, therefore, and not without some difficulty, to obtain a pass from the lord mayor of London, “as a poor pillaged preacher of Ireland,” and by this means got to Northampton, and thence to Oxford, whence he went first to Wales, and then to Ireland, where he remained until after the battle of Naseby, in 1645.

After this he underwent a series of hardships for his loyalty, and lived sometimes in Wales and sometimes in Ireland, in a very precarious way, until the restoration. As soon as he heard the first news of that event he went to Dublin, and preaching on the day of his arrival at St. Bride’s, was the first man in Ireland who publicly prayed for the king. He then repaired to his diocese, and finding his palace as well as his cathedral in ruins, set himself to repair both, but found many difficulties, and was involved in many law-suits before he could recover the revenues belonging to the see. He appears to have been perfectly disinterested, for, besides what he laid out on these repairs, he devoted the greater part of his income to charitable purposes. He died at Kilkenny, March 29, 1672, in the eightv-third year of his age, and was buried on the south-side oV the chancel of the cathedral.

Bishop Williams’ s other works were, 1. “Seven golden Candlesticks, holding the seven greatest lights of Christian Religion,” Lond. 1627, 4to. 2. “The True Church shewed to all men that desire to be members of the same in six books, containing the whole body of divinity,” ibid. 1629, fol. 3. “The right way to the best Religion; wherein is largely explainecUne sum and principal heads of the Gospel, in certain sermons and treatises,” ibid. 1636, fol. 4. “The great Antichrist revealed,” ibid. 1660, fol. In this he attempted to prove that Antichrist was neither pope, nor Turk, nor any one person, but the party which overthrew the church and state. He published also some other treatises arising from the circumstances of the timers, and many sermons afterwards published collectively, in 1662, fol. and 1666, 4to. His most curious production, and from which the preceding circumstances of his life are taken, is entitled “The persecution and oppression of John Bale, and Griffith Williams, bishops of Ossory,” Lond. 1664, 4to. In this he institutes a parallel between bishop Bale and himself, as promoted to the same see at the mere motion of kings, without any interest or application; both violently expelled from the same house; both their persecutions occasioned by their pulpit performances; the one by popish, the other by puritan adversaries; both their dangers by sea were great; both persecuted by false accusers; to which Mr. Harris adds, “the same licentious spirit of railing appears in their writings, which no apology can excuse.”

, an English prelate of great abilities and very distinguished character, was the youngest son of Edward Willjams, esq. of Aber-Conway, in Caernarvonshire, in Wales, where he was born March 25, 1582. He was educated at the public school at Rutbin, in 1598, and at sixteen years of age admitted at St. John’s college, in Cambridge. His natural parts were very uncommon, and his application still more so; for he was of so singular and happy a constitution, that from his youth upwards he never required more than three hou'rs sleep out of the twentyfour for the purposes of perfect health. He took the degree of A. B. in 1602, and was made fellow of his college; yet this first piece of preferment was obtained by a mandamus from James I. His manner of studying had something particular in it. He used to allot one month to a certain province, esteeming variety almost as refreshing as cessation from labour; at the end of which he would take up some other subject, and so on, till he came round to his former courses. This method he observed, especially in his theological studies; and he found his account in it. He was also an exact philosopher, as well as an able divine, and admirably versed in all branches of literature. In 1605, when he took his master’s degree, he entertained his friends at the commencement in a splendid manner, for he was naturally generous, and was liberally supplied with money by his friends and patrons. John lord Lumley often furnished him both with books and money; and Dr. Richard Vaughan, bishop of London, who was related to him, gave him an invitation to spend his time at his palace at vacation times. Being thus introduced into the best company, contributed greatly towards polishing his manners.

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

The chancellor Egerton dying the 15th of March, 1616—17, gave Williams some books and papers, all written with his own hand. His lordship, upon the day of his death, called Williams to him, and told him “that if he wanted money he would leave him such a legacy in his will as should enable him to begin the world like a gentleman.” “Sir,” says Williams, “I kiss your hands you have filled my cup full; I am far from want, unless it be of your lordship’s directions how to live in the world if I survive you.” “Well,” said the chancellor, “I know you are an expert workman; take these tools to work with; they are the best I have;” and so gave him the books and papers. Bishop Hacket says that he saw the notes; and that they were collections for the well-ordering the high court of parliament, the court of chancery, the star-chamber, and the council-board: so that he had a good stock to set up with; and Hacket does not doubt but his system of politics was drawn from chancellor Egerton’s papers.

When sir Francis Bacon was made lord keeper, he offered to continue Williams his chaplain; who, however, declining it, was made a justice of the peace by his lordship for the county of Northampton. He was made king’s chaplain at the same time, and had orders to attend his majesty in his northern progress, which was to begin soon after; but the bishop of Winchester got leave Jor him to stay and to take his doctor’s degree, for the sake of giving entertainment to Marco Antonio v de Dominis, archbishop of Spalato, who was lately come to England, and designed to be at Cambridge the commencement following. The questions which he maintained for his degree were, “Supremus maoistratus non est excommunicabilis,” and “Subductio caiicis est mutilatio sacramenti et sacerdotii.” Dr. Williams now retired to his rectory of Wai d grave, where he had been at the expence, before he came, of building, gardening, and planting, to render it an agreeable residence. He had also provided a choice collection of books, which he stu lied with his usual diligence. As a minister he was very attentive to the duties of his function. He read, prayers constantly on Wednesdays and Fridays, and preached twice every Sunday at Waldgrave, or at Grafton; performing in his turn also at Kettering, in a lecture preached by an association of the best 'divines in that neighbourhood. It was a common saying with him, that “the way to get the credit from the nonconformists was, to out- preach them.” And his preaching was so much liked that his church used to be thronged with the gentry of the neighbouring parishes as well as his own. In the mean time, he was most of all distinguished for his extensive charities to the poor; the decrepid, the aged, the widow, and the fatherless, were sure of a welcome share in his hospitality.

In 1619 Dr. Williams preached before the king on Matth. ii. 8, and printed his sermon by his majesty’s order. The same year he was collated to the deanery of Salisbury, and the year after removed to the deanery of Westminster. He obtained this preferment by the interest of the marquis of Buckingham, whom for some time he neglected to court, says bishop Hacket, for two reasons; first, because he mightily suspected the continuance of the marquis in favour at court; secondly, because he saw that the marquis was very apt suddenly to look cloudy upon his creatures, as if he had raised them up on purpose to cast them down. However, once, when the doctor was attending the king, in the absence of the marquis, his majesty asked him abruptly, and without any relation to the discourse then in hand, “When he was at Buckingham?” “Sir,” said the doctor, “I have had no business to resort to his lordship.” “But,” replied the king, “wheresoever he is, you must go to him about my business;” which he accordingly did, and the marquis received him courteously. He took this as a hint from the king to visit the marquis, to whom he was afterwards serviceable in furthering his marriage with the great heiress, the earl of Rutland’s daughter. He reclaimed her ladyship from the errors of the Church of Rome to the faith and profession of the Church of England; in order to which he drew up the elements of the true religion for her use, and printed twenty copies of it with no name, only, “By an old prebend of Westminster.”

