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

, in Latin Belcarius Plguilio, bishop of Metz, a man of some note in the sixteenth century, was born April 15, 1514, of one of the most ancient families of the Bourbonnois. The progress he male in polite literature induced Claude de Lorraine, the h'rst duke of Guise, to choose him to be preceptor to cardinal de Lorraine, his second son, an appointment which very naturally, we will not say very justly, attached him to the family of Guise, and made him too partial in his writings to their character. He attended his pupil to Rome, where he became acquainted with Paul Jovius, in whose history he afterwards pointed out some errors. On his return from Italy, the cardinal of Lorraine procured him in 1555 the bishopric of Metz, but according to Beza (Hist. Ecclesiast. lib. xvi. p. 439), this was little more than a titular preferment, the cardinal reserving the revenues, or the greater part of them, to himself. According to the same author, Beaucaire, with two other bishops, came to Metz, and occasioned an alarm among the inhabitants of the reformed religion, some of whom thought proper to retire for safety from the city. Beza, however, adds that Beaucaire only wrote a small tract in Latin on “Sanctification,” and “The Baptism of Infants,” which was soon answered. Some time after his promotion, his patron, the cardinal, carried him with him to the council, on the day that the fathers of the council had appointed as a thanksgiving for the battle of Dreux, fought Jan. 3, 1563, and here Beaucaire pronounced an oration, which was much applauded, and is inserted at the end of the thirtieth book of his “History of his own times.” This work he began in 1568, when he resigned his bishopric to his patron, and retired to his castle of la Chrete in Bourbonnois. He died Feb. 14-, 1591. His history, which extends from 1461 to 1580, or according to Bayle from 1462 to 1567, according to either account is not very properly called a history of his own times. The title of the publication, however, is “Rerum Gallicarum Coramentaria, ab. A. 1462 usque ad A. 1566,” Lyons, 1625, fol. Saxius doubts whether he be the same Francis Bellicarius, who translated the first book of the Greek Anthology into Latin, as asserted by Fabricius, and which was published at Paris, 1543, 4to. His other works are so differently and confusedly spoken of, that we shall refer our readers to his biographers, rather than attempt to reconcile them. His tract on the baptism of infants, above alluded to by Beza, may perhaps be “Traité des enfans morts dans le sein de leurs meres,” 1567, 8vo, the question being, whether children dying in the womb, and consequently without baptism, are saved, which he was disposed to answer in the negative. The Calvinists held that children dying in infancy are saved, an opinion, we presume, that will seldom be denied.

, bishop of Winchester, and cardinal priest of the church of Rome, was the son of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, by his third wife, Catherine S win ford. He studied for some years both at Cambridge and at Oxford, in the latter in Queen’s college, and was afterwards a benefactor to University and Lincoln colleges, but he received the principal part of his education at Aix la Chapelle, where he was instructed in civil and common law. Being of royal extraction, he was very young when advanced to the prelacy, and was made bishop of Lincoln in 1397, by an arbitrary act of Boniface IX. John Beckingham, bishop of that see, being, contrary to his wishes, translated to Lichfield, to make room for Beaufort, but Beckingham, with becoming spirit, refused the proffered diocese, and chose to become a private monk of Canterbury. In 1399 Beaufort was chancellor of the university of Oxford, and at the same time dean of Wells. He was lord high chancellor of England in 1404, and in some years afterwards. The following year, upon the death of the celebrated Wykeham, he was, at the recommendation of the king, translated to the see of Winchester. In 1414, the second of his nephew Henry V. he went to France, as one of the royal ambassadors, to demand in marriage Catherine, daughter of Charles VI. In 1417 he lent the king twenty thousand pounds (a prodigious sum in those days), towards carrying on his expedition against France, but had the crown in pawn as a security for the money. This year also he took a journey to the Holy Land and in his way, being arrived at Constance, where a general council was held, he exhorted the prelates to union and agreement in the election of a pope; and his remonstrances contributed not a little to hasten the preparations for the conclave, in which Martin III. was elected. We have no farther account of what happened to our prelate in this expedition. In 1421, he had the honour to be godfather, jointly with John duke of Bedford, and Jacqueline, countess of Holland, to prince Henry, eldest son of his nephew Henry V. and Catherine of France, afterwards Henry VI. M. Aubery pretends, that James, king of Scots, who had been several years a prisoner in England, owed his deliverance to the bishop of Winchester, who prevailed with the government to set him free, on condition of his marrying his niece, the granddaughter of Thomas Beaufort, earl of Somerset. This prelate was one of king Henry Vlth’s guardians during his minority; and in 1424, the third of the young king’s reign, he was a fourth time lord-chancellor of England. There were perpetual jealousies and quarrels, the cause of which is not very clearly explained, between the bishop of Winchester, and the protector, Humphrey duke of Gloucester, which ended in the ruin and death of the latter. Their dissensions began to appear publicly in 1425, and to such a height, that Beaufort thought it necessary to write a letter to his nephew the duke of Bedford, regent of France, which is extant in Holinshed, desiring his presence in England, to accommodate matters between them. The regent accordingly arriving in England the 20th of December, was met by the bishop of Winchester with a numerous train, and soon after convoked an assembly of the nobility at St. Alban’s, to hear and determine the affair. But the animosity on this occasion was so great on both sides, that it was thought proper to refer the decision to the parliament, which was to be held at Leicester, March 25, following. The parliament being met, the duke of Gloucester produced six articles of accusation against the bishop, who answered them severally, and a committee appointed for the purpose, having examined the allegations, he was acquitted. The duke of Bedford, however, to give some satisfaction to the protector, took away the great seal from his uncle. Two years after, the duke of Bedford, returning into France, was accompanied to Calais by the bishop of Winchester, who, on the 25th of March, received there with great solemnity, in the church of Our Lady, the cardinal’s hat, with the title of St. Eusebius, sent him by pope Martin V. In September 1428, the new cardinal returned into England, with the character of the pope’s legate lately conferred on him; and in his way to London, he was met by the lord-mayor, aldermen, and the principal citizens on horseback, who conducted him with great honour and respect to his lodgings in Southwark; but he was forced, for the present, to wave his legatine power, being forbidden the exercise of it by a proclamation published in the king’s name. Cardinal Beaufort was appointed, by the pope’s bull, bearing date March 25, 1427-8, his holiness’s legate in Germany, and general of the crusade against the Hussites, or Heretics of Bohemia. Having communicated the pope’s intentions to the parliament, he obtained a grant of money, and a considerable body of forces, under certain restrictions; but just as he was preparing to embark, the duke of Bedford having sent to demand a supply of men for the French war, it was resolved in council, that cardinal Beaufort should serve under the regent, with the troops of the crusade, to the end of the month of December, on condition that they should not be employed in any siege. The cardinal complied, though not without reluctance, and accordingly joined the duke of Bedford at Paris. After a stay of forty-five days in France, he marched into Bohemia, where he conducted the crusade till he was recalled by the pope, and cardinal Julian sent in his place with a larger army. The next year, 1430, the cardinal accompanied king Henry into France, being invested with the title of the king’s principal counsellor, and bad the honour to perform the ceremony of crowning the young monarch irt the church of Notre Dame at Paris; where he had some dispute with James du Chastellier, the archbishop, who claimed the right of officiating on that occasion. During his stay in France he was present at the congress of Arras for concluding a peace between the kings of England and France, and had a conference for that purpose with the dutchess of Burgundy, between Calais and Gravelines, which had no effect, and was remarkable only for the cardinal’s magnificence, who came thither with a most splendid train. In the mean time the duke of Gloucester took advantage in England of the cardinal’s absence to give him fresh mortification. For, first, having represented to the council, that the bishop of Winchester intended to leave the king, and come back into England to resume his seat in council, in order to excite new troubles in the kingdom, and that his intentions were the more criminal, as he made use of the pope’s authority to free himself from the obligations of assisting the king in France; he procured an order of council forbidding all the king’s subjects, of what condition soever, to accompany the cardinal, if he should leave the king, without express permission. The next step the protector took against him, was an attempt to deprive him of his bishopric, as inconsistent with the dignity of cardinal; but the affair having been a long time debated in council, it was resolved that the cardinal should be heard, and the judges consulted, before any decision. Being returned into England, he thought it necessary to take some precaution against these repeated attacks, and prevailed with the king, through the' intercession of the commons, to grant him letters of pardon for all offences by him committed contrary to the statute of provisors, and other acts of prsemunire. This pardon is dated at Westminster, July 19, 1432. Five years after, he procured another pardon under the great-seal for all sorts of crimes whatever, from the creation of the world to the 26th of July 1437. Notwithstanding these precautions, the duke of Gloucester, in 1442, drew up articles of impeachment against the cardinal, and presented them with his own hands to the king, but the council appointed to examine them deferred their report so long that rhe protector discontinued the prosecution. The cardinal died June 14, 1447, having survived the duke of Gloucester not above a mouth, of whose murder he was suspected to have been one of the contrivers, and it is said that he expressed great uneasiness at the approach of death, and died in despair; but for this there does not appear much foundation, and we suspect the commonlyreceived character of Beaufort is mostly credited by those who have considered Shakspeare as an authentic historian. We rather agree with the historian of Winchester, that there is no solid ground for representing him as that ambitious, covetous, and reprobate character which Shakspeare has represented, and who has robbed his memory, in order to enrich that of his adversary, popularly termed the “good duke Humphrey” of Gloucester. Being involved in the vortex of worldly politics, it is true, that he gave too much scope to the passions of the great, and did not allow himself sufficient leisure to attend to the spiritual concerns of his diocese. He possessed, however, that munificent spirit, which has cast a lustre on the characters of many persons of past times, whom it would be difficult otherwise to present as objects of admiration. It he was rich, it must be admitted that he did not squander away his money upon unworthy pursuits, but chiefly employed it in the public service, to the great relief of the subjects, with whom, and with the commons’ house of parliament, he was popular. He employed his wealth also in finishing the magnificent cathedral of Winchester, which was left incomplete by his predecessor, in repairing Hyde-abbey, relieving prisoners, and other works of charity. But what, Dr. Milner says, has chiefly redeemed the injured character of cardinal Beaufort, in Winchester and its neighbourhood, is the new foundation which he made of the celebrated hospital of St. Cross. Far the greater part of the present building was raised by him, and he added to the establishment of his predecessor, Henry de Blois, funds for the support of thirty-five more brethren, two chaplains, and three women, who appear to have been hospital nuns. It appears also, says the same writer, that he prepared himself with resignation and contrition for his last end; and the collected, judicious, and pious dispositions made in his testament, the codicil of which was signed but two days before his dissolution, may justly bring into discredit the opinion that he died in despair. He was buried at Winchester in the most eleg-ant and finished chantry in the kingdom.

, the foundress of Christ’s and St. John’s colleges in Cambridge, was the only daughter and heir of John Beaufort, duke of Somerset (grandson of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster), and of Margaret Beauchamp his wife. She was born at Bletshoe in Bedfordshire) in 1441. About the fifteenth year of her age, being a rich heiress, the great duke of Suffolk, minister to Henry the Vlth. solicited her in marriage for his son; while the king wooed her for his half-brother Edmund, then earl of Richmond. On so nice a point the good young lady advised with an elder gentlewoman; who, thinking it too great a decision to take upon herself, recommended her to St. Nicholas, the patron of virgins. She followed her instructions, and poured forth her supplications and prayers with such effect, that one morning, whether sleeping or waking she could not tell, there appeared unto her somebody in the habit of a bishop, and desired she would accept of Edmund for her husband. Whereupon she married Edmund earl of Richmond; and by him had an only son, who was afterwards king Henry the VI 1th. Edmund died, Nov. 3, 1456, leaving Henry his son and heir but fifteen weeks old: after which Margaret married sir Henry Stafford, knight, second son to the duke of Buckingham, by whom she had no issue. Soon after the death of sir Henry Stafford, which happened about 1482, she was married again to Thomas lord Stanley, who was created earl of Derby, Oct. 27, 1485, which was the first year of her son’s reign; and this noble lord died also before her in 1504.

Lady Margaret, however, could do both; and there are some of her literary performances still extant. She published, “The mirroure of golde for the sinful 1 soule,” translated from a French translation of a book called, * Speculum aureum peccatorum,' very scarce. She also translated out of French into English, the fourth book of Gerson’s treatise “Of the imitation and following the blessed life of our most merciful Saviour Christ,” printed at the nd of Dr. William Atkinson’s English translation of the three first books, 1504. A letter to her son is printed in Howard’s “Collection of Letters.” She also made, -by her son’s command and authority, the orders, yet extant, for great estates of ladies and noble women, for their precedence, &c. She was not only a lover of learning, but a great patroness of learned men; and did more acts of real goodness for the advancement of literature in general, than could reasonably have been expected from so much superstition. Erasmus has spoken great things of her, for the munificence shewn in her foundations and donations of several kinds; a large account of which is given by Mr. Baker, in the preface prefixed to the “Funeral Sermon.” What adds greatly to the merit of these donations is, that some of the most considerable of them were performed in her life-time; as the foundation of two colleges in Cambridge. Her life was checquered with a variety of good and' bad fortune: but she had a greatness of soul, which seems to have placed her above the reach of either; so that she wasneither elated with the former, nor depressed with the latter. She was most affected with what regarded her only child, for whom she had the most tender affection. She underwent some hardships on his account. She saw him from an exile, by a wonderful turn of fortune, advanced to the crown of England, which yet he could not keep without many struggles and difficulties; and when he had reigned twenty-three years, and lived fifty-two, she saw him carried to his grave. Whether this might not prove too great a shock for her, is uncertain; but she survived him only three months, dying at Westminster on the 29th of June, 1509. She was buried in his chapel, and had a beautiful monument erected to her memory, adorned with gilded brass, arms, and an epitaph round the verge, drawn up by Erasmus, at the request of bishop Fisher, for which he had twenty shillings given him by the university of Cambridge. Upon this altar-tomb, which is enclosed with a grate, is placed the statue of Margaret countess of Richmond and Derby, in her robes, all of solid brass, with two pillars on each side of her, and a Latin inscription, of which the following is a translation: “To Margaret of Richmond, the mother of Henry VII. and grandmother of Henry VIII. who founded salaries for three monks in this convent, for a grammar-school at Wymborn, and a preacher of God’s word throughout England; as also for two divinity-lecturers, the one at Oxford, the other at Cambridge; in which last place she likewise built two colleges, in honour of Christ and his disciple St. John. She died in the year of our Lord 1509, June the 29th.” This lady was the daughter and sole heiress of John Beaufort duke of Somerset, who was grandson to John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, fourth son of Edward the Third. Her mother, Margaret Beauchamp, was daughter and heiress of the lord Beauchamp of Powick. Bishop Fisher observes, “that by her marriage with the earl of Richmond, and by her birth, she was allied to thirty kings and queens, within the fourth degree either of blood or affinity; besides earls, marquisses, dukes, and princes: and since her death,” as Mr. Baker says, “she has been allied in her posterity to thirty more.” Her will, which is remarkably curious, is printed at length in the “Collectioii of Royal and Noble Wills,” 1780, 4to, p. 376.

, a French dramatic writer of modern celebrity, was born at Paris, Jan. 24, 1732. His father was a watchmaker, and at the age of twenty-one himself invented an improvement in watchmaking, which being contested by an eminent artist, was decided in favour of young Beaumarchais by the academy of sciences. Being passionately fond of music, and especially of the harp, he introduced some improvements in this instrument, which, with his excellent performance, gained him admittance to Mesdames, the daughters of Louis XV. to give them lessons, and this was the origin of his fortune. He lost two wives successively, and then gained three considerable law-suits. The papers which he published concerning each of these causes, excited great attention. He had also an affair of honour with a duke, in consequence of which he was sent to Fort L‘Eve’que. He was afterwards employed in some political transactions by the ministers Maurepas and Vergennes. He supported the scheme for the caisse d'escompte, or bank of discount, which he vainly thought to have made a rival to that of England: but he was more successful, although after much opposition, in procuring the adoption of a scheme for a fire-pump to supply the city of Paris with water. A plan, also, concerning poor women, was executed at Lyons, and gained him the thanks of the merchants of that city. After the death of Voltaire, he purchased the whole of his manuscripts, and not being able to print them in France, established a press at Kell, where they were printed in a very magnificent manner with Baskerville’s types.

He appears a satirist on women in some of his poems, but he was more influenced by wit than disappointment, and probably only versified the common-place raillery of the times. He married Ursula, daughter and co-heir of Henry Isley of Sundridge in Kent, by whom he had two daughters. One of these, Frances, was living at a great age in Leicestershire, in 1700, and at that time enjoyed a pension of lOOl. a-year from the duke of Ormond, in whose family she had resided for some time as a domestic. She had once in her possession several poems of her father’s writing, which were lost at sea during her voyage from Ireland. Mr. Beaumont died early in March, 1615-16, and was buried on the 9th, at the entrance of St. Benedict’s chapel near the earl of Middlesex’s monument, in the collegiate church of St* Peter, Westminster, without any inscription.

The first occasion of his becoming an author was the conduct of the duke of Saxe-Barby, who quitted the Lutheran communion, and printed a confession of his faith in 1688. A year after appeared, under the name of the theological faculty of Leipsic, a work in German, purporting to be “An inquiry into the motives which induced the duke of Saxe to separate from the Lutherans;” and a Latin translation of it having been submitted to M. Beausobre, he perceived its weakness, and conceived it an act of justice in behalf of the more moderate part of the Lutherans, to make a public declaration of the doctrines of the reformers. Accordingly this his first work was entitled “Defense de la doctrine des Reformes,” on the subjects of providence, predestination, grace, the Lord’s supper, &c. printed at Magdeburgh, 1693. In this, while he speaks favourably of the moderate writers among the Lutherans, he censures the others for their bigotry against the Calvinists, or against any who differ from them in the least degree. His work was extremely well received, although this edition is full of typographical errors.

, surnamed Panormita, from his native country, Palermo, in Latin Panormus, vvas born 'there in 1394, and at the age of six was sent to the university of Bologna, to study law, after which he was taken into the court of the duke of MiIan, Philip-Maria-Visconti. He vvas afterwards professor of the belles-lettres at Pavia, but without leaving the court, in which he enjoyed a revenue of eight hundred crowns of gold. The emperor Sigismond, when on a tour in Lombardy in 1432, honoured him with the poetic crown at Parma. Beccadelli then went to the court of Naples, where he passed the remainder of his life, always accompanying Alphonso, the king, in his expeditions and travels, who loaded him with favours, gave him a beautiful country house, enrolled him among the Neapolitan nobility, intrusted him with political commissions of great importance, and sent him as ambassador to Geneva, Venice, to the emperor Frederic III. and to some other princes. And after the death of Alphonso, he was not less a favourite with king Ferdinand, who made him his secretary, and admitted him of his council. He died at Naples, in 1471. While in the service of Alphonso, he wrote his history “De dictis et factis Alphonsi regis, lib. IV.” Pisa, 1485, 4to, and often reprinted. He was rewarded by his sovereign with a thousand crowns of gold for this performance. His five books of letters, orations, poems, tragedies, &c. were published at Venice, 1553, 4to, under the title “Epistolarum lib. V. Orationes II. Carmina praeterea quasdam, &c.” But the most extraordinary of his productions was his “Hermaphroditus,” which long remained in obscurity. This is a collection divided into two books of small poems, grossly indecent, and yet dedicated to Cosmo de Medicis, who is not said to have resented the insult. What renders this production the more extraordinary, is, that it was written when the author was advanced in life, and at a time when his character seemed to derive dignity from the honourable employments he held, and his reputation in the learned world. Of this work, written with great purity of Latin style, some copies got abroad, and ^excited the just indignation of the age. Filelfo and Laurentius Valla attacked it in their writings; the clergy preached against it, and caused it to be burnt; and the author was burnt in effigy at Ferrara and Milan. Valla even goes so far as to wish that he had been burnt in person. Even Poggio, not the most chaste of Italian writers, reproached his friend with having gone too far. Beccadelli defended himself by the example of the ancients, and Guarino of Verona quotes the example of St. Jerome, but sense and decency went against them, and these poems were confined to the Laurentian library strictly, as Mr, Koscoe says, but surely a more certain method might have been devised to consign them to perpetual oblivion. A copy, however, was by some means preserved, and printed at Paris in 1791, when the revolution had brought on a general dissolution of morals and public decency. “The editor,” says Ginguene, “no doubt thought that our morals were so confirmed as to have nothing to fear, and the book is now in every shop.”

, was born at Bologna in 1502, of a noble family. Having gone through a course of study at Padua, he applied himself to business, without however entirely quitting literature. He attachedhimself to cardinal Pole, whom he followed in the legation to Spain, and was soon appointed himself to those of Venice and Augsburg, after having assisted at the council of Trent, and the archbishopric of Ragusa was the reward of his labours. Cosmo I. grand duke of Tuscany, having entrusted him in 1563 with the education of his son, prince Ferdinand, he gave up his archbishopric, in the hope that was held out to him of obtaining that of Pisa; but, being deceived in his expectations, he was obliged to content himself with the provostship of the cathedral of Prato, where he ended his days in 1572. His principal works are: “The life of cardinal Pole,” in Italian, translated by Duditius into Latin, and thence by Maucroix into French; and that of Petrarch, in Italian, more exact than any that had appeared before. This prelate was in correspondence with almost all the learned, his contemporaries, Sadolet, Bembo, the Manuciuses, Varchi, &c. It remains to be noticed that his life of cardinal Pole was published in 1766, in English, by the Rev. Benjamin Pye, LL. B. Of this, and other lives of that celebrated cardinal, notice will be taken in his article.

, a monk of the EcolesPies, or Pious Schools, was born at Mondovi, and died at Turin, May 22, 1781. He was professor of mathematics and philosophy, first at Palermo, then at Rome; and by his experiments and discoveries was so successful as to throw great light on natural knowledge, and especially on that of electricity. He was afterwards called to Turin to take upon him the professorship of experimental philosophy. Being appointed preceptor to the two princes, Benedict duke of Chablais, and Victor Amadscus duke of Ctirignan, neither the life of a court, nor the allurements of pleasure, were able to draw him aside from study. Loaded with benefits and honours, he spared nothing to augment his library, and to procure the instruments necessary for his philosophical pursuits. His dissertations on electricity would have been more useful, if he had been less strongly attached to some particular systems, and especially that of Mr. Franklin. He published, 1. “Experimenta quibus Electricitas Vindex late constituitur, &c.” Turin, 1771, 4to. 2. “Electricismo artificiale,” 1772, 4to, an English translation of which was published at Lond. 1776, 4to. We have also by him an “Essay on the cause of Storms and Tempests,” where we meet with nothing more satisfactory than what has appeared in other works on that subject; several pieces on the meridian of Turin, and other objects of astronomy and physics. Father Beccaria was no less respectable for his virtues than his knowledge.

The disappointments she met with at Surinam, by losing her parents and relations, obliged her to return to England; where, soon after her arrival, she was married to Mr. Behn, an eminent merchant of London, of Dutch extraction. King Charles II. whom she highly pleased by the entertaining and accurate account she gave him of the colony of Surinam, thought her a proper person to be intrusted with the management of some affairs during the Dutch war, in other words to act as a spy; which was the occasion of her going over to Antwerp. Here she discovered the design formed by the Dutch, of sailing up the river Thames, in order to burn the English ships; which she learnt from one Vander Albert, a Dutchman. This man, who, before the war, had been in love with her in England, no sooner heard of her arrival at Antwerp, than he paid her a visit; and, after a repetition of all his former professions of love, pressed her extremely to allow him by some signal means to give undeniable proofs of his passion. This proposal was so suitable to her present aim in the service of her country, that she accepted of it, and employed her lover in such a manner as* made her very serviceable to the king. The latter end of 1666, Albert sent her word by a special messenger, that he would be with her at a day appointed, at which time he revealed to her, that Cornelius de Witt and De Ruyter had proposed the above-mentioned expedition to the States. Albert having mentioned this affair with all the marks of sincerity, Mrs. Behn coukl not doubt the credibility thereof; and when the interview was ended, she sent express to the court of England; but her intelligence (though well grounded, as appeared by the event) being disregarded and ridiculed, she renounced all state affairs, and amused herself during her stay at Antwerp with what was more suited to her talents, the gallantries of the city. After some time she embarked at Dunkirk for England, and in her passage the ship was driven on the coast four days within sight of land; but, by the assistance of boats from that shore, the crew were all saved; and Mrs. Behn arrived safely in -London, where she dedicated the rest of her life to pleasure and poetry, neither of the most pure kind. he published three volumes of miscellany poems; the first in 1684, the second in 1685, and the third in 1688, consisting of songs and miscellanies, by the earl of Rochester, sir George Etherege, Mr. Henry Crisp, and others, with some pieces of her own. To the second collection is annexed a translation of the duke de Rochefoucauld s moral reflections, under the title of “Seneca unmasked.” She wrote also seventeen plays, some histories and novels, which are extant in two volumes, 12mo, 1735, 8th edition, published by Mr. Charles Gildon, and dedicated to Simon Scroop, esq. to which is prefixed the history of the life, and memoirs of Mrs. Behn, written by one of the fair sex. She translated Fontenolle’s History of oracles, and Plurality of worlds, to which last she annexed an essay on translation and translated prose, not very remarkable for critical acumen. The paraphrase of CEnone’s epistle to Paris, in the English translation of Ovid’s Epistles, is Mrs. Behn’s; and Mr. Dryden, in the preface to that work, compliments her with more gallantry than justice, when he adds, “I was desired to say, that the author, who is of the fair sex, understood not Latin; but if she does not, I am afraid she has given us occasion to be ashamed who do.” She was also the authoress of the celebrated Letters between a nobleman and his sister, printed in 1684; and we have extant of hers, eight love-letters, to a gentleman whom she passionately loved, and with whom she corresponded under the name of Lycidas. They are printed in the Life and Memoirs of Mrs. Behn, prefixed to her histories and novels. She died between forty and fifty years of age, after a long indisposition, April 16, 1689, and was buried in the cloisters of Westminster-abbey. Mrs. Behn, upon the whole, cannot be considered as an ornament either to her sex, or her nation. Her plays abound with obscenity; and her novels are little better. Mr. Pope speaks thus of her:

, a German physician of note, was born at Hildesheim in Lower Saxony, Aug. 26, 1660. After studying medicine he was admitted to the degree of doctor at Helmstadt in 1684. In 1712, he was appointed court-physician to the duke of Brunswick Lunenburgh. He published many essays and dissertations in the Memoirs of the German Imperial academy, of which he was a member, and other works separately, both in German and Latin. The principal of these, are, 1. “De constitutione artis medicae,” Helmstadt, 1696, 8vo. 2, “The Legal Physician,” in German, ibid. 8vo, containing several medico-legal questions, and the history of sudden deaths, with the appearances on dissection. 3. “Selecta medica de medicinæ natura et certitudine,” Francfort and Leipsic, 1708, an inquiry into the history of medicine, its sects, c. 4. “Selecta Disetetica, seu de recta ac convoniente ad sanitatem vivendi ratione tractatus,” Francfort, 1710, 4to, in which he treats of air, food, exercise, sleep, and whatever may conduce to health of the causes of diseases the use of mineral waters, &c. Behrens died Oct. 4, 1736. His life was published by J. M. Gl-tsener, at Ilildesheim in the same year. His son and grandson were both physicians and medical writers. The former published, 1. “Trias casuum memorabilium medicorum,” Guelpherbiti (Wolfenbuttel), 1727, 4to. 2. “De imaginario quodam miraculo in gravi oculorum rnorbo, &c.” Brunopolis (Brunswick), 1734, 4to. 3. “De felicitate medicorum aucta in terris Brunsvicensis,” ibid. 1747, 4to.

, was born in 1613, atBelingstown, in the barony of Balrothery in the county of Dublin, the son of sir Henry Beling, knight, and was educated in his younger years at a grammar-school in the city of Dublin, but afterwards put under the tuition of some priests of his own religion, which was Popish, who so well cultivated his good genius, that they taught him to write in a fluent and elegant Latin style. Thus grounded in the polite parts of literature, his father removed him to Lincoln’s Inn, to study the municipal laws of his country, where he abode some years, and returned home a very accomplished gentleman, but it does not appear that he ever made the law a profession. His natural inclination inclining him to arms, he early engaged in the rebellion of 1641, and though but about twenty-eight years old, was then an officer of considerable rank. He afterwards became a leading member in the supreme council of the confederated Roman catholics at Kilkenny, to which he was principal secretary, and was sent ambassador to the pope and other Italian princes in 1645, tocraveaid for the support of their cause. He brought back with him a fatal present in the person of the nuncio, John Baptist Rinuccini, archbishop and prince of Fermo; who was the occasion of reviving the distinctions between the old Irish of blood, and the old English of Irish birth, which split that party into factions, prevented all peace with the marquis of Ormond, and ruined the country he was sent to save. When Mr. Beling had fathomed the mischievous schemes of the nuncio and his party, nobody was more zealous than he in opposing their measures, and in promoting the peace then in agitation, and submitting to the king’s authority, which he did with such cordiality, that he became very acceptable to the marquis of Ormond, who intrusted him with many negociations. When the parliament army had subdued the royal army, Mr. Beling retired to France, where he continued several years. His account of the transactions of Ireland during the period of the rebellion, is esteemed by judicious readers more worthy of credit than any written by the Romish party, yet he is not free from a partiality to the cause he at first embarked in. He returned home upon the restoration, and was repossessed of his estate by the favour and interest of the duke of Ormond. He died in Dublin in September 1677, and was buried in the church-yard of Malahidert, about five miles from that city. During his retirement in France, he wrote in Latin, in two books, “Vindiciarum Catholicorum Hiberniae,” under the name of Philopater Irenacus, the first of which gives a pretty accurate history of Irish affairs, from 1641 to 1649, and the second is a confutation of an epistle written by Paul King, a Franciscan friar and a nunciotist, in defence of the Irish rebellion. This book of Mr. Beling’s being answered by John Ponce, a Franciscan friar also, and a most implacable enemy to the Protestants of Ireland, in a tract entitled “Belingi Vindiciae eversae,” our author made a reply, which he published under the title of “Annotationes in Johannis Poncii librum, cui titulus, Vindiciae Eversae: accesserunt Belingi Vindiciae,” Parisiis, 1654, 8vo. He wrote also a vindication of himself against Nicholas French, titular bishop of Ferns, under the title of “Innocentiae suae impetitae per Reverendissimum Fernensem vindiciae,” Paris, 1652, 12mo, dedicated to the clergy of Ireland; and is reported to have written a poem called “The Eighth Day,” which has escaped our searches. When a student, however, at Lincoln’s Inn, he wrote and added a sixth book to sir Philip Sidney’s Arcadia, which was printed with that romance, London, 1633, folio, with only the initials of his name.

The late Mr. Cole, of tke Fen-office, editor of the second edition of sir William Dugdale’s “History of Embanking,” 1772, tells us that this edition was printed from two copies of the old one, one corrected by sir William himself, the other by Beaupré Bell, esq. “a diligent and learned antiquary, who had also made some corrections in his own copy, now in Trinity college library.” See his letters, dated Beaupré hall, May 11, and July 30, 1731, to T. Hearne, about the pedlar in Swaffham church, a rebus on the name of Chapman, prefixed to Hemingford, p. 180, and preface, p. 113. See also, on the same subject, preface to Caius, p. xlvii. and lxxxiv. and the speech of Dr. Spencer, vicechancellor of Cambridge, to the duke of Monmouth, when he was installed chancellor, 1674,ib.lxxxvi. In p. lii, Hearne styles him “Amicus eruditus, cui et aliis nominibus me devinctum esse gratus agnosco.” He also furnished him with a transcript, in his own hand-writing, of bishop Godwin’s catalogue of the bishops of Bath and Wells, from the original in Trinity college library; App. to Ann. de Dunstable, 835, 837. A charter relating to St. Edmund’s Bury abbey. Bened. Abbas, p. 865. The epitaph of E. Beckingham, in Bottisham church, in Cambridgeshire, Pref. to Otterbourue’s Chron. p. 82. App. to Trokelow, p. 378. Papers, &c. of his are mentioned in Bibl. Top. Brit. No. II. p. 57, 58, 62. Walsingham church notes, p. 59, entered in the Minutes; a paper on the Clepsydra, p. 60; and five of his letters to Mr. Blomfield are printed, pp. 290, 465 472; one to Dr. Z. Grey, p. 147; one to Mr. N. Salmon, p. 150; others to Mr. Gale, pp. 169, 191, 302 305; to Dr. Stukeley, p. 176, 178. See also pp. 176, 178, 181, 465, 469, 470, 471. In, Archaeologia, vol. VI. pp. 133, 139, 141, 143, are some letters between him and Mr. Gale, on a Roman horologium mentioned in an inscription found at Taloire, a poor small village in the district and on the lake of Annecey, &c. communicated to him by Mr. Cramer, professor of philosophy and mathematics.

, an eminent engraver, was born at Florence in 1610. His father was a goldsmith, and instructed his son in the same business; but while, for the purposes of his trade, he was learning to draw, some of Callot’s prints, which he had accidentally seen, gave a turn to his disposition, and he prevailed on his father to allow him to learn engraving. His first master, Canta Gallina, had also been the master of Callot, and our young pupil, after contenting himself for some time with an imitation of Callot, struck out a manner of his own, equally, if not more remarkable for freedom and spirit. In 1642 he went to Paris, where he formed an acquaintance with Israel Sylvestre, then newly returned from Rome, and was much employed by the uncle of that artist. Some time after, cardinal Richelieu engaged him to go to Arras, to make drawings of the siege, &c. of that town by the royal army, which he engraved at his return. From a considerable residence at Paris he returned to Florence, where the grand duke gave him a pension, and appointed him to instruct his son, the prince Cosmo, in the art of design; but his progress in his profession had been for some time much impeded by continual head-aches, which at last terminated his life in 1664. Without entering into the dispute so frequently agitated, respecting the comparative merits of De la Bella and Callot, it may be affirmed that De la Bella drew very correctly, and with great taste. His works manifest much genius and fertility of invention. The fire and animation which appears in them compensates for their lightness; and some degree of slightness seems pardonable in an artist who is said to have engraved no less than fourteen hundred plates.

, an eminent Italian physician, was born at Florence, 1643. After having finished his studies in polite literature, he went to Pisa, where he was assisted by the generosity of the grand duke Ferdinand II. and studied under two of the most learned men of that age, Oliva and Borelli. Oliva instructed him in natural philosophy, and Borelli taught him mathematics. At twenty years of age, he was chosen professor of philosophy at Pisa, but did not continue lon^ in this office; for he had acquired such a reputation for his skill in anatomy, that the grand duke procured him a professorship in that science. This prince was often present at his lectures, and was highly satisfied with his abilities and performances. Bellini, after having held his professorship almost thirty years, accepted of an invitation to Florence, when he was about fifty years of age, and was advanced to be first physician to the grand duke Cosmo III. but his practice is said to have been unsuccessful. He died January 8, 1703, being sixty years of age. His works were read and explained publicly during his life, by our countryman Dr. Pitcairn, professor of physic in Leyclen. The principal of his works are, 1. “Exercitatio Anatomica de structura et usu renum.” Amst. 1665, in 12mo. 2. “Gustus Organum novissimtæ deprehensum; prccmissis ad faciliorem intelligentiam quibusdam de saporibus,” Bologna, 1665, 12mo. 3. “Gratiarum actio, ad Ser. Hetruriee ducem. Quaedam Anatoniica in epistola ad Ser. Ferdinandum II. et propositio mcchanica,” Pisa, 1670, 12mo. 4. “De urinis et pulsibus, tie missione sanguinis, de febribus, de morbis capitis et pectoris,” Bologna, 1683, 4to> Francfort and Leipsic,1685, 4to. 5. " Opuscula aliquot de urinis, de motu cordis, de motu bills, de missione sanguinis/* L. Bat. 1696, 4to. This is dedicated to Dr. Pitcairn. Haller criticises Bellini with some severity, but the fullest account and defence of him is that by Fabroni.

, otherwise Vincenzo Maria Orsini, a Dominican friar, was a native of the kingdom of Naples, and the eldest son of the duke of Grayina. Being of a religious turn of mind from his tender years, he embraced a monastic life among the Dominicans, In 1672, partly by his t'amily influence, he was preferred to the dignity of cardinal, and soon after to the archbishopric of Benevento, but was with the utmost difficulty prevailed upon, to accept of the papal dignity, alleging that he was utterly unacquainted with state affairs, and too old to acquire that species of knowledge. Being, however, obliged to acquiesce, he began with those measures which corresponded with his previous disposition, and the retired life he had led; reducing the pleasures and pomp of his court, suppressing abuses, and restraining the licentiousness of his clergy. With a view to these changes, he held a provincial synod in the Lateran in 1725, but the Jesuits, of which three were at this time cardinals, highly provoked at his approving the doctrine of the Dominicans, concerning grace and predestination, found means to render all his endeavours ineffectual. On another occasion, he rose above the bigotry of his predecessors, by expressing a wish for the diffusion of scriptural knowledge; and with that, view, he permitted the people in general to peruse the sacred volume, and encouraged the multiplication of copies in the modern languages, which, although it displeased the rigid catholics, was approved by a majority of the members of that church. Benedict, about the same time, testified his devotion to the muses, by publicly decorating Perfetti, a Tuscan poet, with a crown of laurel.

, a celebrated Maronite, was born at Gusta in Phenicia, 1663, of a noble family, and sent to the Maronite college at Rome when but nine years old, where he made a great progress in the oriental languages, returned afterwards to the east, and applied himself to preaching the gospel there. The Maronites of Antioch sent him back to Rome, as a deputy from their church. Cosmo III. grand duke of Tuscany, invited Benedict to his court; heaped many honours and favours upon him, and made him professor of Hebrew at Pisa, and Clement XI. appointed him one of the correctors of the Greek press. He entered among the Jesuits at the age of forty: his amiable temper, integrity, and profound skill in the oriental languages, procured him the esteem of all the learned. He died September 22, 1742, at Rome, aged 80. He published the first volumes of that excellent edition of St. Ephraim, which has been continued and finished by M. Assemani.

, earl of Arlington, was descended from an ancient family, and was second son of sir John Bennet of Arlington in Middlesex, by Dorothy, daughter of sir John Crofts of Saxham in the county of Norfolk. He was born in 1618, and educated at Christ-church in the university of Oxford, where he took the degree of master of arts, and distinguished himself by his poetical compositions, several of which were occasionally inserted in books of verses published under the name of the university, and in others in that time. In the beginning the civil war, when king Charles I. fixed his chief residence at Oxford, he was appointed under-secretary to lord George Digby, secretary of state; and afterwards entered himself as a volunteer in the royal cause, and served very bravely, especially at the sharp encounter near Andover in Hampshire, where he received several wounds. When the wars were ended, he did not leave the king, when success did, but attended his interest in foreign parts; and, in order to qualify himself the better for his majesty’s service, travelled into Italy, and made his observations on the several countries and states of Europe. He was afterwards made secretary to James, duke of York, and received the honour of knighthood from king Charles II. at Bruges in March, 1658, and was soon after sent envoy to the court of Spain; in which negociation he acted with so much prudence and success, that his majesty, upon his return to England, soon called him home, and made him keeper of his privy purse. On the 2d of October, 1662, he was appointed principal secretary of state in the room of sir Edward Nicholas; but by this preferment some advances were evidently made towards the interest of Rome; since the new secretary was one who secretly espoused the cause of popery, and had much influenced the king towards embracing-that religion, the year before his restoration, at Fontarabia on Which' account he had been so much threatened by lord Culpepper, that it was believed he durst not return into England, till after the death of that nobleman.