The lord chancellor Bacon being removed from his office in May 1621, Williams was made lord keeper of the great seal of England, the 10th of July following; and the same month bishop of Lincoln, with the deanery of Westminster, and the rectory of Waldgrave, in commendam. When the great seal was brought to the king from lord Bacon, his majesty was overheard by some near him to say, upon the delivery of it to him, “Now by my soule, I am pained at the heart where to bestow this for, as to my lawyers, I thinke they be all knaves.” In this high office bishop Williams discharged his duties with eminent ability, and with extraordinary diligence and assiduity. It is said by Hacket, that when our prelate first entered upon the office, he had such a load of business, that he was forced to sit by candle-light in the court of chancery two hours before day, and to remain there till between eight and nine; after which he repaired to the House of Peers, where he sat as speaker till twelve or one every day. After a short repast at home, he then returned to hear the causes in chancery, which he could not dispatch in the morning; or if he attended the council at Whitehall, he came back towards evening, and followed his chancery business till eight at night, and later. After this when he came home, he perused what papers his secretary brought to him; and when that was done, though late in the night, he prepared himself for the business which was to be transacted next morning in the House of Lords. And it is said that when he had been one year lord keeper, he had finally concluded more causes than had been decided in the preceding seven years. In the Star-chamber he behaved with more lenity and moderation in general, than was usual among the judges of that court. He would excuse himself from inflicting any severe corporal punishment upon an offender, by saying that “councils had forbidden bishops from meddling with blood in a judicial form.” In pecuniary fines he was also very lenient, and very ready to remit his own share in fines. Of this we have the following instance. Sir Francis Inglefield had asserted before witnesses, that “he could prove this holy bishop judge had been bribed by some that had fared well in their causes,” The lord keeper immediately called upon sir Francis to prove his assertion, which he being unable to do, was fined some thousand pounds to be paid to the king and the injured party. Soon after bishop Williams sent for sir Francis, and told him he would give him a demonstration that he was above a bribe; and “for my part,” said he, “I forgive you every penny of my fine, and will beg of his majesty to do the same.” This piece of generosity made sir Francis acknowledge his fault, and he was afterwards received into some degree of friendship and acquaintance with the lord keeper. Weldon’s charge of corruption against Williams seems to be equally ill founded,nothing of the kind having ever been proved.

Bishop Williams was very desirous of keeping upon good terms with the favourite Buckingham, but it appears, notwithstanding, that he withstood him when he had just reason for it. He sometimes also gave Buckingham good advice, which being delivered with freedom, could not be very acceptable to the haughty favourite. His resolution in opposing Buckingham’s designs, when he saw weighty reasons for it, was so remarkable that the king used to say, that “he was a stout man, and durst do more than himself.” James sometimes really appeared afraid of openly expressing his dislike at such of Buckingham’s actions as he really disapproved; and we are told that his majesty thanked God, that he had put Williams into the place of lord keeper; “for,” said he, “he that will not wrest justice for Buckingham’s sake, whom he loves, will never be corrupted with money which, he never loved.” And because the lord keeper had lived for the space of three years upon the bare revenues of his office, and was not richer by the sale of one cursitor’s place in all that time, his majesty gave him a bountiful new-year’s gift, thinking that it was but reasonable to encourage, by his liberality, a man who never sought after wealth by the sordid means of extortion or bribery.

The lord keeper made use of his influence with the king, in behalf of several noblemen who were under the royal displeasure and in confinement. He prevailed with his majesty to set at liberty the earl of Northumberland, who had been fifteen years a prisoner in the Tower. He procured also the enlargement of the earls of Oxford and Arundel, both of whom had been a considerable time under confinement. He employed likewise his good offices with the king, in behalf of many others of inferior rank, particularly some clergymen who offended by their pulpit freedoms. One instance we shall extract from his principal biographer, as a proof of his address, and knowledge of king James’s peculiar temper. A Mr. Knight, a young divine at Oxford, had advanced in a sermon somewhat which was said to be derogatory to the king’s prerogative. For this he was a long time imprisoned, and a charge was about to be drawn up against him, to impeach him for treasonable doctrine. One Dr. White, a clergyman far advanced in years, was likewise in danger of a prosecution of the same kind. Bishop Williams was very desirous of bringing both these gentlemen off, and hit on the following contrivance. Some instructions had been appointed to be drawn up by his care and direction, for the performance of useful and orderly preaching; which being under his hand to dispatch, he now besought his majesty that this proviso might pass among the rest, that none of the clergy should be permitted to preach before the age of thirty years, nor after three-score. “On my soul,” said the king, “the devil, or some fit of madness is in the motion; for I have many great wits, and of clear distillation, that have preached before me at Royston and Newmarket to my great liking, that are under thirty. And my prelates and chaplains, that are far stricken in years, are the best masters of that faculty that Europe affords.” “I agree to all this,” answered the lord keeper, “and since your majesty will allow both young and old to go up into the pulpit, it is but justice that you shew indulgence to the young ones if they run into errors before their wits be settled (for every apprentice is allowed to mar some work before he be cunning in the mystery of his trade), and pity to the old ones, if some of them fall into dotage when their brains grow dry. Will your majesty conceive displeasure,' and not Jay it down, if the former set your teeth on edge sometimes, before they are mellow- wise and if the doctrine of the latter be touched with a blemish, when they begin to be rotten, and to drop from the tree?” “This is not unfit for consideration,” said the king, “but what do you drive at?” “Sir,” replied Williams, “first to beg your pardon for mine own boldness; then to remember you that Knight is a beardless boy, from whom exactness of judgment could not be expected. And that White is a decrepit, spent man, who had not a fee-simple, but a lease of reason, and it is expired. Both these that have been foolish in their several extremes of years, I prostrate at the feet of your princely clemency.” In consequence, of this application, king James readily granted a pardon to both of them.

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

For four years after Williams was consecrated bishop of Lincoln, the multiplicity of his affairs prevented his visiting his clergy, yet his government, it is said, was such as to give content to his whole diocese. He managed the affairs of it with the greatest exactness by faithful substitutes, who gave him a just account of all matters, so that he knew the name and character of every one of his clergy, and took care to encourage the deserving. When now, however, he came to Bugden, he found it necessary to repair his house, and the chapel, which he did at a great expence, and in a magnificent manner. The concourse that resorted to this chapel was very great; and his table was generally well filled with gentry, so that the historian Sanderson, who is no friend to Williams, said, that “he lived at Bugden more episcopally than any of his predecessors.” All the great persons and nobility who had occasion to travel that way, used to call upon his lordship, from whom they and their retinue were sure of a hearty welcome, and the best entertainment. All the neighbouring clergy also, and many of the yeomanry, were free to come to his table, and, indeed, he seldom sat down without some of the clergy. He was also extremely charitable to the poor, and used to say, that " he would spend his own while he had it; for he thought his adversaries would not permit him long to enjoy it.' 7 Had he not lived in this hospitable manner, yet his conversation, and agreeable manner of accommodating himself to his guests, were so generally pleasing, that he was not likely to be much alone. Many members of both universities, the moit distinguished for thejr wit and learning, made him frequent visits; so that very often, taking the company and entertainment together, Bugden was said to resemble one of the universities in commencement time. It was his custom, at his table, to have a chapter in the English Bible read daily at dinner by one of the choristers, and another at supper in Latin by one of his gentlemen.