In March 14, 1664, he was advanced to the degree of a baron, by the title of Lord Arlington of Arlington in Middlesex, and in 1670, was one of the cabinet council, distinguished by the title of the Cabal, and one of those ministers, who advised the shutting up of the exchequer. April 22, 1672, he was created viscount Thetford and earl of Arlington and on the 15th of June following, was made knight of the garter. On the 22d of the same month he was sent to Utrecht, with the duke of Buckingham and lord Hallifax, as ambassadors extraordinary and plenipotentiaries, to meet jointly with such as should be appointed by the king of France, and with the deputies from the States-General, but this negociation had no great effect. In April 1673, he was appointed one of the three plenipotentiaries from the court of Great Britain to Cologne, in order to mediate a peace between the emperor and king of France. In January following, the house of commons resolving to attack him, as well as the dukes of Lauderdale and Buckingham, who were likewise members of the Cabal, the last endeavoured to clear himself by casting all the odium upon the earl of Arlington; who being admitted to make his defence in that house, answered some parts of the duke of Buckingham’s speech, but was so far from giving them satisfaction with regard to his own conduct, that they immediately drew up articles of impeachment against him, in which he was charged to have been a constant and vehement promoter of popery and popish councils; to have been guilty of many undue practices in order to promote his own greatness; to have embezzled and wasted the treasure of the nation; and to have falsely and traiterously bet ayed the important trust reposed in him, as a counsellor and principal secretary of state. Upon this he appeared before the house of commons, and spoke much more than was expected; excusing himself, though without blaming the king. This had so good an effect, that though he, as secretary of state, was more exposed than any other, by the many warrants and orders which he had signed; yet he was acqu.tted by a small majority. But the care, which he took to preserve himself, and his success in it, lost him his high favour; with the king, as the duke of York was greatly offended with him; for which reason he quitted his post, and was made lord chamberlain on the lith of September 1671-, with this public reason assigned, that it was in recompence of his long and faithful service, and particularly for having performed the office of principal secretary of state for the space of twelve years to his majesty’s great satisfaction. But finding, that his interest began sensibly to decline, while that of the earl of Danby increased, who succeeded lord CiiHord in the office of lord high treasurer, which had ever been the height of lord Arlington’s ambition, he conceived an implacable hatred against that earl, and used his utmost effort* to supplant him, though in vain. For, upon his return from his unsuccessful journey to Holland in 1674-5, his credit was so much sunk, that several persons at court took the liberty to mimic his person and behaviour, as had been formerly done against lord chancellor Clarendon; and it became a common jest for some courtier to put a black patch upon his nose, and strut about with a white staff in his hand, in order to divert the king. One reason of his majesty’s disgust to him is thought to have been the earl’s late inclining towards the popular opinions, and especially his apparent zealous proceedings against the papists, while the court knew him to be of their religion in his heart, [n confirmation of this a remarkable story is told; that col. Richard Talbot, afterwards earl of Tyrconnel, having been some time absent from the court, upon his return found lord Arlington’s credit extremely low; and seeing him one day acted by a person with a patch and a staff, he took occasion to expostulate this matter with the king, with whom he was very familiar, remonstrating, how very hard it was, that poor Harry Ben net should be thus used, after he had so long and faithfully served his majesty, and followed him every where in his exile. The king hereupon began to complain too, declaring what cause he had to be dissatisfied with his conduct, “who had of late behaved himself after a strange manner; for, not content to come to prayers, as others did, he must be constant at sacraments too.” “Why,” said colonel Taibot interrupting, “does not your majestydo the same thing?” “God’s fish,” replied the king with some warmth, “I hope there is a difference between Harry Bennet and me.” However, in 1679, lord Arlington was chosen one of the new council to his majesty; and upon the accession of king James II. to the throne, was confirmed by him in the office of lord chamberlain. He died July J8, 1685, aged sixty-seven years, and was interred at Euston in Suffolk. By his lady Isabella, daughter of Lewis de Nassau, lord Beverwaert, he had one only daughter, Isabella, married to Henry, duke of G ration.

After the death of Richelieu, he got into favour with the duke de Breze, another maternal relation whom he claimed, and whom he accompanied in most of his expeditions. When this nobleman died, he returned to court, where his poetry became highly esteemed; and he obtained of the cardinal Mazarin several pensions on ecclesiastical benefices, which, joined to the presents he received from the queen dowager and some rich and liberal ladies, amounted to an income of twelve thousand livres, and enabled him to keep a carriage, a species of luxury then unknown to poets.

, earl of Portland, &c. one of the greatest statesmen of his time, and the first that advanced his family to the dignity of the English peerage, was a native of Holland, of an ancient and noble family in the province of Guelderland. After a liberal education, he was promoted to be page of honour to William, then prince of Orange (afterwards king William III. of England), in which station his behaviour and address so recommended him to the favour of his master, that he preferred him to the post of gentleman of his bedchamber. In this capacity he accompanied the prince into England, in the year 1670, where, going to visit the university of Oxford, he was, together with the prince, created doctor of civil law. In 1672, the prince of Orange being made captain-general of the Dutch forces, and soon after Stadtholder, M. Bentinck was promoted, and had a share in his good fortune, being made colonel and captain of the Dutch regiment of guards, afterwards esteemed one of the finest in king William’s service, and which behaved with the greatest gallantry in the wars both in Flanders and Ireland. In 1675, the prince falling ill of the small-pox, M. Bentinck had an opportunity of signalizing his love and affection for his master in an extraordinary manner, and thereby of obtaining his esteem and friendship, by one of the most generous actions imaginable: for the small-pox not rising kindly upon the prince, his physicians judged it necessary that some young person should lie in the same bed with him, imagining that the natural heat of another would expel the disease. M. Bentinck, though he had never had the small-pox, resolved to run this risque, and accordingly attended the prince during the whole course of his illness, both day and night, and his highness said afterwards, that he believed M. Bentinck never slept; for in sixteen days and nights, he never called once that he was not answered by him. M. Bentinck, however, upon the prince’s recovery, was immediately seized with the same distemper, attended with a great deal of danger, but recovered soon enough to attend his highness into the field, where he was always next his person; and his courage and abilities answered the great opinion his highness had formed of him, and from this time he employed him in his most secret and important affairs. In 1677, M. Bentinck was sent by the prince of Orange into England, to solicit a match with the princess Mary, eldest daughter of James, at that time duke of York (afterwards king James II.) which was soon after concluded. And in 1685, upon the duke of Monmouth’s invasion of this kingdom, he was sent over to king James to offer him his master’s assistance, both of his troops and person, to head them against the rebels, but, through a misconstruction put on his message, his highness’s offer was rejected by the king. In the year 1688, when the prince of Orange intended an expedition into England, he sent M. Bentinck, on the elector of Brandenburgh'a death, to the new elector, to communicate to him his design upon England, and to solicit his assistance. In this negociation M. Bentinck was so successful as to bring back a more favourable and satisfactory answer than the prince had expected; the elector having generously granted even more than was asked of him. M. Bentincfc had also a great share in the revolution; and in this difficult and important affair, shewed all the prudence and sagacity of the most consummate statesman. It was he that was applied to, as the person in the greatest confidence with the prince, to manage the negociations that were set on foot, betwixt his highness and the English nobility and gentry, who had recourse to him to rescue them from the danger they were in. He was also two months constantly at the Hague, giving the necessary orders for the prince’s expedition, which was managed by him with such secrecy, that nothing was suspected, nor was there ever so great a design executed in so short a time, a transport fleet of 500 vessels having been hired in three days. M. Bentinck accompanied the prince to England, and after king James’s abdication, during the interregnum, he held the first place among those who composed the prince’s cabinet at that critical time, and that, in such a degree of super-eminence, as scarcely left room for a second: and we may presume he was not wanting in his endeavours to procure the crown for the prince his master; who, when he had obtained it, was as forward on his part, in rewarding the faithful and signal services of M. Bentinck, whom he appointed groom of the stole, privy purse, first gentleman of the royal bedchamber, and first commoner upon the list of privy counsellors. He was afterwards naturalised by act of parliament; and, by letters patent bearing date the 9th of April 1689, two clays before the king and queen’s coronation, he was created baron of Cirencester, viscount Woodstock, and earl of Portland. In 1690, the earl of Portland, with many others of the English nobility, attended king William to Holland, where the earl acted as envoy for his majesty, at the grand congress held at the Hague the same year. In 1695, king William made this nobleman a grant of the lordships of Denbigh, Bromtield, Yale, and other lands, containing many thousand acres, in the principality of Wales, but these being part of the demesne thereof, the grant was opposed, and the house of commons addressed the king to put a stop to the passing it, which his majesty accordingly complied with, and recalled the grant, promising, however, to find some other way of shewing his favour to lord Portland, who, he said, had deserved it by long and faithful services. It was to this nobleman that the plot for assassinating king William in 1695 was first discovered; and his lordship, by his indefatigable zeal, was very instrumental in bringing to light the whole of that execrable scheme. The same year another affair happened, in which he gave such a shining proof of the strictest honour and integrity, as has done immortal honour to his memory. The parliament having taken into consideration the affairs of the East India company, who, through mismanagement and corrupt dealings, were in danger of losing their charter, strong interest was made with the members of both houses, and large sums distributed, to procure a new establishment of their company by act of parliament. Among those noblemen whose interest was necessary to bring about this affair, lord Portland’s was particularly courted, and an extraordinary value put upon it, much beyond that of any other peer; for he was offered no less than the sum of 50,000l. for his vote, and his endeavours with the king to favour the design. But his lordship treated this offer with all the contempt it deserved, telling the person employed in it, that if he ever so much as mentioned such a thing to him again, he would for ever be the company’s enemy, and give them all the opposition in his power. This is an instance of public spirit not often mst with, and did not pass unregarded; for we find it recorded in an eloquent speech of a member of parliament, who related this noble action to the house of commons, much to the honour of lord Portland. It was owing to this nobleman, also, that the Banquetting-house at Whitehall was saved, when the rest of the Palace was destroyed by fire. In February 1696, he was created a knight of the garter, at a chapter held at Kensington, and was installed at Windsor on the 25th of March, 1697, at which time he was also lieutenant-general of his majesty’s forces: for his lordship’s services were not confined to the cabinet; he likewise distinguished himself in the field on several occasions, particularly at the battle of the Boyne, battle of Landen, where he was wounded, siege of Limerick, Namur, &c. As his lordship thus attended his royal master in his wars both in Ireland and Flanders, and bore a principal command there, so he was honoured by his majesty with the chief management of the famous peace of Ryswick; having, in some conferences with the marshal BoufHers, settled the most difficult and tender point, and which might greatly have retarded the conclusion of the peace. This was concerning the disposal of king James; the king of France having solemnly promised, in an open declaration to all Europe, that he would never lay down his arms tilt he had restored the abdicated king to his throne, and consequently could not own king William, without abandoning him. Not long after the conclusion of the peace, king William nominated the earl of Portland to be his ambassador extraordinary to the court of France; an, honour justly due to him, for the share he had in bringing about the treaty of Hysvvick; and the king could not have fixed upon a person better qualified to support his high character with dignity and magnificence. The French likewise had a great opinion of his lordship’s capacity and merit; and no ambassador was ever so respected and caressed in France as his lordship was, who, on his part, filled his employment with equal honour to the king, the British nation, and himself. According to Prior, however, the earl of Portland went on this embassy with reluctance, having been for some time alarmed with the growing favour of a rival in king William’s affection, namely, Keppel, afterwards created earl of Albermarle, a DutchmLin, who had also been page to his majesty. “And,” according to Prior, “his jealousy was not ill-grounded for Albemarle so prevailed in lord Portland’s absence, that he obliged him, by several little affronts, to lay down all his employments, after which he was never more in favour, though the king always shewed an esteem for him.” Bishop Burnet says “That the earl of Portland observed the progress of the king’s favour to the lord Albemaiie with great uneasiness they grew to be not only incompatible, as all rivals for favour must be, but to hate and oppose one another in every thing; the one (lord Portland) had more of the confidence, the other more of the favour. Lord Portland, upon his return from his embassy to France, could not bear the visible superiority in favour that the other was growing up to; so he took occasion, from a small preference given lord Albemarle in prejudice of his own post, as groom of the stole, to withdraw from court, and lay down all his employments. The king used all possible means to divert him from this resolution, but could not prevail on him to alter it: he, indeed, consented to serve his majesty still in his state affairs, but would not return to any post in the household.” This change, says bishop Kennet, did at first please the English and Dutch, the earl of Albermarle having cunningly made several powerful friends in both nations, who, out of envy to lord Portland, were glad to see another in his place; and it is said that lord Albemarle was supported by the earl of Sutherland and Mrs. Villiers to pull down lord Portland: however, though the first became now the reigning favourite, yet the latter, says bishop Kennet, did ever preserve the esteem and affection of king William. But king William was not one of those princes who are governed by favourites. He was his own minister in all the greater parts of government, as those of war and peace, forming alliances and treaties, and he appreciated justly the merit of those whom he employed in his service. It is highly probable, therefore, that lord Portland never Jost the king’s favourable opinion, although he might be obliged to give way to a temporary favourite. The earl of Albemarle had been in his majesty’s service from a youth, was descended of a noble family in Guelderland, attended king William into England as his page of honour, and being a young lord of address and temper, with a due mixture of heroism, it is no wonder his majesty took pleasure in his conversation in the intervals of state business, and in making his fortune, who had so long followed his own. Bishop Burnet says, it is a difficult matter to account for the reasons of the favour shewn by the king, in the highest degree, to these two lords, they being in all respects, not only of different, but of quite opposite characters; secrecy and fidelity being the only qualities in which they did in any sort agree. Lord Albetnarle was very cheerful and gay, had all the arts of a court, was civil to all, and procured favours for many; but was so addicted to his pleasures that he could scarcely submit to attend on business, and had never yet distinguished himself in any thing. On the other hand, lord Portland was of a grave and sedate disposition, and indeed, adds the bishop, was thought rather too cold and dry, and had not the art of creating friends; but was indefatigable in business, and had distinguished himself on many occasions. With another author, Mackey, his lordship has the character of carrying himself with a very lofty mien, yet was not proud, nor much beloved nor hated by the people. But it is no wonder if the earl of Portland was not acceptable to the English nation. His lordship had been for ten years entirely trusted by the king, was his chief favourite and bosom-friend, and the favourites of kings are seldom favourites of the people, and it must be owned king William was immoderately lavish to those he personally loved. But as long as history has not charged his memory with failings that might deservedly render him obnoxious to the public, there can be no partiality in attributing this nobleman’s unpopularity partly to the above reasons, and partly to his being a foreigner, for which he suffered not a little from the envy and malice of his enemies, in their speeches, libels, &c. of which there were some levelled as well against the king as against his lordship. The same avereion, however, to foreign favourites, soon after shewed itself against lord Albemarle, who, as he grew into power and favour, like lord Portland, began to be looked upon with the same jealousy; and when the king gave him the order of the garter, in the year 1700, we are told it was generally disliked, and his majesty, to make it pass the better, at the same time conferred the like honour on Jord Pembroke (an English nobleman of illustrious birth). Yet it was observed, that few of the nobility graced the ceremony of their installation with their presence, and that many severe reflections were then made on his majesty, for giving the garter to his favourite. The king had for a long time given the earl of Portland the entire and absolute government of Scotland; and his lordship was also employed, in the year 1698, in the new negociation set on foot for the succession of the Crown of Spain, called by the name of the partition treaty > the intention of which being frustrated by the treachery of the French king, the treaty itself fell under severe censure, and was looked upon as a fatal slip in the politics of that reign; and lord Portland was impeached by the house of commons, in the year 1700, for advising and transacting it, as were also the other lords concerned with him in it. This same year, lord Portland was a second time attacked, together with lord Albemarle, by the house of commons, when the affair of the disposal of the forfeited estates in Ireland was under their consideration; it appearing upon inquiry, that the king had, among many other grants, made one to lord Woodstock (the earl of Portland’s son) of 135,820 acres of land, and to lord Albemarle two grants, of 108,633 acres in possession and reversion; the parliament came to a resolution to resume these grants; and also resolved, that the advising and passing them was highly reflecting on the king’s honour; and that the officers and instruments concerned in the procuring and passing those grants, had highly failed in the performance of their trust and duty; and also, that the procuring or passing exorbitant grants, by any member now of the privy-council, or by any other that had been a privy -counsellor, in this, or any former reign, to his use or benefit, was a high crime and misdemeanour. To carry their resentment still farther, the commons, immediately impeached the earls of Portland and Albemarle, for procuring for themselves exorbitant grants. This impeachment, however, did not succeed, and then the commons voted an address to his majesty, that no person who was not a native of his dominions, excepting his royal highness prince George of Denmark, should be admitted to his majesty’s councils in England or Ireland, but this was evaded by the king’s going the very next day to the house of lords, passing the bills that were ready, and putting an end to the session. The partition treaty was the last public transaction we find lord Portland engaged in, the next year after his impeachment, 1701, having put a period to the life of his royal and munificent master, king William III.; but not without having shewn, even in his last moments, that his esteem and affection for lord Portland ended but with his life: for when his majesty was just expiring, he asked, though with a faint voice, for the earl of Portland, but before his lordship could come, the king’s voice quite failed him. The earl, however, placing his ear as near his majesty’s mouth as could be, his lips were observed to move, but without strength to express his mind to his lordship; but, as the last testimony of the cordial affection he bore him, he took him by the hand, and carried it to his heart with great tenderness, and expired soon after. His lordship had before been a witness to, and signed his majesty’s last will and testament, made at the Hague in 1695; and it is said, that king William, the winter before he died, told lord Portland, as they were walking together in the garden at Hampton court, that he found his health declining very fast, and that he could not live another summer, but charged his lordship not to mention this till after his majesty’s death. We are told, that at the time of the king’s death, lord Portland was keeper of Windsor great park, and was displaced upon queen Anne’s accession to the throne: we are not, however, made acquainted with the time when his lordship became first possessed of that post. After king William’s death, the earl did not, at least openly, concern himself with public affairs, but betook himself to a retired life, in a most exemplary way, at his seat at Bulstrode in the county of Bucks, where he erected and plentifully endowed a free-school; and did many other charities. His lordship had an admirable taste for gardening, and took great delight in improving and beautifying his own gardens, which he made very elegant and curious. At length, being taken ill of a pleurisy and malignant fever, after about a week’s illness he died, November 23, 1709, in the sixty-first year of his age, leaving behind him a very plentiful fortune, being at that time reputed one of the richest subjects in Europe. His corpse being conveyed to London, was, on the third of December, carried with, great funeral pomp, from his house in St. James’s square to Westminster-abbey, and there interred in the vault under the east window of Henry the Seventh’s chapel.

Henry, his son, second earl, was created duke of Portland, 1716, and having incurred great loss of fortune by the South Sea bubble, went over as governor to Jamaica, 1722, and died there 1726, aged forty-five. William his son, second duke, who died in 1762, married lady Margaret Cavendish Harley, only child of the second earl of Oxford, and heiress to the vast estates of the Cavendishes, formerly dukes of Newcastle. This lady, after the duke’s death, lived with splendid hospitality at Bulstrode, which was the resort not only of persons of the highest rank, but of those most distinguished for talents and eminence in the literary world. To her, posterity will ever be indebted, for securing to the public the inestimable treasures of learning contained in the noble manuscript library of her father and grandfather, earls of Oxford, now deposited in the British museum, by the authority of parliament, under the guardianship of the most distinguished persons of the realm, easy of access, and consequently of real use to the philosopher, the statesman, the historian, and the scholar. She died July 17, 1785, and the following year her own museum, collected at vast expence to herself', and increased by some valuable presents from her friends, was disposed of by auction, by the late Mr. Alderman Skinner. The sale lasted thirty-seven days. Among the books was the fine Missal, known by the name of the Bedford Missal, of which Mr. Gough published an account, as will be noticed in his life. This splendid volume was purchased by, and is now in the very curious and valuable library of James Edwards, esq. of Harrow-on-the-hill.

, third duke of Portland, was born in 1738, and educated at Christchurch, Oxford, where he was created M. A. Feb. 1, 1757. He afterwards travelled for some time on the continent, and on his return was elected M. P. for Weobly, but in 1762 was called up to the house of peers on the death of his father. From that period, we find him generally dividing on important questions with the minority, and having connected himself with the late marquis of Rockingham, during that nobleman’s short-lived administration in 1765, he held the office of lord chamberlain. In 1767-8, his grace was involved in a long dispute with government respecting the grant of the forest of Inglewood to sir James Lowther, which had been part of the estates belonging to the duke’s ancestors, but by a decision of the court of exchequer in 1771, the grant was declared to be illegal. During the progress of the Ameiican war, his grace continued invariably to vote with the party who opposed the measures of administration, and became perhaps more closely united to them by his marriage with lady Dorothy Cavendish, sister to the duke of Devonshire. When the administration of lord North, which had conducted that unfortunate war, was dissolved in 1782, and replaced by the marquis of Rockingham, and his friends, the duke of Portland was appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland, but owing to the death of the marquis, he remained in this office only about three months. In consequence of the same event, some of the party were for earl Fitzwilliam, and some for the duke of Portland, as the ostensible head of the new arrangement, but in the mean time his majesty preferred the earl of Shelburne, Mr. Pitt, &c. The memorable coalition then took place between lord North and Mr. Fox, supported by many of the friends of the latter; but soon was not more unacceptable to his majesty than to the nation, whose confidence in public professions was shaken to a degree of indifference from which perhaps it has never since recovered. The coalition-ministry, however, having the voice of the house of commons in their favour, his majesty determined to appeal to the people by a general election, the issue of which was completely unfavourable to his grace’s friends; and Mr. Pitt, who had been appointed first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer, found a decided majority of the parliament and of the country on his side. An attempt was indeed made to engage Mr. Pitt and the duke in the same administration, but as the latter insisted as a preliminary, that Mr. Pitt should resign, the negociation was soon broken off.

The duke of Portland was not a man of brilliant parts, nor considered of eminence as a speaker; but his rank, vast property, conciliatory manners, and above all, his integrity, gave him considerable weight as-a public character, and rendered his loss to the party which he left, severely felt. He uniformly enjoyed the friendship and attachment of Mr. Burke, and, as chancellor of Oxford, was discriminating, judicious, and liberal in his patronage of men of merit.

, one of the best Italian poets of the sixteenth century, was born at Bologna in 1506, of one of the most illustrious families of that city and of all Italy. His father, Hannibal II. being obliged, by pope Julius II. to leave his country, of which his ancestors had been masters from the commencement of the fifteenth century, and to go to Milan, he took his son with him, then an infant. Seven years after, he settled with his whole family at Ferrara, under the protection of the princes of the house of Este, to whom he was nearly related. His son here made rapid progress in his studies, and became distinguished at the court of duke Alphonso I. He was accomplished in music, singing, and the sports and exercises of manly youth; and to all this he added a solidity of judgment which procured him to be employed by the dukes of Ferrara in state-affairs of importance. He was employed on one of these negociations when he died, Nov. 6, 1573. His works, which were printed at first separately, and inserted in many of the collections, were published together under the title of “Opere poetiche del sig. Ercole Bentivoglio,” Paris, 1719, 12mo. They consist of sonnets, stanzas, eclogues, satires, which for easy elegance of style are inferior only to those of Ariosto; five epistles or capitoli, in the manner of Berni, and two comedies of great merit. Of these last there was a French translation by Fabre, printed at Oxford, 1731, 8vo.

, celebrated in the Romish church as a cardinal, and in literature as a historian, was of the same family with the preceding, and born at Ferrara in 1579. After studying there for some time, he went to Padua, where he soon had occasion to display his prudence and address. When pope Clement VIII. was determined to take possession of Ferrara, under the pretence that Caesar of Este, who succeeded the childless duke Alphonsus, was of an illegitimate branch, the marquis Hippolyto Bentivoglio, brother to Guy, a general officer in the service of Alphonsus, and attached to Caesar, excited the anger of cardinal Aldobrandini, who commanded the expedition, under the title of General of the holy church. Guy, who was now only nineteen years old, went immediately to the cardinal, to negociate for his brother, by the mediation of cardinal Bandini, a friend to his family, and contributed very essentially to make his brother’s peace, after the treaty had been concluded between the pope and the duke in January 1598. The pope having gone in person to take possession of Ferrara, admitted young Bentivoglio into his presence, and gave him the title of his private chamberlain.

, of Arragon, of the family of the Bentivoglios of Bologna, but only collaterally related to that of the cardinal, was born at Ferrara, about the middle of the sixteenth century. He bore the titles of a nobleman of Ferrara, Venice, and Bologna, was marquis of Magliano and count of Antignato. He studied first in Italy, and afterwards at Paris, and then embraced a military life, and served in the rank of captain, in Flanders, in 1588. On his return to Italy, he made the tour of the different courts, and being at that of Modena when the duke Francis was about to depart for the siege of Pavia, he went with him as colonel of cavalry, and distinguished himself. To the science of arms he joined those of literature, was well acquainted with Greek, Latin, several modern languages, music, and architecture, both civil and military. He is said likewise to have invented some ingenious machinery for the Italian stage, his turn being particularly to dramatic poetry; and he was also a member of various academies. He died at Ferrara, February 1, 1685. On the Ferrara stage he produced three dramas: “L'Annibale in Capoa,” “La Filli di Tracia,” and “L‘Achille in Sciro’;” the latter was printed at Ferrara, 1663, 12mo. He wrote also “Tiridate,” represented on the Venetian stage, and printed 1668, 12mo; and a comedy in prose, “Impegni per disgracia,” which was published after his death, at Modena, 1687, His lyric poems are in various collections, but principally in “Rime scelte de' poeti Ferraresi.”

On the 4th of July, 1.689, being already M.A. in the university of Cambridge, he was incorporated as such in the university of Oxford, in Wadham college, and is mentioned by Anthony Wood (though then but a young man, a good deal under thirty) as a genius that was promising, and to whom the world was likely to be obliged, for his future studies and productions. In 1691 he published a Latin epistle to John Mill, D.D. containing some critical observations relating to Johannes Malala, Greek historiographer, published at the end of that author, at Oxon, in 1691, in a large 8vo. This was the first piece that our author published. Nor was religion less indebted to him than learning, for in 1691-2, he had the honour to be selected as the first person to preach at Boyle’s lectures (founded by that honourable gentleman, to assert and vindicate the great fundamentals of natural and revealed religion), upon which occasion he successfully applied sir Isaac Newton’s “Principia Mathematica,” to demonstrate the being of God, and altogether silenced the Atheists, who, in this country, have since that time, for the most part, sheltered themselves under Deism. The subject of his discourses was the folly of atheism, even with respect to the present life, and that matter and motion cannot think; or a confutation of atheism from the faculties of the soul, from the structure and origin of human bodies, and the origin and trame of the world itself; and though he was bnt young, and even only in deacon’s orders, he laid the basis and foundation upon which all the successors to that worthy office have since built. Though this was a task of great extent, and no small difficulty, yet Mr. Bentley acquitted himself with so much reputation, that the trustees not only publicly thanked him for them, but did moreover, by especial command and desire, prevail upon him to make the said discourses public, upon which he gave the world a volume, 1693, 4to, containing eight sermons, which have not only undergone a number of editions, but have been translated abroad into several languages. On the 2d of October, 1692, he was installed a prebendary of Worcester by bishop Stillingfleet. Upon the death of Mr. Justel, Mr. Bentley was immediately thought upon to succeed him, as keeper of the royal library at St. James’s; and accordingly, a few months after his decease, he had a warrant made out for that place, from the secretary’s office, December 23, 1693, and had his patent for the same in April following. Soon after he was nominated to that office, before his patent was signed, by his care and diligence he procured no less than a thousand volumes of one sort or other, which had been neglected to be brought to the library, according to the act of parliament then subsisting, which prescribed that one copy of every book printed in England, should be brought and lodged in this library, and one in each university library. It was about this time and upon this occasion of his being made library-keeper, that the famous dispute between him and the honourable Mr. Boyle, whether the epistles of Phalaris were genuine or riot, in some measure, at first took rise, which gave occasion to so maiw books and pamphlets, and has made so much noise in the world. This controversy upon a point of learning, in itself not very entertaining, was managed with a wit and humour which rendered it interesting to the public. The world was at that time a little biassed in favour of the production of the young nobleman, at least as to the genteel raillery of his pieces; for as to the dispute itself, viz. the genuineness of the Epistles of Phalaris, the best judge^s almost universally now give the preference to Dr. Bentley; nor does he much, if at all, fall short of Mr. Boyle, in throwing a deal of life and spirit into the controversy, particularly in his answer to Mr. Boyle, which is interspersed, as well as Mr. Boyle’s piece, with abundance of wit and humour, and is, upon the whole, reckoned much the best book. When, in 1696, he was admitted to his degree of D. D. he preached, on the day of the public commencement, from 1 Peter iii. 15. “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” About this time the university entered upon a design of publishing some editions, in 4to, of some classic authors, for the use of the duke of Gloucester. Dr. Bentley, who was consulted upon the occasion, advised Laughton, to whose care the edition of Virgil was committed, to follow Heinsius very close, but his advice was not complied with. Terence was published by Leng, Horace byTalbot, and Catullus, Tibnllus, and Propertius, by Mr. Annesley, afterwards earl of Anglesey. Dr. Bentley procurecUfrom Holland the types with which these books were printed. At the express desire of his friend Mr. Graevius, he published his “Animadversions and remarks on the poet Callimachus,” making, at the same time, a collection of some scattered pieces or fragments of that author. These he finished and sent over to Mr. Grarmus, towards the latter end of his dispute with Mr. Boyle, and Mr. Graevius published them abroad in 1697. in 1700, upon the death of Dr. Montague, he was by the crown presented to the mastership of Trinity-college, Cambridge, which is reckoned worth near 1000l. per annum, upon obtaining which preferment he resigned his prebend of Worcester; but June 12, 1701, on Dr. Say well’s death, he was collated archdeacon of Ely. What next employed his critical genius were the two first comedies of Aristophanes. Upon these he made some curious annotations, which were published at Amsterdam in 1710; as was much about the same time, at Rheims, his emendations, &c. on the fragments of Menancler and Philemon, in the feigned name of “Philcleutherus Lipsiensis.” Under this character he appeared again, in 1713, in remarks upon Collins’s discourse of free-thinking, a book which had made no small noise in the world at that time. This he handles and confutes in a critical, learned, and yet familiar manner. Before his Remarks on Freethinking, in 1711, came forth his so long-expected and celebrated edition of Horace. What he intended, was not properly to explain his author, but only to correct what he judged remained still corrupted in the text, as he himself tells us in his preface; and this by the help and assistance, either of ancient manuscripts, old editions, or by conjecture. This, it must be confessed, was a nice and dangerous undertaking, but he succeeded at least in correcting a much greater number of passages than any, or all his former interpreters, ever had done; furnishing us, in this his new edition of our elegant Roman poet, with a great number of very plausible, and probable, and unquestionably, some genuine emendations. Le Clerc abroad was Bentley’s chief opponent in this edition. At home, in the year following the doctor’s edition, viz. 1712, came out, by various hands, the odes and epodes of Horace, in sixpenny numbers, making in the whole two volumes in 8vo; the titles of which are “The odes and epodes of Horace in Latin and English, with a translation of Dr. Bentley’s notes. To which are added notes upon notes, done in the Bentleian style and manner.” In the preface they “humbly hope that the reader will encourage the following essays, upon several accounts. First, as they are designed to shew him the best author of Augustus’s age in his native purity. Secondly, to give him a further proof how far all attempts to render him into English, even after the best version now extant has succeeded no better, must fall short of the original. Thirdly, to convince him how ridiculous it is to presume to correct Horace without authority, upon the pretended strength of superior judgment in poetry. And lastly, how easily such a presumption may be turned upon the authors, and sufficiently expose them in their own way.” This last paragraph seems indeed to express the greatest part of the design of this work, which is executed with a great deal of spirit and humour. On the 5th of November, 1715, the doctor preached a sermon before the university against popery, on which somebody soon after published remarks, which occasioned Dr, Bentley’s answer, entitled “Reflections on the scandalous aspersions cast on the Clergy, by the author of the Remarks on Dr. Bentley’s Sermon on Popery, &c.” This was printed in 1717, in 8vo. In 1716, at which time he succeeded to the chair of Regius professor of divinity, the doctor had two printed letters inscribed to him, dated Jan. 1, to which also was added his answer, concerning his intended edition of the Greek Testament, giving some account of what was to be expected in that edition; and in them we are informed, that he intended to make no use of any manuscript in this edition that was not a thousand years old or above; of which sort he had got at that time twenty together in his study, which made up, one with another, 20,000 years. After having had this affair in agitation for about four years, he at last published proposals for it, which met with great encouragement. But soon after came out Remarks, paragraph by paragraph, on these proposals, by Dr. Conyers Middleton, as it afterwards appeared, who sets out by assuring his reader, that it was neither personal spleen, nor envy to the author of the Proposals, that drew the following remarks from him, but a serious conviction that Dr. Bentley had neither talents nor materials proper for the work, and that religion was much more likely to receive detriment than service from it. “The time, manner, and other circumstances of these proposals,” says he, “make it but too evident, that they were hastened out to serve quite different ends than those of common Christianity; and I think it my duty to obviate, as far as I am able, the influence they might have on some, whom big words, and bold attempts, are apt to lead implicitly into an high opinion and admiration of the merit and abilities of the undertaker.” Dr. Middleton then proceeds to criticise, paragraph by paragraph, Dr. Bentley’s proposals. Soon after these Remarks, paragraph by paragraph, the Proposals appeared, with a pamphlet entitled “A full answer to all the Remarks of a late pamphleteer, by a member of Trinity college, Cambridge,” 1721, signed J. E. This Dr. Middleton, and all, imagined could be none but the doctor himself, as well from the style, as the letters J. E. the two first vowels of Richard Bentley: and, upon this supposition, Dr. Middleton and others, in their future remarks, make that one great handle for abusing him. It is, however, somewhat uncertain, whether Dr. Middleton might not be as much mistaken as to the author of those Remarks, as the very author of those Remarks was with respect to the author of the Remarks paragraph by paragraph, who supposed them to be made by Dr. Colbatch. Soon after this came out a pamphlet, with some further “Remarks, &c. containing a full answer to the editor’s late defence -of his Proposals, as well as all his objections there made against my former remarks, by Conyers Middleton, D. D.” As also, an anonymous letter to the reverend master of Trinity college, Cambridge, editor of a new Greek Testament. We also find, under the Catalogue of the doctor’s works in the Bibliotheca Bodleiana,-much about this time, another publication, somewhat analogous, and relating to this affair, viz. “An enquiry into the authority of the primitive Complutensian edition of the New Testament, in a letter to archdeacon Bentley,” 1722, 8vo. As to these proposals, Dr. Middleton takes upon him to say, that they were only published with a view “that some noise should be made in the world in his favour, to support his declining character by something great and popular, to recover esteem and applause to himself, and throw an odium and contempt upon his prosecutors, &c.” In 1725, at a public commencement on the 6th of July, the doctor made an elegant Latin speech, on creating seven doctors of divinity, in which, at the several periods, by little notes below, is set forth the whole form of the creation of a doctor of divinity. This piece is usually joined to his edition of Terence and Phsedrus: at least it is added to the Amsterdam edition of them in 1727, a very neat edition, corrected for the press by the doctor. To these notes on Terence, he has also added those of the learned Gabriel Faernius, and taken great pains in amending and correcting the author, not only from those ancient manuscripts which Gabriel Faernius had procured, but also from whatever manuscripts the royal library, those of Cambridge, or any of his friends, could afford; some of which, he assures us, were of great antiquity, and at least next, and very little inferior, to those of Faernius, the orthography of which, as the most ancient manuscript, he altogether follows. He has likewise altered the text in abundance of places, and assigns in the notes the reason for such alteration. Then follows the Schediasma of the metre and accents of Terence, by which the doctor proves that Terence is written all in Verse. This, however', was a matter of some controversy betw-een the learned bishop Hare and our author; and during the warmth of the debate. Will. Whiston remarked how intolerable it was, that while Grotius, Newton, and Locke, all laymen, were employing their talents on sacred studies, such clergymen as Dr. Bentley and bishop Hare were fighting about a play-book. About 1732, the doctor published his Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” when he was, as he says in his preface, about seventy years old. This is a very elegant and beautiful edition of that poem, but cannot be said to have contributed much to the editor’s deputation. Dr. Bentley tells us, that he had prepared a new edition of the poet Manillas for the press, which he would have published, had not the clearness of paper, and the want of good types, and some other occasions, hindered him. He had also some design of publishing an edition of Hesychius, as we find by Mr. Graevius’s letter to him, and assured Dr. Mill, he could, if he pleased, correct five thousand faults in that author. His emendations on the Tusculan Questions of Cicero are adjoined to Mr. Davis’s edition of that author. From this produce of his studious, we must now pass to that of his more active, life, in the memorable complaints of rrial -administration urged against him by the college, which were the occasion of a long suit, whether the Crown‘ or the bishop of Ely was general visitor. A party in the college, displeased at some of his regulations, began to talk of the fortieth statute, de Magistri (si res exigat) Amotionc, and meditated a complaint to the bishop of Ely. The master hearing this, went to bishop Patrick, then at Ely, who told him, he had never heard before, that, as bishop of Ely, he had any thing to do in the royal college of Trinity; called his secretary to him, and bid him seek if there was any precedent for it in the bishop’s archives; but not one was found, nor so much as a copy of Trinity college statutes. Upon that, the doctor lent him one; and during that bishop’s time the matter was dropped. But in his successor Dr. Moore’s time, the party were encouraged to apply to the bishop, in 1709, and avast number of articles about dilapidations, but not one of immorality, bribery, or fraud, were exhibited against the master. These were, however, the subject of many pamphlets on both sides. His lordship received the charge, intending to proceed upon it, which he conceived himself sufficiently authorised to do, and required Dr. Bentley’ s answer, which he declined for some time to give, pleading want of form in the charge; because other members of the college, besides the seniors, had joined in the accusation, and the seniors themselves, as he alleged, had never yet admonished him; from whence he inferred, that all proceedings on such a charge, and whatsoever should follow on the same foot, would be ipso facto null and void. The bishop, however, did not, it seems, think this plea to be material; for he insisted upon Dr. Bentley’s answer to the charge; who, upon that, began to question what authority his lordship had over him; and, by a petition presented to queen Anne, prayed “that her majesty would take him and the college into her protection, against the bishop’s pretensions, and maintain her sole power and jurisdiction over her royal foundation, and the masters thereof.” This petition was referred to the then attorney and solicitor-general, and they were ordered fully to consider the matter, and report their opinions. Notice was given at the same time to the bishop, that her majesty having taken this affair into her cognizance, his lordship was to stay proceedings till the queen’s pleasure was farther known. Mr. attorney and solicitor-general took some time to consider; and were of opinion, the bishop had power over the master. But this report not proving satisfactory to some persons then in administration, a letter was brought to the bishop from Mr. secretary St. John, dated 18th June, 1711, acquainting him, “that the matter of the petition of Dr. Richard Bentley, master of Trinity-college in Cambridge, together with the report of Mr. attorney and Mr. solicitorgeneral, being then before the queen, and ordered to be taken into consideration by my lord keeper, assisted by her majesty’s counsel learned in the law, her majesty thought it to be a business of such weight and consequence, that she had commanded him (the secretary) to signify her pleasure to his lordship, that he should stop all further proceedings, according to her majesty’s direction.” But the master seeing that all discipline and studies would be lost in the college, if that controversy were not one way or other decided, requested of the ministry that he might be permitted to take his trial under any visitor the queen should appoint; or if none could be so appointed, that he might have leave, salvo jure regio, to be voluntarily tried under the bishop. Upon this the inhibition was taken off by Mr. secretary St. John, by order of the queen, signifying, “that his lordship was at liberty to proceed, so far as by the law he might.” But his lordship did not think fit to proceed, till he was served uith a rule of court from the king’s-bench, in Easter-term 1714, to shew cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue out against him. The bishop, being then at Ely, was applied to by joint messengers on both sides, to go to the college, where he might have ended the matter in two days. But this was not thought so proper, and Ely-house at London was pitched on, where, instead of two days, the trial lasted at least six weeks, and the college paid a thousand pounds for it; three learned lawyers, who could know but very little of the matter, being admitted on each side, to make eloquent harangues, answers, and replies, upon questions arisingfrom above fifty articles, in which there was scarcely any thing material that might not easily be determined upon a bare inspection of the college statutes, registers, and books of accounts. The trial being ended, and the cause ripe for sentence, the bishop’s death prevented his giving judgment. Thus the matter dropped for the present; but was afterwards revived in 1728, when new articles of complaint against Dr. Bentley, charging him with having in many instances made great waste of the college revenue, and violated the statutes, all founded on the 40th of Elizabeth, were again exhibited to the bishop of Ely, as specially authorised and appointed to receive the same, and to proceed thereupon; though the matter had been long before decided in favour of the crown, as having the general visitatorial power. Upon this, a petition was subscribed by the college, and presented to his majesty under the common-seal, the 10th of August 1728, and the cause carried before the king in council for the college itself now engaged as party in the cause against the bishop, and above fifteen hundred pounds out of the revenues of the college, were spent in carrying it on. This being referred to a committee of his majesty’s most honourable privy-council, Dr. Fleetwood, the lord bishop of Ely, on the 2nd of November, 1728, also presented a petition to his majesty, to be heard touching his right, which was likewise referred to the said committee. The lords committee, just before the clay appointed for a hearing, viz. March 13, 1728, had a printed pamphlet put into their hands, entitled, “The Case of Trinity-college; whether the Crown or the Bishop of Ely be General Visitor;” at the end of which, as well as in their petition, the college applied to the king, to take the visitatorial power (as by the opinion of council he might with their consent) into his own hands, that they might b0 only visited by the crown, but not with a view or intent of avoiding a visitation or inquiry into the state of the society, for which they were very pressing, both in their petition, and at the end of this pamphlet. On the fifteenth the cause came on before the lords of the committee of privy-council, but was from thence referred to the king’s bench, where the May following it was tried by way of prohibition, and after a long pleading, the judges unanimously determined it in favour of the bishop, as to his visitatorial power over the doctor; and the June following, the fellows exhibited their articles of complaint against him before the bishop of Ely, his lordship having two assistants, viz. sir Henry Penrice, and Dr. Bettesworth. But it being urged, that the bishop was going to exercise a general visitatorial power, another petition was preferred to his majesty and council, by the master and fellows, and a farther hearing appointed in the cause, in the court of king’s bench, in November, 1729, &c. and in November, 1731, we find the cause had gone against the bishop of Ely, by his taking out a writ of error, for carrying the' cause by appeal into the house of lords. The crown, however, at last, to put an end to the dispute and disturbance, (as fully impowered to do) took both college and master, according to their petition, into its own jurisdiction and visitation, and here the matter ended.

The proceedings of the university against Dr. Bentley in 1717 also, which were represented as violent and unjustifiable, as the effects of a power falsely usurped, or scandalously abused, and as arising from the malice of a party disaffected to the government, were the cause of great ferment and uneasiness in the university, and raised the curiosity, and drew the eyes of the whole nation upon them; for which reason we shall be a little particular in our account, that we may give the reader a just idea of the affair. In October 1717, the day after his majesty’s visit to the university, when several doctors in divinity, named by mandate, were attending in the senate-house to receive their degrees, Dr. Bentley, on creation, made a demand of four guineas from each of them, as a fee due to him as professor, over and above a broad -piece, which had by custom been allowed as a present on this occasion; and absolutely refused to create any doctor till this fee was paid him. This occasioned a long and warm dispute, till at last many of the doctors, and Dr. Middleton among the rest, consented to pay the fee in question, upon this condition, that Dr. Bentley should restore the money if it wasjiot afterwards determined to be his right. In the next meeting, those who had paid the fee were created, but he refused, to create such as would not pay it; upon which Dr. Grigg, then vice-chancellor, gave orders that some other doctor should perform the ceremony instead of him; and accordingly Dr. Fisher, the master -of Sydney-college, created several for the usual gratuity of a broad-piece. Upon this, they sent a state of the case to the chancellor, the duke of Somerset. Dr. Bentley still insisted upon his claim; but at last, instead of money, was content with a note from the rest, promising the payment of it, if it should be determined for him by the king, or any authority delegated from him; and at last submitted to create one of the king’s doctors, who came last, and some others who commenced afterwards, without either fee or note. Matters went on thus for near a twelvemonth, the doctor being in quiet possession of the money and notes: but nothing being determined about his right or title to it, Dr. Middleton thought he had reason to expect his money again; and accordingly (as it is said) he made a demand of it, first by letter, which was taken no notice of, and afterwards in person, and then applied to the vice-chancellor for a decree, which, from the tender regard the vice-chancellor had for Dr. Bentley, he was some time before he could obtain. At length, however, the decree was granted, and a known enemy of Dr. Bentley’s employed to serve it, who went to Trinity-lodge on Tuesday the 23d of September; but whether through ignorance in his own business, or that he believed Dr. Bentley, who told him that it signified nothing, not having the consent of nine heads to it, or that he had some other design than that of arresting him, he left the arrest, decree, &c. with theloctor, and came away without executing the vice-chancellor’s orders at all. Dr. Bentley was afterwards arrested by another beadle, on the 1st of October, with a second decree, which doubtless argued the invalidity of the first. The professor supposing the authority of the arrest not sufficient, refused to submit to it; but on farther consideration obeyed the writ, and put in bail. Every one, but such as were let into the secret, expected this four guineas affair would end here. Friday, the 3d of October, being appointed for the trial, the doctor only appeared there by his proctor, which was looked upon as a contempt of the vice-chancellor’s jurisdiction. Dr. Middleton, therefore, by the leave of the court, appointed Mr. Cook his proctor, who accused Dr. Bentley of contempt for not appearing, and moved for some censure upon it, and called for the beadle to make a return of the first decree. But he being confined in his chamber by a lit of the gout, there made an affidavit, by improving some circumstantial talk he had with the doctor and some other gentlemen, the subject of which was, a complaint of the ill usage he had met with in his attending at Dr. Bentley’s lodgings. Among other things, the beadle deposed, That Dr. Bentley said to him, “I will not be concluded by what the vice-chancellor and two or three of his friends shall determine over a bottle;” (thereby reflecting on the clandestine way in which they had proceeded against him, without the formal consent of such a number of heads as he thought necessary to make a statutable arrest). For this expression, the vice-chancellor suspended the doctor from all his degrees, who had no citation, no hearing, not so much as any notice, from any hand, of what was then doing; and the vice-chancellor declared that he would vacate the doctor’s professorship in two or three days, if he did not make his humble submission. Three court days are allowed for this submission, viz. the 7th, 9th, and 15th of October. On the two former days his name was not mentioned, and on the last, the vice-chancellor would certainly have forgot to summon him, if he had not been reminded by his brother the clean of Chichcster. That same day the vice-chancellor required the professor to submit, and own himself rightly suspended, which he refused, but had recourse to the only remedy that was now left, viz. an appeal to the delegates of the university which was arbitrarily refused him. On this the vice-chancellor, thinking it prudent to have the sanction of the university to back him, called a congregation, and on the third court day after the suspension, informed the university of the steps he had taken, and the message he had sent the professor, which was, that he required him to come and acknowledge his crime, the legality of his suspension, and humbly beg to be restored to his degrees; to which the gentleman (he said) had returned no answer; and then he commanded it to be registered, that he would deliberate farther of what was to be done, towards the maintenance of the university privileges and his own authority. Eight heads were present in the consistory, viz. two visitors of Bene't-college, Dr. Cove! and Dr. Balderston three late chaplains to his majesty, Dr. Laney, Dr. Adams, and Dr. Sherlock; the rival professor, Dr. Fisher; the masters of Clhre-ha!l and St. John’s college, Dr. Grigg and Dr. Jenkin. These gentlemen, at a consultation the same afternoon, in the master of Peterhouse’s lodge, appointed a congregation the next morning to degrade the professor. But,“”when the time came, a friend of the professor’s being that day one of the caput, other business was proposed, but not concluded. On Friday morning, no mention was made, as ought to have been, of the proceedings at the last congregation; but, in the afternoon, Oct. 3, 1718, a vote of the body deprived Dr. Bentley of all the privileges, honours, and degrees, that he had received from it. Upon this, Dr. Bentley drew up a petition, which he presented to his majesty Oct. 30, 1718, complaining of the proceedings of the vice-chancellor and university, and begging his majesty’s relief and protection, as supreme visitor of the university. The king in council taking the said petition into consideration, was pleased to order the same to be sent to the reverend Dr. Gooch, vice-chancellor; who was thereby directed to attend his majesty in council on Thursday the 6th of November 1718, to give an account of the proceedings which occasioned this complaint. On this day the case was heard between the university and the doctor, before the king and council, and afterwards referred to a committee of council; but the ministry being unwilling to interpose their authority with regard to the proceedings, the matter was farther referred, in a judicial way, to the court of king’s bench, where it was kept some time in agitation. At length, however, the proceedings of the university were reversed by that court; and on February the 7th, 1723-4, the court of king’s bench sent down a mandamus to the university of Cambridge, to restore Mr. Bentley, master of Trinity college, to all his degrees, and whatever he had been deprived of, &c. This was agreeable to a prophetic passage at the end of one of the pamphlets, at that time printed in his defence: “When our present heats are over, I question not but our professor’s case will be looked upon with another eye, if it be not already seen, that the honour of the university was made a pretext only to cover the resentments of some particular persons amongst its members. As the determination of it lies at present before a judgment where merit and not malice is likely to be regarded, we shall in a little time, I make no doubt, with a more scholar-like pleasure than can be perceived in this usage of the learned Bentley, congratulate ourselves upon his restoration to his well -merited honours.”

He arrived on the 8th of August 1772, in Champagne, where the duke d'Aiguillon, the minister of France, then was “and he- received me,” says the count, “with cordiality and distinction, and proposed to me to enter the service of his master, with the offer of a regiment of infantry which I accepted, on condition that his majesty would be phased to employ me in forming establishments beyond the Cape.” In consequence of this condition, the duke his patron proposed to him from his majesty to form an establishment on the island of Madagascar, upon the same footing as he had proposed upon the island of Formosa, the whole scheme of which is published in his memoirs of his own life, and discovers vast knowledge of the interests of commerce, and a deep insight into the characters of men.

, pastor and professor of theology at Montauban, about the beginning of the seventeenth century, was chosen to enter into conference with cardinal du Perron at Mantes, in 1593; and in 1598, wrote against him “Brieve et claire defense de la vocation des ministres de l'Evangile,” 8vo. The lively interest he took in the affairs of the duke of Rohan, during the civil wars of France, induced him to publish several writings, particularly one, in which he maintained that the clergy were bound to take up arms and shed blood, for which he was censured by the synod. Another Berault (Claude) succeeded D'Herbelot, as professor of the Syriac in the royal college of Paris, but is best known by his edition of “Statius,” 1685, 2 vols. 4to, which, owing to most of the copies having been burnt by a fire in the printing-office, is the most scarce and dear of all the Delphin quartos. This author died in 1705. Berault (Josias), an advocate of the parliament of Rouen under Henry III. was born in 1563, and died about 1640. He published a “Commentaire sur la Coutume de Normandie,” 1650 and 1660, fol. The booksellers of Rouen, in 1626, republished this with the commentaries of Godefroi and Aviron, 2 vols. fol. which were again reprinted in 1684 and" 1776.

, a French artist, who practised in England, was born in France, in 1659, and at the age of fifteen was placed under the care of La Fosse, with whom his improvement was so considerable, that in three years he was qualified to be employed in one of the royal palaces. In 1681 he went to England, where he worked under Rambour, a French painter of architecture; and afterwards he was engaged in different works for several of the English nobility. The ceiling in the chapel of Trinity college, in Oxford, was painted by this master; he also painted the staircase at the duke of Schomberg’s in London, and the summer-house at Ranelagh. His drawings in the academy were much approved but towards the latter part of his life, he only painted small pieces in the historical style, for which the subjects were taken from fabulous history; -ind his last performance was a Bacchanalian, to which he affixed his name the very day before he died, in 1720.

, or Berenger, the celebrated archdeacon of Angers, was born at Tours in the beginning of the eleventh century, of an opulent family, and became the disciple of the famous Fulbert of Chartres, under whom he made rapid progress in grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, and what were then called the liberal arts. On his return to his country in 1030, he was appointed scholastic, or master of the school of St. Martin. His reputation soon reaching foreign parts, the number of his scholars greatly increased, and many of them were afterwards advanced to high rank in the church; nor did he quit his school when made archdeacon of Angers in 1039. The opinions, which have given him a name in ecclesiastical history, were said to have been first occasioned by a pique. In a dispute with Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, on a very trivial question, he happened to be defeated, and what was worse, his scholars began to go over to that rival. Berengarius, on this, took Erigena for his model, and attacked the mystery of the eucharist, as the popish writers term it, but in plain language, the doctrine of transubstantiation. Bruno, bishop of Angers, Hugh, of Langres, and Adelman, of Brescia, in vain endeavoured to cure him of his heresy, and his writings, which were taken to Rome, were condemned in two councils held by pope Leo IX. in 1050, and himself excommunicated. He then went to the abbey of Preaux in Normandy, hoping to be protected by duke William, surnamed the Bastard, but that young prince summonsed a meeting of the ablest bishops and divines, who again condemned Berengarius, and the council of Paris, in Oct. 1050, deprived him of all his benefices. This loss he is said to have felt more severely than their spiritual inflictions, and it disposed him to retract his sentiments in the council of Tours, in 1055, in consequence of which he was received into church-communion. In 1059 he was cited to the council at Rome, by pope Nicholas II. and having been confuted by Abbo and Laniranc, he abjured his errors, burnt his books, yet had no sooner reached France, than he protested against his recantation, as extorted by fear, and returned to his studies with the same spirit of inquiry. At length, however, Gregory VII having called a new council at Rome in 1078, Berengei more seriously abjured his opinions, returned to France, and passed the remaining years of his life in privacy and penance. He died Jan. 6, 1088, aged ninety. There have been many disputes betwixt protestant and popish authors, as to the reality or sincerity of his final recantation. His sentiments, however, did not perish on his recantation, or his death, and he may be considered as having contributed to that great reformation in the church which afterwards was carried into lasting effect by his successors. The greater part of his works are lost, but some are preserved among the works of Lanfranc, in the collections of d'Acheri and Martenne; and, in 1770, Lessing discovered and published his answer to Lanfranc, “De corpore et sanguine Jesu Christi.”

, was born about 1620, in the castle of Bergerac in Perigord, and was at first very indifferently educated by a poor country priest. He afterwards came to Paris, and gave himself up to every kind of dissipation. He then entered as a cadet in the regiment of guards, and endeavoured to acquire reputation on the score of bravery, by acting as second in many duels, besides those in which he was a principal, scarce a day passing in which he had not some affair of this kind on his hands. Whoever observed his nose with any attention, which was a very remarkable one, was sure to be involved in a quarrel with him. The courage he shewed upon these occasions, and some desperate actions in which he distinguished himself when in the army, procured him the name of the Intrepid, which he retained to the end of his life. He was shot through the body at the siege of Mouzon, and run through the neck at the siege of Arras, in 1640; and the hardships he suffered at these two sieges, the little hopes he had of preferment, and perhaps his attachment to letters, made him renounce war, and apply himself altogether to certain literary pursuits. Amidst all his follies he had never neglected literature, but often withdrew himself, during the bustle and dissipation of a soldier’s life, to read and to write. He composed many works, in which he shewed some genius and extravagance of imagination, Marshal. Gassion, who loved men of wit and courage, because he had both himself, would have Bergerac with him but he, being passionately fond of liberty, looked upon this advantage as a constraint that would never agree with him, and therefore refused it. At length, however, in compliance with his friends, who pressed him to procure a patron at court, he overcame his scruples, and placed himself with the duke of Arpajon in 1653. To this nobleman he dedicated his works the same year, fur he had published none before, consisting of some letters written in his youtH, with a tragedy on the death of Agrippina, widow of Germanicus. He afterwards printed a comedy called “The Pedant,” but his other works were not printed till after his death. His “Comic history of the states and empires of the Moon” was printed in 1656. His “Comic history of the states and empires of the Sun,” several letters and dialogues, and a fragment of physics, were all collected and published afterwards in a volume. These comic histories and fragments shew that he was well acquainted with the Cartesian philosophy. He died in 1655, aged only thirtyfive years, his death being occasioned by a blow upon his head which he unluckily received from the fall of a. piece of wood a few months before.

His way was open now into the very first company. Mr. Pope introduced him to lord Burlington, and lord Burlington recommended him to the duke of Grafton who, being lord-lieutenant of Ireland, took him over as one of his chaplains in 1721, and November this year he is said to have accumulated the degrees of bachelor and doctor in divinity; but a writer in the Gent. Mag. 1776 asserts that he never went to Ireland as chaplain to any lieutenant, and that he was created D. D. by his college in 1717, when he was in Italy. The year following he had a very unexpected increase of fortune from Mrs. Vanhomrigh, the celebrated Vanessa, to whom he had been introduced by Swift this lady had intended Swift for her heir, but, perceiving herself to be slighted by him, she left near 8000l. between her two executors, of whom Berkeley was one. In his life in the Biog. Brit, it is said that Swift had often taken him to dine at this lady’s house, but Mrs. Berkeley, his widow, asserts that he never dined there but once, and that by chance. Dr. Berkeley, as executor, destroyed as much of Vanessa’s correspondence as he could find. Mr. Marshal, the other executor, published the “Cadenus and Vanessa,” which, according to Dr. Delany, proved fatal to Stella. May 18, 1724, he was promoted to the deanery of Derry, worth 1100l. per annum, and resigned his fellowship.

We have already related by what means, and upon what occasion, Dr. Berkeley had first the honour of being known to queen Caroline. This princess delighted much in attending to philosophical conversations between learned and ingenious men for which purpose she had, when princess of Wales, appointed a particular day in the week, when the most eminent for literary abilities at that time in England were invited to attend her royal highness in the evening a practice which she continued after her accession to the throne. Of this company were doctors Clarke,­Hoadly, Berkeley, and Sherlock.- Clarke and Berkeley were generally considered as principals in the debates that arose upon those occasions; and Hoadly adhered to the former, as Sherlock did to the latter. Hoadly was no friend to our author: he affected to consider his philosophy and his Bermuda project as the reveries of a visionary. Sherlock (who was afterwards bishop of London) on the other hand warmly espoused his cause and particularly, when the “Minute Philosopher” came out, he carried a copy of it to the queen, and left it to her majesty to determine, whether such a work could be the production of a disordered understanding. After dean Berkeley’s return from Rhode Island, the queen often commanded his attendance to discourse with him on what he had observed worthy of notice in America. His agreeable and instructive conversation, engaged that discerning princess so much in his favour, that the rich deanery of Down in Ireland falling vacant, he was at her desire named to it, and the king’s letter actually came over fqr his appointment. But his friend lord Burlington having neglected to notify the royal intentions in proper time to the duke of Dorset, then lord lieutenant of Ireland, his excellency was so offended at this disposal of the richest deanery in Ireland, without his concurrence, that it was thought proper not to press the matter any farther. Her -majesty upon this declared, that since they would not suffer Dr. Berkeley to be a dean in Ireland, he should be a bishop and accordingly, in 1733,­the bishopric of Cioyne becoming vacant, he was by letters patent, dated March 17, promoted to that see, and was consecrated at St. Paul’s church in Dublin, on the 19th of May following, byTheophilus archbishop of Cashel, assisted by the bishops of Raphoe and Killaloe. His lordship repaired immediately to his manse-house at Cioyne, where he constantly resided (except one winter that he attended the business of parliament in Dublin) and applied himself with vigour to the faithful discharge of all episcopal duties. He revived in his diocese the useful office of rural dean, which had gone into disuse visited frequently parochially and confirmed in several parts of his see.

, second son of the preceding, by Anne, eldest daughter of the right hon. John Forster, a privy-counsellor and speaker of the Irish house of commons, by Anne, daughter to the right hon. John Monck, brother to the duke of Albemarle, was born on the 28th of September 1733, old style, in Grosvenor-street, Grosvenor-square. In his infancy he was removed with the family to Ireland, where he was instructed in the classics by his father only, the bishop taking that part of the education of his sons on himself. Instructed in every elegant and useful accomplishment, Mr. Berkeley was, at the age of nineteen, sent over to Oxford his father leaving it to his own choice to enter a gentleman commoner, either at Christ church or St. John’s college. But bishop Conybeare, then dean of Christ church, on his arrival offering him a studentship in that society, he accepted it, finding many of the students to be gentlemen of the first character for learning and rank in the kingdom. His first tutor was the late learned archbishop of York, Dr. Markham; on whose removal to Westminsterschool, he put himself under the tuition of Dr. Smallwell, afterwards bishop of Oxford. Having taken the degree of B. A. he served the office of collector in the university, and as he was allowed by his contemporaries to be an excellent Latin scholar, his collector’s speech was universally admired and applauded. In 1758 he took a small living from his society, the vicarage of East Garston, Berks, from which he was removed, in 1759, by archbishop Seeker, his sole patron, to the vicarage of Bray, Berks of which he was only the fifth vicar since the reformation. In 1759, also, he took the degree of M. A. The kindness of archbishop Seeker (who testified the highest respect for bishop Berkeley’s memory by his attention to his deserving son) did not rest here he gave him also the chancellorship of Brecknock, the rectory of Acton, Middlesex, and the sixth prebendal stall in the church of Canterbury. In 1768 he had taken the degree of LL. D. for which he went out grand compounder, and soon afterwards resigned the rectory of Acton. Some time after he had obtained the chancellorship of Brecknock, he put himself to very considerable expence in order to render permanent two ten pounds per annum, issuing out of the estate, to two poor Welch curacies. The vicarage of Bray he exchanged for that of Cookham near Maidenhead, and had afterwards from the church of Canterbury the vicarage of East-Peckham, Kent, which he relinquished on obtaining the rectory of St. Clement’s Danes which with the vicarage of Tyshurst, Sussex (to which he was presented by the church of Canterbury in 1792, when he vacated Cookham), and with the chancellorship of Brecknock, he; held till his death. His illness had been long and painful, but borne with exemplary resignation and his death was so calm and easy that no pang was observed, no groan was heard, by his attending wife and relations. He died Jan. 6, 1795, and was interred in his father’s vault in Christ church, Oxford. Not long before his death, he expressed his warmest gratitude to Mrs. Berkeley, of whose affection he was truly sensible, and of whom he took a most tender farewell. Dr. Berkeley’s qualifications and attainments were such as occasioned his death to be lamented by many. He was the charitable divine, the affectionate and active friend, the elegant scholar, the accomplished gentleman. He possessed an exquisite sensibility. To alleviate the sufferings of the sick and needy, and to patronize the friendless, were employments in which his heart and his hand ever co-operated. In the pulpit his manner was animated, and his matter forcible. His conversation always enlivened the social meetings where he was present; for he was equalled by few in affability of temper and address, in the happy recital of agreeable anecdote, in the ingenious discussion of literary subjects, or in the brilliant display of a lively imagination.

, descended in a direct line from Robert Fitzharding, who was of the royal house of Denmark. He with his nephew, Charles Berkeley, had the principal management of the duke of York’s family, and was one of the privy council in the reign of Charles II. James II. and William III. At the restoration he manifested great loyalty for Charles II. and was advanced to the dignity of viscount Dursley and earl of Berkeley in 1679. One of his most munificent acts was his bestowing on the public library of Sion college, a valuable collection of books formed by sir Robert Coke. He died Oct. 14, 1698, aged seventy-one, and was buried at Cranford in Middlesex. Lord Orford attributes to him, on good authority, a curious and scarce work of the religious cast, entitled “Historical applications and occasional meditations upon several subjects. Written by a person of honour,” 1670, 12mo. In this book are several striking instances of the testimony which some men of eminence have borne to the importance of religious life, and the consolation to be received from it, especially at the approach of death. Fenton, in his observations on a short poem, prefixed to this work by Waller, says that his lordship was a person of strict virtue and piety, but of such undistinguishing affability to men of all ranks and parties, that Wycherley has been supposed to have drawn his character of “Lord Plausible,” in the Plain Dealer, from him a circumstance that cannot detract much from his lordship’s reputation, for Wycherley was a poor judge of men of “strict virtue and piety.” Besides the above work, of which a third edition appeared in 1680, lord Berkeley published, the same year, “A speech to the Levant Company at their annual election, Feb. 9, 1680.”

, one of the justices of the king’s bench in the time of Charles I. was born in 1584, the second son of Rowland Berkeley, esq. of Spetchly in Worcestershire, where his descendants yet live and was by the female line, descended from Thomas Mowbray, duke of Norfolk, who flourished in the reigns of Henry IV. and V. In the 12 James I. he served the office of high sheriff for the county of Worcester in the 3d Charles I. was made king’s serjeant, and in the 8th of the same reign, was made a justice of the court of king’s bench. While in this office, he, with eleven of his brethren, gave his opinion in favour of ship-money; and if we may judge from the tenor of his conduct in private life, as well as upbn the bench, from honest motives but as he had been active on other occasions in what he seems to have thought his duty, and was a man of fortune, he was singled out by parliament as a proper object of their vengeance. He was accordingly impeached of high treason, and adjudged to pay a fine of 20,000l. to be deprived of his office of judge, and rendered incapable of holding any place, or receiving any honour in the state or commonwealth: he was also to be imprisoned in the Tower during the pleasure of the house of lords. Having made some “satisfaction” for his fine to the parliament, he was by their authority, discharged from the whole, and set at liberty, after he had been upwards of seven months in the Tower. But he af terwards suffered greatly by the plunderings and exactions of the rebels, and a little before the battle of Worcester, the Presbyterians, though engaged in the king’s service, retained their ancient animosity against him, and burnt his house at Spetchly to the ground. He afterwards converted the stables into a dwelling-house, and lived with content, and even dignity, upon the wreck of his fortune. He was a true son of the church of England, and suffered more from the seduction of his only son Thomas to the church of Home, at Brussels, than from all the calamities of the civil war. He died Aug. 5, 1656.

The favourable sentiments which the province entertained for sir Francis before the controversy took place between Great Britain and the colonies, are shown by the expressions of acknowledgement and affection in their several addresses to him up to that period, and the constant approbation with which he was honoured by his majesty, appears from the dispatches of the different secretaries of state laid before the House of Commons, and printed by their order. His “Case before the Privy Council,” printed in 1770; and his “Select Letters,” in 1774; explain in a very satisfactory manner his conduct during the progress of the American revolution. After the war commenced, sir Francis returned to England, and resided mostly at Nether Wichendon, or Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire. He died June 16, 1779, leaving a numerous family, of whom his third son, sir Thomas, the present baronet, chancellor of the diocese of Durham, is well known as a scholar and philanthropist. In 1752, sir Francis, who cultivated a highly classical taste, published “Antonii Alsopi Odarum libri duo,” 4to. (See Alsop), dedicated in an elegant copy of verses to Thomas duke of Newcastle.

, so called from Castel Bolognese in the Romania, where he was born in 1495, distinguished himself for his admirable skill in engraving on precious stones. After having resided for several years with Alphonso duke of Ferrara, where his works excited universal admiration, he went to Rome, and attached himself to the cardinal Hyppolito de Medicis, whose friendship he preferred to the brilliant offers made by Charles V. who was very desirous of his residing in Spain. At Rome, Bernard executed some medals in honour of Clement VII. of such exquisite beauty, as to meet with the applause even of his rivals. Among the chefsd'oeuvre which he left, are two engravings on crystal, which have been particularly noticed by connoisseurs. The subjects are the “Fall of Phaeton,” and “Tityus with the vulture,” from designs by Michael Angelo, both which were thought to approach to the perfection of the ancients. Enriched by the patronage of cardinal de Medicis, and esteemed by all who knew him, he passed his latter days in a charming retreat, at Faenza, which he had enriched with a fine collection of pictures, and where he died in 1555.

The public have been recently gratified with a fac-simile reprint of Juliana Berners’s curious work, as printed by Wynkyn de Worde, preceded by a biographical and bibliographical dissertation, so copious and correct, as to render all subsequent attempts superfluous. Joseph Haslewood, esq. the editor, has left no sources unexplored, and no means untried, by which light might be thrown upon the work or its supposed authoress. He is of opinion that the only, parts of the work which can safely be attributed to her pen, are: 1. A small portion of the treatise on Hawking. 2. The treatise upon Hunting. 3. A short list of the beasts of chase and, 4. Another short one of beasts and fowls. This fac-simile edition, of which one hundred and fifty copies only were printed, is executed with uncommon accuracy and fidelity, and does high credit to the taste, minute attention, and perseverance (for all are necessary in an attempt of this kind) displayed by the printer, Mr. Joseph Harding. At the late sale of the library of the duke of Roxburgh, an imperfect copy of Wynkyn de Worde’s edition [an erratum changes Wynkyn do Worde’s to the St Alban’s] was sold for 147l.

Berni was at Rome in 1527, when it was plundered by the army of the constable of Bourbon, and lost all he possessed. He then travelled with his patron Giberti to Verona, Venice, and Padua, but being tired of the service, and having no longer any hopes of adding to a canonry in the church of Florence, which he had possessed some years, he retired to that city with a view to a life of independence and moderation. Here an acquaintance which he unhappily formed with two great men proved fatal to him, Alexander de Medici, duke of Florence, and the young cardinal Hippolito de Medici, each of whom is supposed to have contended with the other, which should first destroy his rival by poison. One of them is said to have been desirous of employing Berni in this detestable project, and he having refused his assistance, fell a victim to the revenge of his patron, by a death of similar treachery. The cardinal certainly died in 1535, and, according to all historians, by poison. The death of Berni is fixed on July 26, 1536, from which long interval it has been thought improbable that the duke Alexander would have caused him to be poisoned, for not having concurred in the destruction of a rival who had been dead probably a year; but there is nothing in the character of Alexander to make us think he would scruple at this additional crime, and that for a very good reason, to get rid of one who was privy to his desiga upon the cardinal.

, an eminent musician and composer, was born at Mante on the Seine, in 1664. By his merit in his profession he attained to be conductor of the music in the chapel of St. Stephen, and afterwards in that of the king. [The regent duke of Orleans admired his works, and patronized their author. This prince having given him a motet of his own composition to examine, and being impatient for his observations thereon, went to the house of Bernier, and entering his study, found the abbé de la Croix there criticising his piece, while the musician himself was in another room carousing and singing with a company of his friends. The duke broke in upon and interrupted their mirth, with a reprimand of Bernier for his inattention to the task assigned him. This musician died at Paris in 1734. His five books of Cantatas and Songs for one and two voices, the words of which were written by Rousseau and Fuselier, have procured him great reputation. There are besides, of his composition, “Les Nuits de Sceaux,” and many motets, which are still much approved of.

, the name of a family which has produced a succession of learned men, eminent in the study of mathematics. Eight of its members, within the space of a century, have been particularly distinguished in this science. The Bernoulli’s were originally of Antwerp, but were obliged to leave their country for the sake of religion, during the persecution raised by the duke of Alva. They then came to Francfort, and from that to Basil, where some of them arrived at the chief offices of the republic. The first who occurs in biographical collections is, [see Bernoulli, James]

, minister of state in Denmark, was born at Hanover, May 13, 1712. Some relations he happened to have in Denmark invited him thither, where his talents were soon noticed, and employed by the government. After having been ambassador in several courts, he was placed by Frederick V. at the head of foreign affairs. During the seven years war (1755 62) he preserved a system of strict neutrality, which proved eminently serviceable to the commerce and internal prosperity of Denmark. In 1761, when the emperor of Russia, Peter III. threatened Denmark with war, and inarched his troops towards Holstein, Bernstorf exerted the utmost vigour in contriving means for the defence of the country, and the“sudden death of Peter having averted this storm, he employed his skill in bringing about an alliance between the courts of Copenhagen and St. Petersburgh. In 1767 he succeeded in concluding a provisional treaty, by which the dukedom of Holstein, which Paul, the grand duke of Russia, inherited by the death of Peter III. was exchanged for Oldenburgh, which belonged to the king of Denmark. This finally took place in 1773, and procured an important addition to the Danish territories. Soon after Bernstorf put a stop to the long contest that had been maintained respecting the house of Holstein having a right of sovereignty over Hamburgh, and that city vVas declared independent on condition of not claiming repayment of the money the city had advanced to the king of Denmark and the dukes of Holstein. These measures contributed highly to the reputation of count Bernstorf as a politician, but perhaps he derived as much credit from his conduct in other respects. He had acquired a large estate in the neighbourhood of Copenhagen, the peasants on which, as was the case in Denmark at that time, were slaves, and transferred like other property. Bernstorf, however, not only gave them their liberty, but granted them long leases, and encouraged them to cultivate the land, and feel that they had an interest in it. His tenants, soon sensible of the humanity and wisdom of his conduct, agreed to express their gratitude by erecting an obelisk in honour of him on the side of the great road leading to Copenhagen. Bernstorf was likewise a liberal patron of manufactures, commerce, and the fine arts. It was he who induced Frederick V. to give a pension for life to the poet Klopstock. On the death of that monarch, Bernstorf was continued in the ministry lor the first years of the new reign, until 1770, when Struenzee being placed at the head of the council, Bernstorf was allowed to resign with a pension. He then retired to Hamburgh, but, after the catastrophe of Struenzee, he was recalled, and was about to set out for Copenhagen when he died of an apoplexy, Feb. 19, 1772. The political measures of this statesman belong to history, but his private character has been the theme of universal applause. Learned, social, affable, generous, and high spirited, he preserved the affections of all who knew him, and throughout his whole administration had the singular good fortune to enjoy at the same time courtly favour and popular esteem. His nephew, count Andrew Peter Bernstorf, who was born in 1735, and eventually succeeded him as foreign minister for Denmark, displayed equal zeal and knowledge in promoting the true interests of his country, which yet repeats his name with fervour and enthusiasm. It was particularly his object to preserve the neutrality of Denmark, after the French revolution had provoked a combination of most of the powers of Europe; and as long as neutral rights were at all respected, he succeeded in this wise measure. His state papers on the” principles of the court of Denmark concerning neutrality,“in 1780, and his” Declaration to the courts of Vienna and Berlin," in 1792, were much admired. In private life he followed the steps of his uncle, by a liberal patronage of arts, commerce, and manufactures, and like him was as popular in the country as in the court. He died Jan. 21, 1797.

Da Cortona, an eminent artist, was born at Cortona, in 1596, and according to some writers, was a disciple of Andrea Commodi, though others affirm that he was the disciple of JBaccio C'iarpi and Argenville says, he was successively the disciple of both. He went young to Rome, and applied himself diligently to study the antiques, the works of Raphael, Buonaroti, and Polidoro by which he so improved his taste and his hand, that he distinguished himself in a degree superior to any of the artists of his time. And it seemed astonishing that two such noble designs as were the Rape of the Sabines, and the Battle of Alexander, which he painted in the Palazzo Sacchetti, conld be the product of so young an artist, when it was observed, that for invention, disposition, elevation of thought, and an excellent tone of colour, they were equal to the performances of the best masters. He worked with remarkable ease and freedom; his figures are admirably grouped; his distribution is elegant; and the Chiaroscuro is judiciously observed. Nothing can be more grand than his ornaments and where landscape is introduced, it is designed in a superior taste and through his whole compositions there appears an uncommon grace. But De Piles observes, that it was not such a grace as was the portion of Raphael and Correggio but a general grace, consisting rather in a habit of making the airs of his heads always agreeable, than in a choice of expressions suitable to each subject. By the best judges it seems to be agreed, that although this master was frequently incorrect though not always judicious in his expressions though irregular in his draperies, and apt to design his figures too short and too heavy yet, by the magnificence of his composition, the delicate airs of his faces, the grandeur of his decorations, and the astonishing suavity and gracefulness of the whole together, he must be allowed to have been the mo-t agreeable mannerist that any age hath produced. He had an eye for colour; but his colouring in fresco is far superior to what he performed in oil nor do his easel pictures appear as finished as might be expected from so great a master, when compared what what he painted in a larger size. Some of the most capital works of Pietro, in fresco, are in the Barberini palace at Rome, and the Palazzo Pitti at Florence. Of his oil-pictures, perhaps none excels the altar-piece of Ananias healing St. Paul, in the church of the Concezione at Rome. Alexander VII. created him knight of the golden spur. The grand duke Ferdinand II. also conferred on him several marks of his esteem. That prince one day admiring the figure of a child weeping, which he had just painted, he only gave it one touch of the pencil, and it appeared laughing then, with another touch, he put it in its former state “Prince,” said Berretini, “you see how easily children laugh and cry.” He was so laborious, that the gout, with which he was tormented, did not prevent him rrom working but his sedentary life, in conjunction with his extreme application, augmented that cruel disease, of which he died in 1669.

, a naval commander, a native of evonshire, where he was born in 1635, became successful against the Buccaneers who infested the Atlantic ocean, and distinguished himself at the famous battle of Southwold-bay, for which he was knighted. In 1682, he commanded the Gloucester frigate, on board of which the duke of York embarked for Scotland; but by the carelessness of the pilot, the vessel was lost at the mouth of the Humber. In the midst of this confusion, sir John retained that presence of mind for which he was always remarkable, and by that means preserved the duke and as many of his retinue as the long-boat would carry. Soon after he was promoted to a flag, and commanded as vice-admiral under lord Dartmouth, at the demolition of Tangier, and on his return was made a commissioner of the navy; which post he enjoyed till his death. He was in great favour with king James II. who made choice of him to command under lord Dartmouth, when the prince of Orange landed in England; and when his lordship left the fleet, the whole command devolved on sir John Berry, who held it till the ships were laid up. After the revolution sir John continued in his posts, and was frequently consulted by king William, who entertained a high opinion of his abilities in military affairs; but he was poisoned in the beginning of February, 1691, on board one of his majesty’s ships at Portsmouth, where he was paying her off, in the 56th year of his age. The cause of this catastrophe was never discovered, and it was probably accidental. His body v/as brought to London and interred at Stepney, and a fine monument afterwards erected to his memory.

Besides the heads above named, he also executed some full length figures both of men and other animals, in a style of superior elegance. But that attention to the interests of a numerous family, which a man of sound principles, as Mr. Berry was, could never allow him to lose sight of, made him forego these amusing exertions, for the more lucrative, though less pleasing employment, of cutting heraldic seals, which may be said to have been his constant employment from morning to night, for forty years together, with an assiduity that has few examples in modern times. In this department, he was without dispute the first artist of his time but even here, that modesty which was so peculiarly his own, and that invariable desire to give full perfection to every thing he put out of his hands, prevented him from drawing such emoluments from his labours as they deserved. Of this the following anecdote will serve as an illustration, and as an additional testimony of his very great skill. A certain noble duke, when he succeeded to his estate, was desirous of having a seal cut with his arms, &.c. properly blazoned upon it. But as there were no less than thirty-two compartments in the shield, which was of necessity confined to a very small space, so as to leave room for the supporters, and other ornaments, within the compass of a seal of an ordinary size, he found it a matter of great difficulty to get it executed. Though a native of Scotland himself, the duke never expected to find a man of the first-rate eminence in Edinburgh but applied to the most eminent seal-engravers in London and Paris, all of whom declined it as a thing beyond their power. At this time Berry, of whom he had scarcely heard, was mentioned to him in such a manner that he went to him, accompanied by a friend, and found him, as usual, sitting at his wheel. Without introducing the duke, the gentleman showed Berry an impression of a seal that the duchess dowager had got cut a good many years before by a Jew in London, who was dead before the duke thought of his seal, and which had been shewn to the others as a pattern, asking him if he would ciu a seal the same with that. After examining it a little, Mr. Berry answered readily that he would. The duke, pleased and astonished at the same time, cried out, “Will you, indeed” Mr. Berry, who thought this implied some sort of doubt of his abilities, was a little piqued at it; and turning round to the duke, whom he had never seen before, nor knew; “Yes (said he,) sir; if I do not make a better seal than this, I shall take no payment for it.” The dukej highly pleased, left the pattern with Mr. Berry, and went away. The pattern seal contained, indeed, the various devices on the thirty-two compartments, distinctlyenough to be seen, but none of the colours were expressed. Mr. Berry, in a proper time, finished the seal; on which the figures were not only done with superior elegance, but the colours on every part so distinctly marked, that a painter could delineate the whole, or a herald blazon it, with the most perfect accuracy. For this extraordinary exertion of talents, he charged no more than thirty- two guineas, though the pattern seal had cost seventy-five. Thus it was, that, notwithstanding he possessed talents of the most superior kind, and assiduity almost unequalled, observing at all times a strict economy in his family, Mr. Berry died at last, in circumstances that were not affluent, on the 3d of June, 1783, in the 53d year of his age, leaving a numerous family of children. Besides his eminence as an artist, he was distinguished by the integrity of his moral character, and the strict principles of honour which on all occasions influenced his conduct.

, a famous Augustine monk, born May 28, 1696, at Serravezza, a small village in Tuscany, was called to Rome by his superiors, and obtained the title of assistant-general of Italy, and the place of prefect of the papal library. His great proficiency in theological studies procured him these distinctions, and appeared to advantage in his grand work, “De disciplinis theologicis,” printed at Rome in 8 vols. 4to. He here adopts the sentiments of St. Augustine in their utmost rigour, after the example of Bellelli his brother- monk. The archbishop of Vienna [Salmon], or rather the Jesuits who managed him, published under his name in 1744, two pieces against the two Augustine theologues, inveighing against them as being too severely Augustine. The first is entitled, “Ba'ianismus redivivus in scriptis pp. Bellelli et Berti,” in 4to. The second bore this title “Jansenismus redivivus in scriptis pp. Bellelli et Berti,” in 4to. At the same time father Berti was accused to pope Benedict XIV. as a disciple of Ba'ius and of Jansenitis. The prudent pontiff, without returning any answer to the accusers, advised Berti to defend himself; which he accordingly did in a work of two vols. 4to, 1749. In this apology, rather long, though learned and lively, he laid down the difference there is between Jansenism and Augustinianism. After this piece Berti brought out several others, the principal of which is an ecclesiastical history in Latin, in 7 vols. 4to: it made however but little way out of Italy, by reason of the dryness of the historian, and of his prejudices in favour of exploded tenets. He speaks of the pope, both in his theology and in his history, as the absolute monarch of kingdoms and empires, and that all other princes are but his lieutenants. Berti wrote also dissertations, dialogues, panegyrics, academical discourses, and some Italian poems, which are by no means his best productions. An edition in folio of all his works has been printed at Venice. He died at the age of 70, May 26, 1766, at Pisa, whither he had been called by Francis I. grand duke of Tuscany.

Bessarion was employed on four embassies of a delicate and difficult kind. Three of them he conducted with success, but the fourth was less fortunate. Being sent into France by Sixtus IV. to reconcile Louis XI. with the duke of Burgundy, and obtain assistance against the Turks, he not only failed in these undertakings, but it is said that the king, in full court, offered him the grossest personal indignities. Bessarion on this set out on his way to Rome, and died at Ravenna, Nov. 19, 1472, of chagrin, according to some authors, but more probably from age and infirmity, being now eighty-three years old, or at least, according to Bandini’s calculation, seventy-seven. His body was brought to Rome, and the pope attended the funeral, an honour never bestowed before on any cardinal. He was celebrated in Latin by Platiua, and in Greek by Michael Apostoiius. Of PJatina’s eloge there have been many editions, but that of Aposiolius was not published until 1793, by M. Fulleborn. Bessarion bequeathed his library to the senate of Venice. It was particularly rich in manuscripts, which he collected at a great expence from all parts of Greece. Tomasini drew up a catalogue of the whole.