This hospitable and splendid manner of living gave offence to the court, as he was publicly known to be out of favour there. It was said, that such a mode of living was very improper for a man in disgrace. To which he replied, that “he knew not what he had done, to live the worse for their sakes, who did not love him.” His family was the nursery of several noblemen’s sons; particularly those of the marquis of Hertford, and of the earls of Pembroke, Salisbury, and Leicester. These, together with many other young gentlemen, had tutors assigned them, of whom our prelate took an account, how their pupils improved in virtue and learning. To those who were about to be removed to the universities, before he parted with them, he read himself a brief system of logic, which lectures even his own servants might attend Who were capable of such instruction: and he took particular care that they should be thoroughly grounded in the principles of religion. He was exceedingly liberal to poor scholars in both universities; and his disbursements this way are said every year to have amounted to a thousand, and sometimes to twelve hundred pounds. He was also very generous to learned foreigners. When Dr. Peter du Moulin fled to England, to avoid persecution in France, bishop Williams hearing of him, sent his chaplain, Dr. Hacket, to pay him a visit, and supposing that he might be in want, bade him carry him some money, not naming any sum. Hacket said, that he supposed he could not give him less than twenty pounds. “1 did demur upon the sum,” said the bishop, “to try you. Is twenty pounds a fit gift for me to give to a man of his parts and deserts? Take an hundred, and present it from me, and tell him, he shall not want, and I will come shortly and visit him myself;” which he afterwards did, and supplied Du Moulin’s wants while he was in England. He was also a liberal patron of his countryman John Owen, the epigrammatist, whom he maintained for several years, and when he died he buried him, and erected a monument for him at his own expence.

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

At length when the parliament met in November 1640, bishop Williams petitioned the king for his enlargement, and to have his writ of summons to parliament, which his majesty thought proper to refuse but about a fortnight after, the House of Lords sent the gentleman- usher of the black rod to demand him of the lieutenant of the Tower, in. consequence of which he took his seat among his brethren. Some being set on to try how he stood affected to his prosecutors, he answered, that “if they had no worse foes than him, they might fear no harm; and that he saluted them with the charity of a bishop;” and when Kilvert came to him to crave pardon and indemnity for all the wrongs he had done, “I assure you pardon,” said the bishop, “for what you have done before; but this is a new fault, that you take me to be of so base a spirit, as to defile myself with treading upon so mean a creature. Live still by petty-fogging and impeaching, and think that I have forgotten you.” And now the king, understanding with what courage and temper he had behaved himself under his misfortunes, was pleased to be reconciled to him; and commanded all orders, filed or kept in any court or registry upon the former informations against him, to be taken off, razed, and cancelled, that nothing might stand upon record to his disadvantage.

When the earl of StrafFord came to be impeached in parliament, Williams defended the rights of the bishops, in a very significant speech, to vote in case of blood, as Racket relates; but lord Clarendon relates just the contrary. He says, that this bishop, without communicating with any of his brethren, very frankly declared his opinion, that '< they ought not to be present; and offered, not only in his own name, but for the rest of the bishops, to withdraw always when that business was entered upon:“and so, adds the noble historian, betrayed a fundamental right of the whole order, to the great prejudice of the king, and to the taking away the life of that person, who could not otherwise have suffered. Shortly after, when the king declared, that he neither would, nor could in conscience, give his royal assent to that act of attainder; and when the tumultuous citizens came about the court with noise and clamour for justice; the lord Say desired the king to confer with his bishops for the satisfaction of his conscience, and with bishop Williams in particular, who told him, says lord Clarendon, that” he must consider, that as he had a private capacity and a public, so he had a public conscience as well as a private: that though his private conscience, as a man, would not permit him to do an act contrary to his own understanding, judgment, and conscience, yet his public conscience as a king, which obliged him to do all things for the good of his people, and to preserve his kingdom in peace for himself and his posterity, would not only permit him to do that, but even oblige and require him; that he saw in what commotion the people were; that his own life, and that of the queen and the royal issue, might probably be sacrificed to that fury: and it would be very strange, if his conscience should prefer the right of one single private person, how innocent soever, before all those other lives and the preservation of the kingdom. This,“continues lord Clarendon,” was the argumentation of that unhappy casuist, who truly, it may be, did believe himself:“yet he reveals another anecdote, which shews, at least if true, that bishop Williams could have no favourable intentions towards the unfortunate earl of Strafford. It had once been mentioned to the bishop, when he was out at court, whether by authority or no was not known, says the historian, that” his peace should te made there, if he would resign his bishopric and deanery of Westminster, and take a good bishopric in Ireland:“which he positively refused, and said,” he had much to do to defend himself against the archbishop (Laud) here; but, if he was in Ireland, there was a man (meaning the earl of Strafford) who would cut off his head within one month."

In 1641, he was advanced to the archbishopric of York; and the same year opposed, in a long speech, the bill for depriving the bishops of their seats in the House of Lords; which had this effect, that it laid the bill asleep for five months. Then the mob flocked about the parliament-house, crying out, “No bishops, no bishops;” and insulted the prelates, as they passed to the House. Williams was one of the bishops who was most rudely treated by the rabble; his person was assaulted, and his robes torn from his back. Upon this, he returned to his house, the deanery of Westminster; and sending for all the bishops then in the town, who were in number twelve, proposed, as absolutely necessary, that “they might unanimously and presently prepare a protestation, to send to the House, against the force that was used upon them; and against all the acts which were or should be done during the time that they should by force be kept from doing their duties in the House;” and immediately, having pen and ink ready, himself prepared a protestation, which was sent. But the politic bishop Williams is here represented to have been transported by passion into impolitic measures; for, no sooner was this protestation communicated to the House than the governing Lords manifested a great satisfaction in it; some of them saying, that “there was digitus Dei to bring that to pass, which they could not otherwise have compassed:” and, without ever declaring any judgment or opinion of their own upon it, sent to desire a conference with the Commons, who presently joined with them in accusing the protesters of high treason, and sending them all to the Tower; where they continued till the bill for putting them out of the House was passed, which was not till many months after. Lord Clarendon says, there was only one gentleman in the House of Commons that spoke in the behalf of these prelates; who said, among other things, that “he did not believe they were guilty of high treason, but that they were stark-mad, and therefore desired they might be sent to Bedlam.”