, a celebrated English actor, was born in Tothill-street, Westminster, 1635; and, after having left school, is said to have been put apprentice to a bookseller. The particulars, however, relating to the early part of his life, are not ascertained. It is generally thought that he made his first appearance on the stage in 1656, at the opera-house in Charter-house-yard, under the direction of sir William Davenant, and continued to perform here till the restoration, when king Charles grained patents to two companies, the one called the king’s cornpa ly, and the other the duke’s. The former acted at the theatre royal in Drury-lane, and the latter at the theatre in Lincoln’s-Inn-fields. Betterton went over to Paris, at the command of king Charles II. to take a view of the French scenery, and at his return made such improvements as added greatly to the lustre of the English stage. For several years both companies acted with the highest applause, and the taste for dramatic entertainments was never stronger than whilst these two companies played . The two companies were however at length united; though the time of this union is not precisely known, Gildon placing it in 1682, and Cibber in 1684. But however this may be, it was in this united company that Mr. 'Betterton first shone forth with the greatest degree of lustre for, having survived the famous actors upon whose model he had formed himself, he was now at liberty to display his genius in its full extent. His merit as an actor cannot now be very accurately displayed, and much of the following passage from Gibber’s Apology, seems to be mere stage-cant and declamation. Cibber says, “Betterton was an actor, as Shakspeare was an author, both without competitors, formed for the mutual assistance and illustration of each other’s genius! How Shakspeare wrote, all men who have a taste for nature may read and know; but with what higher rapture would he still be read, could they conceive how Betterton played him! Then might they know the one was born alone to speak what the other only knew to write! Pity it is that the momentary beauties, flowing from an harmonious elocution, cannot, like those of poetry, be their own record! that the animated graces of the player can live no longer than the instant breath and motion that present them, or at best can but faintly glimmer through the memory or imperfect attestation of a few surviving spectators! Could how Betterton spoke be as easily known as what he spoke, then might you see the muse of Shakspeare in her triumph, with all her beauties in her best array, rising into real life, and charming her beholders. But alas! since all this is so far out of the reach of description, how shall I shew you Betterton? Should I therefore tell you that all the Othellos, Hamlets, Hotspurs, Macbeths, and Brutuses, you have seen since his time, have fallen short of him, this still would give you no idea of his particular excellence. Let us see then what a particular comparison may do, whether that may yet draw him nearer to you? You have seen a Hamlet perhaps, who, on the first appearance of his father’s spirit, has thrown himself into all the straining vociferation requisite to express rage and fury; and the house has thundered with applause, though the misguided actor was all the while (as Shakspeare terms it) tearing a passion into rags. I am the more bold to offer you this particular instance, because the late Mr. Addison, while I sat by him to see this scene acted, made the same observation asking me, with some surprise, if I thought Hamlet should be in so violent a passion with the ghost, which, though it might have astonished, had not provoked him? For you may observe, that in this beautiful speech, the passion never rises beyond an almost breathless astonishment, or an impatience, limited by a filial reverence, to inquire into the suspected wrongs that may have raised nim from his peaceful tomb and a desire to know what a spirit so seemingly distrest might wish or enjoin a sorrowful son to execute towards his future quiet in the grave. This was the light into which Betterton threw this scene; which he opened with a pause of mute amazement! Then rising slowly to a solemn, trembling voice, he made the ghost equally terrible to the spectator as to himself. And in the descriptive part of the natural emotions which the ghastlyvision gave him, the boldness tit‘ his expostulation was still governed by decency manly, but not braving his voice never rising into that seeming outrage, or wild deli an ce, of what he naturally revered. But, alas to preserve this medium between mouthing, and meaning too little, to keep the attention more pleasingly awake by a ’tempered spirit, than by mere vehemence of voice, is, of all the master strokes of an actor, the most difficult to reach. In. this none have equalled Betterton. He that feels not himself the passion he would raise, will talk to a sleeping audience. But this was” never the fault of Be item n. A farther excellence in him was, that he could vary iiis spirit to the different characters he acted. Those wild impatient starts, that fierce and flashing fire which he threw into Hotspur, never came from the unruffled temper of his Brutus (for I have more than once seen a Brutus as warm as Hotspur): when the Betterton Brutus was provoked in his dispute with Cassius, his spirits flew out of his eyes his steady looks alone supplied that terror which he disdained an intemperance in his voice should rise to. Thus, with a settled dignity of contempt, like an unheeding rock, he repelled upon himself the foam of Cassius; not but in some part of this scene, where he reproaches Cassius, his temper is not under this suppression, but opens into that warmth which becomes a man of virtue; yet this is that hasty spark of anger, which Brutus himself endeavours to excuse. But with whatever strength of nature we see the poet shew at once the philosopher and the hero, yet the image of the actor’s excellence will be still imperfect to you, unless language could put colours in our words to paint the voice with. The most that a Vandyck can arrive at is, to make his portraits of great persons seem to think a Shakspeare goes farther yet, and tells you what his pictures thought; a BetU-rton steps beyond them both, and calls them from the grave to breathe, and be themselves again in feature, speech, and motion, at once united and gratifies at once-your eye, your ear, your understanding. From these various excel lenci s, Betterton had so full a possession of the esteem and regard of his auditors, that, upon his entrance into every scene, he seemed to seize upon the eyes and ears of the giddy and inadvertent. To have talked or looked another way, would have been thought insensibility or ignorance. In all his soliloquies of moment, the strongest intelligence of attitude and aspect drew you into such an impatient gaze and eager expectation, that you almost imbibed the sentiment with your eye,' before the er could reach it."

Theodore Beza’s character has been variously represented, as might be expected from the age in which he lived, and the conduct which he pursued. His talents, his eminence, his important services in the cause of the reformation, must make his memory as dear to Protestants, as it was obnoxious to their enemies. In what follows, however, of his character, we shall chiefly follow an authority that will not be suspected of religious partiality at least. Beza’s reputation has been often attacked, and it is scarcely possible that it could have been otherwise. He had but just embraced the reformed religion, when he took a part in every dispute and every controversy. He wrote incessantly against the Roman catholics, against the Lutherans, and against all who were unfriendly to the character or opinions of his friend Calvin, and although such a disputant would be in any age exposed to frequent attacks, in his time religious controversies were carried on with peculiar harshness and strong resentments. Beza’s first writings, his poems, gave occasion for just reproach, and although he had long repented, and confessed his error in this respect, his enemies took the most effectual method to harass his mind, and injure his character, by frequently reprinting these poems. This measure, however, so unfair, and discreditable to his opponents, might have lost its effect, if he had not in some of his controversial pieces, employed his wit with too much freedom and extravagance. We cannot wonder, therefore, that such raillery should produce a corresponding sense of irritation in those who hated his principles, and felt the weight of his talents. It would be unnecessary to repeat all the calumnies, some of the most gross kind, which have been gravely advanced against him, because they now seem to be given up by the general consent of all modern writers but we may advert to one accusation still maintained by men of considerable note. Poltrot, who assassinated the duke of Guise, that merciless persecutor of the protestants, declared in his first examination that he was set on by Beza, and although this appeared at the time wholly groundless, and Poltrot retracted what he had said, and persisted to his last moments, to exculpate our reformer, yet Bossuet, while he does not accuse Beza of having directly encouraged the assassin, still endeavours to impute his crime to Beza’s preaching, and deduces Beza’s consent, from the joy he and his party expressed on hearing of the death of their implacable enemy, a consequence which it is surely unfair to draw from such premises. He has also been accused of having, on many occasions, excited the French protestants to take up arms, and to have thus had a considerable hand in the civil wars of France. But, although the oppressions suffered by the French protestants, then a very numerous body, had unquestionably excited his zeal in promoting resistance, the history of the times shew that these civil wars were not occasioned by this course only, far less by any desire the reformed had to propagate their principles by force. The Ablest writers are agreed that in those days there was more of discontent than protestantism in the case; “plus de malcontentement que de Huguenoterie.” It would be unjust, therefore, to consider Beza, and the other preachers of the reformation, as the sole cause of these commotions. It is much more probable that they were occasioned in a great measure by the rival contests of the Guises and the princes of the blood. Without, therefore, exculpating Beza from having that share in the civil wars which did not very well become a preacher of the gospel of peace, it may be safely affirmed that he was not one of the chief causes. The same assassin Poltrot, who accused Beza, accused also the admiral Coligny, whose character never was stained with a blemish, unless in the bigoted mind of Bossuet, who yet cannot bring a single circumstance in proof; and as far as regards Beza, we may add that the accusation never obtained any belief among his contemporaries.

, painter and architect, was born at Boulogne in 1657. He studied the elements of his art under Cignani, a distinguished artist, and when this master produced his disciple to the world, his talents for architecture, for theatrical decorations, and for perspective, obtained him a good reception. The duke of Parma and the emperor gave him the title of their first painter, and loaded him with favours. Several magnificent edifices were raised after his plans. His pieces of perspective are full of taste, but there have not been wanting som critics who have censured him for having a pencil more fantastic than natural and just. He died blind in 1743, leaving two books of architecture and sons worthy of their father. It is probable that to one of them (J. Galli Bibbiena) the public is indebted for the “History of the amours of Valeria and the noble Venetian Barbarigo,” translated into French, Lausanne and Geneva, 1751. He had also a brother, an architectural painter of considerable fame.

, one of the ablest scholastic divines of his time, was born at Spire, and preached with great reputation at Mentz, until Eberhard, duke of Wittemberg, having founded the university of Tubingen, invited him thither in 1477, to fill the theological chair. Towards the end of his days he retired to a convent of regular canons, where he died very old, in 149.5. His principal writings were: I. “Collectorium super libros sententiarum G. Occami,” Tubingen, 1501, fol. 2. “Lectura super canonem Missae,” Rutlingen, 1488, fol.; and 3. “Sacri canonis Missae, &.c. expositio,” Tubingen, 1499, fol., and thrice reprinted. He is also said to have written “De monetarum potestate simul et utilitate,” Nuremberg, 1542, Cologn, 1574, and Lyons, 1605.

, and not de la Vigne, as he is generally called by writers who have occasion to name him [for it is thus he gives his own name in his “Roman des Oiseaux”], was born of a noble family of the diocese of Bayeux, about 1428. He was chaplain to king John, and followed that prince into England after the battle of Poletiers. Being at Rochefort in 1459, he began a poem on the chace, entitled “Le Roman des Oiseaux,” which he finished on his return to France. This he did at the command of the king for the instruction of his son Philip duke of Burgundy. The abbé Goujet attributes this poem to Gaston de Foix, from its being printed at the end of the “Miroir de la Chasse” by that prince, but greatly different from the manuscripts. Gaston’s work printed by Trepperel at Paris, fol. without a date, and again in 1520, consists of two parts, the first Gaston’s, and the second by Bigne. Bigne is supposed, from some passages in his work, to have been alive in 1475. The personages in this poem, or romance, are allegorical, and dispute which species of the chace has the pre-eminence, appealing to the king, who, after having advised with his counsellors, wisdom, reason, and truth, (not very usually called in) sends away the disputants perfectly satisfied. The style is easy, and the author’s quaintness will be agreeable to the lovers of early poetry.

, an eminent German philosopher and statesman, was born at Camstadt in Wirtemberg, Jan. 23, 1693; his father was a Lutheran minister. By a singular hereditary constitution in this family, Biliinger was born with twelve fingers and eleven toes, which, in his case, is said to have been remedied by amputation when he was an infant. From his earliest years, he showed an uncommon capacity for study, joined to a retired and thinking turn of mind. Happening, when studying at Tubingen, to learn mathematics in the works of Wolf, he imbibed likewise a taste for the sceptical philosophy of that writer, and for the system of Leibnitz, which for a time took off his attention from his other studies. When entered on his theological course, he found himself disposed to connect it with his new ideas on philosophy, and with that view wrote a treatise, “De Deo, anima, et mundo,” which procured him considerable fame, and was the cause of his being chosen preacher at the castle of Tubingen, and repeater in the school of divinity. But fancying Tubingen a theatre too contracted, he obtained of one of his friends a supply of money, in 1719, which enabled him to go to Halle to study more particularly under Wolf himself. This, however, did not produce all the good consequences expected. When after two years he returned to Tubingen, the Wolfian philosophy was no longer in favour, his patrons were cold, his lessons deserted; himself unable to propagate his new doctrines, and his promotion in the church was likely to suffer. In this unpleasant state he remained about four years, when, by Wolf’s recommendation, he received an invitation from Peter I. to accept the professorship of logic and metaphysics in the new academy at St. Petersburgh. Thither accordingly he went in 1725, and was received with great respect, and the academical memoirs which he had occasion to publish increased his reputation in no small degree. The academy of sciences of Paris having about that time proposed for solution the famous problem, on the cause of gravity, Bilfinger carried off the prize, which was one thousand crowns. This made his name be known in every part of Europe, and the duke Charles of Wirtemberg having been reminded that he was one of his subjects, immediately recalled him home. The court of Russia, after in vain endeavouring to retain him, granted him a pension of four hundred florins, and two thousand as the reward of a discovery he had made in the art of fortification. He quitted Petersburgh accordingly in 1731, and being re-established at Tubingen, revived the reputation of that school not only by his lectures, but by many salutary changes introduced in the theological class, which he effected without introducing any new opinions. His greatest reputation, however, rests on his improvements in natural philosophy and mathematics, and his talents as an engineer seem to have recommended him to the promotion which the duke Charles Alexander conferred upon him. He had held many conversations with Bilfinger on the subject of fortifications, and wished to attach him to government by appointing him a privy-councillor in 1735, with unlimited credit. For some time he refused a situation which he thought himself not qualified to fill, but when he accepted it, his first care was to acquire the knowledge necessary for a member of administration, endeavouring to procure the most correct information respecting the political relations, constitution, and true interests of the country. By these means, he was enabled very essentially to promote the commerce and agriculture of his country, and in other respects to improve her natural resources, as well as her political connections, and he is still remembered as one of the ablest statesmen of Germany. The system of fortification which he invented is yet known by his name, and is now the chief means of preserving it, as he died unmarried, at Stuttgard, Feb. 18, 1750. He is said to have been warm in his friendships, but somewhat irascible; his whole time during his latter years was occupied in his official engagements, except an hour in the evening, when he received visits, and his only enjoyment, when he could find leisure, was in the cultivation of his garden. To his parents he was particularly affectionate, and gratefully rewarded all those who had assisted him in his dependent state. His principal works are 1. “Disputatio de harmonia praestabilita,” Tubinguen, 1721, 4to. 2. “De harmonia animi et corporis humani maxime prsestabilita commentatio hypothetica,” Francfort, 1723, 8vo. This was inserted among the prohibited books by the court of Rome in 1734. 3. “De origine et permissione Mali, &c.” ibid. 1724, 8vo. 4. “Specimen doctrinae veterum Sinarum moralis et politicae,” ibid. 1724, 8vo. 5. “Dissertatio historico-catoptrica de speculo Archimedis,” Tubingen, 1725, 4to. 6. “Dilucidationes philosophies; de Deo, anima, &c.” before mentioned, ibid. 1725, 4to. 7. “Bilfingeri et Holmanni epistolae de barmonia praestabilita,” 1728, 4to. 8. “Disputatio de natura et legibus studii in theologica Thetici,” ibid. 1731, 4to. 9. “Disputatio de cuku Dei rationali,” ibid. 1731. 10. “Notae breves in Spinosae methodum. explicandi scripturas,” ibid. 1732, 4to. 11. “De mysteriis Christianae fidei generatim spectatis sermo,” ibid. 1732, 4to. 12. “La Citadelle coupee,” Leipsic, 1756, 4to. 13. “Elementa physices,” Leipsic, 1742, 8vo; besides many papers in the memoirs of the Petersburgh academy, of which, as well as of that of Berlin, he was a member.

, known under the name of Maitre Adam, a joiner at Nevers, about the close of the reign of Louis XIII. and the beginning of that of Louis XIV. was called by the poets of his time Le Virgile au rabot. He made verses amidst his tools and his bottles. Cardinal Richelieu and the duke of Orleans settled pensions on him, and Corneille was among his panegyrists. His “Chevilles,” 1644, 4to; his “Villebrequin,” 1663; his “Rabot,” in 12mo, &c. had a great run. Among a considerable number of dull frivolities we meet with some happy lines. He died in 1662 at Nevers, which he never could be brought to quit for a lodging at Versailles. He had a just notion of greatness, and was capable of feeling and inspiring the charms of friendship. An epicurean without libertinism, and a stoic without supersition, he so associated these two sects as to have it said, that if Epicurus and Zeno had lived in his time, he would have brought them to drink together. He stuck to his mediocrity in order to preserve his happiness. The poets his contemporaries were his friends, and not envious of his fame. Mainard says, that the muses ought never to be seated but on tabourets made by the hand of this poetical joiner. St. Amand proved that he understood the art of poetry as well as that of making boxes. The duke de St. Aignan tells him, in some very agreeable lines, that, by his verses and his name, he is the first of men. Such praises were probably offered in ridicule; but Billaut knew how to make the most of his friends, and is said to have tried the sincerity of their friendship with very little ceremony. A new edition of his works was published in 1806, 12mo, Paris, and the year before a comedy was acted on the Paris stage, with some success, called “Chevilles de Maitre Adam.” Two poetical tradesmen, in his time, endeavoured to rival him, but without success, Ragueneau, a pastry-cook, and Reault, a locksmith. Each addressed a sonnet to him that of the pastrycook concludes with a point quite in character:

, a learned writer, and bishop, in the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, was born in the city of Winchester, being the son of Harman Bilson, the same probably who was fellow of Merton-college in 1536, and derived his descent by his grandmother, or great-grandmother, from the duke of t>avaria. He was educated in Winchester school and in 1565 admitted perpetual fellow of New-college, after he had served two years of probation. October 10, 1566, he took his degree of bachelor, and April 25, 1570, that of master of arts; that of bachelor of divinity, June 24, 1579; and the degree of doctor of divinity on the 24th of January 1580. In his younger years, he was a great lover of, and extremely studious in, poetry, philosophy, and physic. But when he entered into holy orders, and applied himself to the study of divinity, which his genius chiefly led him to, he became a most solid and constant preacher, and one of the most accomplished scholars of his time. The first preferment he had was that of master of Winchester-school he was then made prebendary of Winchester, and afterwards warden of the college there. To this college he did a very important service, about the year 1584, by preserving the revenues of it when they were in danger of being swallowed up by a notorious forgery, of which, however, we have only an obscure account. In 1585, he published his book of “The true difference betweene Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion,” and dedicated it to queen Elizabeth a work, which, although it might answer her immediate purpose, was of fatal tendency to Charles I. few books being more frequently quoted by the mal-contents to justify their resistance to that prince. In 1593, he published a very able defence of episcopacy, entitled, “The perpetuall Government of Christes Church: wherein are handled, the fatherly superioritie which God first established in the patriarkes for the guiding of his Church, and after continued in the tribe of Levi and the Prophetes and lastlie confirmed in the New Testament to the apostles and their successors: as also the points in question at this day, touching the Jewish Synedrion: the true kingdome of Christ: the Apostles’ commission: the laie presbyterie: the distinction of bishops from presbyters, and their succession from the apostles times and hands: the calling and moderating of provinciall synods by primates and metropolitanes the allotting of dioceses, and the popular electing of such as must feede and watch the flock and divers other points concerning the pastoral regiment of the house of God.” On the 20th of April, 15y6, he was elected v confirmed June the llth, and the 13th of the same month consecrated bishop of Worcester and translated in May following to the bishopric of Winchester, and made a privy-counsellor. In 1599, he published “The effect of certaine Sermons touching the full Redemption of Mankind by the death and bloud of Christ Jesus wherein, besides the merite of Christ’s suffering, the manner of his offering, the power of his death, the comfort of his crosse, the glorie of his resurrection, are handled, what paines Christ suffered in his soule on the crosse together with the place and purpose of his descent to hel after death” &c. Lond. 4to. These sermons being preached at Paul’s Cross in Lent 1597, by the encouragement of archbishop Whitgift, greatly alarmed most of the Puritans, because they contradicted some of their tenets, but they are not now thought consonant to the articles of the church of England. The Puritans, however, uniting their forces, and making their observations, sent them to Henry Jacob, a learned puritan, who published them under his own name. The queen being at Farnham-castle, and, to use the bishop’s words, “taking knowledge of the things questioned between him and his opponents, directly commanded him neither to desert the doctrine, nor to let the calling which he bore in the church of God, to be trampled under foot by such unquiet refusers of trueth and authoritie.” Upon this royal command, he wrote a learned treatise, chiefly delivered in sermons, which was published in 1604, under the title of “The survey^of Christ’s sufferings for Man’s Redemption and of his descent to hades or hel for our deliverance,” Lond. fol. He also preached the sermon at Westminster before king James I. and his queen, at their coronation on St. James’s day, July 28, 1603, from Rom. xiii. L. London, 1603, 8vo. In January 1603-4, he was one of the speakers and managers at the Hampton-Court conference, in which he spoke much, and, according to Mr. Fuller, most learnedly, and, in general, was one of the chief maintainers and supports of the church of England. The care of revising, and putting the last hand to, the new translation of the English Bible in king James Ist’s reign, was committed to our author, and to Dr. Miles Smith, afterwards bishop of Gloucester. His last public act, recorded in history, was the being one of the delegates that pronounced and signed the sentence of divorce between Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, and the lady Frances Howard, in the year 1613 and his son being knighted soon after upon this very account, as was imagined, the world was so malicious as to give him the title of sir Nullity Bilson. This learned bishop, after having gone through many employments, departed this life on the 18th of June, 1616, and was buried in Westminsterabbey, near the entrance into St. Edmund’s chapel, on the south side of the monument of king Richard II. His character is represented to the utmost advantage by several persons. Sir Anthony Weldon calls him “an excellent civilian, and a very great scholler” Fuller, “a deep and profound scholar, excellently well read in the fathers” Bishop Godwin, “a very grave iman and how great a divine (adds he), if any one knows not, let him consult his learned writings” Sir John Harrington, “I find but foure lines (in bishop Godwin’s book) concerning him and if I should give him his due, in proportion to the rest, I should spend foure leaves. Not that I need make him better known, being one of the most eminent of his ranck, and a man that carried prelature in his very aspect. His rising was meerly by his learning, as true prelates should rise. Sint non modo labe mali sed suspicione carentes, not onely free from the spot, but from the speech of corruption.” He wrote in a more elegant style, and in fuller and betterturned periods, than was usual in the times wherein he lived. It is related of our prelate, that once, when he was preaching a sermon* at St. Paul’s Cross, a sudden panic, occasioned by the folly or caprice of one of the audience, seized the multitude there assembled, who thought that the church was falling on their heads. The good bishop, who sympathized with the people more from pity than from fear, after a sufficient pause, reassumed and went through his sermon with great composure.

, was born in Liesena, an island in Dalmatia, in the Gulf of Venice, in 1572, and was introduced by the celebrated sir Henry Wotton, the ambassador there, to the notice of king James I. He was by that prince sent with a secret commission to the duke of Savoy, and was afterwards made a gentleman of the bedchamber, and received the honour of knigfithodct. His elegant “History of the Civil Wars betwixt the houses of York and Lancaster,” which was written in Italian, and translated into English by Henry Carey, earl of Monmouth, gained him great reputation. It should be observed that, like other foreign writers of our English story, he has strangely disfigured the proper names. His history was first printed at Venice, 1637, 3 vols. 4to, and at Bologna in 1647. The English translation appeared in 1641. The subsequent troubles in England prevented him from continuing it as he intended. He also wrote some Italian romances. He married a sister of sir Theodore Mayerne, and went from England to the canton of Berne, where he died in 1644.

, a celebrated Italian scholar of the last century, was born at Florence, Aug. 14, 1674. After finishing his studies, he taught a school, which produced Bottari, the prelate, and some other eminent men. The grand duke Cosmo III. having given him some benefices, he took priest’s orders, and the degree of doctor in the university of Florence, and spent several years in preaching, particularly in the cathedral church of St. Laurence. The chapter, in 1713, appointed him keeper of the Mediceo-Laurentian library, and to this office he was re-elected in 1725, 1729, and 1739, but he could not, with all his endeavours, prevail on the chapter to grant it him for life. While here, however, he began a new course of studies, learned Greek, Hebrew, and other oriental languages, and applied himself particularly to the Tuscan here also he found a very useful patron in Nicolas Panciatichi, a very opulent Florentine nobleman, who received him into his house, where he remained eleven years, and made him his children’s tutor, his librarian, secretary, archivist, &c. and amply rewarded him for his services in all thi’se departments. He was also appointed apostolic prothonotary, synodal examiner at Florence and Fiesola, and reviser of cases of conscience in these dioceses. At length, in 174-1, the grand duke of his own accord made him royal librarian of the Laurentian library, and in 1745, gave him a canonry of St. Laurence. In his place as librarian, he was of essential service to men of letters, and was engaged in many literary undertakings which were interrupted by his death, May 4, 1756. He left a very capital collection of rare editions and manuscripts, which the grand duke purchased and divided between the Laurentian and Magliabechian libraries. Biscioni during his life-time was a man of great reputation, and many writers have spoken highly in his praise. He published very little that could be called original, his writings consisting principally of the notes, commentaries, prefaces, letters, and dissertations, with which he enriched the works of others such as the preface and notes to his edition of the “Prose di Dante Alighieri e di Gio. Boccaccio,” Florence, 1713 1723, 4to his notes on “Menzini’s Satires” his preface and notes on the “Riposo” of Raphael Borghini, Florence, 1730, 4to, &c. &c. The only work he published not of this description, was a vindication of the first edition of the “Canti Carnascialeschi,” against a reprint of that work by the abbé Bracci, entitled “Parere sopra la seconda edizione de' Canti Carnascialeschi e in difesa della prima edizione,” &c. Florence, 1750, 8vo. He had begun the catalogue of the Mediceo- Laurentian library, of which the first volume, containing the oriental manuscripts, was magnificently printed at Florence, 1752, folio, and the rest continued by the canon Giulanelli, many years after, who added the Greek Mss. Biscioni left many notes, critical remarks, &c. on books, a history of the Panciatichi family, and of his own family, and some satires on those who had so long prevented him from being perpetual keeper of the Laurentian library, an injury he seems never to have forgotten.

In June 1753, he was admitted fellow of St. John’s, and in April 1754, he took the degree of B. A. and about the same time was ordained to holy orders. He was then settled in the curacy of Headley in Surrey, whither he had removed on account of a declining state of health, but change of air soon restored him, and he continued to dividehis time between Headley and the university, till 1758, when he took the degree of M. A. He then quitted Headley, and came to reside entirely in London, on being elected under-master of Merchant Taylors’ school, July 26. He was appointed also curate of St. Mary Abchurch, and some time afterwards lecturer of St. Christopher-leStocks, a church since taken down for the enlargement of the Bank. In 1762, he published “An Ode to the earl of Lincoln on the duke of Newcastle’s Retirement,” without his name. In 1763 and 1764, he wrote several essays and poems, printed in the Public Ledger, and soon after a volume of Latin poems, partly translated, and partly original, under the title of “Feriae poeticse.” This was published by subscription, beyond which the sale was not considerable. He also appears to have tried his talents for dramatic composition, but not meeting with sufficient encouragement, he very wisely relinquished a pursuit that could have added little dignity to the character of a clergyman and a public teacher. From this period he devoted his talents to the amusement of a few friends, and the laborious duties of his profession, which he continued to discharge with the utmost fidelity, during the prime of his life.

, an ingenious physician, was born at Glenalbert, near Dunkeld in Perthshire, Scotland, in 1717. After a course of medical studies at Edinburgh, he was appointed in 1740, second surgeon to the military hospital in Jamaica, and spent several years in the West India islands, and in admiral Yemen’s fleet, where he acquired a knowledge of the diseases of the torrid zone. Having in 1745, contracted a bad state of health at New Greenwich in Jamaica, he was under the necessity of resigning his place of second surgeon to the hospital, and returning to England. In May 1746, he purchased an ensigncy in the forty-second regiment, commanded by lord John Murray; and by this transition, his attention being turned from medical pursuits to military affairs, fortification became his favourite study. After a fruitless descent on the coast of Brittany in France in September 1746, and passing a winter at Limerick in Ireland, they were, in the beginning of the next campaign, brought into action at Sandberg, near Hulst in Dutch Flanders, where one Dutch regiment and two English suffered very much. Here, having drawn a sketch of the enemy’s approaches, with the environs, and some time after, a pretty correct one of Bergen-op-Zoom, with the permanent lines, the environs, and the enemy’s first parallel, which were presented by lord John Murray to his royal highness the late duke of Cumberland, his highness ordered Mr. Bisset to attend the siege of that fortress, and give due attention daily to the progress of the attack, and to the defence, in order to take accurate journals of them. These journals, illustrated with plans, were delivered daily to lord John Murray, who forwarded them to the duke, by whose application to the duke of Montague, then master of the ordnance, Mr. Bisset received a warrant as engineer extraordinary in the brigade of engineers which was established to serve in the Low Countries during the war and he was also promoted to a lieutenancy in the army. The brigade of engineers being re-formed at the end of the war, and he being at the same time put upon the half-pay list as lieutenant, he continued to employ great part of his time in the study of fortification and in 1751, after visiting France, published his work “On the Theory and Construction of Fortifications,” 8vo, and some time after, being unemployed, he resumed the medical profession to which he had been originally destined, and retired to the village of Skelton, in Cleveland, Yorkshire, where, or in the vicinity, he ever after continued,

, an eminent surveyor and architect, was born in the borough of Southwark, on the 20th of December, 1750. His father was a respectable tradesman in St. John’s parish, and his mother was a native of Spain. The whole of his grammatical education was derived from a common seminary in the neighbourhood; and at a proper age he was placed under a surveyor of no eminence, but from whom he derived very few advantages in the knowledge of his profession. However, from the natural bent of an ardent mind, he sought the acquaintance of men of genius, several of whom belonged to the Jioyal Academy. Into that academy he was admitted as a student; and in 1773 he was presented with the medal for the best drawing of the inside of St. Stephen’s church in Walbrook. This prize he bore away from many competitors and, at the delivery of it, received a high compliment to his abilities from the late sir Joshua Reynolds, the president. About the same time he entered into business for himself in Southwark, and carried it on for some years with increasing success among his private connections, when an event occurred which brought him into public notice and reputation. An act of parliament had passed in 1779, declaring, that “if any offenders convicted of crimes for which transportation had been usually inflicted, were ordered to solitary imprisonment, accompanied by well regulated labour and religious instruction, it might be the means, under providence, not only of deterring others from the commission of the like crimes, but also of reforming the individuals, and enuring them to the habits of industry.” By this act his majesty was authorised to appoint three persons to be supervisors of the buildings to be erected; and the supervisors were to fix upon any common, heath, or waste, or any other piece of ground, in Middlesex, Essex, Kent, or Surrey, on which should be erected two plain strong edifices, to be called “Penitentiary Houses” one for the confinement and employment of six hundred males, the other of three hundred females. In the same year in which the act was passed, three supervisors were appointed to carry it into execution. These were John Howard, esq George Whatley, esq. and Dr. John Fothergill. This commission however was dissolved, first by the death of Dr. Fothergill, and soon after that event by the resignation of Mr. Howard, who found it not in his power to coalesce with his remaining colleague. Another set of supervisors was therefore appointed in 1781, being sir Gilbert Elliot, bart. sir Charles Bunbury, bart. and Thomas Bowdler, esq. One of the principal objects with these gentlemen was to provide that they should be constructed in the manner most conducive to the ends of solitary confinement, useful labour, and moral reformation. Accordingly, the supervisors proposed premiums for the best plans that should be produced of the penitentiary houses intended to be erected. The highest premium was a hundred guineas, which xvas unanimously assigned to Mr. Blackburn, in the month of March 1782. This preference, as a pecuniary consideration, was a matter of little consequence. The grand advantage that was to be expected from it, with regard to Mr. Blackburn, was, that he should be employed as the architect and surveyor of the buildings proposed. And in fact he was appointed by the supervisors to that office and the plan of a penitentiary house for male offenders was accordingly arranged by him, and proper draughts were made for the use of the workmen; and a great part of the work was actually contracted for by different persons. Yet the designs of government were not carried into execution the circumstances of the times having diverted the attention of public men from this important object nor has it ever since been resumed. Nevertheless, though Mr. Blackburn might in this respect be disappointed of his just expectations, he did not lose his reward, nor was the nation deprived of the benefit arising from his ingenuity. A spirit of erecting prisons in conformity to his plans was immediately excited and many county gaols, and other structures of the same nature, were built under his inspection. Besides the completion of several prisons, Mr. Blackburn was engaged in other designs of a similar nature, when he was arrested by the hand of death, in the fortieth year of his age. He departed this life on the 28th day of October, 1790, at Preston in Lancashire, being on a journey to Scotland, whither he was going at the instance of his grace the duke of Buccleugh, and the lord provost of Glasgow, with a view to the erection of a new gaol in that city. From Preston his remains were removed to London, and interred in the burying-ground of Bunhill-fields.

The late duke of Wharton, who had engaged himself by bond to defray the expence of building the apartments between the library and common room, being obliged soon after to leave his country, and dying in very distressed circumstances, the discharge of this obligation was long despaired of. It happened, however, in a course of years, that his grace’s executors were enabled to pay his debts; when, by the care and activity of Mr. Blackstone, the building was completed, the college thereby enabled to make its demand, and the, whole benefaction recovered. In May 1749, as a small reward for his services, and to give him further opportunities of advancing the interests of the college, he was appointed steward of their manors and in the same year, on the resignation of his uncle Seymour Richmond, esq. he was elected recorder of the borough of Wallingford, in Berkshire, and received the king’s approbation on the 30th of May.

This ill-fated man, after his failure in physic and in printing, became an unsuccessful candidate for the place of secretary to the society for the encouragement of learning. He was then made saperintendant of the works belonging to the duke of Chandos at Cannons, and experienced those disappointments incident to projectors. He also formed schemes in agriculture, and wrote a treatise on the subject, which, we are told, was the cause of his being engaged in Sweden. In that kingdom he drained marshes, practised physic, and was even employed in that capacity for the king. At length he was involved in some state cabals, or, as some accounts inform us, in a plot with count Tessin, and was put to the torture, which not producing a confession, he was beheaded, Aug. 9, 1747. The British ambassador was recalled from Sweden in the same year, among other reasons, for the imputations thrown on his Britannic majesty in the trial' of Dr. Blackwell. Soon after this event, appeared “A genuine copy of a Letter from a merchant in Stockholm, to his correspondent in London, containing an impartial account of Dr. Alexander Blackwell, his plot, trial, character, and behaviour, both under examination and at the place of execution, together with a copy of a paper delivered to a friend upon the scaffold,” in which he denied the crime imputed to him. When Mrs. Blackwell died does not appear. An improved edition of her Herbal was published by Trew, the text in Latin and German, Nuremberg, 1750 1760, fol. and at Leipsic was published in 1794, 8vo, “Nomenclator Linnaeanus in Blackvellianum Herbarium per C. G. Greening,” a proof of the estimation in which this work is still held on the continent.

Soon after Dr. Blackwell became principal of his college he married Barbara Black, the daughter of a merchant of Aberdeen, by whom he had no children, and who survived him so late as 1793. Several years before his death, his health began to decline so that he was obliged to employ an assistant for teaching his Greek class. His disorder was of the consumptive kind, and it was thought to be increased by the excess of abstemiousness which he imposed on himself and, in which, notwithstanding all the remonstrances of his physicians, he obstinately persisted, from an opinion of his own knowledge of his constitution, and of what he found by experience to suit it best. His disease increasing, he was advised to travel; and accordingly, in February 1757, he set out from Aberdeen, but was able to go no farther than Edinburgh, in which city he died, on the 8th of March following, in the fifty-sixth year of his age. Dr. Blackwell enjoyed an equable flow of temper, in which his intimate friends scarcely ever observed any variation. This he maintained during his whole illness. The day before he set out from Aberdeen, he desired to meet with all the professors of the college, and spent two hours with them with his usual vivacity. In Edinburgh he was visited, at his own desire, by Dr. Wallace, one of the ministers of that city, whose ingenuity and learning are well known. Dr. Blackwell, on the very day in which he died, wrote letters to several of his friends, and took leave of them with the greatest chee. fulness. In the April following our author’s decease, it being Dr. Gerard’s business, as (at that time) professor of moral philosophy and logic in the Marischal college, to preside at conferring the degree of master of arts on those whose standing entitled them to it, the doctor took that occasion to pronounce publicly, on the late principal, such an encomium as his literature deserved. It was a fault in Dr. Blackwell, that he too much assumed the appearance of universal knowledge; the consequence of which was that he sometimes laid himself open, by entering on subjects of philosophy and mathematics, without a sufficient acquaintance with them. With all the ancient, and with most of the modern languages, he was really acquainted and his reading, in the departments of history and the belles lettres, was very extensive. He had a ready and lively manner of introducing his knowledge of this kind, which made his conversation both instructive and entertaining and it was rendered still more so by being accompanied with great good humour, and an entire command of his passions, even when he was provoked. Though he had something of the stiffness of the recluse, he joined with it much of the confidence and good breeding that are found in men who converse much in the world. His life was private and studious: he did not wholly decline mixed companies, though it was but seldom that he came into them and at home he chose only the conversation of the learned, or that of persons of superior rank or fortune. At London he was known to several men of eminence. The late duke of Newcastle, and Mr. Henry Pelham, were his patrons, and procured for him the office of principal of the Marischal college. It is confidently said that they had intended him an establishment at Cambridge, and that the professorship of modern history was fixed upon for him, if he had not died a short time before it became vacant. A man of Dr. Blackwell’s abilities and reputation could not fail of having some valuable literary connexions and correspondents; among whom he had the honour of numbering the late celebrated Dr. Mead, and the no less celebrated Dr. Warburton, bishop of Gloucester. It is said that Mr. Blackwell, soon after the publication of his Enquiry, being at Cambridge, paid a visit to Dr. Bentley, and the discourse turning upon the book, the doctor, being asked his opinion of it, answered, “That when he had gone through half of it, he had forgotten the beginning; and that, when he had finished the reading of it, he had forgotten the whole.” Whatever truth is in this story, it is certain, at least, that a similar objection had been started by others, if not by Dr. Bentley.

, another brother of the preceding, was born probably about 1526, at Dumfermling in Fifeshire, and educated at St. Andrew’s. He was also sent by his uncle, the bishop of Orkney, to Paris, where in 1551, he taught philosophy. He afterwards applied himself to the study of physic, became a member of the college of physicians, and was finally honoured with the dignity of clean of the faculty, a place of considerable importance in the college of Paris. He was also appointed physician to the duke de Longueville, with a salary of 20O pistoles. During the plague at Paris, he had the resolute humanity to continue in that city, much to his own honour, and the consolation of the people. He is supposed to have died in 16 J 3, or 1614. He wrote several medical and philosophical treatises, of which we only know of two that were printed 1. “Hippocratis quaedam cum Mss. collata,” Paris, 1625, and 2. “Questio Medica, an visceribus nutritiis aestuantibus aquarum metal licarum potus salubris” ibid. 4to. He had a son of both his names, likewise a physician of eminence, of whom Moreri gives a short account.

, of Albro'-hatch, in the county of Essex, was early in life an officer in the army, bearing the commission of lieutenant-colonel in queen Anne’s reign, under the great duke of Marlborough. In 1714, he was made comptroller of the. Mint, and in 1717, one of the lords commissioners of trade and plantations. In the same year he was appointed envoy extraordinary to the court of Spain, but declined it, and retained the office he held until his death, Feb. 14, 1746. He satin the fifth, sixth, and seventh parliaments of Great Britain for Stockbridge, in the eighth for Maiden, and in the ninth for Portsmouth. Coxeter hints that he was secretary of state for Ireland, but this is doubtful. He wrote two very indifferent dramatic pieces, “Orpheus and Euridice,” and “Solon” which were printed in 1705, 4to, without his consent. He is best known, however, by his translation of Caesar’s Commentaries, which he dedicated to the duke of Marlborough. This book was in some estimation formerly, and Mr. Bowyer appears to have assisted in correcting it. He was buried in Stepney church, with a very handsome inscription to his memory. Pope introduces him in the Uunciad as a gamester, for what reason cannot now be ascertained. He was uncle to Collins the celebrated poet, to whom he left an estate, which poor Collins did not get possession of till his faculties were deranged, and he could not enjoy it.