In June 1642, the king being at York, our archbishop was enthroned in person in his own cathedral, but, soon after the king had left York, which was in July following, was obliged to leave it too; the younger Hotham, who was coming thither with his forces, having sworn solemnly to seize and kill him, for some opprobrious words spoken of him concerning his usage of the king at Hull. He retired to his estate at Aber Con way, and fortified Con way-castle for the king; which so pleased his majesty, that by a letter, Oxford, Aug. the 1st, 1643, the king “heartily desired him to go on with that work, assuring him, that, whatever moneys he should lay out upon the fortification of the said castle should be repayed unto him before the custody thereof should be put into any other hand than his own, or such as he should command.” By virtue of a warrant, Jan. 2, 1643-4, the archbishop deputes his nephew William Hooks, esq. to have the custody of this castle; and, some time after, being sent for, set out to attend the king at Oxford, whom he is said to have cautioned particularly against Cromwell, who, “though then of but mean rank and use in the army, yet would be sure to rise higher. I knew him,” says he, “at Buckden; but never knew his religion. He was a common spokesman for sectaries, and maintained their parts with stubbornness. He never discoursed as if he were pleased with your majesty and your great officers; indeed he loves none that are more than his equals. Your majesty did him but justice in repulsing a petition put up by him against sir Thomas Steward, of the Isle of Ely; but he takes them all for his enemies that would not let him undo his hest friend; and, above all that live, I think he is injuriarum perscquentissimus^ as Portius Latro said of Catiline. He talks openly, that it is fit some should act more vigorously against your forces, and bring your person into the power of the parliament. He cannot give a good word of his general the eajl of Essex; because, he says, the earl is but half an enemy to your majesty, and hath done you more favour than harm. His fortunes are broken, that it is impossible for him to subsist, much less to be what he aspires to, but by your majesty’s bounty, or by the ruin of us all, and a common confusion; as one said, ‘ Lentulus salva republica salvus esse non potuit.’ In shprt, every beast hath some evil properties; but Cromwell hath the properties of all evil beasts. My humble motion is, either that you would win him to you by promises of fair treatment, or catch him by some stratagem, and cut him off.”

After some stay at Oxford, he returned to his own country, having received a fresh charge from his majesty to take care of all North Wales, but especially of Conwaycastle, in which the people of the country had obtained leave of the archbishop to lay up all their valuables. A year after this, sir John Owen, a colonel for the king, marching that way after a defeat, obtained of prince Rupert to be substituted under his hand commander of the castle.; and so surprising it by force entered it, notwithstanding it was before given to the bishop under the king’s own signet, to possess it quietly, till the charges he had been at should be refunded him, which as yet had never been offered. The archbishop’s remonstrances at court meeting with no success, he being joined by the countrypeople, whose properties were detained in the castle, and assisted by one colonel Mitton, who was a zealous man for the parliament, forced open the gates, and entered it. The archbishop did not join the colonel with any intention to prejudice his majesty’s service, but agreed to put him into the castle, on condition that every proprietary should possess his own, which the Qolonel saw performed.

After the king was beheaded, the archbishop spent hig days in sorrow, study, and devotion; and is said to have risen constantly every night out of his bed at midnight, and to have prayed for a quarter of an hour on his bare knees, without any thing but his shirt and waistcoat on. He lived not much above a year after, dying the 25th of March 1650 he was buried in Llandegay church, where a monument was erected to him by his nephew and heir, sir Griffith Williams. Besides several sermons, he published a book against archbishop Laud’s innovations in church-matters and religious ceremonies, with this title, “The Holy Table, Name, and Thing, more antiently, properly, and literally, used under the New Testament, than that of Altar. Written long ago by a minister in Lincolnshire, in answer to D. Coel, a judicious divine of queen Marie’s dayes. Printed for the diocese of Lincoln, 1637;” in quarto. Lord Clarendon, though far from being favourable 10 this prelate, yet represents this “book so full of good learning, and that learning so closely and solidly applied, tnough it abounded with too many light expressions, that it gained him reputation enough to be able to do hurt; and shewed, that in his retirement he had spent his time with his books very profitably. He used all the wit and all the malice he could, to awaken the people to a jealousy of these agitations, and innovations in the exercise of religion; not without insinuations that it aimed at greater alterations, for which he knew the people would quickly find a name: and he was ambitious to have it believed, that the archbishop Laud was his greatest enemy, for his having constantly opposed his rising to any government in the church, as a man whose hot and hasty spirit he had long known.”

In the mean time, there have not been wanting those, who, without disguising his infirmities, have set archbishop Williams in a better light than we find him represented by the earl of Clarendon, who seems by no means to have loved the man. Arthur Wilson tells us, that, “though he was composed of many grains of good learning, yet the height of his spirit, I will not say pride, made him odious even to those that raised him; haply because they could not attain to those ends by him, that they required of him. But being of a comely and stately presence, and that animated with a great mind, made him appear very proud to the vulgar eye; but that very temper raised him to aim at great things, which he affected: for the old ruinous body of the abbey-church at Westminster was new clothed by him; the fair and beautiful library of St. John’s in Cambridge was a pile of his erection; and a very complete chapel built by him at Lincoln-college in Oxford, merely for the name of Lincoln, having no interest in nor relation; to that university. But that which heightened him most in the opinion of those that knew him best, was his bountiful mind to men in want; being a great patron to support, where there was merit that wanted supply: but these great actions were not publicly visible: those were more apparent that were looked on with envious, rather than with emulous eyes.”

Hacket likewise, after observing that he was a man of great hospitality, charity, and generosity, especially to gentlemen of narrow fortunes, and poor scholars in both universities, informs us that his disbursements this way every year-amounted to 1000l. or sometimes 1200l. Hacket had reason to know his private character; for he was his chaplain, and although he may be supposed partial to so eminent a benefactor, the character he gives of archbishop Williams is, in general, not only consistent with itself, but with some contemporary authorities. He appears, amidst all his secular concerns, to have entertained a strong sense of the importance of religion, When a divine once came to him for institution to a living, Williams expressed himself thus; “I have passed through many places of honour and trust, both in church and state, more than any of my order in England these seventy years before. But were I but assured, that by my preaching I had converted but one soul unto God, I should take therein more spiritual joy and comfort, than in all the honours and offices which have been bestowed upon me.”

Archbishop Williams undertook a Latin Commentary on the Bible; and the notes collected from various authors by his own hand were formerly in the custody of Mr. Gouland, keeper of Westminster-college library. His lordship knowing well, that to perform such a task completely was above the abilities of any one man, intended to leave it to be finished by twelve or more of the best scholars in the nation, whom he had in his eye, and was willing to give them twenty thousand pounds rather than it should be left unfinished. He likewise resolved, as noticed by Dr. Pegge, in his valuable life of that prelate, to publish the works of his predecessor bishop Grosthead, which were scattered in several libraries at home and abroad, and he digested what he could procure of them, and wrote arguments upon various parts of them.

, an able divine, and bishop of Chichester, was born in Northamptonshire in 1634. In 1651 he entered a commoner of Magdalen-hall, Oxford, where in 1658 he completed his degrees in arts, and was ordained. In 1673 he was collated to the rectory of St. Mildred in the Poultry, London, and in 1683 to the prebend of Reymere in the cathedral of St. Paul. After the revolution he became chaplain to king William and queen Mary, and was preferred to a prebend of Canterbury, and in December 1696 advanced to the bishopric of Chichester, in which he died in 1709. He was a considerable writer in the controversies with the papists and dissenters, and preached the lectures founded by Mr. Boyle, his sermons on that occasion being published in 1695, 4to, under the title of “The characters of Divine Revelation.” He wrote also a “History of the Gunpowder Treason,” and many controversial pamphlets enumerated by Wood. He lived in great intimacy with Tillotson, who says of him, “Mr. Williams is really one of the best men I know, and most unwearied in doing good, and his preaching is very weighty and judicious.” When Firmin, the Socinian, published his “Considerations on the explications of the doctrine of the Trinity,” Pr. Williams wrote the same year (1694) a “Vindication of archbishop Tillotson’s Four Sermons (concerning the divinity and incarnation of our blessed Saviour) and of the bishop of Worcester’s sermon on the mysteries of the Christian faith.” In this, which was not published till 1695, after 'Tillotson’s death, Dr. Williams observes that it was not without the archbishop’s direction and encouragement, that he entered upon it, and that had he lived to have perused the whole, as he did a part of it a few days before his last hours, it had come with greater advantage into the world, &c.

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

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

Dr. Lancaster, the provost, applied this benefaction towards erecting the south-side of the college. Sir Joseph also gave to the library a valuable collection of Mss. especially heraldic, and memoirs of his foreign negociations. His benefactions to this college in his life-time, and at his death, in plate, books, buildings, and money, amounted to 8000l. He left by will 500l. to the grandchildren of his patron Dr. Langbaine; and to the parish of Bride-kirk gilt bibles and prayer-books, communion-plate, &c. He was also a benefactor to the cloth-workers’ company, of which he had been master, and left SOOOl, to found a mathematical school for freemen’s sons at Rochester, which city he had represented in 1689, 1695, 1698, and 1700. He died in 1701, and was buried in Westminster-abbey.

, an illustrious English physician, was of a reputable family, and born at Great Bedwin, in Wiltshire, Jan. 27, 1621, in a house that was often visited by his grandson Browne Willis, and of which there is an engraving in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1798. He was instructed in grammar and classical literature by Mr. Ed-­ward Sylvester, a noted schoolmaster in the parish of AllSaints, Oxford; and, in 1636, became a member of Christ church. He applied himself vigorously to his studies, and took the degrees in arts; that of bachelor in 1639, that of master in 1642. About this time, Oxford being turned into a garrison for the king, he with other scholars bore arms for his majesty, and devoted his leisure hours to the study of physic; in which faculty he took a bachelor’s degree in 1646, when Oxford was surrendered to the parliament. He pursued the business of his profession, and kept Abingdon market. He settled in an house over against Merton college, and appropriated a room in it for divine service, where Mr. John Fell, afterwards dean of Christ church, whose sister he had married, Mr. John Dolben, afterwards archbishop of York, and sometimes Mr. Richard Allestree, afterwards provost of Eton college, exercised the liturgy and sacraments according to the church of England, and allowed to others the privilege of resorting thither. This measure of theirs is commemorated by a painting in the hall of Christ church, Oxford.

In 1660, he was made Sedleian professor of natural philosophy; and the same year took the degree of doctor of physic. Being sent for to most of the people of quality about Oxford, and even at great distances, he visited the lady Keyt in Warwickshire; and is supposed to have been going to her in April 1664, when he discovered, and made experiments upon, the famous medicinal spring at Alstrop, near Brackley. Willis and Lower first recommended these waters, which were afterwards decried by Radcliffe. The reason which Granger heard assigned for his decrying them was, because the people of the village insisted upon his keeping a bastard child, which was laid to him by an infamous woman of that place. Upon this the doctor declared “that he would put a toad into their well,” and accordingly cried down the waters, which soon lost their reputation.

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

This book was translated into English by an anonymous person, and printed at London, in 1679, in folio; but this translation being very faulty, it was corrected by S. Pordage, esq. above mentioned, and published in his version of Dr. Willis’s Works in 1681. In 1685 there came out afe London, in 8vo, “The London practice of Physic; or the whole practical part of physic contained in the works of Dr. Willis, faithfully made English, and printed together for the public good.” This contains, I. the first and second parts of our author’s Pharmaceutice rationalis; II. his treatise of convulsive diseases; III. that of the scurvy; IV. that of the diseases of the brain and genus nervosum; V. that of fevers. 10. A plain and easy method of preserving those that are well from the infection of the plague, or any contagious distemper, in city, camp, country, fleet, &c. and for curing such as are infected with it. Written in 1666, but not published till the end of 1690. All our author’s Latin works were printed in two volumes in 4to at Geneva in 1676, and Amsterdam in 1682 in 4to.

Although Dr. Willis’s works abound with the reveries of the chemical philosophy, and consequently have fallen into considerable neglect, there are many useful and curious things to be found in them. His “Cerebri Anatome” is the best of his works; but even here, although his anatomical descriptions be good, yet his physiological opinions must be acknowledged to be altogether extravagant and absurd. For example, he lodges common sense in the corpus striatum of the brain, imagination in the corpus callosum, and memory in the cineritious matter which encompasses the medullary. Yet^ after all, what is this to the more monstrous absurdities of that modern piece of quackery, called Craniology? Vieussens, who in his “Neurographia,” animadverted on Willis, is notwithstanding under great obligations to him, and Willis’s enumeration of the nerves is still adhered to by anatomists.

A Dutch physician, named Schelhammer, in a book “De Auditu,” printed at Leyden in 1684, took occasion to animadvert upon a passage in Dr. Willis’s book “de Anima Brutorum,” printed in 1672; and in such a manner as reflected not only upon his skill, but also upon his integrity. But Dr. Derham observes, “that this is a severe and unjust censure of our truly-famous countryman, a man of known probity, who hath manifested himself to have been as curious and sagacious an anatomist, as great a philosopher, and as learned and skilful a physician as any of his censurers; and his reputation for veracity and integrity was no less than any of theirs too.” It remains to be noticed, that his “Cerebri Anatome” had an elegant copy of verses written in it by Mr. Phillip Fell, and the drawings for the plates were done by his friend Dr. Christopher Wren, the celebrated architect.