, was educated at Edinburgh, and was, as already noticed, related to Dr. Hugh Blair. He came to London in company with Andrew Henderson, a voluminous writer, who, in his title-pages styled himself A. M. and for some years kept a bookseller’s shop in Westminster-hall. Henderson’s first employment was that of an usher at a school in Hedge-lane, in which he was succeeded by his friend Blair, who, in 1754, obliged' the world with a valuable publication under the title of “The chronology and history of the world, from the creation to the year of Christ 1753. Illustrated in fifty-six tables; of which four are introductory, and contain the centuries prior to the first olympiad; and each of the remaining fifty-two contain in one expanded view fifty years, or half a century. By the rev. John Blair, LL. D.” This volume, which is dedicated to lord chancellor Hardwicke, was published by subscription, on account of the great expence of the plates, for which the author apologized in his preface, where he acknowledged great obligations to the earl of Bath, and announced some chronological dissertations, in which he proposed to illustrate the disputed points, to explain the prevailing systems of chronology, and to establish the authorities upon which some of the particular seras depend. In Dr. Hugh Blair’s life, it has been noticed that this work was partly projected by him. In January 1755, Dr. John Blair was elected F. R. S. and in 1761, F. A. S. In 1756 he published a second edition of his Chronological Tables. In Sept. 1757, he was appointed chaplain to the princess dowager of Wales, and mathematical tutor to the duke of York; and, on Dr. Townshend’s promotion to the deanry of Norwich, the services of Dr. Blair were rewarded, March 10, 1761, with a prebendal stall at Westminster. The vicarage of Hinckley happening to fall vacant six days after, by the death of Dr. Moires, Dr. Blair was presented to it by the dean and chapter of Westminster and in August that year he obtained a dispensation to hold with it the rectory of Burton Goggles, in Lincolnshire. In September 1763, he attended his royal pupil the duke of York in a tour to the continent; had the satisfaction of visiting Lisbon, Gibraltar, Minorca, most of the principal cities in Italy, and several parts of France and returned with the duke in August 1764. In 1768 he published an improved edition of his Chronological Tables, which he dedicated to the princess of Wales, who had expressed her early approbation of the former edition. To the edition were annexed fourteen maps of ancient and modern geography, for illustrating the tables of chronology and history. To which is prefixed a dissertation on the progress of geography. In March 1771 he was presented by the dean and chapter of Westminster to the vicarage of St. Bride’s, in the city of London which made it necessary for him to resign Hinckley, where he had never resided for any length of time. On the death of Mr. Sims, in April 1776, he resigned St. Bride’s, and was presented to the rectorjr of St. John the Evangelist in Westminster and in June that year obtained a dispensation to hold the rectory of St. John with that of Horton, near Colebrooke, Bucks. His brother, captain Blair *, falling gloriously in the service of his country in the memorable sea-fight of April 12, 1782, the shock accelerated the doctor’s death. He had at the same time the influenza in a severe degree, which put a period to his life June 24, 1782. His library was sold by auction December 1113, 1781; and a course of his “Lectures on the canons of the Old Testament,” has since appeared.

February 12, 1649, he was appointed to command the fleet, in conjunction with col. Deane and col. Popham, and soon after was ordered to sail, with a squadron of men of war, in pursuit of prince Rupert. Blake came before Kinsale in June 1649, where prince Rupert lay in harbour. He kept him in the harbour till the beginning of October; when the prince, despairing of relief by sea, and Cromwell being ready to take the town by land, provisions of all sorts falling short, he resolved to force his way through Blake’s squadron, which he effected with the loss of three of his ships. The prince’s fleet steered their course to Lisbon, where they were protected by the king of Portugal. Blake sent to the king for leave to enter, and coming near with his ships, the castle shot at him; upon which he dropped anchor, and sent a boat to know the reason of this hostility. The captain of the castle answered, he had no orders from the king to let his ships pass: however, the king commanded one of the lords of the court to wait upon Blake, and to desire him not to come in except the weather proved bad, lest some quarrel should happen between him and prince Rupert; the king sent him, at the same time, a large present of fresh provisions. The weather proving bad, Blake sailed up the river into the bay of Wyers, but two miles from the place where prince Rupert’s ships lay; and thence he sent capt. Moulton, to inform the king of the falsities in the prince’s declaration. The king, however, still refusing to allow the admiral to attack prince Rupert, Blake took five of the Brazil fleet richly laden, and at the same time sent notice to him, that unless he ordered the prince’s ships out from his river, he would seize the rest of the Portuguese fleet from America. Sept. 1650 the prince endeavoured to get out of the harbour, but was soon driven in again by Blake, who sent to England nine Portuguese ships bound for Brazil. October following, he and Popham met with a fleet of 23 sail from Brazil for Lisbon, of whom, they sunk the admiral, took the vice-admiral, and 11 other ships, having 10,000 chests of sugar on board. Jn his return home, he met with two ships in search of the prince, whom he followed up the Streights when he took a French man of war, the captain of which had committed hostilities. He sent this prize, reported to be worth a million, into Calais, and followed the prince to the pore of Carthagena, where he lay with the remainder of his fleet. As soon as Blake came to anchor before the fort, he sent a messenger to the Spanish governor, informing him, that an enemy to the state of England was in his port, that the parliament had commanded him to pursue him, and the king of Spain being in amity with the parliament, he desired leave to take all advantages against their enemy. The governor replied, he could not take notice of the difference of any nations or persons amongst themselves, only such as were declared enemies to the king his master; that they came in thither for safety, therefore he could not refuse them protection, and that he would do the like for the admiral. Blake still pressed the governor to permit him to attack the prince, and the Spaniard put him off till he could have orders from Madrid. While the admiral was cruizing in the Mediteranean, prince Rupert got out of Carthagena, and sailed to Malaga. Blake, having notice of his destroying many English ships, followed him and attacking him in the port, burnt and destroyed his whole fleet, two ships only excepted this was in January 1651. In February, Blake took a French man of war of 40 guns, and sent it, with other prizes, to England. Soon after 'he came with his squadron to Plymouth, when he received the thanks of the parliament, and was made warden of the cinque ports. March following, an act passed, whereby colonel Blake, colonel Popham, and colonel Deane, or any two of them, were appointed admirals and generals of the fleet, for the year ensuing. The next service he was put upon, was the reducing the isles of Scilly,- which were held for the king. He sailed in May, with a body of Boo land troops on board. Sir John Grenville, who commanded in those parts for the king, after some small resistance, submitted. He sailed next for Guernsey, which was held for the king, by sir George Carteret. He arrived there in October, and landing what forces he had the very next day, he did every thing in his power in order to make a speedy conquest of the island, which was not completed that year. In the beginning of the next, however, the governor, finding all hopes of relief vain, thought proper to make the best terms he could. For this service Blake had thanks from the parliament, and was elected one of the council of state. March 25, 1652, he was appointed sole admiral for nine months, on the prospect of a Dutch war. The states sent Van Trump with forty-five sail of men of war into the Downs, to insult the English Blake, however, though he had but twentv-three ships, and could expect no succour but from major Bourne, who commanded eight more, yet, being attacked by Van Trump, fought him bravely, and forced him to retreat. This was on the 19th of May, 1652. After this engagement the states seemed inclined to peace but the commonwealth of England demanded such terms as could not be complied with, and therefore both sides prepared to carry on the war with greater vigour. Blake now harassed the enemy by taking their merchant ships, in which he had great success. On the 10th of June, a detachment from his fleet fell upon twenty-six sail of Dutch merchantmen, and took them every one and by the end of June he had sent into port forty prizes. On the 2d of July he sailed, with a strong squadron, northwards. In his course he took a Dutch man of war; and about the latter end of the month, he fell on twelve men of war, convoy to their herring busses, took the whole convoy, 100 of their busses, and dispersed the rest. August 12, he returned into the Downs, with six of the Dutch men of war, and 900 prisoners. Thence he stood over to the coast of Holland, and on Sept. 28th, having discovered the Dutch about noon, though he had only three of his own squadron with him, vice-admiral Penii with his squadron at some distance, and the rest a league or two astern, he bore in among the Dutch fleet, being bravely seconded by Penn and Bourne when three of the enemy’s ships were wholly disabled at the first brunt, and another as she was towing oft* The rear-admiral was taken by captain Mildmay and had not night intervened, it was thought not a single ship of the Dutch fleet would have escaped. On the 29th, about day-break, the English espied the Dutch fleet N.E. two leagues off; the admiral bore up to them, but the enemy having the wind of him, he could not reach them however, he commanded his light frigates to ply as near as they could, and keep firing while the rest bore up after them upon which the Dutch hoisted their sails, and run for it. The English being in want of provisions, returned to the Downs. Blake having been obliged to make large detachments from his fleet Van Trump, who had again the command of the Dutch navy, consisting of eighty men of war, resolved to take this opportunity of attacking him in the Downs, knowing he had not above half his number of ships. He accordingly sailed away to the back of the Goodwin. Blake having intelligence of this, called a council of war, wherein it was resolved to fight, though at so great a disadvantage. The engagement began November 29, about two in the morning, and lasted till near six in the evening. Blake was aboard the Triumph; this ship, the Victory, and the Vanguard, suffered most, having been engaged at one time with twenty of the enemy’s best ships. The admiral finding his ships much disabled, and that the Dutch had the advantage of the wind, drew off his fleet in the night into the Thames, having lost the Garland and Bonaventure, which were taken by the Dutch a small frigate was also burnt, and three sunk and his remaining ships much shattered and disabled Van Trump, however, bought this victory dear, x one of his flag-ships being blown up, all the men drowned, and his own ship and De Kuyter’s both unfit for service till they were repaired. This success invigorated the spirits of the Dutch exceedingly; Van Trump sailed through the channel with a broom at his main-top-mast, to signify that he had swept the seas of English ships. In the mean time, Blake having repaired his fleet, and Monk and Deane being now joined in commission with him, sailed Feb. 8, 1653, from Queensborough, with sixty men of war, which were soon after joined with twenty more from Portsmouth. On the 18th they discovered Van Trump with seventy men of war, and 300 merchant ships under his convoy. Blake, with twelve ships, came up with and engaged the Dutch fleet, and, though grievously wounded in the thigh, continued the fight till night, when the Dutch, who had six men of war sunk and taken, retired. After having put ashore his wounded men at Portsmouth, he followed the enemy, whom he came up with next day, when the fight was renewed, to the loss of the Dutch, who continued retreating towards Boulogne. All the night following Blake continued the pursuit, and, in the morning of the 20th, the two fleets fought again till four in the afternoon, when the wind blowing favourably for the Dutch, they secured themselves on the flats of Dunkirk and Calais. In these three engagements the Dutch lost eleven men of war, thirty merchant ships, and had fifteen hundred men slain. The English lost only one ship, but not fewer men than the enemy. In April Cromwell turned out the parliament, and shortly after assumed the supreme power. The states hoped great advantages from this, but were disappointed Blake said on this occasion to his officers, “It is not for us to mind state affairs, but to keep foreigners from fooling us.” Towards the end of the month Blake and his colleagues, with a fleet of an hundred sail, stood over to the Dutch coast, and forced their fleet to take shelter in the Texel, where, for some time, they were kept by Monk and Deane, while Blake sailed Northward at last Van Trump got out, and drew together a fleet of an hundred and twenty men of war. June 3d, Deane and Monk engaged him off the North Foreland. On the 4th Blake came to their assistance with eighteen fresh ships, by which means a complete victory was gained; and if the Dutch had not again saved themselves on Calais sands, their whole fleet had been sunk or taken. Cromwell having called the parliament, styled the Little Parliament, Blake, Oct. 10, took his seat in the house, where he received their solemn thanks for his many and faithful services. The protector afterwards called a new parliament, consisting of four hundred, 'where Blake sat also, being the representative for his native town of Bridgewater. Dec. 6th he was appointed one of the commissioners of the admiralty. Nov. 1654, Cromwell sent him with a strong fleet into the Mediterranean, with instructions to support the honour of the English flag, and to procure satisfaction for any injuries that might have been done to our merchants. In December Blake came into the road of Cadiz, where he was treated with great respect; a Dutch admiral would not hoist his flag while he was there. The Algerines were so much afraid of him, that they stopped their Sallee rovers, obliged them to deliver up what English prisoners they had on board, and sent them to Blake, in, order to procure his favour. Nevertheless, he came before Algiers on the 10th of March, when he sent an officer on shore to the dey to tell him he had orders to demand satisfaction for the piracies committed on the English, and to insist on the release of all such English captives as were then in the place. To this the dey made answer, that the captures belonging to particular men he could not restore; but, if Mr. Blake pleased, he might redeem what English captives were there at a reasonable price; and, if he thought proper, the Algerines would conclude a peace with him, and for the future offer no acts of hostility to the English. This answer was accompanied with a present of fresh provisions. Blake sailed to Tunis on the same errand. The dey of Tunis sent him a haughty answer. “Here,” said he, “are our castles of Goletta and Porto Ferino, do your worst! do you think we fear your fleet?” On the hearing this, Blake, as his custom was when in a passion, began to curl his whiskers; and, after a short consultation with his officers, bore into the bay of Porto Ferino with his great ships when, coming within musket-shot of the castle, he fired on it so briskly, that in two hours it was rendered defenceless, and the guns on the works along the shore were dismounted, though sixty of them played at a time upon the English. He found nine ships in the road, and ordered every captain, even of his own ship, to man his long boat with choice men, and these to enter the harbour and tire the Tuniseens, while he and his fleet covered them from the castle, by playing continually on it with their cannon. The seamen in their boats boldly assaulted the pirates, and burnt all their ships, with the loss of twenty-five men killed, and forty-eight wounded. This daring action spread the terror of his name throughout Africa and Asia, which had for a long time before been formidable in Europe. He also struck such terror into the piratical state of Tripoly, that he made them glad to strike up a peace with England. These and other exploits raised the glory of the English name so high, that most of the princes and states in Italy thought fit to pay their compliments to the protector, particularly the grand duke of Tuscany, and the republic of Venice, who sent magnificent embassies for that purpose. The war in the mean time was grown pretty hot with Spain and Blake used his utmost efforts to ruin their maritime force in Europe, as Penn had done in the West Indies. But finding himself now in a declining state of health, and fearing the ill consequences which might ensue in case he should die without any colleague to take charge of the fleet, he wrote letters into England, desiring some proper person to be named in commission with him; upon which general Montague sent joint-admiral, with a strong squadron to assist him. Soon after his arrival in the Mediterranean, the two admirals sailed with their whole fleet to block up a Spanish squadron in the bay of Cadiz. At length, in September, being in great want of water, Blake and Montague stood away for the coast of Portugal, leaving captain Stayner with seven ships to look after the enemy. Soon after they were gone, the Spanish plate fleet appeared, but were intercepted by Stayner, who took the vice-admiral and another galleon, which were afterwards burnt by accident, the rear-admiral, with two millions of plate on board, and another ship richly laden. These prizes, together with all the prisoners, were seat into England under general Montague, and Blake alone remained in the Mediterranean till, being informed that another plate fleet had put into Santa Cruz, in the island of Teneriffe, he sailed thither in April 1657, with a fleet of twenty-five men of war. On the 20th he came into the road of Santa Cruz; and though the Spanish governor had timely notice, was a man of courage and conduct, and had disposed all things in the most proper manner, so that he looked upon an attack as what no wise admiral would think practicable yet Blake having summoned him, and received a short answer, was determined to force the place, and to burn the fleet therein; and he performed it in such a manner as appears next to incredible. It is allowed to be one of the most remarkable actions that ever happened at sea. As soon as the news arrived of this extraordinary action, the protector sent to acquaint his second parliament, then sitting, therewith upon which they ordered a public thanksgiving, and directed a diamond ring worth 500l. to be sent to Blake and the thanks of the house was ordered to all the officers and seamen, and to be given them by their admiral. Upon his return to the Mediterranean he cruised some time before Cadiz but finding himself declining fast, resolved to return home. He accordingly sailed for England, but lived not to see again his native land for he died as the fleet was entering Plymouth, the 17th of August 1657, aged 58.His body was conveyed to Westminster abbey, and interred with great pomp in Henry the Seventh’s chapel but removed from thence in 1661, and re-interred in St. Margaret’s church-yard. He was a man of a low stature but of a quick, lively eye, and of a good soldier-like countenance. He was in his person brave beyond example, yet cool in action, and shewed a great deal of military conduct; in the disposition of those desperate attacks which men of a cooler composition have judged rather fortunate thun expedient. He certainly* loved his country with extraordinary ardour, and, as he never meddled with intrigues of state, so whatever government he served, he was solicitous to do his duty. He was upright to a supreme degree, for, notwithstanding the vast sums which passed through his hands, he scarcely left five hundred pounds behind him of his own acquiring. In fine, he was altogether disinterested and unambitious, exposing himseii on all occasions for the benefit of the public and the g-ory of the nation, and not wkh any view to his own private profit or fame. In respect to his personal character, he was pious without affectation, strictly just, and liberal to the utmost extent of his fortune. His officers he treated with the familiarity of friends, and to his sailors he was truly a parent. The state buried him as it was fit: at the public expence a grave was given him, but no tomb; and though he still wants an epitaph, writers of all parties have shewn an eagerness to do his memorv justice. We find it very positively asserted, that captain Benjamin Blake, brother to the general, suffered so many hardships for being a dissenter, in the latter end of the reign of king Charles II. that he found himself under the necessity of selling his patrimony, and transporting himself and his family to Carolina. Another author (though some indeed think it is the same) relates this story of Mr. Humphry Blake, the general’s brother, and tells us, that the family estate was worth tsvo hundred pounds a year, which he was obliged to dispose of, to pay the fines laid upon him for his nonconformity. It is jiowever strange, that every one of the general’s nephevfs an,d nieces, by his sister Susannah, who married a gentleman at Mineheacl, in Somersetshire, should be totally unacquainted with this transaction, and that none of the family should be able to give any account of that matter; and therefore it seems to be justly doubted whether there be any truth in the story, or whether it is only grounded on there being a considerable family of his name settled in that province, one of whom, when it was in private hands, was a lord proprietor.

, a French surgeon, or physician, of the seventeenth century, by uniting the quack and the regular, acquired a considerable degree of reputation, and belongs to a class, we fear, pretty numerous in other countries as well as France. He began his career as a trussmaker, and then placed himself at the head of an academy of his own creation for medical discoveries, the memoirs of which were published monthly, and we presume there must have been some papers of consequence among them, as the celebrated Bonnet translated those of the first three years into Latin, and published them under the title of “Zodiacus Medico-Gallicus,” 1680, 4to. The liberties, however, which Blegny took with the characters of some physicians of reputation occasioned the suppression of these memoirs in 1682, yet he continued to write, and sent his papers to one Ganthier, a physician of Niort, who published them at Amsterdam in 1684, under the title of the “Mercure savant.” In the mean time Blegny endeavoured to make himself famous, and that nothing might be wanting to shew his variety of talents he added to surgery and pharmacy a course of lectures on wig-making. For some time he appears to have imposed on the court itself, as we find that in 1678 he was appointed surgeon in ordinary to the queen; in 1633 surgeon in ordinary to the duke of Orleans; and in 1687, physician in ordinary to the king: but in 1693, his real character becoming more apparent, he was stripped of these honours for having attempted to establish an order of knighthood, and sent to prison at the castle of Angers, where he was confined for eight years. After his release, he retired to Avignon, where he died in 1722, aged about seventy. He published various works, now in little estimation.

, generally known by the appellation of colonel Blood, was a disbanded officer of Oliver Cromwell’s army, famous for his daring crimes and his good fortune. He was first distinguished by engaging in a conspiracy to surprise the castle of Dublin, which was defeated by the vigilance of the duke of Ormond; and some of his accomplices were executed. Escaping to England, he meditated revenge against Ormond and actually seized him one night in his coach in St. James’s-street, where he might have finished his purpose if he had not studied refinements in his vengeance. He bound him on horseback behind one of his associates, resolving to- hang him at Tyburn, with a paper pinned to his breast but when they got into the fields, the duke, in his efforts for liberty, threw himself and the assassin, to whom he was fastened, to the ground and while they were struggling in the mire, he was rescued by his servants; but the authors of this attempt were not then discovered. A little after, in 1671, Blood formed a design of carrying off the crown and regalia from the tower; a design, to which he was prompted, as well by the surprising boldness of the enterprize, as by the views of profit. He was very near succeeding. He had bound and wounded Edwards, the keeper of the jewel-office, and had got out of the tower with his prey but was overtaken and seized, with some of his associates. One of them was known to have been concerned in the attempt upon Ormond and Blood was immediately concluded to be the ringleader. When questioned, he frankly avowed the enterprize but refused to discover his accomplices. “The fear of death (he said) should never induce him either to deny a guilt or betray a friend.” All these extraordinary circumstances made him the general subject of conversation and the king was moved with an idle curiosity to see and speak with a person so noted for his courage and his crimes. Blood might now esteem himself secure of pardon and he wanted not address to improve the opportunity. He told Charles, that he had been engaged with others, in a design to kill him with a carabine above Battersea, where his majesty often went to bathe that the cause of this resolution was the severity exercised over the consciences of the godly, in restraining the liberty of their religious assemblies: that when he had taken his stand among the reeds, full of these bloody resolutions, he found his heart checked with an awe of majesty; and he not only relented himself, but diverted his associates from their purpose: that he had long ago brought himself to an entire indifference about life, which he now gave for lost; yet he could not forbear warning the king of the danger which might attend his execution; that his associates had bound themselves, by the strictest oaths, to revenge the death of any of their confederacy; and that no precaution nor power could secure any one from the effects of their desperate resolutions. Whether these considerations excited fear or admiration in the king, they confirmed his resolution of granting a pardon to Blood and what is yet more extraordinary? Charles carried his kindness so far as to grant him an estate of 500l. a-year. He also showed him great countenance and while old Edwards, who had been wounded, in defending the crown and regalia, was neglected, this man, who deserved only to be stared at and detested as a monster, became a kind of favourite. Blood enjoyed his pension about ten years, till, being charged with fixing an imputation of a scandalous nature on the duke of Buckingham, he was thrown into prison, where he died August 24, 1680.

, younger son of sir Henry Blount, and brother to sir Thomas Pope Blount hereafter mentioned, an eminent writer in the last century, was born at his grandfather’s seat at Upper Holloway, in the county of Middlesex, April 27, 1654. He was endowed by nature with a great capacity, and with a strong propensity to learning; which excellent qualities were properly cultivated by the assiduous care of his father, and under so able an instructor, he quickly acquired an extraordinary skill in the arts and sciences, without any thing of that pedantry, which is too frequently the consequence of young men’s application to study in the common course. His pregnant parts and polite behaviour brought him early into the world, so that his father, who was a true judge of men, thought fit, when he was about eighteen, to marry him to Eleanora, daughter of sir Timothy Tyrrel, of Shotover in the county of Oxford, and gave him a very handsome estate, having always respected him as a friend, as well as loved him with the affection of a father. The year after his marriage, he wrote a little treatise, which he published without his name, in defence of Dryden, whose “Conquest of Granada” was attacked by Richard Leigh, a player. In 1678, or perhaps in 1679, he published his “Anima Mnndi,” in which it is said, and with great probability, that he had the assistance of his father. It had been long before handed about in manuscript among the acquaintance of its author, with several passages in it much stronger than in that which was transmitted to the press, and licensed by sir Roger L'Estrange. This, however, did not hinder its giving great offence, insomuch that complaint was made to Dr. Compton, then Lord Bishop of London, who, upon perusal, signified that he expected it should be suppressed, and intimating, that he would thereupon rest satisfied. But afterwards, when the Bishop was out of town, an opportunity was taken by some zealous person to burn the book, which however has been reprinted since. The same year he published a broad sheet under the title of “Mr. Hobbes’s last Words and dying Legacy.” It was extracted from the “Leviathan,” and was intended to weaken and expose his doctrine yet he could be no very warm antagonist, since there is still extant a letter of his to Mr. Hobbes, wherein he professes himself a great admirer of his parts, and one who would readily receive his instructions. He afterwards gave a strong testimony in favour of liberty, in a pamphlet on the Popish Plot, and the fearof a Popish successor, entitled, “An Appeal from the country to the city for the preservation of his majesty’s person, liberty, property, and the Protestant religion.” This treatise is subscribed Junius Brutus, and is the strongest invective against Popery and Papists that was published even in that age, when almost all the wit of the nation was pointed that way. There are in it likewise such express recommendations of the Duke of Monmouth, as might well hinder the author from owning it, and give it, in the eyes of the lawyers of those times, an air of sedition at least, if not of treason. In 1680, he printed that work which made him most known to the world, “The Life of Apollonius Tyaneus,” which was soon after suppressed, and only a few copies sent abroad. It was held to be the most dangerous attempt, that had been ever made against revealed religion in this country, and was justly thought so, as bringing to the eye of every English reader a multitude of facts and reasonings, plausible in themselves, and of the fallacy of which, none but men of parts and learning can be proper judges. For this reason it is still much in esteem with the Deists, and the few copies that came abroad contributed to raise its reputation, by placing it in the lists of those that are extremely rare. In the same year he published his “Diana of the Ephesians,” which, as the author foresaw, raised a new clamour, many suggesting that, under colour of exposing superstition, he struck at all Revelation, and while he avowed only a contempt of the Heathen, seemed to intimate no great affection for the Christian priesthood. The wit, learning, and zeal of our author, had, by this time, raised him to be the chief of his sect; and he took a great deal of pains to propagate and defend his opinions in his discourses and familiar letters, as well as by his books, but he had the usual inconsistency of the infidel, and we find him owning, in a letter to Dr. Sydenham, that in point of practice, Deism was less satisfactory than the Christian scheme. The noise his former pieces had made, induced him to conceal, industriously, his being the author of a book, entitled, “Religio Laici,” published in 1683, but which is little more than a translation of Lord Herbert’s treatise under the same title and one may reasonably suppose, that the same motives prevailed on him to drop a design, in which it appears he was once engaged, of writing the Life of Mahomet, the Turkish prophet, which however has been since executed, in his manner, by a French author, Boulanvilliers. That the world might perceive Mr. Blount was capable of turning his thoughts to subjects very different from those he had hitherto handled, he, in 16S4, published a kind of introduction to polite literature, which shewed the extent of his knowledge, and the acquaintance he had in the several branches of philosophy and science. This was entitled “Janus Scientiarum or an Introduction to Geography, Chronology, Government, History, philosophy, and all genteel sorts of Learning,” London, 8vo. He concurred heartily in the Revolution, and seems to have had very honest intentions of punishing those who were king James’s evil counsellors, after the government was re-settled, by declaring the prince and princess of Orange king and queen. He gave another strong testimony of his sincere attachment to his principles, and inviolable love to freedom, by a nervous defence of the liberty of the press wherein he shews that all restraints on it can have no other tendency than to establish superstition and tyranny, by abasing the spirits of mankind, and injuring the human understanding. This little piece, therefore, has been always esteemed one of the best he ever wrote; and has furnished their strongest arguments to many succeeding writers. The warmth of Mr. Blount’s temper, his great affection for king William, and his earnest desire to see certain favourite projects brought about, led him to write a pamphlet, in which, he asserted king William and queen Mary to be conquerors, which was not well relished by the house of commons. The title of this very singular and remarkable piece at large, runs thus: “King William and queen Mary conquerors; or, a discourse endeavouring to prove that their majesties have on their side, against the late king, the principal reasons that make conquest a good title; shewing also how this is consistent with that declaration of parliament, king James abdicated the government, &c. Written with an especial regard to such as have hitherto refused the oath, and yet allow of the title of conquest, when consequent to a just war,” 1693, 4to.

The predominant passion of Boccaccio, in youth, was the love of pleasure tempered by that of study; as he advanced in age, study became his sole delight. He had no ambition either for rank or fortune. The public employments confided to him came unasked, and when he could lay them down, he did so. He was equally averse to any domestic employments which were likely to take up much of his time, and would accept of no private tutorships, which so often eventually promote a man’s interest. His character was frank and open, but not without a degree of pride, which, however, particularly when he was in low circumstances, kept him from mean compliances. With respect to his talents, it is eviuent that he had always made a false estimate of them he had the fullest confidence in his poetical powers, yet nothing he wrote in verse rises above mediocrity, and many of his prose Italian writings desefve no higher praise. He is superior and inimitable only in his tales, on which he did not pride himself, nor indeed set any value. He fell into the same error with his master Petrarch in supposing that his serious Latin works would be the source of his fame, which he owes entirely to his Tales, as Petrarch owes his to his love-verses. All his Latin writings are crude and hasty. * In them, says Paul Cortesius, “he labours with thought, and struggles to give it utterance but his sentiments find no adequate vehicle, and the lustre of his native talents is obscured by the depraved taste of the times.” In his youth, he was flattered as having obtained the second place in poetry, his admiration for Dante not permitting him to aspire to the first, and the sonnets of Petrarch were not yet known. It is to his honour, however, that as soon us he saw the latter, he threw into the fire the greater part of his lyric compositions, sonnets, canzoni, &e. and seems to have determined to apply himself entirely to the perfection of Italian prose, in which it must be confessed he has succeeded admirably. As a recent event has rendered some of Boccaccio’s writings an object, of research among collectors, we shall enter somewhat more fully than is usual into a detail of their editions. Among his Latin works, we have, 1. “De genealogia Deorum lib. XV. De montium, sylvarum, lucuum, fluviorum, stagnorum, et marium nominibus, liber.” These two were first printed together in folio without date, but supposed to be at Venice, and. anterior to 1472, in which year appeared the second edition, at Venice, with that date. The third was published at the same place in 1473, and followed by others at Reggio, Vincenza, Venice, Paris, and Basle, which last, in 1532, is accompanied with notes and supplements. This account of the genealogy of the Gods, or the heathen mythology, must have been the fruit of immense reading, and as no information on the subject existed then, a high value was placed on it, although it has been since superseded by more recent and accurate works. He has been very unjustly accused of quoting authors no where else to be found, as if he had invented their names, but it is surely more reasonable to think they might be known in his days, although their memory has since perished, or that he might have been himself deceived. This same work, translated into Italian by Joseph Betussi, has gone through twelve or thirteen edi-. tions, the first, of Venice, 1547, 4to. There are -also two French translations, the first anonymous, Paris, 1498, fol. and 1531, also in fol. the second by Claude Wittard, Paris, 1578, 8vo. The lesser book, or Dictionary of the names of mountains, forests, &c. was also translated into Italian by Niccolo Liburnio, and printed in 4to. without date or place, but there is a second edition at Florence, 1598, 8vo. 2. “De casibus Virorum et Foeminarum illustrium libri IX.” Paris, 1535, 1544, fol. and at Vincenza the same year translated into Italian by Betussi, Venice, 1545, 8vo, and often reprinted. But there must have been an edition long previous to the oldest of these, as we find it translated into English in 1494, by John Lydgate, monk of Edmundsbury, at the commandment of Humphrey duke of Gloucester, under the title of “John Boccace of the Fall of Princes and Princesses .” It has likewise been translated and often reprinted in French, Spanish, and German. The first of the Spanish translations is dated Seville, 1495, and the first of the French was printed at Bruges in 1476, folio, then at Paris, 1483, at Lyons the same year, and again at Paris in 1494, 1515, folio, and 1578, 8vo. 3. “De claris Mulieribus.” The first edition of this is without place or date, in the black letter the second is that of Ulm, 1473, fol. followed by those of Louvain and Berne from 1484 to 1539. Of this work the Italians have two translations, one by Vincent Bagli, a Florentine, Venice, 1506, 4to; the other by Betussi, who prefixed a life of Boccaccio, Venice, 1545, and 1547, 8vo. The first edition of the Spanish translation is dated Seville, 1528, fol. That of the German translation is dated Augsburgh, 1471, and was followed by one at Ulm, 1473, 4to. The French have two translations, the oldest 1493, fol. 4. “Eclogae,” sixteen in number, and printed with those of Virgil, Calphurnius, &c. Florence, 1504, 8vo. They are also inserted in the “Bucolicorum auctorcs,” Basil, 1546, 8vo. Like Petrarch, he introduces the events of his time in these eclogues, with the principal personages under fictitious names, but he has furnished us with a key to these in a letter to P. Martin de Signa, his confessor, of which Manni has givdn an extract in his history of the Decameron. His Italian works in verse are, 5. “La Teseide,” the first attempt at an epic in Italian, and written in the ottava rima, or heroic verse, of which Boccaccio is considered as the inventor; printed at Ferrara, 1475, fol. Venice, 1528, 4to, and translated into French, 1597, 12mo. 6. “Amorosa visione,” Milan, 1520 and 1521, 4to, and with grammatical observations and an apology for Boccaccio by Claricio d'Lmola, Venice, 1531, 8vo. This singular poem is divided into fifty cantos or chapters, which contain five triumphs, namely those of wisdom, glory, riches, love, and fortune, written in the terza rima, with a curious contrivance, gratifying to the bad taste of the times, by which the initial letters of each stanza are made to compose an acrostic in praise of the princess Mary, whom elsewhere he celebrates under the name of Fiammetta. 7. “II Filastrato,” a poetical romance in heroic verse, the hero of which is young Troilus, the son of Priam, and the subject, his amours with Chryseis, whom the poet does not make the daughter of Chryses, but of Calchas. Of this there are four editions Bologna, 1498, 4to, Milan, 1499, 4to, Venice 1501 and 1528, 4to. 8. “Nimfale Fiesolano.” It is thought that in this poem Boccaccio has concealed, under the disguise of a pastoral fiction, an amorous adventure which happened in his time in the environs of Florence. The first edition is in 4to. without place or date; the second is of Venice 1477, and was followed by many others at Venice and Florence, and one recently of Paris, 1778, 12mo. It was translated into French by Anthony Guercin du Crest, and printed at Lyons, 1556, 16mo. 9. “Rime,” or miscellaneous poems. We have noticed that he burned the greater part of his minor poems, but those which were dispersed in manuscript in various hands, have been often collected, and the publication of them announced. M. Baldelli, who has since, in 1806, published a good life of Boccaccio, collected all of these poems he could find, and printed them at Leghorn, 1802, 8vo.

In order to appreciate these editions, it is necessary to advert to the fate of this extraordinary work in the press. For about a century, it was circulated in manuscript, and liberties of every kind were taken at every transcription. At length it was printed for the first time, as has been supposed, in 1470, and run through various editions to the end of the fifteenth, and for more than sixty years of the sixteenth century. During this period it was prohibited by the popqs Paul IV. and Pius IV. who were in this respect more scrupulous than their twenty-five or twenty-six predecessors in the papal chair. Two grand dukes of Tuscany, Cosmo I. and Francis I. applied one after the other to two other popes, Pius V. and Gregory XIII. in consequence of which the academicians were employed to reform the Decameron important corrections were made, and many passages suppressed, and in this state various editions were permitted to be printed. But with respect to the ancient editions, it is now necessary to observe that there are two opinions, which we shall state, without attempting to reconcile. We have already noticed that the first edition has been supposed to have been printed in 1470, without a date but on the other hand, it is contended that the edition of 1471, by Valdarfer, is not only the first with a date (which those who maintain the existence of the edition of 1470 are disposed to allow), but that in fact there was no previous edition. Those who are of this latter opinion very naturally ask their antagonists to produce the edition of 1470, or an edition without date that can be supposed of that period. In England it is certain that no such edition is known but the French bibliographers seem to be of a different opinion. Ginguene 1 to whom we are indebted for the greater part of this life of Boccaccio, who has written the literary history of Italy, and is considered in France, we apprehend justly, as their first critic and bibliographer in Italian literature this writer speaks of the first edition without a date in the following terms “Elle est sans date et sans nom de lieu ni d'imprimeur, in-fol. en caracteres inegaux et mal formes.” (Hist. Litt. d'ltalie, vol. III. p. 129). It remains, therefore, for the reader to determine whether this is the language of a man who has seen the book, and describes what he has seen; and if this be decided in the affirmative, the existence of the edition is proved, as far as his authority goes. But it must be confessed Ginguene goes no fa ther. He says nothing of any library which possesses this treasure, nor of its supposed value but when he comes to speak of Valdarfer’s edition of 1471, he informs us that it- has been valued by bibliomaniacs (bibliomanes) at 3000 francs, or 125l. And this brings us to notice the copy of this edition recently sold from the duke of Roxburgh’s library, to the marquis of Blandford, for the immense (and with respect to the value of books, the unprecedented) sum of Two Thousand Two Hundred And Sixty Pounds. In the catalogue of this library, it is stated that “no other perfect copy is yet known to exist, after all the fruitless researches of more than three hundred years;” but, notwithstanding this, we find that the French bibliographers set a value on the edition, as if copies, however rare, were still occasionally to be found. We cannot suppose that the French booksellers or collectors would fix a price-current on an article which had not been seen, for three hundred years, still less that our authority is speaking of imperfect copies, the value of which can only be estimated by the quantum of imperfection. It remains also to be noticed that the French bibliographers speak precisely with the same familiarity of the Junti edition of Florence, 1527, 4to, which they value at 600 francs, or 25l. and which sold at the Roxburgh sale for 29 1. no great advance upon the French price. They certainly speak both of this edition, and of the 1471, as of rare occurrence, but by no means hint that the latter is of that extreme rarity imputed to it in this country .

The third edition,of Mantua, 1472, fol. Salviati thinks the best of all the early editions, the scarcity of which may now be accounted for by the following extraordinary fact. As soon as they appeared, and became generally read, the monks who felt that much of the satire was directed against them, issued their anathemas and prohibitions and in 1497, Savonarola excited the abhorrence of the Florentines to such a degree, that they collected all the Decamerons, Dantes, and Petrarchs they could find, and burnt them together the last day of the carnival. It is of importance to notice that, of the edition of 1527, a very well executed counterfeit was printed at Venice in 1729, with the date of Florence 1527 at the end. The next valuable edition is that corrected by the academicians of Florence, by order of the grand duke, and with the approbation of pope Gregory XIII. and published at Florence by the Junti, 1573, 4to. Longuerue observes that it is a curious thing to see at the head of this edition a privilege of Gregory XIII. who says, that in this he follows the steps of Pius V. his predecessor of blessed memory, and which threatens with severe punishments, all those who shall dare to give any disturbance to those booksellers to whom this privilege is granted. There is also a decree of the inquisition in favour of this edition. The edition of Salviati, which was also subjected to reform, Venice, 1584, 4to, maybe consulted with the preceding for the sake of the curious corrections and amendments introduced; and perhaps the reader may discover a great difference in the purity of the style between the original and the reformed part. With respect to the translations of the Decameron, they are too numerous, and in general too unimportant, for a particular detail. Every nation has its Decameron, but as the purpose of the translators was mere amusement, they seem to have been little anxious about the author’s reputation. The English editions particularly have conveyed his Tales in a most vulgar and ungraceful style. They were first translated in 1566, by "William Paynter, and have been often reprinted since in various forms the best, we think, was an edition in two volumes, Loud. 1804, 8vo, in which the editor has taken much pains in repressing the licentiousness of our author, and has omitted entirely those tales which could not be rendered proper for general perusal. In a critical view, however, the work must be allowed to be the production of a great genius. The generality of the beaux esprits in. Italy agree that the Decameron is the best book in their language, at least in point of style. It is surely very remarkable that Boccaccio should' carry a barbarous language to its perfection all at once a language left entirely to the people, and which had orly a small part of its rust rubbed off by the immortal Dante.

, an eminent literary lady of France, and a member of the academies of Rome, Bologna, Padua, Lyons, and Rouen, was born at Rouen, Oct. 22, 1710. She was educated at Paris in the convent of the Assumption, where she made a very rapid progress in every branch of education. At a very early age, she studied the English language, that she might be enabled to transfuse the beauties of Pope’s Temple of Fame into French but she concealed her performance for many years, nor did it appear till 1764, in the collection of her works. She had, however, given an ample proof of her poetical talents in 1746, by gaining the first prize givea by the academy of Rouen, which was founded the year preceding by the duke of Luxembourg. This procured her the homage and the society of the most eminent nits and scholars of the day. From this time she published nothing without her name. Having acquired an uncommon relish for the “Paradise Lost” of Milton, she endeavoured to translate a part of it into French, and was highly complimented by Voltaire on her success. She imitated also, but with much more success and more ease, Gesner’s “Death of Abel.” In 1749, her tragedy of “The Amazons” was represented on one of the Paris stages with considerable applause: but her fame rests principally on an epic poem, entitled “The Columbiad, or Discovery of America,” in ten cantos, which procured her the highest reputation at that time from the critics of her own country, although the execution is very far from corresponding with the magnitude of the undertaking.