, an eminent antiquary, was born Sept. 14, 1682, at Blandford in Dorset. He was grandson to the preceding Dr. Willis, and eldest son of Thomas Willis, esq. of Bletchley, in Bucks. His mother was daughter of Robert Browne, esq. of Frampton, in Dorsetshire. He had the first part of his education under Mr. Abraham Freestone at Bechampton, whence he was sent to Westminster-school, and during his frequent walks in the adjoining abbey imbibed that taste for architectural, particularly Ecclesiastical, antiquities, which constituted the pleasure and employment of his future life. At the age of seventeen he was admitted a gentleman commoner of Christ church, Oxford, wilder the tuition of the famous geographer Edward Wells, D. D. and when he left Oxford, he lived for three years with the famous Dr. Will. Wotton. In 1702, he proved a considerable benefactor to Fenny-Stratford, by reviving the market of that town. In 1705, he was chosen for the town of Buckingham; and, during the short time he was in parliament, was a constant attendant, and generally upon committees. In 1707, he married Catharine, daughter of Daniel Elliot, esq. of a very ancient family in Cornwall, with whom he had a fortune of 8000l. and by whom he had a numerous issue. She died Oct. 2, 1724. This lady had some literary pretensions. She wrote a book entitled “The established Church of England the true catholick church, free from innovations, or diminishing the apostolic doctrines, the sacraments, and doctrines whereof are herein set forth,” Lond. 1718, 8vo. What the merit of this work may be, we know not; but her husband often made a joke of it, and in his own copy wrote the following note, " All the connexion in this book is owing to the book binder.' 7 Between 1704 and 1707 he contributed very largely towards the repairing and beautifying Bletchley church, of which he was patron, and to which he gave a set of communion-plate. In 1717-18, the Society of- Antiquaries being revived, Mr. Willis became a member of it, and Aug. 23, 1720, the degree of M. A. and 1749, that of LL. D. were conferred on him, by diploma, by the university of Oxford. From some of his letters in 1723, it would appear that at that time he had some employment in the Tower, or perhaps had only gained access to the archives preserved there. At his solicitation, and in concurrence with his cousin Dr. Martin Benson, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, rector of that parish, a subscription was raised for building the beautiful chapel of St. Martin’s at Fenny -Stratford, which was begun in 1724, and consecrated May 27, 1730. A dreadful fire having destroyed above fifty houses and the church at Stoney-Stratford, May 19, 1746, Mr. Willis, besides collecting money among his friends for the benefit of the unhappy sufferers, rerpaired, at his own expence, the tower of the church, and afterwards gave a lottery ticket towards the re-building of that church, which came up a prize. In 1741 he presented the university of Oxford with his fine cabinet of English coins, at that time looked upon as the most complete collection in England, and which he had been upwards of forty years in collecting; but the university thinking it too much for him, who had then a large family, to give the gold ones, purchased them for 15O guineas, which were paid to Mr. Willis for 167 English gold coins, at the rate of four guineas per ounce weight; and even in this way the gold coins were a considerable benefaction.This cabinet Mr. Willis annually visited 19 Oct. being St, Frideswide’s day, and never failed making some addition to it. He also gave some Mss. to the Bodleian library, together with a picture of his grandfather, Dr. Thomas Willis. In 1752 he laid out 200l. towards the repairs of the fine tower at Buckingham church, which fell down some years ago, and he was, upon every occasion, a great friend to that town. In 17.56, Bow Brickhill church, which had been disused near 150 years, was restored and repaired by his generosity. In 1757 he erected, in Christ church, Oxford, a handsome monument for Dr. lies, canon of that cathedral, to whose education his grandfather had: contributed; and in 1759, he prevailed upon University college to do the same in Bechampton church, for their great benefactor sir Simon Benet, bart. above 100 years after his death: he also, at his own expence, placed a marble stone over him, on account of his benefactions at Bechampion, Buckingham, Stoney-Stratford, &c. Dr. Willis died at Whaddon-hall, Feb. 5, 170, in the seventy-eightli year of his age, and was buried in Fenny- Stratford chapeJ, where is an inscription written by himself.

The rev. Mr. Gibberd, curate of Whaddon, gives him the following character. “He was strictly religious, without any mixture of superstition or enthusiasm. The honour of God was his prime view in every action of his life. He was a constant frequenter of the church, and never absented himself from the holy communion; and, as to the reverence he had for places more immediately set apart for religious duties, it is needless to mention what his many public works, in building, repairing, and beautifying churches, are standing evidences of. In the time of health he called his family together every evening, and, besides his private devotions in the morning, he always retired into his closet in the afternoon at about four or five o'clock. In his intercourse with men he was in every respect, as far as I could judge, very upright. He was a good landlord, and scarce ever raised his rents; and that his servants likewise had no reason to complain of their master is evident from the long time they generally lived with him. He had many valuable and good friends, whose kindness he always acknowledged. And though perhaps he might have some disputes with a few people, tfye reason of which it -would be disagreeable to enter into f yet it is with great satisfaction that I can affirm that he was perfectly reconciled with every one. He was, with regard to himself, peculiarly sober and temperate; and he has often told me, that he denied himself many things, that he might bestow them better. Indeed, he appeared to me to have no greater regard to money than as it furnished him with an opportunity of doing good. He supplied yearly three charity schools at Whaddon, Bletchley, and Fenny Stratford; and besides what he constantly gave at Christmas, he was never backward in relieving his poor neighbours with both wine and money when they were sick, or in any kind of distress. He was a faithful friend where he professed it, and always ready to contribute any thing to their advantage.”

Many other curious particulars of Dr. Willis’s character and singularities may be seen in Mr. Nichols’s “Literary Anecdotes,” vols. VI. and VIII. and many extracts from his correspondence. It is now necessary to give some account of his labours as an antiquary, which, in general, do the highest credit to his talents, industry, and perseverance, yet perhaps, could not have been carried on without a considerable proportion of that enthusiasm which sometimes embarrassed his fortune, and created many oddities of character and behaviour.

In 1710, when Mr. Gale published his “History and Antiquities of Winchester Cathedral,” Willis supplied him with the history of Hyde abbey,- and lists of the abbots of Newminster and Hyde, published in that work. In 1715 and 1716 he published his “Notitia Parliamentaria, or an History of the Counties, cities and boroughs in England and Wales,” 2 vols. 8vo, to which he added a third in 1730. The first volume was reprinted in 1730, with additions; and a single sheet, as far as relates to the borough of Windsor, was printed in 1733, folio. In 1717, 'he published^ without his name, a kind of abridgment of * The Whole Duty of Man,“” for the benefit of the poorer sort.“In the same year,” A Survey of the Cathedral Church of St. David’s, and the edifices belonging to it, as they stood in the year 1715,“8vo. In 1718 and 1719,” An History of the mitred Parliamentary abbies and conventual cathedral churches,“2 vols. 8vo. In 1719, 20, and 21,” Surveys of the Cathedral churches of Llandaff, St. Asaph, and Bangor, &c.“8vo. This led to his greatest and most important work,” Survey of the Cathedrals of England, with the Parochialc Anglicanmn^ illustrated with draughts of the cathedrals," 3 vols. 4to, 1727, 1730, and 1733. These volumes contain the history of the cathedrals of York, Durham, Carlisle, Chester, Man, Lichfield, Hereford, Worcester, Gloucester, Bristol, Lincoln, ifty, Oxford, and Peterborough*. These were first published by Mr. Francis Gosling, afterwards the banker and founder of the well-known and highly respected firm of that name, who, on giving up the bookselling business, sold the remaining copies to Osborne, who prefixed a title with the date 1742, and advertised them as containing a history of all the cathedrals. Against this roguish trick, Willis thought proper to guard the public in an advertisement in the public papers. It is to be regretted, however, that he did not extend his labours to all the cathedrals, for he had during his long life visited every cathedral in England and Wales except Carlisle, which journies he used to call his pilgrimages.

In 1733 he published “A Table of the Gold Coins of the Kings pf England,” in pne sheet folio, which is in the “Vetasta Monumenta.” Before 1752 he printed an “Address to the patrons of ecclesiastical livings,” 4to, with the view to prevent pluralities and non-residence; and in 1754, an improved edition of “Ecton’s Thesaurus rerum ecclesiasticarum,” 4to. His last publication was the “History and antiquities of the Town, hundred, and deanry, of Buckingham,” London, 1755, 4to. His large collections for the whole county are now among his Mss. in the Bodleian library; and his ms. of the “History of the Hundreds of Newport and Cotslow,” transcribed and methodized by Mr. Cole, are now among Mr. Cole’s valuable Mss. in the British Museum. Willis was not much a gainer by any of his publications, the sale being generally very tardy," of which he makes many complaints in his private correspondetice. They have all, however, since, borne a price more suited to their merits.

, a celebrated natural historian, was the only sort of sir Francis Willughby, knt, and was born in 1635. His natural advantages, with regard to birth, talents, and fortune, he applied in such a manner as to procure to himself honours that might more truly be called his own. He was addicted to study from his childhood, and was so great an ceconomist of his time, that he was thought by his friends to have impaired his health by his incessant application, By this means, however, he attained great skill in all branches of learningand got deep insight into the most abstruse kinds of knowledge, and the most subtle parts of the mathematics. But observing, in the busy and inquisitive age in which he lived, that the history of animals was in a great measure neglected by his countrymen, he applied himself particularly to that province, and used all diligence to cultivate and illustrate it. To prosecute this purpose more effectually, he carefully read over what had been written by others on that subject; and in 1660, we find him residing at Oxford for the benefit of the public library. But he had been originally a member of Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of A. B. in 1656, and of A. M. in 1659. After leaving Oxford, he travelled, in search of natural knowledge, several times over his native country; and afterwards to France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and the Low-Countries, attended by his ingenious friend Mr. John Ray, and others; in all which places, says Wood, he was so inquisitive and successful, that not many sorts of animals, described by others, escaped his diligence. He died July 3, 1672, aged only thirty-seven; to the great loss of the republic of letters, and much lamented by those of the Royal Society, of which he was an eminent member and ornament. He left to Mr. Ray the charge of educating his two infant sons, with an annuity of 70/, which constituted ever after the chief part of Ray’s income. A most exemplary character of him may be seen iti Ray’s preface to his “Ornithology;” whence all the particulars are concisely and elegantly summed up in a Latin epitaph, on a monument erected to his memory in the church of Middleton in Warwickshire, where he is buried with his ancestors. His works are, “Ornithologiae libri tres: in quibus aves omnes hactenus cognitse in methodum naturis suis convenientem redactoe accurate describuntur, descriptiones iconibus elegantissimis, & vivarnm avium simillimis atri incisis illustrantur,” 1676, folio. This was prepared for the press, corrected and digested into order, by Hay, afterwards by him also translated into English, with an appendix, and figures engraved at the expense of Mr. Willaghby, but of inferior merit, 1673, folio. 2. “Historiae Piscium libri quatuor, &c.” 1686, folio. This was revised and digested by Ray, with engravings of many species, not then known in England. 3. “Letter containing some considerable observations about that kind of wasps called Ichneumones, &c. dated Aug. 24, 1671.” See the Phil. Trans. N* 76. 4. “Letter about the hatching a kind of bee lodged in old willows, dated July 10, 1671.” Trans. N fl 47. 5. “Letters of Francis Wiilughby, esq.” added to “Philosophical Letters between the late learned Mr. Ray and several of his correspondents,” 8vo, By William Derham.

, a teacher of considerable note, and a publisher of some school-books of reputation, was the second son of Thomas Willymot of Royston, in the county of Cambridge, by his wife Rachel, daughter of Dr. Pindar of Springfield in Essex. He was born, we are not told in what year, at Royston, and admitted scholar of King’s- college, Cambridge, Oct. 20, 1692. He proceeded A. B. in 1697, A. M. in 1700, and LL. D. in 1707. After taking his master’s degree he went as usher to Eton, where Cole says “he continued not long, but kept a school at Isleworth in Middlesex:” Harwood, however, says that he was many years an assistant at Eton, and was the editor of several books for the use of boys educated there* Harwood adds that he was tutor, when at King’s college, to lord Henry and lord Richard Lumley, sons of the earl of Scarborough; and Cole informs us that he was private tutor in the family of John Bromley, of Horseheath-hall, in Cambridgeshire, esq. father of Henry lord Montfort; “but here endeavouring to pay his addresses to one of the ladies of the family, he was dismissed. 7 ' When he left Eton is uncertain, but in 1721 we find him master of a private school at Isleworth, and at that time one of the candidates for the mastership of St. Paul’s school, in which he did not succeed. By an advertisement then published by him, it would appear that his failure arose in son>$, measure from his being suspected of an attachment to the pretender, which he denies. Some time before this he had studied civil law, and entered himself of Doctors’-comtnons, but changing his mind, returned to college, took holy orders, and was made vice-provost of King’s college hi the above year, 1721, at which time he was senior fellow. In 1735 he was presented to the rectory of Milton near Cambridge, after a contest with the college, which refused him, in consideration of his not having remained and performed the requisite college exercises. Even with this, Cole says, he was soon dissatisfied, and would have returned to his fellowship had it been possible. He died June 7, 1737, of an apoplexy, at the Swan Inn, at Bedford, on his return from Bath. Among his publications for the use of schools arej 1.” The peculiar use and signification of certain words in the Latin tongue,“&c. 1705, 8vo. 2.” Particles exemplified in English sentences, &c.“1703, 8vo. 3.” Larger examples, fitted to Lilly’s grammarrules.“4.” Smaller examples, &c.“5.” Three of Terence’s comedies, viz. the Andria, the Adelpbi, and th Hecyra, with English notes,“1706, 8vo. 6.” Select stories from Ovid’s Metamorphoses, with English notes.“7.” Phscdrus Fables, with English notes,“&c. &c. He published also” A collection of Devotions for the Altar,“2 vols. 8vo” Lord Bacon’s Essays,“2 vols. 8vo. and” A new translation of Thomas a, Kempis,“1722, The com* mon copies are dedicated” To the Sufferers by the South Sea.“It was originally dedicated to Dr. Godolphin, provost of Eton, but as he had abused the fellows of the college in it, upon recollection he called it in,” so,“says Cole,” this curious dedication is rarely to be met with."