, an ingenious naturalist, was born at Palermo, in Sicily, April 24th 1633, of a wealthy and respectable family, originally from Savona in Genoa. To improve himself in natural history, particularly in botany, to which he was early attached, he travelled over Sicily, Corsica, Malta, many parts of Germany, Holland, and England, conversing with the most eminent literary characters in the places he visited, with whom he afterwards kept up a correspondence. At Paris he became acquainted with the abbé Bourdalot, to whom he communicated various observations he had made, which, were published at Amsterdam in 1674 under the title “Recherches et observations d'Histoire Naturelle.” In the course of his travels, he was admitted doctor in medicine at Padua, was elected member of the Academ. Naturae Curios, and made botanist to the grand duke of Tuscany. In 1682, he entered among the Cistertian monks at Florence, and with the habit of the order took the name of Sylvio, which he affixed to his latter works, but he was still permitted to continue his researches in natural history. Returning at length to Sicily, he retired to one of the houses of the Cistertians near Palermo, where he died, Dec. 22, 1704. As he had been indefatigable in his researches, his colleciion of plants and other natural productions was very considerable. Sherrard, who saw his hortus siccus, or specimens of dried plants, in 1697, was so struck with their number and beauty, that he engaged him to give a catalogue of them to the public, which he did in his “Musrco plante rare,” published at Venice in 4to, the same year. The catalogue was also published by itself. Several of his works appear to have been printed while he was on his travels; the first of them, “De abrotano mare monitum,” in 1668 and in the same year, “Manifesturn botanicum, de plantis Siculis,” Catatue, 4to. By an advertisement at the beginning of the work he offers to botanists the seeds of many of the curious and rare plants he had collected, at moderate prices. Morison published an edition of this work at Oxford in 1674, 4to, under the title of “Icones et descriptiones rariarum plantarum Sicilian, Melitae, Galliae, et Italioe.” Many of the plants, Haller says, were new. The figures are small, and in general not well delineated or engraved. His next production was “Recherches et observations naturelles,” published at Paris in 1671, 12mo, again at Amsterdam in 1674, and again in 1744, in 8vo. It consists of letters to his correspondents in France, Italy, England, &c. In 1684, in 16mo, “Opcrvazioni natural) ove si contengono materie medico fisiche e di botanica,” Bologna. The observations are twenty in number, and dedicated, or addressed to so many of the author’s friends and patrons, among whom are many perons of high rank. He is very profuse in his elogia on the medical virtue of many of the plants, which he praises far beyond their real value. “Tenere oportet,” Haller says, “creduium esse virum et in viribus medicis plantarum liberalem.” “Musæo di fisica e cli esperienze decorate di opervazioni naturali,” Venet. 1697, 4to. The author here assumes the name of Sylvlo. The observations are, as in the former work, dedicated to his noble patrons, and contain ample accounts of the medical virtues of various plants, much beyond what, from experience, they have been found to possess. Some smaller dissertations were printed in Miscel. Naturae Curias, and in the Journal des Savans. On the whole, Boccone appears to have been an industrious and intelligent writer, possessing considerable originality, and deserves to be classed among botanists of the third rate.

, a French lawyer, and political writer, was born at Angers about 1530. In his youth he was supposed, but not upon good foundation, to have been a monk. He studied first at Toulouse, and after taking his degrees, read lectures there with much applause, having a design to settle there as law- pro lessor, and with that view he pronounced an oration on public instruction in the schools but finding Toulouse not a sufficiently ample stage for his ambition, he removed to Pans, and began to practise at the bar, where his expectations being likewise disappointed, he determined to apply himself to literary occupations, and in this he had very considerable success. Henry III. who liked to have men of letters about him, admitted him into familiar conversation, and had such an opinion of him, that he sent to prison one John, or Michael de la Serre, who had written against Bodin, and forbid him under pain of death to publish his work but this courtly favour did not last. Thuanus ascribes the king’s withdrawing his countenance to the envy of the courtiers but others think it was occasioned by Bodin' s taking a political part in opposition to the king. He found an asylum, however, with the duke of Alene,on, who made him secretary of his commands, one of the masters of the requests of his palace, and grand master of his waters and forests. The insurgents in the Netherlands at this time intended to declare the duke their sovereign, and were said to be prompted to this by queen Elizabeth of England. Bodin, however, accompanied him into England and Flanders, but he had the misfortune to lose this patron in 1584.

In 1576 he was chosen deputy to the states-general of Blois, by the tiers-etat of Vermandois, and ably contended for the rights of the people, and particularly opposed those who would have all the king’s subjects constrained to profess the Catholic religion, which we can easily suppose effectually prevented the king from being reconciled to him. He after this appears to have resided at Laon, where, in 1589, he persuaded that city to declare for the league, and at the same time wrote to the president Brisson, a letter severely reflecting on Henry III. but this fault he afterwards repaired by securing the allegiance of Laon to Henry IV. He died of the plague at Laon, in 1596, leaving a character more dubious than that of any man in his time, and the light thrown upon it in his works is certainly not of the most favourable kind. It may be said, that although toleration was a word not known in his time, he appears to have cherished some liberal notions on the subject, but, as to religious principles, he had so little steadiness, that he was by turns accounted, perhaps not always justly, a Protestant, Papist, Deist, Sorcerer, Jew, and Atheist; D'Aguessau, however, pronounces him a worthy magistrate, a learned author, and a good citizen. His first work was a commentary on Oppian’s “Cynogeticon,” Paris, 1549, 4to, in which he is supposed to have availed himself rather too freely of the notes of Turnebus. He then published an introduction to the study of history, under the title “Methodus ad facilem Historiarum cognitionem,” Paris, 1566, 4to, the principal fault of which is that it does not correspond with the title, being very desultory and immethodical. But that which procured him most reputation, was his six books on “The Republic,” a work equally immethodical with the other, and abounding in digressions and irrelevant matter, yet, for the time, an extraordinary collection of facts and reflections on political government. It was soon translated into other languages, and was read with much interest in an age when the principles of government were seldom discussed in books. When in England with the duke of Alenc,on, we are told that he found the English had made a Latin translation of it, bad enough, but, bad as it was, the subject of lectures at London and Cambridge. Bodin reports thus far himself; but that “it became a classic at Cambridge” has been supplied by his biographers, who were probably not aware that lectures on political government were then no part of Cambridge education, and if his book was explained and commented on there or at London, it must have been by individuals. In this work he introduces the influence of climate on the principles of government; and as Montesquieu has done the same, La Harpe, the French critic, terms Bodin’s book the “germ of the Spirit of Laws,” but this notion is far more ancient than either, and not indeed of much consequence, whether old or new. The first edition of these “Livres de la Republique” was printed at Paris, 1577, fol. and was followed by three' others, 1577, 1578, and 1580 but the edition of Lyons, 1593, and that of Geneva, 1600, are preferred, because they contain Bodin’s Treatise on Coins. He afterwards translated it into Latin, Paris, 1586, fol. an edition often reprinted, and more complete than the French, and several abridgements were published of it, both in Latin and French. His tables of law, entitled “Juris Universi Distributio,” were printed in 1578, and in the following year, his “”Demonomanie des Sorciers,“to which was annexed” A refutation of the book, de Lamiis,“of John Wier, physician to the duke of Cleves, who had undertaken to prove that the stories of witchcraft and sorcery have chiefly arisen from imposture or delusions of fancy. The literary character of Bodin, who defended this kind of superstition, incurred reproach, and he himself was suspected of being a magician. A work written by him, but never printed, and entitled” Heptaplomeron, sive de abditis rerum sublimium arcanis,“is said to have been an attack upon religion, and designed to invalidate the authority of revelation. By the seeming advantages which he gave in this work to the Jewish religion, he was suspected of being a convert to it; but it is more probable that he was a sceptic with regard to religion, and alike indifferent to all modes of faith. A little while before his death he published a Latin treatise, entitled” Theatrum Universae Naturae," in which he professes to pursue the causes and effects of things to their principles.

Upon the accession of queen Elizabeth in 1558, he returned into England with his father 'and family, who settled at London and soon after, he was sent to Magdalen college, in Oxford, under the tuition of Dr. Humphrey, afterwards president of that society. In 1563he took the degree of B. A. and the same year was chosen probationer of Merton college, and the year following admitted fellow. In 1565, by persuasion of some of the fellows, he undertook the public reading of a Greek lecture in the hall of that college, which he continued for some time without expecting or requiring any stipend but afterwards the society of their own accord allowed him a salary of four marks per annum and from that time continued the lecture to the college. In 1566 he took the degree of M. A. and the same year read natural philosophy in the public schools. In 1569 he was elected one of the proctors of the university and after that, for a considerable time, supplied the place of university orator. Hitherto Mr. Bodley applied himself to the study of various faculties, without the inclination to profess any one more than the rest; but, in 1576, being desirous to improve himself in the modern languages, and to qualify himself for public business, he began his travels, and spent nearly four years in visiting France, Germany, and Italy. Afterwards, returning to his college, he applied himself to the study of history and politics. In 1583 he was made gentleman usher to queen Elizabeth; and in 1585, married Anne, daughter of Mr. Carew, of Bristol, and widow of Mr. Ball, a lady of considerable fortune. Soon after, he was employed by queen Elizabeth in several embassies to Frederick king of Denmark, Julius duke of Brunswick, William landgrave of Hesse, and other German princes, to erfgage them to join their forces with those of the English, for the assistance of the king of Navarre, afterwards Henry IV. of France and having discharged that commission, he was sent to king Henry III. at the time when that prince was forced by the duke of Guise to quit Paris. This commission, he tells us, he performed with extraordinary secrecy, not being accompanied by any one servant, (for so he was commanded), nor with any other letters than such as were written with the queen’s own hand to the king, and some select persons about him. “The effect,” he adds, “of that message it is fit I should conceal; but it tended greatly to the advantage of all the Protestants in France, and to the duke’s apparent overthrow, which also followed soon upon it.” Camden says nothing more of this embassy than that queen Elizabeth “not only assisted the king of Navarre, when he was entangled in a dangerous and difficult war, with money and other military provisions, but sent over sir Thomas Bodley to support or encourage the French king when his affairs seemed to be in a very desperate condition.”

In the same year (1597) he began the munificent work of restoring, or rather founding anew, the public library at Oxford, which was completed in 1599. In his memoirs he has admirably displayed his first thoughts, his first feelings, and his first precautions on this important undertaking. After adverting to the motives which induced him to retire from court and chuse a private life, he goes on thus “Only this I must truly confess of myself, that though I did never yet repent me of those, and some other my often refusals of honourable offers, in respect of emiching my private estate yet somewhat more of late I have blamed myself and my nicety that way, for the love that I bear to my reverend mother the university of Oxon, and to the advancement of her good, by such kind of means, as I have since undertaken. For thus I fell to discourse and debate in my mind tiiat although I might find it fittest for me to keep out of the throng of court contentions, and address my thoughts and deeds to such ends altogether, as I myself could best affect yet withal I was to think, that my duty towards God, the expectation of the world, and my natural inclination, and very morality did require, that I should not wholly so hide those little abilities that 1 had, but that in some measure, in one kind or other, I should do the true part of a profitable member of the state. Whereupon examining exactly for the rest of my life what course I might take, and having sought (as I thought) all the ways to the wood, to select the most proper, I concluded at the last to set up my staff at the library door in Oxon, being thoroughly persuaded, that in my solitude and surcease from the commonwealth affairs, 1 could not busy myself to better purpose, than by reducing that place (which then in every part lay ruined and waste) to the public use of students. For the effecting whereof I found myself furnished, in a competent proportion, of such four kinds of aids, as, unless I had them all, there was no hope of good success. For without some kind of knowledge, as well in the learned and modern tongues, as in sundry other sorts of scholastical literature without some purse-ability to go through with the charge without great store of honourable friends, to further the design and without special good leisure to follow such a work, it could but have proved a vain attempt and inconsiderate. But how well I have sped in all my endeavours, and how full provision I have made for the benefit and ease of all frequenters of the library, that which I have already performed in sight, that which besides I have given for the maintenance of it, and that which hereafter I purpose to add, by way of enlargement of that place (for the project is cast, an. I, whether I live or die, it shall be, God willing, put in full execution), will testify so truly and abundantly for me, as I need not be the publisher of the dignity and worth of my own institution.” Camden, under the year 1598, tells us, that Bodley, being at present unengaged from affairs of state, set himself a task, which would have suited the character of a crowned head, the promotion and encouragement of learning for he began to repair the public library at Oxford, and furnished it with new books. It was set up, he adds, by Humphrey duke of Gloucester, but through the iniquity of the times was, in the reign of Edward VI. stripped of all the books but he (Bodley) having made the choicest collection from all parts of the world of the most valuable books, partly at his own cost, and partly by contributions from others, he first stocked, and afterwards left it so well endowed at his death, that his memory deserves to bear a very lasting date amongst men of worth and letters.“The same author, in his” Britannia,“tells us, duke Humphrey’s library consisted of one hundred and twentynine volumes, procured from Italy at a great expence. His translator adds, that they were valued at above a thousand pounds, and that the duke in 1440 gave one hundred and twenty-six volumes more, and in 1443 a much greater number, besides considerable additions at his death three years after. But, before duke Humphrey’s time, Richard de Bury, alias Aungervil, bishop of Durham, in 1295, gave a great number of books to the university, which were kept in a place for that purpose in the college, now Trinity college, which the monks of Durham had founded in the north suburbs of Oxford; an account whereof may be gathered from a book written by himself, called” Philobiblos, sive de amore librorum, et institutione Bibliothecae.“And after him, in 1320, Thomas Cobham, bishop of Worcester, built another over the old Congregation-house in the north coemetery of St. Mary’s. In 1597, sir Thomas Bodley, taking into his consideration the ruinous condition of duke Humphrey’s library, and resolving to undertake the restoration of it at his own expence, wrote a letter, dated at London, Jan. 23, to Dr. Ravis, dean of Christ church, then vice-chancellor, to be communicated to the university; offering therein to restore the fabric of the said library, and to settle an annual income for the purchase of books, and the support of such officers as might be necessary to take care of it. This letter was received with the greatest satisfaction by the university, and an answer returned, testifying their most grateful acknowledgment and acceptance of his noble offer. On this, sir Thomas immediately set about the work, and in two years time brought it to a good degree of perfection. In 1601, the university had such a sense of his services that he was voted a public benefactor, and his name ordered to be included among the other benefactors repeated in the public prayers. He furnished it with a large collection of books, purchased in foreign countries at a great expence and thi.-, collection in a short time became so greatly enlarged by the generous benefactions of several noblemen, bishops, and others, that neither the shelves nor the room could contain them. &ir Thomas then offering to make a considerable addition to the building, the motion was readily embraced, and, on July 19, 1610, the first stone of the new foundation was laid with great solemnity, the vice-chancellor, Doctors, masters of arts, &c. attending in their proper habits, a speech being made upon the occasion. But sir Thomas Bodley did not live to see this part of his design completed, though he left sufficient means in trust, as he bestowed his. whole estate (his debts, legacies, and funeral charges defrayed) to the noble purposes of this foundation. By this, and the help of other benefactions, in procuring which sir Thomas was very serviceable by his great interest with many eminent persons, the university was enabled to add three other sides to what was already built, forming a noble quadrangle, and spacious rooms for schools of arts. By sir Thomas’s’ will 200l. per annum was settled on the library for ever out of whichhe appointed near forty pounds for the head librarian, ten pounds for the sub-librarian, and eight for the junior. He drew up likewise a body of excellent statutes for the government of the library. In this library is a statue erected to the memory of sir Thomas Bodley, by the earl of Dorset, chancellor of the university, with the following inscription:” Thomas Sackvillus Dorsettia? Comes, Summus Angliae Thesaurarius, et hujus Academise Cancellarius, Thomse Bodleio Equiti Aurato, qui Bibliothecam hanc instituit, honoris causa pie posuit i. e. Thi.mas Sackvile, earl of Dorset, lord high treasurer of England, and chancellor of this university, piously erected this monument to the honour of sir Thomas Bodley, knt. who founded this library.“King James I. we are told, when he came to Oxford in 1605, and, among other edifices, took a view of this famous library, at his departure, in imitation of Alexander, broke out into this speech” If I were not a king, I would be an university man and if it were so that I must be a prisoner, if I might have my wish, 1 would have no other prison than that library, and be chained together with so many good authors." A catalogue of the printed books in the Bodleian library was published in 1674 by Dr. Thomas Hyde, then chief librarian another of the manuscripts was printed in 1697; and a more ample catalogue of the books was printed at Oxford, in 1738, in two volumes, folio.

It has been mentioned, to the honour of Boerhaave, by one of his biographers, that he received the visits of three crowned heads, the grand duke of Tuscany, William the Third, and Peter the Great, the last of whom slept in his barge all night, over against the house of our illustrious professor, that he might have two hours conversation with him before he gave his lectures. These visits most assuredly did more honour to the princes than to the philosopher, whose power, like that of the poets mentioned by Charles the Ninth in his epistle to Ronsard, is exercised upon the minds, while that of the sovereign is confined to the bodies of mankind.

, count of Scandiano, an Italian poet, was born at the castle of Scandiano, near Reggio in Lombardy, about the year 1434. He studied at the university of Ferrara, and remained in that city the greater part of his life, attached to the ducal court. He was particularly in great favour with the duke Borso and Hercules I. his successor. He accompanied Borso in a journey to Rome in 1471, and the year following was selected by Hercules to escort to Ferrara, Eleonora of Aragon, his future duchess. In 1481 he was appointed governor of Reggio, and was also captain-general of Modena. He died at Reggio, Dec. 20, 1494. He was one of the most learned and accomplished men of his time, a very distinguished Greek and Latin scholar, and at a time when Italian poetry was in credit, one of those poets who added to the reputation of his age and country. He translated Herodotus from the Greek into Italian, and Apuleius from the Latin. He wrote also Latin poetry, as his “Carmen Bucolicum,” eight eclogues in hexameters, dedicated to duke Hercules I. Reggio, 1500, 4 to Venice, 1528; and in Italian, “Sonetti e Canzoni,” Reggio, 1499, 4to; Tenice, 1501, 4to, in a style rather easy than elegant, and occasionally betraying the author’s learning, but without affectation. Hercules of Este was the first of the Italian sovereigns who entertained the court with a magnificent theatre on which Greek or Latin comedies, translated into Italian, were performed. For this theatre Boiardo wrote his “Timon,” taken from a dialogue of Lucian, which may be accounted the first comedy written in Italian. The first edition of it, according to Tiraboschi, was that printed at Scandiano, 1500, 4to. The one, without a date, in 8vo, he thinks was the second. It was afterwards reprinted at Venice, 1504, 1515, and 1517, 8vo. But Boiardo is principally known by his epic romance of “Orlando Innamorato,” of which the celebrated poem of Ariosto is not only an imitation, but a continuation. Of this work, he did not live to complete the third book, nor is it probable that any part of it had the advantage of his last corrections, yet it is justly regarded as exhibiting, upon the whole, a warmth of imagination, and a vivacity of colouring, which rendered it highly interesting: nor is it, perhaps, without reason, that the simplicity of the original has occasioned it to be preferred to the same work, as altered or reformed by Francesco Berni (See Brrni). The “Orlando Innamorato” was first printed at Scandiano, about the year 1495, and afterwards at Venice, 1500, which De Bure erroneously calls the first edition. From the third book where Boiardo 1 s labours cease, it was continued by Niccolo Agostini, and of this joint production numerous editions have been published.

attacked, but gave him friends, or rather readers, among that very numerous class of the public, who, through an inconstancy cruelly rooted in the human heart, love to see those humbled whom even they esteem the most. But whatever favour and encouragement so general a disposition might promise Boileau, he could not avoid meeting with censurers among men of worth. Of this number was the duke de Montausier, who valued himself upon an inflexible and rigorous virtue, and disliked satire. But, as it was of the greatest importance to Boileau to gain over to his interest one of the first persons about court, whose credit was the more formidable, as it was supported by that personal consideration which is not always joined to it, he introduced into one of his pieces a panegyrical notice of the duke de Montausier, which was neither flat nor exaggerated, and it produced the desired effect. Encouraged by this first success, Boileau lost no time in giving the final blow to the tottering austerity of his censurer, by confessing to him, with an air of contrition, how humiliated he felt himself at missing the friendship of “the worthiest man at court.” From that moment, the worthiest man at court became the protector and apologist of the most caustic of all writers. Though we attach less value to the satires of Boileau than to his other works, and think not very highly of his conduct to his patron, yet it must be allowed that he never attacks bad taste and bad writers, but with the weapons of pleasantry; and never speaks of vice and wicked men but with indignation. Boileau, however, soon became sensible that in order to reach posterity it is not sufficient to supply some ephemeral food to the malignity of contemporaries, but to be the writer of all times and all places. This led him to produce those works which will render his fame perpetual. He wrote his “Epistles,” in which, with delicate praises, he has intermixed precepts of literature and morality, delivered with the most striking truth and the happiest precision; and in 1674 his celebrated mock-heroic, the “Lutrin,” which, with so small a ground of matter, contains so much variety, action, and grace; and his “Art of Poetry,” which is in French what that of Horace is in Latin, the code of good taste. In these he expresses in harmonious verse, full of strength and elegance, the principles of reason and good taste; and was the first who discovered and developed, by the union of example to precept, the highly difficult art of French versification. Before Boileau, indeed, Malherbe had begun to detect the secret, but he had guessed it only in part, and had kept his knowledge for his own use; and Corneille, though he had written “Cinna” and “Polieucte,” had no other secret than his instinct, and when this abandoned him, was no longer Corneille. Boileau had the rare merit, which can belong only to a superior genius, of forming by his lessons and productions the first school of poetry in France; and it may be added, that of all the poets who have preceded or followed him, none was better calculated than himself to be the head of such a school. In fact, the severe and decided correctness which characterizes his works, renders them singularly fit to serve as a study for scholars in poetry. In Racine he had a disciple who would have secured him immortality, even if he had not so well earned it by his own writings. Good judges have even asserted, that the pupil surpassed the master; but Boileau, whether inferior or equal to his scholar, always preserved that ascendancy over him, which a blunt and downright self-love will ever assume over a timid and delipate self-love, such as that of Racine. The author of “Phaedra” and of “Athaliah” had always, either from deference or address, the complaisance to yield the first place to one who hoasted of having been his master. Boileau, it is true, had a merit with respect to his disciple, which in the eyes of the latter must have been of inestimable value, that of having early been sensible of Racine’s excellence, or rather of what he promised to become; for it was not easy, in the author of the “Freres Ennemis,” to discover that of “Andromache” and “Britannicus,” and doubtless perceiving in Racine’s first essays the germ of what he was one day to become, he felt how much care and culture it required to give it full expansion.

Boileau knew how to procure a still more powerful protection at court than the duke de Montausier’s, that of Lewis XIV. himself. He lavished upon this monarch praises the more flattering, as they appeared dictated by the public voice, and merely the sincere and warm expression of the nation’s intoxication with respect to its king. To add value to his homage, the artful satirist had the address to make his advantage of the reputation of frankness he had acquired, which served as a passport to those applauses which the poet seemed to bestow in spite of his nature; and he was particularly attentive, while bestowing praises on all those whose interest might either support or injure him, to reserve the first place, beyond comparison, for the monarch. Among other instances, he valued himself, as upon a great stroke of policy, for having contrived to place Monsieur, the king’s brother, by the side of the king himself, in his verses, without hazard of wounding the jealousy of majesty; and for having celebrated the conqueror of Cassel more feebly than the subduer of Flanders. He had however the art, or more properly the merit, along with his inundation of praises, to convey some useful lessons to the sovereign. Lewis XIV. as yet young and greedy of renown, which he mistook for real glory, was making preparations for war with Holland. Colbert, who knew how fatal to the people is the most glorious war, wished to divert the king from his design. He engaged Boileau to second his persuasions, by addressing to Lewis his first epistle, in which te proves that a king’s true greatness consists in rendering his subjects happy, by securing them the blessings of peace. But although this epistle did not answer the intentions of the minister or the poet, yet so much attention to please the monarch, joined to such excellence, did not remain unrecompensed. Boileau was loaded with the king’s favour, admitted at court, and named, in conjunction with Racine, royal historiographer. The two poets seemed closely occupied in writing the history of their patron; they even read several passages of it to the king; but they abstained from giving any of it to the public, in the persuasion that the history of sovereigns, even the most worthy of eulogy, cannot be written during their lives, without running the risk either of losing reputation by flattery, or incurring hazard by truth. It was with repugnance that Boileau had undertaken an office so little suited to his talents and his taste. “When I exercised,” said he, “the trade of a satirist, which I understood pretty well, I was overwhelmed with insults and menaces, and I am now dearly paid for exercising that of historiographer, which I do not understand at all/' Indeed,” far from being dazzled by the favour he enjoyed, he rather felt it as an incumbrance. He often said, that the first sensation his fortune at court inspired in him, was a feeling of melancholy. He thought the bounty of his sovereign purchased too dearly by the Joss of liberty a blessing so intrinsically valuable, which all the empty and fugitive enjoyments of vanity are unable to compensate in the eyes of a philosopher. Boileau endeavoured by degrees to recover this darling liberty, in proportion as age seemed to permit the attempt; and for the last ten or twelve years of his life he entirely dropped his visits to court. “What should I do there?” said he, “I can praise no longer.” He might, however, have found as much matter for his applauses as when he lavished them without the least reserve. While he attended at court^ he maintained a freedom and frankness of speech, especially on topics of literature, which are not common among courtiers. When Lewis asked his opinion of some verses which he had written, he replied, “Nothing, sire, is impossible to your majesty; you wished to make bad verses, and you have succeeded.” He also took part with the persecuted members of the Port-royal; and when one of the courtiers declared that the king was making diligent search after the celebrated Arnauld, in order to put him in the Bastile, Boileau observed, “His majesty is too fortunate; he will not find him:” and when the king asked him, what was the reason why the whole world was running after a preacher named le Tourneux, a disciple of Arnauld, “Your majesty,” he replied, “knows how fond people are of novelty: this is a minister who preaches the gospel.” Boileau appears from various circumstances, to have been no great friend to the Jesuits, whom he offended by his “Epistle on the Love of God,” and by many free speeches. By royal favour, he was admitted unanimously, in 1684, into the French academy, with which he had made very free in his epigrams; and he was also associated to the new academy of inscriptions and belles-lettres, of which he appeared to be a fit rnember, by his “Translation of Longinus on the Sublime.” To science, with which he had little acquaintance, he rendered, however, important service by his burlesque “Arret in favour of the university, against an unknown personage called Reason,” which was the means of preventing the establishment of a plan of intolerance in matters of philosophy. His attachment to the ancients, as the true models of literary taste and excellence, occasioned a controversy between him and Perrault concerning the comparative merit of the ancients and moderns, which was prosecuted for some time by epigrams and mutual reproaches, till at length the public began to be tired with their disputes, and a reconciliation was effected by the good offices of their common friends. This controversy laid the foundation of a lasting enmity between Boileau and Fontenelle, who inclined to the party of Perrault. Boileau, however, did not maintain his opinion with the pedantic extravagance of the Daciers; but he happily exercised his wit on the misrepresentations of the noted characters of antiquity, by the fashionable romances of the time, in his dialogue entitled “The Heroes of Romance,” composed in the manner of Lucian. In opposition to the absurd opinions of father Hardouin, that most of the classical productions of ancient Rome had been written by the monks of the thirteenth century, Boileau pleasantly remarks, “I know nothing of all that; but though I am not very partial to the monks, I should not have been sorry to have lived with friar Tibullus, friar Juvenal, Dom Virgil, Dom Cicero, and such kind of folk.” After the death of Racine, Boileau very much retired from court; induced partly by his love of liberty and independence, and partly by his dislike of that adulation which was expected, and for which the dose of Lewis’s reign afforded more scanty materials than its commencement. Separated in a great degree from society, he indulged that austere and misanthropical disposition, from which he was never wholly exempt. His conversation, however, was more mild and gentle than his writings; and, as he used to say of himself, without “nails or claws,” it was enlivened by occasional sallies of pleasantry, and rendered instructive by judicious opinions of authors and their works. He was religious without bigotry; and he abhorred fanaticism and hypocrisy. His circumstances were easy; and his prudent economy has been charged by some with degenerating into avarice. Instances, however, occur of his liberality and beneficence. At the death of Colbert, the pension which he had given to the poet Corneille was suppressed, though he was poor, old, infirm, and dying. Boileau interceded with the king for the restoration of it, and offered to transfer his own to Corneille, telling the monarch that he should be ashamed to receive his bounty while such a man was in want of it. He also bought, at an advanced price, the library of Patru, reduced in his circumstances, and left him in the possession of it till his death. He gave to the poor all the revenues he had received for eight years from a benefice he had enjoyed without performing the duties of it. To indigent men of letters his purse was always open; and at his death he bequeathed almost all his possessions to the poor. Upon the whole, his temper, though naturally austere, was on many occasions kind and benevolent, so that it has been said of him, that he was “cruel only in verse;” and his general character was distinguished by worth and integrity, with some alloys of literary jealousy and injustice. Boileau died of a dropsy in the breast, March 11, 1711, and by his will left almost all his property to the poor. His funeral was attended by a very numerous company, which gave a woman of the lower class occasion to say, “He had many friends then I yet they say that he spoke ill of every body.”

, of the French academy, to the establishment whereof he contributed greatly, abbot of Chatilly-sur-Seine, was born at Caen in 1592, and died in 1662. He was remarkably brilliant in conversation, but with his natural and borrowed powers, often repeating scraps from many of the tales of Boccace, of Beroald, and especially the “Moyen de parvenir” of the Jatter. His imagination, fostered early by the writings of all the facetious authors, furnished him with the means of amusing and of exciting laughter. Citois, first physician to the cardinal de Richelieu, used to say to that minister, when he was indisposed, “Monseigneur, all our drugs are of no avail, unless you mix with them a dram of Boisrobert.” The cardinal for a long time was never happy without his company and jokes, and employed him as his buffoon. When Boisrobert fell into disgrace with the cardinal, he had recourse to Citois, who put at the bottom of his paper to the cardinal, as if it had been a prescription, Recipe Boisrobert. This jest had its effect, by causing him to be recalled. Boisrobert published, 1. Divers poems; the first part 1647, 4to, and the second 1659, 8vo. 2. Letters in the collection of Faret; 8vo. 3. Tragedies, comedies, and tales, which bear the name of his brother Antoine le Metel, sieur d'Ouville. 4. “Histoire Indienne d‘Anaxandre et d’Orasie;” 1629, 8vo. 5. “Nouvelles heroiques,” 1627, 8vo. His theatrical pieces, applauded by cardinal Richelieu and by some of his flatterers, are now totally forgot. All his friends, indeed, were not flatterers, if the following anecdote may be relied on. Boisrobert, among his other follies, was a gamester, and on one occasion lost ten thousand crowns to the duke de Roquelaure, who loved money, and insisted upon being paid. Boisrobert sold all he had, which amounted to four thousand crowns, which one of his friends carried to the duke, telling him, he must forgive the rest, and that Boisrobert, in return, would compose a panegyrical ode upon him, which would certainly be a bad one. “Now,” added this friend, “when it is known that your grace has rewarded a paltry piece with six thousand crowns, every one will applaud your generosity, and will be anxious to know what you would have given for a good poem.” It is most to his honour, however, that he contributed to the establishment of the French academy, and always employed his interest with cardinal Richelieu in behalf of men of merit.

, second wife of king Henry VIII. was born in 1507. She was daughter of sir Thomas Bolen, afterwards earl of Wiltshire and Ormonde, by Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Howard, duke of Norfolk. When she was but seven years of age, she was carried over to France with the king’s sister Mary, who was married to Lewis XII. And though, upon the B'rench king’s death, the queen dowager returned to England, yet Anne Bolen was so highly esteemed at the court of France, that Claude, the wife of Francis I. retained her in her service for some years; and after her death in 1524, the duchess of Alenzon, the king’s sister, kept her in her court during her stay in that kingdom. It is probable, that she returned from thence with her father, from his embassy in 1527; and was soon preferred to the place of maid of honour to the queen. She continued without the least imputation upon her character, till her unfortunate fall gave occasion to some malicious writers to defame her in all the parts of it. Upon her coming to the English court, the lord Percy, eldest son of the earl of Northumberland, being then a domestic of cardinal Wolsey, made his addressee to her, and proceeded so far, as to engage himself to marry her; and her consent shews, that she had then no aspirings to the crown. But the cardinal, upon some private reasons, using threats and other methods, with great difficulty put an end to that nobleman’s design. It was prohably about 1528, that the king began to shew some favour to her, which caused many to believe, that the whole process with regard to his divorce from queen Catherine was moved by the unseen springs of that secret passion. But it is not reasonable to imagine, that the engagement of the king’s affec tion to any other person gave the rise to that affair; for so sagacious a courtier as Wolsey would have infallibly discovered it, and not have projected a marriage with the French king’s sister, as he did not long before, if he had seen his master prepossessed. The supposition is much more reasonable, that his majesty, conceiving himself in a manner discharged of his former marriage, gave a full liberty to his affections, which began to settle upon Mrs. Bolen; who, in September 1532, was created marchioness of Pembroke, in order that she might be raised by degrees to the height for which she was designed; and on the 25th of January following was married to the king, the office being performed by; Rowland Lee, afterwards bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, with great privacy, though in the presence of her uncle the duke of Norfolk, her father, mother, and brother. On the 1st of June, 1533, she was crowned queen of England with such pomp and solemnity, as was answerable to the magnificence of his majesty’s temper; and every one admired her conduct, who had so long managed the spirit of a king so violent, as neither to surfeit him with too much fondness, nor to provoke with too much reserve. Her being so soon with child gave hopes of a numerous issue; and those, who loved the reformation, entertained the greatest hopes from her protection, as they knew she favoured them. On the 13th or 14th of September following, she brought forth a daughter, christened Elizabeth, afterwards the renowned queen of England, Cranmer, archbishop of Canterb ry, being her god-father. But the year 1536 proved fatal to her majesty; and her ruin was in all probability occasioned by those who began to be distinguished by the name of the Romish party. For the king now proceeding both at home and abroad in the point of reformation, they found that the interest which the queen had in him was the grand support of that cause. She had risen, not only in his esteem, but likewise in that of the nation in general; for in the last nine months of her life, she gave above fourteen thousand pounds to the poor, and was engaged in several noble and public designs. But these virtues could not secure her against the artifices of a bigoted party, which received an additional force from several other circumstances, that contributed to her destruction. Soon after queen Catharine’s death in Jan. 1535-6, she was brought to bed of a dead son, which was believed to have made a bad impression on the king’s mind; and as he had concluded from the death of his sons by his former queen, that the marriage was displeasing to God, so he might upon this misfortune begin to have the same opinion of his marriage with queen Anne. It was also considered by some courtiers, that now queen Catharine was dead, his majesty might marry another wife, and be fully reconciled with the pope and the emperor, and the issue by any other marriage would never be questioned; whereas, while queen Anne lived, the ground of the controversy still remained, and her marriage being accounted null from the beginning, would never be allowed by the court of Rome, or any of that party. With these reasons of state the king’s own passions too much concurred; for he now entertained a secret love for the lady Jane Seymour, who had all the charms of youth and beauty, and an humour tempered between the gravity of queen Catharine, and the gaiety of queen Anne. Her majesty therefore perceiving the alienation of the king’s heart, used all possible arts to recover that affection, the decay of which she was sensible of; but the success was quite contrary to what she designed. For he saw her no more with those eyes which she had formerly captivated; but gave way to jealousy, and ascribed her caresses to some other criminal passion, of which he began to suspect her. Her chearful temper indeed was not always limited within the bounds of exact decency and discretion; and her brother the lord Rochford’s wife, a woman of no virtue, being jealous of her husband and her, possessed the king with her own apprehensions. Henry Norris, groom of the stole, William Brereton, and sir Francis W'eston, who were of the king’s privy chamber, and Mark Smeton, a musician, were by the queen’s enemies thought too officious about her; and something was pretended to have been sworn by the lady Wingfield at her death, which determined the king; but the particulars are not known. It is reported likewise, that when the king held a tournament at Greenwich on the 1st of May, 1536, he was displeased at the queen for letting her handkerchief fall to one, who was supposed a favourite, and who wiped his face with it. Whatever the case was, the king returned suddenly from Greenwich to Whitehall, and immediately ordered her to be confined to her chamber, and her brother, with the four persons abovementioned, to be committed to the Tower, and herself to be sent after them the day following. On the river some privy counsellors came to examine her, but she made deep protestations of her innocence; and as she landed at the Tower, she fell down on her knees, and prayed Heaven so to assist her, as she was free from the crimes laid to her charge.“The confusion she was in soon raised a storm of vapours within her; sometimes she laughejj, and at other times wept excessively. She was also devout and light by turns; one while she stood upon her vindication, and at other times confessed some indiscretions, which upon recollection she denied. All about her took advantage from any word, that fell from her, and sent it immediately to court. The duke of Norfolk and others, who came to examine her, the better to make discoveries, told her, that Morris and Smeton had accused her; which, though false, had this effect on her, that it induced her to own some slight acts of indiscretion, which, though no ways essential, totally alienated the king from her. Yet whether even these small acknowledgments were real truths, or the effects of imagination and hysterical emotions, is very uncertain. On the 12th of May, Morris, Brereton, Weston, and Smeton, were tried in Westminster-hall. Smeton is said by Dr. Burnet to have confessed the fact; but the lord Herbert’s silence in this matter imports him to have been of a different opinion; to which may be added, that Cromwell’s letter to the king takes notice, that only some circumstances were confessed by Smeton. However, they were all four found guilty, and executed on the 17th of May. On the 15th of which month, the queen, and her brother the lord Rochford, were tried by their peers in the Tower, and condemned to die. Yet all this did not satisfy the enraged king, who resolved likewise to illegitimate his daughter Elizabeth; and, in order to that, to annul his marriage with the queen, upon pretence of a precontract between her and the lord Percy, now earl of Northumberland, who solemnly denied it; though the queen was prevailed upon to acknowledge, that there were some just and lawful impediments against her marriage with the king; and upon this a sentence of divorce was pronounced by the archbishop, and afterwards confirmed in the convocation and parliament. On the 19th of May, she was brought to a scaffold within the Tower, where she was prevailed upon, out of regard to her daughter, to make no reflections on the hardships she had sustained, nor to say any thing touching the grounds on which sentence passed against her; only she desired, that” all would judge the best." Her head being severed from her body, they were both put into an ordinary chest, and buried in the chapel in the Tower.

, an ingenious writer and antiquary, in the beginning of the seventeenth century, was a retainer to the great George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, under whom he probably enjoyed some office. He was a Roman catholic; and distinguished Himself by the following curious writings; l.“The Life of king Henry II.” intended to be inserted in Speed’s Chronicle; but the author being too partial to Thomas Becket, another life was written by Dr. Barcham. 2. “The Elements of Armories,” Lond. 1610, 4to. 3. A poem upon the translation of the body of Mary queen of Scots, from Peterburgh to Westminster-abbey, in 1612, entitled “Prosopopoeia Basilica,” a ms. in the Cottonian library. 4. An English translation of Lucius Florus’s Roman History. 5. “Nero Cæsar, or Monarchic depraved. An historicall worke, dedicated with leave to the duke of Buckingham, lord-admiral,” Lond. 1624, fol. This book, which contains the life of the emperor Nero, is printed in a neat and elegant manner, and illustrated with several curious medals. In recapitulating the affairs of Britain, from the time of Julius Cæsar to the revolt under Nero, he relates the history of Boadicea, and endeavours to prove that Stonehenge is a monument erected to her memory. How much he differs from the conjectures of the other antiquaries who have endeavoured to trace the history of Stonehenge, it would be unnecessary to specify. He wrote also, 6. “Vindiciae Britannicae, or London righted by rescues and recoveries of antiquities of Britain in general, and of London in particular, against unwarrantable prejudices, and historical antiquations amongst the learned; for the more honour, and perpetual just uses of the noble island and the city.” It consists of seven chapters. In the first, he treats “of London before the Britann rebells sackt and fired it in hatred and defiance of Nero.” In the second he shows, that “London was more great and famous in Nero’s days, than that it should be within the description, which Julius Cæsar makes of a barbarous Britann town in his days.” In the third, he proves, “that the credit of Julius Cæsar’s writings may subsist, and yet London retain the opinion of utmost antiquity.” In the fourth, “the same fundamental assertion is upholden with other, and with all sorts of arguments or reasons.” The fifth bears this title, “The natural face of the seat of London (exactly described in this section) most sufficiently proved, that it was most antiently inhabited, always presupposing reasonable men in Britain.” The sixth contains “a copious and serious disquisition about the old book of Brute, and of the authority thereof, especially so far forth as concerns the present cause of the honour and antiquity of London, fundamentally necessary in general to our national history.” The last chapter is entitled, <; Special, as well historical, as other illustrations, for the use of the coins in my Nero Cæsar, concerning London in and before that time.“This ms. (for it never was printed) was in the possession of Hugh Howard, esq and afterwards sold among Thomas Rawiinson’s to Endymion Porter. Mr. Bolton was also author of” Hypercritica, or a rule of judgement for writing or reading our histories. Delivered in four supercensorian addresses by occasion of a censorian epistle, prefixed by sir Henry Savile, knt. to his edition of some of our oldest historians in Latin, dedicated to the late queen Elizabeth. That according thereunto, a complete body of our affairs, a Corpus Rerum Anglicarum may at last, and from among our ourselves, come happily forth in either of the tongues. A felicity wanting to our nation, now when even the name thereof is as it were at an end.“It was published by Dr. Hall, at the end of” Triveti Annales,“Oxford, 1722, 8vo. Bolton likewise intended to compose a” General History of England, or an entire and complete body of English affairs;“and there is in the Cottonian collection, the outline of a book entitled” Agon Heroicus, or concerning Arms and Armories," a copy of which is in the Biog. Britannica. The time and place of his death are unknown.