, a noted wit in the reign of Charles II. was the son of Henry earl of Rochester; who bore a great part in the civil wars, and was the chief manager of the king’s preservation after the battle of Worcester. He was born April 10, 1647, at Ditchley in Oxfordshire; and was educated in grammar and classical literature in the free-school at Burford. Here he acquired the Latin to such perfection, that to his 'dying day he retained a quick relish for the beauties of that tongue; and afterwards became exactly versed in the authors of the Augustan age, which he often read. In 1659, when only twelve years old, he was admitted a nobleman of Wadham college in Oxford, under the inspection of Dr. Blandford, afterwards bishop of Oxford and Worcester; and, in 1661, was with some other persons of rank created master of arts in convocation: at which time, Wood says, he and none else was admitted very affectionately into the fraternity by a kiss from the chancellor of the university, Clarendon, who then sate in the supreme chair. Afterwards he travelled into France and Italy; and at his return frequented the court, which, Wood observes, and there is reason to believe very truly, not only corrupted his morals, but made him a perfect Hobbist in principle. In the mean time, he became one of the gentlemen of the bed-chamber to the king, and comptroller of Woodstockpark. In 1665 he went to sea with the earl of Sandwich, who was sent to lie in wait for the Dutch East-India fleet; and was in the Revenge, commanded by sir Thomas Tiddiman, when the attack was made on the port of Bergen in Norway, the Dutch ships having got into that port. It was a desperate attempt; and, during the whole action, the earl of Rochester shewed the greatest resolution, and gained a high reputation for courage. He supported his character for bravery in a second expedition, but afterwards lost it in an adventure with lord Mulgrave; of which that noble author, in the memoirs of himself, gives a particular account. It exhibits some traits of the earl of Rochester’s character; and therefore, though somewhat tedious and wordy, may not be unacceptable. “I was informed,” says lord Mulgrave, “that the earl of Rochester had said something of me, which, according to his custom, was very malicious. I therefore sent colonel Aston, a very mettled friend of mine, to call him to account for it. He denied the words, and indeed I was soon convinced he had never said them; but the mere report, though I found it to. be false, obliged me, as I then foolishly thought, to go on with the quarrel; and the next day was appointed for us to fight on horseback, a way in England a little unusual, but it was his part to chuse. Accordingly, I and my second lay the night before at Knightsbridge privately, to avoid the being secured at London upon any suspicion; and in the morning we met the lord Rochester at the place appointed, who, instead of James Porter, whom he assured Aston he would make his second, brought an errant lifeguard man, whom nobody knew. To this Mr. Aston took exception, upon the account of his being no suitable adversary; especially considering how extremely well he was mounted, whereas we had only a couple of pads: upon which, tve all agreed to fight on foot. But, as my lord Rochester and i were riding into the next field in order to it, he told me, that he had at first chosen to fight on horseback, because he was so much indisposed, that he found himself unfit at all any way, much less on foot. I was extremely surprised, because at that time no man had a better reputation for courage; and I took the liberty of representing what a ridiculous story it would make, if we returned without fighting, and therefore advised him for both our sakes, especially for his own, to consider better of it, since I must be obliged in my own defence to lay the fault on him, by telling the truth of the matter. His answter was, that he submitted to it; and hoped, that I would not desire the advantage of having to do with any man in so weak a condition. I replied, that by such an argument he had sufficiently tied my hands, upon condition that I might call our seconds to be witnesses of the whole business; which he consented to, and so we parted. When we returned to London, we found it full of this quarrel, upon our being absent so long; and therefore Mr. Aston thought himself obliged to write down every word and circumstance of this whole matter, in order to spread every where the true reason of our returning without having fought. This, being never in the least contradicted or resented by the lord Rochester, entirely ruined his reputation as to courage, of which I was really sorry to be the occasion, though nobody had still a greater as to wit; which supported him pretty well in the world, notwithstanding some more accidents of the same kind, that never fail to succeed one another, wten once people know a man’s weakness.”

The earl of Rochester, before he travelled, had given somewhat into that disorderly and intemperate way of living which the joy of the whole nation, upon the restoring of Charles II. had introduced; yet during his travels he bad at least acquired a habit of sobriety. But, falling into court-company, where excesses were continually practised, he soon became intemperate, and the natural heat of his fancy, being inflamed with wine, made him so extravagantly pleasant, that many, to be more diverted by that humour, strove to engage him deeper and deeper in intoxication. This at length so entirely subdued him, that, as he told Dr, Burnet, he was for five years together conttnually drunk: not all the while under the visible effect of liquor, but so inflamed in his blood, that he was never cool enough to be master of himself. There were two principles in the natural temper of this lively and witty earl, which carried him to great excesses; a violent love of pleasure, and a disposition to extravagant mirth. The one involved him in the lowest sensuality, the other led him to many odd adventures and frolics. Once he had disguised himself so, that his nearest friends could not have known him, and set up in Tower-street for an Italian mountebank, where he practised physic for some weeks. He disguised himself often as a porter, or as a beggar; sometimes to follow some mean amours, which, for the variety of them, he affected. At other times, merely for diversion, he would go about in odd shapes; in which he acted his part so naturally, that even those who were in the secret, and saw him in these shapes, could perceive nothing by which he might be discovered. He is said to have been a generous and good-natured man in cold blood, yet would go far in his heats after any thing that might turn to a jest or matter of diversion; and he laid out himself very freely in libels and satire*, in which he had so peculiar a talent of mixing wit with malice, that all his compositions were easily known. Andrew Marvell, Ivho was himself a great wit, used to say, “that Rochester was the only man in England who had the true vein of satire.”

“Thus,” says Dr. Johnson, “in a course of drunken, gaiety, and gross sensuality, with intervals of study perhaps yet more criminal, with an avowed contempt of all decency aad order, a total disregard to every moral, and a. resolute denial of every religious obligation, he lived worthless and useless, and blazed out his youth and his health in lavish voluptuousness; till, at the age of one and thirty, he had exhausted the fund of life, and reduced himself to a state of weakness and decay.”

In Oct. 1679, when he was slowly recovering from a severe disease, he was visited by Dr. Burnet, upon an intimation that such a visit would be very agreeable to him. With great freedom he laid open to that divine all his thoughts both of religion and morality, and gave him a full view of his past life: on which the doctor visited hick often, till he went from London in April following, and once or twice after. They canvassed at various times the principles of morality, natural and revealed religion, and Christianity in particular; the result of all which, as it is faithfully related by Dr. Burnet in a book, which, Dr. Johnson observes, “the critic ought to read for its elegance, the philosopher for its arguments, and the saint-far its piety,” was, that this noble earl, though he had lived the life of an atheist and a libertine, yet died the death of a sincere penitent. The philosophers of the present age will naturally suppose, that his contrition and conviction were purely the effects of weakness and low spirits, which scarcely suffer a man to continue in his senses, and certainly not to be master of himself; but Dr. Burnet affirms him to have been “under no such decay as either darkened or weakened his understanding, nor troubled with the spleen or vapours, or under the power of melancholy.” The reader may judge for himself from the following, which is part of a letter from the earl to Dr. Burnet, dated “Woodstock-park, June 25, 1680, Oxfordshire.” There is nothing left out, but some personal compliments to the doctor.

“My spirits and body decay so equally together, that I shall write you a letter as weak as 1 am in person. I, begin to vlue churchmen above all men in the world, &c. If God be yet pleased to spare me longer in this worid^ I hope in your conversation to be exalted to that degree of piety, that the world may see how much J abhor what I so long loved, and how much I glory in repentance, and in God’s service. Bestow your prayers upon me, that God would spare me, if it be his good wili, to shew a true repentance and amendment of life fqr the time to come or else, if the” Lord pieaseth to put an end to my worldly being now, that be would mercifully accept of my death-bed repentance, and perform that promise he hath been pleased to make, that at what time soever a sinner doth repeat, he would receive him.' Put up these prayers, most dear doctor, to Almighty God, for your most obedient and languishing servant, Rochester."

He died July 26 following, without any convulsion, or so much as a groan: for, though he had not completed his thirty -third year, he was worn so entirely down, that all the powers of nature were exhausted. He left behind him a son named Charles, who died Nov. 12, 1.681; and three daughters*. The male line ceasing, Charles II. conferred the title of Rochester on Laurence viscount Killingworth, a younger son of Edward earl of Clarendon.