, was born December 25, 1563, at Urbino, of one of the most ancient and noble families in the city of Ancona, and was sent into France at the age of fifteen, to be educated suitably to his birth and the customs of that time. Bonarelli was but nineteen when he was offered a philosophical professorship of the Sorbonne, in the college of Calvi; but, his father having sent for him home, he was satisfied with having merited that honour, and declined accepting it. He attached himself, for some time, to cardinal Frederick Borromeo (nephew of St. Charles Borromeo) who had a regard for men of letters, and who founded the famous Ambrosian library at Milan. He went afterwards to Modena, to which place his father had removed. After his death, the duke Alphonso, knowing the merit of Bonarelli, employed him in several important embassies, and the success of these negociations proved how well they had been carried on. Bonarelli went to Rome with the hope of recovering the marquisate of Orciano, of which his father had been deprived; but an attack of the gout obliged him to stop at Fano, where he died January 8, 1608, aged forty-five, with the character of an able politician, a distinguished bel esprit, and a good philosopher for the age he lived in. The pastoral poem for which he is best known is entitled “Filli di Sciro,” and was printed first at Ferrara, 1607, 4to, with plates; there have been many editions since, the best of which are that of the Elzevirs, 1678, 4to, those of London, 1725, or 1728, and of Glasgow, 1763, 8vo; but with all its merit it is full of unnatural characters and distorted conceits. His shepherds are courtiers, and his shepherdesses are frequently prudes, whose conversation savours of the toilette. The author was censured for having made Celia, who has so great a share in the piece, nothing more than an episodical personage, but still more for giving her an equally ardent love for two shepherds at once. He attempted to excuse this defect in a tract written on purpose; “Discorsi in difesa del doppio amore della sua Celia,” but this was rather ingenious than conclusive. We have likewise some academical discourses of his.

, an eminent physician and medical writer, was born at Geneva, March 5, 1620, and following the steps of his father and grandfather, early attached himself to the practice of physic. After visiting several foreign academies, he was admitted doctor in medicine at Bologna, in 1643, and was soon after made physician to the duke de Longueville. Though he soon attained to high credit in his profession, and had a large share of practice, he dedicated a considerable portion of his time to reading, and to dissecting such subjects as the hospital afforded him, with a view of discovering the seats of diseases, minuting every deviation he observed from the natural structure of the viscera, or other parts of the body, and thus opening a new road for improving the science he cultivated. He also appears to have made extracts of every thing he deemed worthy of notice, from the various works he read. His hearing from some accident becoming defective, he withdrew from practice, and employed the last ten or twelve years of his life in arranging the materials he had collected. The first fruit of his labour, which he gave to the public in 1668, was “Pharos Medicoru in,” 2 vols. 12mo. This was printed again, much improved and enlarged, in 1679, in 4to, under the title of “Labyrinthi Medici, extricati,” &c. compiled principally from Bellonius and Septalius. In 1675, “Prodromus Anatomise practicas, sive de abditis morborum causis,” fol.; the precursor of his principal work, “Sepulchretum, seu Anatome practica, ex cadaveribus morbo denatis proponens historias et observationes,” &c. Genev. 1679, 2 vols. fol. which far exceeded the expectation raised by the Prodromus. It was enlarged by nearly a third part, and republished by Manget, 1700, 2 vols. fol. and was afterwards taken by Morgagni, as the basis of his work, “De sedibus et causis Morborum,” by which the “Sepulchretum” is in a great measure superseded. The author begins with observations on the appearances of the brain and other parts of the head; then of the contents of the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis; and lastly, of the extremities; forming an immense body of dissections, which he has illustrated by many pertinent and ingenious observations. “Cours de medicine, et de la chirurgie,” 1679, 2 vols. 4to. An epitome of the art of surgery, with some sections relating to the practice of medicine selected from the most accredited authors of the age. “Medicina septentrionalis, collectitia,” 1684, 2 vols. fol. shewing how largely the practitioners of the northern parts of Europe, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Holland, and England, have contributed to the improvement of anatomy, surgery, and medicine, by extracts and accounts of the works of the principal writers of those countries. *“Mercurius compilatitius, seu index medico-practicus,” 1682, fol. A most useful work, shewing under the name of every disease or affection where cases or observations may be found, and what authors have written upon them. Such an index continued to the present time, though very voluminous, would be highly useful. Bonet also published “Epitome operum Sennerti,” 1685, fol. “J. D. Turqueti de Mayerne, de Arthritide,” 1671, 12mo, and “Rohaulti tractatus physicus, e Gallico in Latinam versus,” 1675, 8vo. He died of a dropsy, March 3, 1689.

, a man celebrated for piety and virtue, was born at Genoa, Nov. 14, 1653, being the son of Samuel Bonnell, merchant, who resided some time at Genoa, and of Rebecca, daughter of Thomas Sayer, near Norwich, esq. His grandfather was Daniel Bonnell of London, merchant, and his great-grandfather, Thomas Bonnell, a gentleman of good family near Ipres in Flanders, who, to avoid the duke of Alva’s persecution, removed with his family into England, and settled at Norwich, of which, before his death, he was chosen mayor. Samuel Bonnell, father of James Bonnell, being bred up under that eminent merchant, sir William Courteen, knt. applied himself to the Italian trade, at Leghorn and Genoa, with such success, that about 1649, he was worth at least 10,000l. and his credit much greater than his fortune. But both were soon impaired by several accidents, by great losses at sea, and particularly by his zeal for kingCharles II. during his exile, and the rest of the royal family, whom he privately supplied with large sums of money. About 1655, he removed with his family into England; and, at the restoration, on account of the services he had done the royal family, and as a compensation for the large sums he had advanced them (which, it seems, were never repaid otherwise) there was granted him a patent to be accomptant-general of the revenue of Ireland, a place worth about 800l. a year, his son’s life being included in the patent with his own. But this he was not long possessed of, for he died in 1664, leaving his son and one daughter.

, a portrait-painter, was born at Dort, in 1669, and after having been for some time a disciple of Arnold Verbuis, placed himself under Godfrey Schalcken, who recommended to him, after having received his instructions for six years, to study nature. By following this advice, Boonen obtained the reputation of a great master at the age of twenty-five years. His style of colouring was extremely good; the attitudes of his figures were elegantly disposed; his touch neat. The whole possessed such harmony, and his portraits maintained such a striking likeness, that he was ranked among the ablest artists of his time; he had a number of admirers, and a greater demand for works than he was able to execute. He had the honour of painting the portraits of the czar of Muscovy, of Frederick I. king of Prussia, of the victorious duke of Marlborough, as well as of many of the princes of Germany, and most of the noblemen who attended the czar. His health was impaired by his excessive application, and he died rich in 1729.

, earl of Warrington, and baron Delamer of Dunham Massey, an upright senator and distinguished patriot, was born on the 13th of January, 1651. He was the second son of the preceding George lord Delamer, by the lady Elizabeth Grey. In the life-time of his father, he was custos rotulorum for the county palatine of Chester, and also knight of the shire for that county, in several parliaments during the reign of king Charles ths Second. He very early rendered himself conspicuous by his zeal for the protestant religion, and the liberties of his country. When the bill for excluding the duke of York from the throne was brought into parliament, Mr. Booth was very active in the promotion of it, and also made a spirited speech in support of the necessity of frequent parliaments, and against governing by favourites; and he opposed, with a becoming spirit, the unjust and arbitrary power assumed by the privy council, of imprisoning men contrary to law.

, a monster of ambition and cruelty, was a natural son of pope Alexander VI. What year he was born in, we do not find: but he was at his studies in the university of Pisa, when Alexander was elected pope, in August 1492. Upon the news of his father’s advancement, he banished all thoughts of his former private condition of life; and, full of ambition, as if himself was to be made emperor of the world, he hastened directly to Rome, where Alexander received him with formality and coldness, but whether it was real or but affected, is not easy to determine. Cscsar, however, took it to be real; and, greatly disgusted as well as disappointed, went immediately and complained to his mother Vanozza, who bid him not be cast down; and told him, that she knew the pope’s mind better than any body, and for what reasons his holiness had given him that reception. In the mean time the courtflatterers solicited the pope to make Cæsar a cardinal, which he absolutely refused; but, that he might not seem altogether forgetful of him, he created him archbishop of Valenza, a benefice which his holiness had enjoyed in his younger days. This preferment was by no means acceptable to Cæsar, yet he affected to be content, since the pope, he found, Was determined to confer the best of his secular dignities on his eldest son Francis, who at that time was made duke of Gandia by Fertlinand king of Castile and Arragon.

Alexander VI. had five children by his mistress Vanozza; Francis and Cæsar, already mentioned, two other sons, and a daughter named Lucretia. Francis was a gentleman of good disposition and probity, and in every respect opposite to his brother Cæsar; but Cæsar seems to have possessed abilities superior to those of Francis: which made a certain historian say, “that Cæsar was great among the wicked, and Francis good among the great.” Cæsar however was the mother’s favourite, as having a temper and principles more conformable to hers: for which reason, at the time when Alexander was undetermined on which of these brothers he should bestow the cardinal’s cap, Vanozza declared herself in favour of Cæsar, who was accordingly made a cardinal in the second year of Alexander’s pontificate. From this time he acted in concert with his father, and was an useful instrument in executing all the schemes of that wicked pope, as he had no scruples of honour or humanity, nor was there any thing too atrocious for him to perpetrate, to promote his insatiable ambition. This is said to have even incited him to the murder of his elder brother Francis, duke of Gandia. All the secular dignities, which then were much more coveted than the ecclesiastical, were heaped upon Francis, which obstructed Cæsar’s projects so entirely, that he was resolved at all adventures to remove him. TJjfle story is, that in 1497, hiring assassins, he caused him to be murdered, and thrown into the Tiber; where his body was found some days after, full of wounds and extremely mangled. The pope was afflicted to the last degree; for though he made use of Cæsar as the abler, he loved Francis as the better man. He caused therefore strict inquiry to be made after the murderers; upon which Vanozza, who for that and other reasons was justly suspected to be privy to the affair, went privately to the pope, and used all the arguments she could, to dissuade him from searching any further. Some say, that she went so far as to assure his holiness, that if he did not desist, the same person who took away his son’s life would not spare his own. The whole of this story, however, appears doubtful; nor, indeed, is there any positive proof that Borgia was even privy to his brother’s death. Gordon, only, has asserted it with accompanying proofs, but the latter -appear to be historic fictions. It cannot be necessary to add to Cesar’s crimes. He now, however, succeeded to his brother’s fortunes and honours, began to be tired of ecclesiastical matters, and grew quite sick of the cardinalate, and therefore determined to throw it off as soon as possible, that he might have the greater scope for practising the excesses, to which his natural ambition and cruelty prompted him: for cruel as well as ambitious he was in the highest degree. Numbers he caused to be taken off by poison or the sword; and it is recorded, that assassins were constantly kept in pay by him at Rome, for the sake of removing all who were either obnoxious or inconvenient to him. Getting rid of the cardinalate, he was soon after made duke of Valentinois by Lewis XII. of France: with whom he entered into a league for the conquest of the Milanese. From this time he experienced various turns of fortune, being sometimes prosperous, sometimes unfortunate. He very narrowly escaped dying of poison in 1503; for, having con-, certed with the pope a design of poisoning nine newly created cardinals at once (or, as some say, only one cardinal), in order to possess their effects, the poisoned wine destined for the purpose was by mistake brought to themselves and drank. The pope died of it; but Cæsar, by the vigour of his youth, and the force of antidotes, after many struggles, recovered. He only recovered, however, to outlive his fortune and grandeur, to see himself depressed, and his enemies exalted; for he was soon after divested of all his acquisitions, and sent a prisoner to Spain, in order to free Italy from an incendiary, and the Italian princes from those dangers which his turbulent and restless spirit made them fear, even though he was unarmed. From Spain he escaped to Navarre to king John his brother-in-law, where he met with a very friendly reception. From hence he designed to go into France; and there, with the assistance of Lewis, to try if he could once more re-establish his fortune, but Lewis refused to receive him, not only because he and Spain had concluded a truce, but because they were also at enmity with the king of Navarre. The French king also, in order to gratify Spain, had confiscated Cæsar’s duchy of Valentinois, and taken away the yearly pension which he had from France. So that this fallen tyrant, in a poor and abandoned condition, without revenue or territory, was forced to be dependent upon his brother-in-law, who was then at war with his subjects. Borgia served as a volunteer in that war; and, while the armies were engaged in battle, and fighting under the walls of Viana, was wounded, and died in consequence, March 12, 1507. On his death-bed he is said to have exclaimed, “I had provided in the course of my life for every thing but death; and now, alas! I am to die, though completely unprepared for it.” Cæsar Borgia took these words for his device, “Aut Cæsar aut nihil;” which gave occasion to the following epigrams:

, a learned English antiquary, was born at Pendeen, in the parish of St. Just, Cornwall, February 2, 1695-6. The family of that name, from which he was descended, had been settled at the place from whence they derived it (Borlase), from the time of king William Rufus. Our author was the second son of John Borlase, esq. of Pendeen, in the parish before mentioned, by Lydia, the youngest daughter of Christopher Harris, esq. of Hayne in the county of Devon; and was put early to school at Penzance, from which he was removed, in. 1709, to the care of the rev. Mr. Bedford, then a learned school-master at Plymouth. Having completed his grammatical education, he was entered of Exeter college, Oxford, in March 1712-13; where, on the 1st of June 1719, he took the degree of master of arts. In the same year, Mr. Borlase was admitted to deacon’s orders, and ordained priest in 1720. On the 22d of. April, 1722, he was instituted, by Dr. Weston, bishop of Exeter, to the rectory of Ludgvan in Cornwall, to which he had been presented by Charles Duke of Bolton . On the 28th of July, 1724, he was married in the church of Illuggan, by his elder brother, Dr. Borlase of Castlehorneck, to Anne, eldest surviving daughter and coheir of William Smith, M. A. rector of the parishes of Camborn and Illuggan. In 1732, the lord chancellor King, by the recommendation of sir William Morice, bart. presented Mr. Borlase to the vicarage of St. Just, his native parish, and where his father had a considerable property. This vicarage and the rectory of Ludgvan were the only preferments he ever received.

Borri staid some time in the city of Strasburgh, to which he had fled; and where he found some assistance and support, as well because he was persecuted by the inquisition, as because he was reputed a great chemist. But this was not a theatre large enough for Borri: he went therefore to Amsterdam, where he appeared in a stately and splendid equipage, and took upon him the title of Excellency: people flocked to him, as to the physician who could cure all diseases; and proposals were concerted for marrying him to great fortunes, &c. But his reputation began to sink, as his impostures became better understood, and he fled in the night from Amsterdam, with a great many jewels and sums of money, which he had pilfered. He then went to Hamburgh, where queen Christina was, and put himself under her protection: persuading her to venture a great sum of money, in order to find out the philosopher’s stone. Afterwards he went to Copenhagen, and inspired his Danish majesty to search for the same secret; by which means he acquired that prince’s favour so far, as to become very odious to all the great persons of the kingdom. Immediately after the death of the king, whom he had cheated out of large sums of money, he left Denmark for fear of being imprisoned, and resolved to go into Turkey. Being come to the frontiers at a time when the conspiracy of Nadasti, Serini, and Frangipani, was discovered, he was secured, and his name sent to his Imperial majesty, to see if he was one of the conspirators. The pope’s nuncio, who happened to be present, as soon as he heard Borri mentioned, demanded, in the pope’s name, that the prisoner should be delivered to him. The emperor consented to it, and ordered that Borri should be sent to Vienna; and afterwards, having first obtained from the pope a promise that he should not be put to death, he sent him to Rome; where he was tried, and condemned to perpetual confinement in the prison of the inquisition. He made abjuration of his errors in the month of October, 1672. Some years after he obtained leave to attend the duke d‘Estree, whom all the physicians had given over; and the unexpected cure he wrought upon him occasioned it to be said, that an arch-heretic had done a great miracle in Rome. It is said also, that the queen of Sweden sent for him sometimes in a coach; but that, after the death of that princess, he went no more abroad, and that none could speak with him without special leave from the pope. The Utrecht gazette, as Mr. Bayle relates, of the 9th of September, 1695, informed the public, that Borri was lately dead in the castle of St. Arigelo, being 79 years of age. It seems that the duke d’ Estre*e, as a recompence for recovering him, had procured Borri’s prisou to be changed, from that of the inquisition to the castle of St. Angelo.

, an engraver, was a native of France, and being invited to England by Nicholas Dorigny, assisted him for some time in engraving the cartoons of Raphael; and afterwards separating from Dorigny, he undertook to engrave the cartoons for the printsellers. He also engraved the duke of Marlborough’s battles, for which he received 80l. per plate; and, assisted first by Du Guernier, and afterwards by Beauvais and Baron, he completed them within two years, in 1717. He then became a printseller, and published, by subscription, the translation of Picart’s Religious Ceremonies. As an engraver, he possessed no great merit: his style is coarse and heavy, and the drawing of the naked parts of the figure in his plates is very defective. The “Continence of Scipio,” from a picture of Nicholas Poussin, in the Houghton collection, is one of his plates. He flourished in 1714.

, a Spanish poet, of a noble family, was born at Barcelona, about the end of the fifteenth century, and is supposed to have died about 1543. He was bred to arms, and, having served with distinction, was afterwards a great traveller. From the few accounts we have of him, as well as from what appears in his works, he seems to have been a very good classical scholar; and he is said to have been highly successful in the education of Ferdinand, the great duke of Alba, whose singular qualities were probably the fruit of our poet’s attention to him. He married Donna Anna Giron di Rebolledo, an amiable woman, of a noble family, by whom he had a very numerous offspring. Garcilaso was his coadjutor in his poetical labours, and their works were published together, under the title “Obras de Boscan y Garcilaso,” Medina, 1544, 4to, and at Venice, 1553, 12mo. The principal debt which Spanish poetry owes to Boscan, is the introduction of the hendecasyllable verse, to which it owes its true grace and elevation. His works are divided into three books, the first of which contains his poetry in the redondiglia metre, and the other two his hendecasyllables. In these he seems to have made the Italian poets his models, imitating Petrarch in his sonnets and canzoni; Dante and Petrarch in his terzine; Politian, Ariosto, and Bembo, in his ottave rime; and Bernardo Tasso, the father of Torquato, in his versi sciolti. It is said he also translated a play of Euripides, which is lost; but he has left us a prose translation, no less admirable than his poetry, of the famous II Cortegiano, or the Courtier of Castiglione. M. Conti, in his “Collecion de Poesias, &c.” or collection of Spanish poems translated into Italian verse, has given as specimens of Boscan, two canzoni, six sonnets, and a familiar epistle to Don Hurtado de Mendoza.

, an artist, was born at Antwerp, in 1675, and was placed under the care of one Thomas, whose subjects were apartments with figures, in the manner of Teniers; and he decorated the insides of those apartments with bustos, vases, pictures, and other curiosities, which sort of subjects were at that time in great request. Bosch studied the same manner of painting, and with great success; but the connoisseurs and his friends advised him to employ his pencil on subjects of a more elegant and elevated kind; because it seemed a little absurd, to see apartments designed with so much magnificence, and so richly ornamented, occupied by persons so mean and vulgar in their appearance as the figures generally represented. Bosch profited by the advice, and soon acquired a different style of design and elegance in his composition, which afforded more pleasure to the eye, and more value to his productions. He also painted portraits with a great deal of reputation, particularly a portrait of the duke of Marlborough on horseback, which gained him all the applause that he could possibly desire. The horse was painted by Van Bloemen. His paintings rose to a most extravagant price, and were at that time more dear than those of Teniers or Ostade. Some of his works have true merit, being very good in the composition and design, and also in respect of the colouring; and the forms of his figures were more elegant than most of his contemporaries. His subjects were judiciously chosen, and for the most part they were sculptors or painters, surrounded with pictures or bustos of marble, brass, or plaster, to which he gave abundance of variety, and a great degree of truth. His pencil is light, his touch spirited, and his figures are dressed in the mode of the time. However, notwithstanding he possessed so much merit, as is generally and justly ascribed to him, his works cannot enter into competition with those of Ostade or Teniers; nor is he now esteemed as he formerly had been, even by hi own countrymen. He died of excess, in 1715.

, or William Worcester, an ancient English writer, acquainted with history, antiquities, heraldry, physic, and astronomy, was born at Bristol about 1415; his father’s name was Worcester, and his mother’s Botoner, hence he often names himself William Wyrcester, alias Botoner; and hence the error in Pits, and others, of making two distinct persons of the two names. He studied at Hart-hall, Oxford, 1434. He had been exercised in wars above 44 years; and had so faithfully served sir John Fastolff that he left him one of his executors. He wrote many books, the first of which, that was printed, was his translation from the French, of “Cicero de Senectute,” which he addressed to William Wainfleet, bishop of Winchester. He tells us that he presented it to the bishop at Asher [JSsher] August 10, 1475, but received no reward (nullum regardum recepide episcopo). He wrote also “Antiquities of England;” “Abbreviations of the Learned;” “Medicinal collections;” a book of Astrology; another of Astronomy; besides a particular treatise, gratefully preserving the life and deeds of his master, under the title of “Acta Domini Johannis Fastolff;” “the Acts of John duke of Bedford;” “Polyandrium Oxoniensium, or memoirs of Oxford Students;” and other lesser pieces; of which see Tanner Bibl. Brit. p. 115. His “Annals of England” were printed by Hearne at the end of his “Liber Niger Scaccarii,” p. 424 451. His “Itinerary” was published from a ms. not improbably the original, in the library at Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, by Mr. James Nasmith, fellow of the said college, Cantab. 1778, 8vo. Fuller cites a book of Botoner’s, containing all the ancient gentry of the county of Norfolk, long preserved in the county, but not now extant. He also wrote something in poetry, as that htimoroirs ballad in Nasmith’s edition of his Itinerary, called " Comedia a<i Monasterium Hulme/' &c. and a long chronographical epitaph in verse, on the lady Milicent Fastoif; in the possession of Richard Poley, esq. late prothonotary of the common pleas. He is supposed to have died about 1490. The son of this Worcester, among other things, also made a collection of several authentic instruments relating to the English wars and government in France; which he dedicated to king Edward IV. containing a catalogue of the princes, dukes, earls, barons, bannerets, knights, and other persons of eminence, who were of the regent’s court. A copy of this collection, in quarto, was some time in the custody of the late Brian Fairfax, esq. one of the commissioners of the customs.

, a very learned prelate of the court of Rome, was born at Florence, Jan. 15, 1689, and became early distinguished for the purity of his style, and his intimate knowledge of the Tuscan dialect. He studied rhetoric and Latin uiuier Antonio-Maria Biscioni, who was afterwards dictator of the Mediceo-Lorenzian library. (See Biscioni). He then studied philosophy, divinity, mathematics, and Greek, the latter under the learned Salvini. His proficiency in these branches of knowledge soon made him noticed, and he was appointed by the academy della Crusca, to superintend the new edition of their dictionary, in which labour he was assisted by Andrea Alamaorni and Rosso Martini. He had afterwards the direction of the printing-ofBce belonging to the Grand Duke, from which several of his works issued. Clement XII. made him librarian of the Vatican, in which he arranged a cabinet of medals, which that pope wished to be considered as a part of the library. On his death, Bottari entered the conclave Feb. 6, 1740, with the cardinal Neri Corsini. Next year was published by P. Marmoreus, the edition of Virgil^ Rome, 1741, fol. a fac-simile of the famous Codex Vaticanus, to which Bottari prefixed a learned preface. He was the first who had the curiosity to examine this valuable manuscript, which belonged formerly to Pontanus, afterwards to Bembus, and lastly to Fulvius Ursinus, who deposited it in the Vatican, when he became librarian there. Benedict XIV. being elected pope, who had long been the friend of Bottari, he conferred on him the canonry of St. Maria-Transteverini, and that he might reside in his palace, appointed him his private almoner. He was also a member of all the principal academies of Italy; and Fontanini, Apostolo Zeno, Gori, and others, have written his eloges, having all profited, in the publication of their works, by his valuable communications. His long and studious life terminated June 3, 1775, in his eighty-sixth year. Among his works, of which Mazzuchelli has given a long list, are, 1. Vita di Francesco Sacchetti,“Vicenza (Naples) 1725, with Sacchetti’s” Novelle,“8vo. 2.” L'Ercolano, dialogodi Benedetto Varchi,“Florence, 1730, 4to. 3.” Lezione tre sopra il tremuoto,“Rome, 1733 and 1748, 4to. 4.” Sculture, e Pitture sacre estratte dai cimeteri di Roma, &c.“Rome, 1737, 1747, 1753, 3 vols. fol. 5.” Vocabularia della Crusca,“Florence, 1738, 6 vols. 6. The Virgil already noticed. 7.” De Museo Capitolino,“1750, 3 vols fol. 8.” Raccolta di lettere sulla Pittura, Sculrura, ed Architettura,“Rome, 1754, 1757, and 1759, 3 vols. 4to; and again, an enlarged edition at Naples, 1772. 9.” Dialog hi sopra tre arti del Disegno," Lucca, 1754, 4to. He also contributed to a new edition oi Vasari and Passori’s Lives of the Painters.

, peer and maréchal, distinguished in the French history, was born Jan. 10, 1644. His dispositions for the art of war having displayed themselves at a very early period, he was chosen in 1669 to be colonel of a regiment of dragoons, at the head of which he demonstrated his bravery under the marechal de Crequi, and under Turenne. He received a dangerous wound at the battle of Voerden; and another in the affair of Entsheim, to the capture whereof he contributed much, by the confession of Turenne. After several signal exploits, he gained immortal renown by the defence of Lille in 1708. The siege lasted near four months. Bouflers said to his officers, “Gentlemen, I trust to you; but I answer for myself.” Prince Eugene carried on the siege with so much vigour that it was obliged to submit. “I am very vain,” said he to Bouflers, “on having taken Lille; but I had rather still have the glory of having defended it like you.” The king rewarded him for this service as if he had gained a battle. He was created a peer of France; had the honours of first gentleman to the king, and the reversion of the government of Flanders for his eldest son. When he entered the parliament for his first reception in it, turning to a crowd of officers who had defended Lille with him, he said, “It is to you that I am indebted for all the favours that are heaped upon me, and on you I reflect them I have nothing to glory in but the honour of having been at the head of so many brave men.” During the siege, one of his party having proved tojiim that he could easily kill prince Eugene, “Your fortune is made,” returned Bouflers, “if you can take him prisoner: but you shall be punished with the utmost severity if you make an attempt on his life; and if I but suspected that you had any such intention, I would have you shut up for the rest of your life.” This generosity, which formed a part of his character, induced him to ask permission to serve under the orders of marechal de Villars, though he was his senior. At the battle of Malplaquet in 1709, he made the retreat in such good order, that he left behind him neither cannon nor prisoners. The marquis de Bouflers united the virtues of a good citizen with the activity of a general; serving his prince as the ancient Romans served their republic; accounting his life as nothing when the safety of his country was in question. The king having ordered him to go and succour Lille, and having left to himself the choice of his lieutenants; he set out that instant, without settling his affairs, or taking leave of his family, and chose for his officers a man that had been disgraced, and a prisoner of the Bastille. His magnificence was equal to his love for his country and his sovereign. When Louis XIV. formed the camp of Compiegne, to serve as a lesson to his grandson the duke of Burgundy, and as a spectacle to the court, Bouflers lived there in such a splendid style, that the king said to Livri, his maitre-d'hotel, “The duke of Burgundy must not keep a table; we cannot outdo the marechal; the duke of Burgundy shall dine with him when he goes to the camp.” This patriot general died at Fontainbleau, Aug. 22, 1711, aged 68. “In him (writes madame de Maintenon) the heart died last.” We read in the continuation of the history of England by Rapin, an anecdote too honourable to the memory of this great man to be passed over here in silence. King William having taken Namur, in 169, made Bouflers prisoner, in violation of the articles that had been agreed on. Surprised at so unjust a proceeding, the marechal, fresh from the glorious defence he had made, demanded the reason of this perfidious treatment. He was answered that it was by way of reprisals for the garrison of Dixmude and of Deinse, which the French had detained contrary to capitulation. “If that be the case (said Bouflers), then my garrison ought to be arrested, and not I.” “Sir (he was answered), you are valued at more than ten thousand men.”

, born at Paris Dec. 1, 1722^ was educated with great care. His talents thus improved procured him celebrity at an early period, and obtained for him the places most flattering to literarymen at Paris. He became pensionary and secretary to the royal academy of inscriptions, member of the French academy, and some other foreign societies, censor-royal, keeper of the hall of antiquities at the Louvre, and one of the secretaries in ordinary to the duke of Orleans. His extraordinary industry impaired his health, and brought on premature old age, of which he died at the chateau de Loches, June 22, 1763, at the age of forty-one. His talents and personal virtues acquired him zealous patrons and affectionate friends. In his writings, as in his man­'ners, all was laudable, and yet nothing shewed the desire of being praised. With the talents that contribute to fame, he principally aspired at the honour of being useful. Nevertheless, literary ambition, which is not the weakest of ambitions, found him not insensible. Accordingly he was desirous of being admitted of the French academy; he made vigorous application to Duclos, at that time secretary; mentioning, among other things, that he was afflicted with a disorder that was sapping his constitution, and that consequently his place would soon be vacant again; the secretaiy, an honest man, but of a hard and rough character, replied, with more wit than feeling, that it was not the business of the French academy to administer extreme unction. He wrote, 1. A translation of the AntiLucretius of the cardinal de Polignac, 2 vols. 8vo, or one vol. 12mo, preceded by a very sensible preliminary discourse. 2. Parallel between the expedition of Kouli Khan in the Indies, and that of Alexander, a work of great learning, abounding in ideas, flights of imagination and eloquence; but sometimes rather bombastic. He also wrote several papers of very superior merit in the Memoirs of the French Academy. In his twenty-fifth year he wrote a tragedy on the death of Philip, father of Alexander, which is said to evince considerable talents for poetry; and in the Magazin Encyclopedique was lately published a metrical translation by him of the Hymn of Cleanthes, which appears to have suggested to Pope his Universal Prayer.

, a celebrated French critic, was born at Paris in 1628; and has by some been considered as a proper person to succeed Malherbe, who died about that time. He entered into the society of Jesuits at sixteen, and was appointed to read lectures upon polite literature in the college of Clermont at Paris, where he had studied; but he was so incessantly attacked with the head-ach, that he could not pursue the destined task. He afterwards undertook the education of two sons of the duke of Longueville, which he discharged to the entire satisfaction of the duke, who had such a regard for him, that he would needs die in his arms; and the “Account of the pious and Christian death” of this great personage was the first work which Bouhours gave the public. He was sent to Dunkirk to the popish refugees from England; and, in, the midst of his missionary occupations, found time to compose and publish many works of reputation. Among these were “Entretiens d‘Ariste & d’Eugene,” a work of a critical nature, which was printed no less than five times at Paris, twice at Grenoble, at Lyons, at Brussels, at Amsterdam, at Leyden, &c. and embroiled him with a great number of critics, and with Menage in particular; who, however, lived in friendship with our author before and after. There is a passage in this work which gave great oifence in Germany, where he makes it a question, “Whether it be possible that a German could be a wit” The fame of it, however, and the pleasure he took in reading it, recommended Bouhours so effectually to the celebrated minister Colbert, that he trusted him with the education of his son, the marquis of Segnelai. The Remarks and Doubts upon the French language has been reckoned one of the most considerable of our author’s works; and may be read with great advantage by those who would perfect themselves in that tongue. Menage, in his Observations upon the French language, has given his approbation of jt in the following passage: “The book of Doubts,” says he, “is written with great elegance, and contains many fine observations. And, as Aristotle has said, that reasonable doubt is the beginning of all real knowledge; so we may say also, that the man who doubts so reasonably as the author of this book, is himself very capable of deciding. For this reason perhaps it is, that, forgetting the tide of his work, he decides oftener than at first he proposed.” Bouhours was the author of another work, “The art of pleasing in conversation,” of which M. de la Grose, who wrote the eleventh volume of the Bibliotheque Universelle, has given an account, which he begins with this elogium upon the author “A very little skill,” says he, “in style and manner, will enable a reader to discover the author of this work. He will see at once the nice, the ingenious, and delicate turn, the elegance and politeness of father Bouhours. Add to this, the manner of writing in dialogue, the custom of quoting himself, the collecting strokes of wit, the little agreeable relations interspersed, and a certain mixture of gallantry and morality which is altogether peculiar to this Jesuit. This work is inferior to nothing we have seen of father Bouhours. He treats in twenty dialogues, with an air of gaiety, of every thing which can find a way into conversation; and, though he avoids being systematical, yet he gives his reader to understand, that there is no subject whatever, either of divinity, philosophy, law, or physic, &c. but may be introduced into conversation, provided it be done with ease, politeness, and in a manner free from pedantry and affectation.” He died at Paris, in the college of Clermont, upon the 27th of May 1702; after a life spent, says Moreri, under such constant and violent fits of the head-ach, that he had but few intervals of perfect ease. The following is a list of his works with their dates: 1. “Les Entretiens d‘Ariste et d’Eugene,” 1671, 12ro. 2. “Remarques et Doutes sur la langue Franchise,” 3 vols. 12mo. 3. “La Manier de bien penser sur les ouvrages d' esprit,” Paris, 1692, 12mo. 4. “Pensees ingenieuses des anciens et des modernes,” Paris, 1691, 12mo. In this work he mentions Boileau, whom he had omitted in the preceding; but when he expected Boileau would acknowledge the favour, he coolly replied, “You have, it is true, introduced me in your new work, but in very bad company,” alluding to the frequent mention of some Italian and French versifiers whom Boileau despised. 5. “Pensees ingenieuses des Peres de l'Eglise,” Paris, 1700. This he is said to have written as an answer to the objection that he employed “too much of his time Oh profane literature. 6.” Histoire du grandmaitre d'Aubusson,“1676, 4to, 1679, and lately in 1780. 7. The lives of St. Ignatius, Paris, 1756, 12mo, and of St. Francis Xavier, 1682, 4to, or 2 vols. 12mo. Both these are written with rather more judgment than the same lives by Ribadeneira, but are yet replete with the miraculous and the fabulous. The life of Xavier was translated by Dryden, and published at London in 1688, with a dedication to king James II. 's queen. Dryden, says Mr. Malone, doubtless undertook this task, in consequence of the queen, when she solicited a son, having recommended herself to Xavier as her patron saint. 8.” Le Nouveau Testament," translated into French from the Vulgate, 2 vols. 1697 1703, 12mo.

, lord Berners, was born about 1467, son and heir of sir Humphrey Bourchier by Elizabeth, daughter and heir of sir Frederick Tilney (widow of sir Thomas Howard), which Humphrey was killed at Barnet-field, on Edward IVth’s part, and buried in Westminster abbey, during the life of his father, who was sir John Bourchier, K. G. fourth son of William earl of Ewe, and baron Berners, by marriage with Margery, daughter and heir of Richard lord Berners. Lord Bourchier succeeded his grandfather, May 16, 1474, being then only seven years old. He was educated in Baliol college, Oxford, and afterwards travelled abroad, and returned a master of seven languages, and a complete gentleman. In 1405 he obtained the notice of Henry VII. by his valour in quelling the fury of the rebels in Cornwall and Devonshire, under the conduct of Michael Joseph, a blacksmith. In 1513 he was captain of the pioneers at the siege of Therouenne. In 1514, being made chancellor of the king’s exchequer for life, he attended the lady Mary, the king’s sister, into France, to her marriage with king Lewis XII. and in 1527 obtained i grant from the king of several manors. Afterwards he vas made lieutenant of Calais and the marches adjoining to France, and spending most of his time there, wrot< several learned works in that situation. There he made his will, March 3, 1532, bequeathing his body to be bur'ud in the chancel of the parish church of our lady, within the town of Calais, and appointing that an honest priest shouldsing mass there for his soul, by the space of three years, ie died March 16th following, leaving by Katherine his wie, daughter of John duke of Norfolk, Joane his daughter nd heir, married to Edmund Knyvet of Ashwelthorpe inNorfolk, esq.

Bourchier, we are told, was strangely imposed upon by the specious pretences of Richard duke of Gloucester, when he undertook to persuade the queen to deliver up the duke of York, her son, into the protector’s hands. He presided over the church thirty-two years, in the most troublesome times of the English government, those of Henry VI. and Edward IV. He also performed the marriage ceremony between Henry VII. and the daughter of Edward IV.; and had the happiness to be contemporary with many prelates of distinction in English history. He was certainly a man of learning; though nothing written by him has come down to us, if we except a few Sy nodical decrees. Dart tells us, he founded a chantry, which was afterwards surrendered to king Henry VIII. Archbishop Bourchier died at his palace of Knowle, on Thursday the thirtieth of March 1486, and was buried on the north side of the choir of his cathedral, by the high altar, in a tomb of marble, on which is an inscription merely recording the event.

, better known by the name of Brantôme, of which he was abbot, added to that title those of lord and baron of Richemont, chevalier, gentleman of the chamber to the kings Charles IX. and Henry III. and chamberlain to the duke of Alençon. He had the design of being created a knight of Maltha in a voyage he made to that isle during the time of the siege in 1565. He returned to France, where he was fed with vain expectations; but he received no other reward (as he tells us himself) than being welcomed by the kings his masters, great lords, princes, sovereigns, queens, princesses, &c. He died July 5, 1614, at the age of 87. His memoirs were printed in ten volumes, 12mo, viz. four of the French commanders; two of foreign commanders two of women of gallantry one of illustrious ladies; and one of duels. There is another edition of the Hague, 1741, 15 vols. 12mo, on account of the supplement, which makes five, and also a Paris edition 1787, 8 vols. 8vo. These memoirs may be of some use, if read cautiously, by those who would know the private history of Charles IX. of Henry III. and of Henry IV. Here the man is more represented than the prince. The pleasure of seeing these kings in their peculiarities in private life, added to the simplicity of Brantome’s style, renders the reading of his memoirs extremely agreeable. But some of his anecdotes are grossly indecent, and many of them fictions.

, a very celebrated French painter, was born at Montpellier in 1616. His father, who was a glass-painter, gave him the first instructions in his art. When only seven years old, one of his uncles brought him to Paris, and placed him with a very indifferent painter, whose defects, however, were supplied by young Bourdon’s natural genius. Returning to Bourdeaux at the age of fourteen, he painted the cieling of a neighbouring chateau, and then went to Toulouse. Finding here no employment, he went into the army; but his captain, a man of some taste, judging that he would one day excel in his profession as an artist, gave him his discharge. He was eighteen when he went to Italy, and became acquainted with Claude Lorrain, whose manner, as well as that of Saccbi, Caravagio, and Bamboccio, he imitated with great success. After a residence of three years here, he happened to have a difference with a painter, who threatened to inform against him as a Calvinist, and Bourdon immediately set out for Venice, and thence to France. At the age of twenty-seven he painted his famous Crucifixion of St. Peter for the church of Notre Dame at Paris, which could not fail to raise his reputation. Du Guernier, a miniature painter, much employed at court, and whose sister he married, assisted him with his advice, and procured him work. But the civil wars interrupting the progress of the fine arts, in 1652 he went to Sweden, where queen Christina appointed him her first painter. While employed on many works for her, chiefly portraits, she mentioned to him one day some pictures which the king her father had found when he took Prague; these had till now remained unpacked, and she desired Bourdon to examine them. Bourdon reported favourably of them, particularly of some by Corregio, on which the queen requested he would accept them as a present from her. Bourdon, with corresponding liberality and disinterestedness, represented that they were some of the finest paintings in Europe, and that her majesty ought never to part with them, as a fit collection for a crowned head. The queen accordingly kept them, and took them with her to Rome when she abdicated the throne. After her death, the heirs of Don Livio Odeschalchi, who had purchased them, sold them to the regent duke of Orleans; and they afterwards made part of the fine collection known in this country by the name of the Orleans Collection.

, an elegant Latin poet, and a very amiable man, of whom we regret that our memoirs are so scanty, was admitted a scholar of Westminsterschool in 1710, from whence he was elected to the university of Cambridge in 1714, where, in Trinity college, he took his degree of A. B. 1717, and A.M. 1721, and obtained a fellowship. He was afterwards for several years an usher in Westminster-school, and died of a lingering disorder December 2, 1747. He married; and in a letter which he wrote to his wife a few weeks before his death, gives the following reasons why he did not take orders “Though I think myself in strictness answerable to none but God and my own conscience, yet, for the satisfaction of the person that is dearest to me, I own and declare, that the importance of so great a charge, joined with a mistrust of my own sufficiency, made me fearful of undertaking it; if I have not in that capacity assisted in the salvation of souls, I have not been the means of losing any; if I have not brought reputation to the function by any merit of mine, I have the comfort of this reflection, I have given no scandal to it, by my meanness and unworthiness. It has been my sincere desire, though not my happiness, to be as useful in' my little sphere of life as possible-: my own inclinations would have led me to a more likely way of being serviceable, if I might have pursued them: however, as the method of education I have been brought up in was, I am satisfied, very kindly intended, I have nothing to find fault with, but a wrong choice, and the not knowing those disabilities I have since been truly conscious of: those difficulties I have endeavoured to get over; but found them insuperable. It has been the knowledge of theee discouragements, that has been the chief subject of my sleeping, as well as my waking thoughts, a fear of reproach and contempt.” While we admire the conscientious motives which induced him to contemplate, with reverential awe, the duties of a clergyman, we must regret the concurrence of events which, according to the conclusion of this letter, seems to have led him into a way of life not agreeable to his inclinations. Cowper, however, in one of his excellent letters, throws some light on those peculiar habits, which were not certainly very happily adapted to his situation as a public teacher. “I love,” says Cowper, “the memory of Vinny Bourne. I think him a better Latin poet thaa Tibullus, Propertius, Ausonius, or any of the writers in his way, except Ovid, and not at all inferior to him. I love him too, with a love of partiality, because he was usher of the fifth form at Westminster when I passed through it. He was so good-natured, and so indolent, that I lost more than I got by him; for he made me as idle as himself. He was such a sloven, as if he had trusted to his genius as a cloak for every thing that could disgust you in his person; and indeed in his writings he has almost made amends for all. His humour is entirely original he can speak of a magpie or a cat, in terms so exquisitely appropriated to the character he draws, that one would suppose him animated by the spirit of the creature he describes. And with all his drollery, there is a mixture of rational, and even religious reflection, at times, and always an air of pleasantry, good nature, and humanity, that makes him, in my mind, one of the most amiable writers in the world. It is not common to meet with an author who can make you smile, and yet at nobody’s expence; who is always entertaining, and yet always harmless; and who, though always elegant and classical, to a degree not always found in the classics themselves, charms more by the simplicity and playfulness of his ideas, than by the neatness and purity of his verse: yet such was poor Vinny. I remember seeing the duke of Richmond set fire to his greasy locks, and box his ears to put it out again.”

In 1749, he set the ode written by the rev. Mr. Mason, for the installation of the late duke of Newcastle, as chancellor of the university of Cambridge, at which time he was honoured with the degree of doctor in music by that university. Soon after this event, he set the “Chaplet,” a musical drama, written by the late Mr. Mendez, for Drury-lane theatre, which had a very favourable reception, and long run, and continued many years in use. Not long after the first performance of this drama, his friend Mr. Beard brought on the same stage the secular ode, written by Dryden, and originally set by Dr. Boyce for Hickford’s room, or the Castle concert, where it was first performed, in still life. This piece, though less successful than the Chaplet, by the animated performance and friendly zeal of Mr. Beard, was many times exhibited before it was wholly laid aside. These compositions, with occasional single songs for Vauxhall and Ranelagh, disseminated the fame of Dr. Boyce throughout the kingdom, as a dramatic and miscellaneous composer, while his choral compositions for the king’s chapel, for the feast of the sons of the clergy at St. Paul’s, and for the triennial meetings at the three cathedrals of Worcester, Hereford, and Gloucester, at the performances in all which places he constantly presided till the time of his death, established his’ reputation as an ecclesiastical composer, and able master of harmony. Dr. Boyce was one of the few of our church composers, who neither pillaged or servilely imitated Handel. There is an original and sterling merit in his productions, founded as much on the study of our own old masters, as on the best models of other countries, that gives to all his works a peculiar stamp and character of his own, for strength, clearness, and facility, without any mixture of styles, or extraneous and heterogeneous ornaments. On the decease of Dr Greene, in 1757, he was appointed by the duke of Devonshire, master of the king’s band; and, in 1758, on the death of Travers, organist of the chapel-royal. He published, at a great expence to himself, three volumes of cathedral music, being a collection in score of the most valuable compositions for that service by the several English masters of the preceding two centuries, which was designed to have been published by Dr. Greene: and in this Dr. Boyce was assisted by the first Dr. Hayes, of Oxford, and by Dr. Howard. Dr. Boyce died, of repeated attacks of the gout, Feb. 7, 1779, and was interred in St. Paul’s cathedral. An anonymous biographer records a very singular circumstance in Dr. Boyce’s history, namely, that he was from his youth incurably deaf.

, a nobleman of Scotland, of whose early years we have no account, began to make a figure in public life towards the end of the reign of James II. of Scotland. Being a man of great penetration and sound judgment, courteous and affable, he acquired the esteem and confidence of all ranks of people, as well as of his prince, who created him a baron by the title of lord Boyd, of Kilmarnock. In 1459, he was, with several other noblemen, sent to Newcastle, with the character of plenipotentiary, to prolong the truce with England, which had just fhen expired. On the death of James II. who was killed at the siege of Roxburgh, lord Boyd was made justiciary, and one of the lords of the regency, in whose hands the administration was lodged during the minority of the young king. His lordship had a younger brother who had received the honour of knighthood, sir Alexander Boyd of Duncow, a man in great credit with the king, whom he was appointed to teach the rudiments of military discipline; and between them, the two brothers found means to engross most of the places and preferments about the court. Sir Alexander began to instil into the young king, then twelve years old, that he was now capable of governing without the help of guardians and tutors, and that he might free himself from their restraint. This advice was readily listened to, and the king resolved to take upon himself the government, which, however, was no other than transferring the whole power, from the other regents, to the Boyds. The king was at this time at Linlithgow, and it was necessary to remove him to Edinburgh, to take upon him the regal government, which the Boyds effected, partly by force, and partly by stratagem. Haying got the king- to Edinburgh, lord Boyd began to provide for his own safety, and to avert the danger which, threatened him and his friends, for what they had done in the face of an act of parliament; and accordingly prevailed upon the king to call a parliament at Edinburgh, in October 1466; in which lord Boyd fell down upon his knees before the throne, where the king sat, and in an elaborate harangue, complained of the hard construction put upon the king’s removal from Linlithgow, and how ill this was interpreted by his enemies, who threatened that the advisers of that affair should one day suffer punishment; humbly beseeching his majesty to declare his own sense and pleasure thereupon, and that if he conceived any illwill or disgust against him for that journey, that he would openly declare it. The king, after advising a little with the lords, made answer, that the lord Boyd was not his adviser, but rather his companion in that journey; and therefore that he was more worthy of a reward for his courtesy, than of punishment for his obsequiousness or compliance therein; and this he was willing to declare in a public decree of the estates, and in the same decree provision should be made, that this matter should never be prejudicial to the lord Boyd or his companions. His lordship then desired, that this decree might be registered in the acts of the assembly, and confirmed by letters patent under the great seal, which was also complied with. At the same time also the king, by advice of his council, gave him letters patent, whereby he was constituted sole regent, and had the safety of the king, his brothers, sisters, towns, castles, and all the jurisdiction over his subjects, committed to him, till the king himself arrived to the age of twenty-one years. And the nobles then present solemnly promised to be assistant to the lord Boyd, and also to his brother, in all their public actions, and that they would be liable to punishment, if they did not carefully, and with faithfulness, perform what they then promised, to which stipulation the king also subscribed. Lord Boyd next contrived to be made Jord great chamberlain, and after this had the boldness to procure the lady Mary Stewart, the late king’s eldest daughter, in marriage for his son sir Thomas Boyd, notwithstanding the care and precaution of the parliament. The lord Boyd’s son was a most accomplished gentleman, and this match and near alliance to the crown, added to his own distinguished merit, raised him to a nearer place in the affection as well as confidence of his sovereign, by whom he was soon after created earl of Arran, and was now himself considered as the fountain from whence all honours and preferments must flow. The lord chamberlain, by this great accession of honour to his family, seemed to have arrived at the highest pinnacle of power and grandeur; but what seemed to establish his power, proved the very means of its overthrow. About this time, a marriage having been concluded, by ambassadors sent into Denmark for that purpose, between the young king of Scotland, and Margaret, a daughter of the king of Denmark, the earl of Arran was selected to go over to Denmark, to espouse the Danish princess in the king his brother-in-law’s name, and to conduct her to Scotland. The earl of Arran, judging all things safe at home, willingly accepted this honour; and, in the beginning of the autumn of 1469, set sail for Denmark with a proper convoy, and a noble train of friends and followers. This was, however, a fatal step, for the lord chamberlain, the earl’s father, being now much absent from the court in the necessary discharge of his office, as well as through age and infirmities, which was the case also of his brother sir Alexander Boyd; the earl of Arran had no sooner set out on his embassy, than every endeavour was tried to alienate the king’s affection from the Boyds. Every public miscarriage was laid at their door; and the Kennedies, their ancient enemies, industriously spread abroad reports, to inflame the people likewise against them. They represented to the king, that the lord Boyd had abused his power during his majesty’s minority; that his matching his son, the earl of Arran, with the princess Mary, was staining the royal blood of Scotland, was an indignity to the crown, and the prelude to the execution of a plot they had contrived of usurping even the sovereignty itself; for they represented the lord chamberlain as an ambitious, aspiring man, guilty of the highest offences, and capable of contriving and executing the worst of villanies: with what justice, history does not inform us. Buchanan only says the Boyds were the occasion of the king’s degeneracy into all manner of licentiousness, by their indulgence of his pleasures. The king, however, young, weak, credulous, and wavering, and naturally prone to jealousy, began to be alarmed, and was prevailed on to sacrifice, not only the earl of Arran, but all his family, to the resentment of their enemies, notwithstanding their ancestors’ great services to the crown, and in spite of the ties of blood which united them so closely. At the request of the adverse faction, the king summoned a parliament to meet at Edinburgh, the 20th of November, 1469, before which lord Boyd, the earl of Arran, though in Denmark, and sir Alexander Boyd of Duncow, were summoned to appear, to give an account of their administration, and answer such charges as should be exhibited against them. Lord Boyd, astonished at this sudden blow, betook himself to arms; but, finding it im-r possible to stem the torrent, made his escape into England; but his brother, sir Alexander, being then sick, and trusting to his own integrity, was brought before the parliament, where he, the lord Boyd, and his son the earl of Arran, were indicted of high-treason, for having laid hands on the king, and carried him, against an act of parliament, and contrary to the king’s own will, from Linlithgow to Edinburgh, in 1466. Sir Alexander alleged in his defence, that they had not only obtained the king’s pardon for that'offence in a public convention, but it was even declared a good service by a subsequent act of parliament; but no regard was had to this, because it was obtained by the Boyds when in power, and masters of the king’s person: and the crime being proved against them, they were found guilty by a jury of lords and barons; and sir Alexander Boyd, being present, was condemned to lose his head on the Castle-hill of Edinburgh, which sentence was executed accordingly. The lord Boyd would have undergone the same fate, if he had not inade his escape into England, where, however, he did not long survive his great reverse of fortune, dying at Alnwick in 1470. The earl of Arran, though absent upon public business, was declared a public enemy, without being granted a hearing, or allowed the privilege of defending himself, and his estates confiscated. Things were in this situation, when he arrived from Denmark, with the espoused queen, in the Frith of Forth. Before he landed he received intelligence of the wreck and ruin of his family, and resolved to retire into Denmark; and without staying to attend the ceremonial of the queen’s landing, he took the opportunity of one of those Danish ships which convoyed the queen, and were under his command, and embarking his lady, set sail for Denmark, where he met with a reception suitable to his high birth. From thence he travelled through Germany into France, and went to pay a visit to Charles duke of Burgundy, who received him most graciously, and being then at war with his rebellious subjects, the unfortunate lord offered him his service, which the duke readily accepted, and finding him to be a brave and wise man, he honoured and supported him and his lady, in a manner becoming their rank. But the king their brother, not yet satisfied with the miseries of their family, wrote over to Flanders to recal his sister home; and fearing she would not be induced to leave him, he caused others to write to her, and give her hopes that his anger towards her husband might be appeased, and that if she would come over and plead for him in person, there was no doubt but she might prevail with her brother to restore him again to his favour. The countess of Arran, flattered with these hopes, returned, and was no sooner arrived in Scotland, than the king urged her to a divorce from her husband, cruelly detained her from going back to him, and caused public citations, attested by witnesses, to be fixed up at Kilmarnock, the seat of the Boyds, wherein Thomas earl of Arran was commanded to appear in sixty days, which he not doing, his marriage with the king’s sister was declared null and void, and a divorce made (according to Buchanan), the earl still absent and unheard; and the lady Mary was compelled, by the king, to marry James lord Hamilton, a man much inferior to her former husband both in point of birth and fortune. This transaction was in 1474; and the earl of Arran, now in the last stage of his miseries, and borne down with the heavy load of his misfortunes, soon al'ter, died at Antwerp, and was honourably interred there. The character of him and of his father is variously represented. That they were ambitious, and regardless of the means of gratifying that ambition, cannot well be denied, nor are we permitted to censure with great asperity their enemies who effected their ruin by similar measures and with similar motives. Their fall undoubtedly holds out an useful lesson, but the experience of others, especially of examples in history, seldom checks the progress of that ambition that has once commenced in success.

, a descendant of the preceding, and fourth and last earl of Kilmarnock, was born in 1704, and was but thirteen years old when his father died: he discovered early a genius not unequal to his birth, but found the family estate pretty much encumbered, and great part of the patrimony alienated, which was by no means answerable to his lordship’s generous and noble disposition. It was also his misfortune to be too soon let loose among the gaieties and pleasures of life. As he grew up, instead of applying himself to study, he launched out into the world in pursuit of pleasures which were more expensive than his fortune could support, and by this means considerably reduced his estate, which, from the most probable conjecture, was the true reason of his taking up arms against the king. Indeed, his lordship himself owns in his confession to Mr. Foster (while under sentence), that his rebellion was a kind of desperate scheme, proceeding originally from his vices, to extricate himself from the distress of his circumstances; for he says, “the true root of all was his careJess and dissolute life, by which he had reduced himself to great and perplexing difficulties; that the exigency of his affairs was in particular very pressing at the time of the rebellion; and that, besides the general hope he had of mending his fortune by the success of it, he was also tempted by another prospect of retrieving his circumstances, by following the Pretender’s standard.” It does not appear that his lordship was in the original design of the rebellion: on the contrary, he declared both in his speech at the bar of the house of lords, and in his petition to the king after his sentence, that it was not tilt after the battle of Preston Pans that he became a party in it, having, till then, neither influenced his tenants or followers to assist or abet the rebellion; but, on the contrary, influenced the inhabitants of the town of Kilmarnock, and the neighbouring boroughs, to rise in arms for his majesty’s service, which had so good an effect, that two hundred men from Kilmarnock very soon appeared in arms, and remained so all the winter at Glasgow and other places. It is said, that when the earl joined the Pretender’s standard, he was received by him with great marks of esteem and distinction; was declared of his privy-council, made colonel of the guards, and promoted to the degree of a general (though his lordship himself says, he was far from being a person of any consequence among them). How he behaved in these stations (quite new to him, and foreign from his former manner of life), we cannot determine; but common fame says, he displayed considerable courage till the fatal battle of Culloden, when he was taken, or rather surrendered himself, prisoner, to the king’s troops, though involuntarily, and with a design to have facilitated his escape: for he acknowledged to Mr. Foster, whilst under sentence, that when he saw the king’s dragoons, and made towards them, he thought they had been Fitz-James’s horse; and that if he could have reached them by mounting behind one of the dragoons, his escape would have been more certain, than when he was on foot. Yet, in his speech to the house of lords, he made a merit of having surrendered himself, at a time when he said he could easily have made his escape, and in this he owned, when in a state of repentance, that he had not spoken truth. His lordship was brought to the Tower, and on Monday the 28th of July, 174-6, was, together with the earl of Cromartie, and lord Balmerino, conducted to Westminster-hall, and at the bar of the lord high-steward’s court, arraigned, and pleaded guilty to his indictment, submitting himself to his majesty’s mercy and clemency. On the Wednesday following, the three lords were again brought from the Tower to receive sentence, when the lord Kilmarnock being asked by the lord high-steward, if he had any thing to offer why sentence of death should not be passed upon him, his lordship, addressing himself to his grace and the whole august assembly, then consisting of an hundred and thirty-six peers, delivered an eloquent speech, after which, sentence of death was pronounced upon him, and he returned to the Tower. After this, he presented petitions to the king, the prince of Wales, and duke of Cumberland, wherein he set forth his family’s constant attachment to the revolution interest, and that of the illustrious house of Hanover; his father’s zeal and activity in support of both in the rebellion in 1715, and his own appearing in arms (though then but young) under his father, and the whole tenour of his conduct ever since that time. But the services of his forefathers could not satisfy the public demand for justice, nor avail him so far as to procure him pardon. He was beheaded on Towerhill, August 18, 1746, and was interred in the Tower church, with this inscription upon his coffin, viz. “Gulielmus Comes de Kilmarnock, decollat. 18 Augusti, 1746, aetat. suae 42.” His lordship’s whole deportment, from the time he was condemned till his execution, was suitable to one in his unhappy circumstances. He gave the most lively marks of a sincere humiliation and repentance for all his miscarriages, and his behaviour in the hour of death was resigned, but strictly decent and awful. He had himself observed, with great truth, that for a man who had led a dissolute life, and yet believed the consequences of death, to put on an air of daringness and absolute intrepidity, must argue him either to be very stupid or very impious. He was a nobleman of fine address and polite behaviour; his person was tall and graceful; his countenance mild, but his complexion pale; and he had abilities, which, if they had been properly applied, might have rendered him capable of bringing an increase of honour to his family, instead of ruin and disgrace. His lordship lived and died in the public profession of the church of Scotland, and left behind him a widow (who was the lady Anne Livingston, daughter of James earl of Linlithgow and Callander (attainted in 1715), with whom he had a considerable fortune), and three sons, the eldest of whom his lordship had educated in the principles of duty and loyalty to his majesty, and in whose service he fought against the rebels. He succeeded, upon the death of Mary, countess of Errol, in 1758, to her estate and honours, his mother having been undoubted heir of line of that noble family, and he was the sixteenth earl of Errol. He died June 3, 1778, leaving issue.

His conduct during his apprenticeship was eminently assiduous. Eager to attain all possible knowledge of an art on which his mind was bent, and of every thing that could be useful to him, and^impelled by an industry that seemed inherent in his nature, he, whenever he could, attended the academy in St. Martin’s-lane to perfect himself in drawing; his leisure hours in the evening were devoted to the study of perspective, and to the learning of French without the aid of a master. After very steadily pursuing his business for six years, and finding himself a better artist than his teacher, he bought from Mr. Toms the last year of his apprenticeship, and became his own master. In 1745 or 1746 he published six small landscapes, designed and engraved by himself. This publication, from his having in most of the views chosen a situation in which a bridge formed part of the scenery, was entitled “The Bridge book,” and sold for a shilling. Small as this sum was, he sometimes spoke with apparent pleasure of a silversmith in Duke’s-court, St. Martin’s lane, having sold so many, that when he settled his annual account, he thought it would be civil to take a silver pint mug in part of payment, and this mug he retained until his dying day. He afterwards designed and engraved many other views, generally of places in and about London, and published the greater part of them at the low price of one shilling each. But even at this early period he was so much alive to fame, that after having passed several months in copying an historical sketch of Coriolanus by Sebastian Concha, he so much disliked his own engraving, that he cut the plate to pieces. Besides these, he engraved many prints from Brocking, Berchem, Salvator ilosa, &c. The manner in which many of them are executed, is highly respectable; and, being done at a time when the artist had much other business to attend to, displays an industry rarely to be paralleled, and proves that had he devoted all his time to engraving, he wcmld have ranked high in the profession. His facility of execution, and unconquerable perseverance, having thus enabled him to complete one hundred and fifty-two prints, tie collected the whole in one port-folio, and published it at fi,ve guineas. He modestly allowed that he himself had not at that time arrived at any eminence in the art of engraving, and that those prints are now chiefly valuable from a comparison of them with the improved state of the art within the last fifty years. In fact, there were at that time no eminent engravers in England, and Mr. Boydell saw the necessity of forcing the art by stimulating men of genius with suitable rewards. With the profits of the folio volume of prints above-mentioned, he' was enabled to pay very liberally the best artists of his time, and thus presented the world with English engravings from the works of the greatest masters. The encouragement that he experienced from the public was equal to the spirit and patriotism of his undertaking, and soon laid the foundation of an ample fortune. He used to observe, that he believed the book we have alluded to was the first that had ever made a lord mayor of London; and that when the smallness of the work was compared with what had followed, it would impress all young men with the truth of what he had often held out to them, “that industry, patience, and perseverance, if united to moderate talents, are certain to surmount all difficulties.” Mr. Boydell, though he never himself made any great progress as an engraver, was certainly the greatest encourager of the art that this country ever knew. The arts were at the time he began, at a very low ebb in this country. Wotton’s portraits of hounds ^nd horses, grooms and squires, with a distant view of the dog-kennel and stable; and Hudson’s portraits of gentlemen in great coats and jockey caps, were in high repute. Inferior prints from poor originals were almost the only works our English artists were thought capable of performing; and, mortifying as it must be to acknowledge it, yet it must be admitted, that (with the exception of the inimitable Hogarth, and two or three others) the generality of them were not qualified for much better things. The powers of the artists were, however, equal to the taste of a great majority of their customers; and the few people of the higher order who had a relish for better productions, indulged it in the purchase of Italian and Flemish pictures and French prints; for which, even at th?t time, the empire was drained of immense sums of money. To check this destructive fashion, Mr. Boydell sought for an English engraver who could equal, it not excel them; and jn Woollett he found one. The Temple of Apollo, from Claude, and two premium pictures from the Smiths of Chichester, were amongst the first large works which this excellent artist engraved; but the Niobe and the Phaeton, from Wilson, established his fame. For the first of them the alderman agreed to give the engraver fifty guineas, and when it was completed paid him a hundred. The second, the artist agreed to engrave for fifty guineas, and the alderman paid him one hundred and twenty. The two prints were published by subscription, at five shillings each. Proof prints were not at that time considered as having any particular value; the few that were taken off to examine the progress of the plate were delivered to such subscribers as chose to have them, at the subscription price. Several of these have since that time been sold at public auctions, at ten and eleven guineas each. By these and similar publications he had the satisfaction to see in his own time the beneficial effects of his exertions. We have before observed, that previous to his establishing a continental correspondence for the exportation of prints, immense sums were annually sent out of the country for the purchase of those that were engraved abroad; but he changed the course of the current, and for many of the later years of his life, the balance of the print-trade with the continent was very much in favour of Great Britain.

Soon after this affair, his lordship, with sir Charles Coote, lately made earl of Montrath, and sir Maurice Eustace, were constituted lords justices of Ireland, and commissioned to call and hold a parliament. Some time before the meeting of the parliament, he drew with his own hand the famous act of settlement, by which he fixed the property, and gave titles to their estates to a whole nation. When the duke of Ormond was declared lord lieutenant, the earl of Orrery went into Munster, of which province he was president. By virtue of this office, he heard and determined causes in a court called the residency-court; and acquired so great a reputation in his judicial capacity, that he was offered the seals both by the king and the duke of York after the fall of lord Clarendon; but, being very much afflicted with the gout, he declined a post that required constant attendance. During the first Dutch war, in which France acted as a confederate with Holland, he defeated the scheme formed by the duke de Beaufort, admiral of France, to get possession of the harbour of Kinsale, and took advantage of the fright of the people, and the alarm of the government, to get a fort erected under his own directions, which was named Fort Charles. He promoted a scheme for inquiring into, and improving the king’s revenue in Ireland; but his majesty having applied great sums out of the revenue of that kingdom which did not come plainly into account, the inquiry was never begun. Ormond, listening to some malicious insinuations, began to entertain a jealousy of Orrery, and prevailed with the king to direct him to lay down his residential court; as a compensation for which, his majesty made him a present of 8000l. Sir Thomas Clifford, who had been brought into the ministry in England, apprehensive that he cpuld not carry his ends in Ireland whilst Orrery continued president of Munster, procured articles of impeachment of high treason and misdemeanours to be exhibited against him in the English house of commons; but his lordship being heard in his place, gave an answer so clear, circumstantial, and ingenuous, that the affair was dropt. The king laboured in vain to reconcile him to the French alliance, and the reducing of the Dutch. At the desire of the king and the duke of York, he drew the plan of an act of limitation, by which the successor would have been disabled from encroaching on civil and religious liberty; but the proposing thereof being postponed till after the exclusion-bill was set on foot, the season for making use of it was past. The iing, to hinder his returning to Ireland, and to keep him about his person, offered him the place of lord-treasurer; but the earl of Orrery plainly told his majesty that he was guided by unsteady counsellors, with whom he could not act. He died in October 1679, aged fifty-eight; leaving behind him the character of an able general, statesman, and writer. He had issue by his lady, two sons and five daughters. His writings are these: 1. “The Irish colours displayed; in a reply of an English Protestant to a letter of an Irish Roman catholic,” London, 1662, 4to. 2. “An answer to a scandalous letter lately printed, and subscribed by Peter Walsh, procurator for the secular and regular popish priests of Ireland, entitled A letter desiring a just and merciful regard of the Roman catholics of Ireland, given about the end of October 1660, to the then marquis, now duke of Ormond, and the second time lord lieutenant of that kingdom. By the right honourable the earl of Orrery, &c. being a full discovery of the treachery of the Irish rebels since the beginning of the rebellion there, necessary to be considered by all adventurers, and other persons estated in that kingdom,” Dublin, 1662, 4to. 3. “A poem on his majesty’s happy restoration.” 4. “A poem on the death of the celebrated Mr. Abraham CowJey,” London, 1667, fol. 5. “The history of Henry V. a tragedy,” London, 1668, fol. 6. “Mustapha, the son of Soliman the Magnificent, a tragedy,” London, Ifi67, fol. and 1668. 7. “The Black Prince, a tragedy,” London, 1672, fol. 8. “Triphon, a tragedy,” London, 1672, fol. These four plays were collected and published together in 1690, folio, and make now the entire first volume of the new edition of the earl’s dramatic works. 9. “Parthenissa, a romance in three volumes,” London, 1665, 4to, 1667, fol. 10. “A Dream.” In this piece he introduces the genius of France persuading Charles II. to promote the interest of that kingdom, and act upon French principles. He afterwards introduces the ghost of his father, dissuading him from it, answering all the arguments the genius of France had urged, and proving to him from his own misfortunes and tragical end, that a kind’s

chief treasure, and only real strength, is the affections of his people. 11. “A treatise upon the Art of War.” 12. Poems on the Fasts and Festivals of the Church.“His posthumous works are: 1.” Mr. Anthony, a comedy,“1692. 2.” Guzman, a comedy,“1693. 3.” Herod the great, a tragedy,“1694. 4.” Altemira, a tragedy,“brought upon the stage by Mr. Francis Manning, in 1702, with a prologue by Henry St. John, esq. afterwards lord viscount Boiingbroke, and an epilogue by the hon. Charles Boyle, esq. the late earl of Orrery, who also interspersed several songs in the work itself. 5.” State letters," published in 1742, fol. Mr. Morrice the editor, who was his biographer and chaplain, says that his patron drew up a very curious account of what was done in the court or camp, in which he had any part, or could speak of with certainty. But this has never been published. The duke of Ormond having by his majesty’s command consulted with the earl of Orrery upon the propositions to be laid before the parliament of Ireland in 1677, his lordship delivered to him five sheets of paper containing the most effectual methods of protecting the nation from foreign and domestic enemies, advancing the Protestant interest, increasing the revenue, and securing private property. But these, with other papers, were destroyed when lord Orrery’s house was burnt to the ground in 1690, by a party of king James’s soldiers, with the duke of Berwick at their head; Lionel, then earl of Orrery, and grandson to our author, being a minor, and abroad on his travels.

Upon the restoration of Charles II. he was treated with great civility and respect by the king, as well as by the two great ministers, Southampton and Clarendon. He was solicited by the latter to enter into orders, for Mr. Boyle’s distinguished learning and unblemished reputation induced lord Clarendon to think that so very respectable a personage would do great honour to the clergy. Mr. Boyle considered all this with due attention; but reflected, that in his present situation, whatever he wrote upon religion, would have so much the greater weight, as coming from a layman; since he well knew, that the irreligious fortified themselves against all that the clergy could offer, by supposing and saying that it was their trade, and that they were paid for it. He considered likewise that$ in point of fortune and character, he needed no accessions; and indeed he never had any appetite for either. But bishop Burnet, who preached his funeral sermon, and to whom Mr. Boyle communicated memorandums concerning his own life, tells us, that what had the greatest weight in determining his judgment was, “the not feeling within himself any motion or tendency of mirjd which he could safely esteem a call from the Holy Ghost, and so not venturing to take holy orders, lest he should be found to have lied unto it.” He chose therefore to pursue his philosophical studies in such a manner as might be most effectual for the support of religion; and began to communicate to the world the fruits of those studies. The first of them was printed at Oxford, 1660, in 8vo, under the title of 1. “New experiments, physico-mechanical, touching the spring of the Air and its effects, made for the most part in a new pneumatical engine: addressed to his nephew the lord Dungarvan.” This work was attacked by Franciscus Linus and Mr. Hobbes, which occasioned Mr. Boyle to subjoin to a second edition of it, printed at London, 1662, in 4to, “A Defence,” &c. in which he refuted the objections of those philosophers with equal candour, clearness, and civility. A third edition was printed in 1682, 4to. 2. “Seraphic Love; or, some motives and incentives to the Love of God, pathetically discoursed of in a letter to a friend,” 1660, 8vo. This piece, though it did not appear till now, 'was finished as early as the year 1648. It has run through many editions, and been translated into Latin. The fame of Mr. Boyle’s great learning and abilities extended itself even at this time beyond the bounds of our island, so that the grand duke of Tuscany, a prince distinguished for learning, was extremely desirous of a correspondence with him: of which he was advertised in a letter, dated Oct. 10, 1660, from Mr. Southwell, then resident at Florence. 3. “Certain physiological Essays and other Tracts,” 1661, 4to. They were printed again in 1669, 4to, with large additions, especially of “A Discourse about the absolute rest of bodies” and were translated into Latin. 4. “Sceptical Chemist,” 1662, 8vo, a very curious and excellent work reprinted in 1679, 8vo, with the addition of divers experiments and notes about the producibleness of chemical principles.

In a few months lord Orrery so far recovered his health and spirits as to be able to attend his public duty as an English baron. He took his seat in the house of peers in the session of parliament which opened on the 13th of January, 1731-2, and soon distinguished himself by a speech in opposition to the ministry, against the mutiny-bill; the inconsistency of a standing army with the liberties of a free people being at that period the topic constantly insisted upon by the patriotic party. Though no notice is taken of his lordship’s speech in Timberland’s Debates, it is certain that he acquired considerable credit on this occasion. Mr. Budgell, in the dedication to his Memoirs of the Family of the Boyles, published in 1732, celebrates our noble lord as having displayed the united forces of reason and eloquence; and Mr. Ford, in a letter to Dr. Swift, written in the same year, mentions with pleasure a character which the dean had given of the earl of Orrery, and says, that he was extremely applauded for a speech he made against the army- bill. The approbation which his lordship received in this lirst exertion of his parliamentary talents, did not encourage him to become a public speaker; and we meet with only another instance in which he took any active part in a debate/ on the 13th of February, 1733-4, in favour of the duke of Marlborough’s bill for preventing the officers of the land forces from being deprived of their commissions, otherwise than by judgment of a court martial to be held for that purpose, or by address of either house of parliament. The delicacy of lord Orrery’s health, his passion for private life, and the occasions he had of sometimes residing in Ireland, seem to have precluded him from a very constant and regular attendance in the English house of peers. However, he did not fail to go thither when he apprehended himself to be called to it by particular duty; and we find his name to a considerable number of the protests which were so frequent during the grand opposition to sir Robert Waipole’s administration.

In October 1733, lord Orrery returned to England, and having now no attachment to London, he disposed of his house in Downing-street, Westminster, as likewise of his seat at Britwell, near Windsor, and retired to his seat at Marston, in Somersetshire. As this place had been much neglected by his ancestors, and was little more than a shell of a large old house, he amused himself in building offices, in fitting out and furnishing apartments, and laying out gardens and other plantations. Study and retirement being his principal pleasures, he took care to supply the loss he had sustained from his father’s will, by furnishing his library anew with the best authors. In the summer of 1734, probably in his way to France, where he sometimes went, he visited the tomb of his ancestors, Roger Boyle, esq, and Joan his wife, in Preston church, near Feversham. This monument, when the title of earl of Cork devolved upon him, he intended to have repaired, if his life had been prolonged. In the middle of the year 1735, we find him again in Ireland. On the 31st of October, in the same year, an amiable relation, and a most promising youth, Edmund duke of Buckingham, died at Rome, upon which melancholy event, lord Orrery paid a just tribute to the memory of the young nobleman, in an elegiac poem. It was printed in 1736, and is one of the most pleasing specimens which our author has afforded of his poetical abilities. In the winter of 1735-6, the duke of Dorset being then lord lieutenant of Ireland, the eail of Orrery neglected no opportunity of endeavouring to render his administration easy. If Dr. Swift is to be credited, Ireland was about that time in a wretched condition. As a proof of it, the dean asserted in a letter to Mr. Pope, that lord Orrery had 3000l. a year in the neighbourhood of Cork, and that more than three years rent was unpaid. In April 1737, his lordship, who was then at Cork, earnestly pressed Dr. Swift to accompany him to England; but the doctor, who never saw Marston, did not accept the invitation. Lord Orrery took over with him to Mr. Pope all the letters of that great poet to Swift, which the dean had preserved or could find, which were not more in number than twenty-five. About this time, our noble author, that his sons might be educated under his own eye, and also have the benefit of attending Westminster-school, took a small house in Duke-street, Westminster. On the 30th of June, 1738, the earl of Orrery, after having been six years a widower, married, in Ireland, Mrs. Margaret Hamilton, only daughter and heiress of John Hamilton, esq. of Caledon, in the county of Tyrone, grand-daughter of Dr. Dopping, bishop of Meath, and niece of Dr. Dopping, bishop of Ossory. Swift, in a letter to Miss Hamilton, on her intended nuptials, after pretending a prior claim, as she had made so many advances to him, and confessed “herself to be nobody’s goddess but his,” archly waves it, and politely “permits lord Orrery to make himself the happiest man in the world; as I know not,” he adds, “any lady in this kingdom of so good sense or so many accomplishments.” He gives a great character of her, likewise, in his last printed letter to Mr. Pope. In this lady, the earl of Orrery, with gratitude to Heaven, acknowledged that the loss of his former countess was repaired. In 1739 he published a new edition, 2 vols. 8vo, of the dramatic works of his great-grandfather. Though these volumes cannot be particularly valuable, they are now become exceedingly scarce. In 1741 he published separately, in folio, “The first Ode of the first book of Horace imitated, and inscribed to the earl of Chesterfield;” and “Pyrrha, an imitation of the fifth Ode of the first book of Horace.” In the preface to the last, lord Orrery characterises Dacier’s and Sanadon’s translations, and makes some observations on Horace, which shew that he entered with taste and spirit into the peculiar excellencies of that poet. In 1742 he published in one volume, folio, the “State Letters” of his great-grandfather, the first earl; to which were prefixed Morrice’s memoirs of that eminent statesman. On the 25th of August, 1743, his lordship was presented by the university of Oxford to the honorary degree of D. C. L.; and he was, likewise, F.R. S. Lord Boyle, in 1746, being settled at Oxford, and Mr. Boyle in the college at Westminster, their father quitted London, and fixed his residence at Caledon, in Ireland. During one of his occasional visits to England, after the publication of the second volume of the Biographia Britannica, he thanked Dr. Campbell, “in the name of all the Boyles, for the honour he had done to them, and to his own judgment, by placing the family in such a light as to give a spirit of emulation to those who were hereafter to inherit the title.” Lord Orrery resided in Ireland, with very little intermission, from 1746 to 1750; happy in that domestic tranquillity, that studious retirement and inactivity, from which, as he himself expressed it, he was scarcely ever drawn, but with the utmost reluctance. “Whenever,” as he observed in a private letter, “we step out of domestic life in search of felicity, we come back again disappointed, tired, and chagrined. One day passed under our own roof, with our friends and our family, is worth a thousand in any other place. The noise and bustle, or, as they are foolishly called, the diversions of life, are despicable and tasteless, when once we have experienced the real delight of a fire-side.” These sentiments, which do so much honour to the rectitude of his lordship’s understanding, and the goodness of his heart, reflect, at the same time, a just reproach on the absurd and criminal dissipation that prevails for the most part among persons of rank and fortune. During the earl of Orrery’s residence in Ireland, he employed his leisure in laying out gardens and plantations at Caledon, and in improving and adorning its fine situation. On his return to Marston, he continued his alterations and improvements in the house and gardens at that place, many of the plans for which were designed by lord Boyle, who had a taste for architecture. In the mean while, the amusement of our noble author’s winter evenings was his translation of “The Letters of Pliny the Younger, with observations on each letter, and an Essay on Pliny’s life, addressed to Charles lord Boyle.” The essay is dated Leicester-fields, January 27, 1750-1; and, together with the translation, was published at London, in the following April, in 2 vols. 4to. This work met with so good a reception from the public, that three editions of it in octavo have since been printed. In the summer of the same year, lord Orrery addressed to his second son Hamilton a series of letters, containing “Remarks on the Life and Writings of Dr. Swift, dean of St. Patrick’s, Dublin.” This work gave rise to many strictures and censures on his lordship for having professed himself Swift’s friend while he was exposing his weaknesses. Subsequent inquiries into Swift’s character have proved that the portrait he drew was not unfaithful. To this, however, we shall have occasion to recur in our account of Swift.

, third earl of Burlington and fourth earl of Cork, another branch of the illustrious family of Boyle, was born on the 25th of April, 1695; and was married on the 21st of March, 1720-1, to the lady Dorothy Savile, the eldest of the two daughters and co-heirs of William Savile, marquis of Halifax. By this lady he had three daughters, the youngest of whom, Charlotte, alone survived him. She was married to the duke of Devonshire, and was mother to the late duke, and grandmother to the present. On the 18th of June, 1730, the earl of Burlington was installed one of the knights’ companions of the most noble order of the garter; and in June 1731, he was constituted captain of the band of gentlemen pensioners. In 1732, being at the city of York, the lord mayor, aldermen, and corporation, sent a deputation to return their thanks to him for the favour he had done them in building their assembly-room, and for his other benefactions to the city, and to beg his acceptance of the freedom of it; which was, accordingly, presented to him in a gold box. In 1733, he resigned his place of captain of the band of pensioners. After this he lived retired, employing himself in adorning his gardens at Chiswick, and in constructing several pieces of architecture. Never, says lord Orford, were protection and great wealth more generously and more judiciously diffused than by this great person, who had every quality of a genius and artist, except envy. Though his own designs were more chaste and classic than Kent’s, he entertained him in his house till his death, and was more studious to extend his friend’s fame than his own. Nor was his munificence confined to himself, and his own houses and gardens. He spent great sums in contributing to public works, and was known to choose that the expence should fall on himself, rather than that his country should be deprived of some beautiful edifices. His enthusiasm for the works of Inigo Jones was so active, that he repaired the church of Covent-garden, because it was the production of that great master, and purchased a gate-way of his at Beaufort-garden in Chelsea, and transported the identical stones to Chiswick with religious attachment. With the same zeal for pure architecture, he assisted Kent in publishing the designs for Whitehall, and gave a beautiful edition of the antique baths from the drawings of Palladio, whose papers he procured with great cost. Besides his works on his own estate at Lanesborough in Yorkshire, he new fronted his house in Piccadilly, built by his father^ and added the grand colonnade within the court. It is recorded that his father being asked, why he built his house so far out of town? replied, because he was determined to have no building beyond him. This is now in the heart of that part of the town. Our nobility formerly wished for town-houses, and not for town-neighbourhoods, but the latter being now obtruded upon them is probably the cause of their paying so little attention to the keep of their London-palaces. Bedford-house has been levelled to the ground some years, and Burlington-house is likewise said to be doomed to destruction.

Lord Burlington’s house at Chiswick, the idea of which was borrowed from a well-known villa of Palladio, is a model of taste, though not without faults. Other works designed by lord Burlington were, the dormitory at Westminster-school, the assembly-room at York, lord Harrington’s at Petersham (afterwards lord Camelford’s), except the octagon buildings at each end, which were added by Shepherd; the duke of Richmond’s house at Whitehall, and general Wade’s in Cork-street. Both these last were ill-contrived and inconvenient; but the latter has so beautiful a front, that lord Chesterfield said, “as the general could not live in it to his ease, he had better take a house over against it, and look at it.”, Pope dedicated to him his Epistle IV. and addressed to him his incomparable letter oa a Journey to Oxford with Lintot. He is also to be noticed with honour as the first patron of bishop Berkeley, whom he loved for his taste in architecture. He died December 1753, and by his death the title of Earl of Burlington became extinct. His lady, Dorothy Saville, had no less attachment to the arts than her lord. She drew in crayons, and succeeded admirably in likenesses, but working with too much rapidity, did not do justice to her genius.

, Lord Carleton, and lord president of the council in the reign of king George I. was descended from Richard Boyle, first earl of Cork in Ireland, and was third son of Charles lord Clifford of Lanesborough in the county of York, by Jane, youngest daughter of William Seymour, duke of Somerset. Being elected a member of the house of commons, he scon distinguished himself to such advantage, that in March 1700-1, he was appointed chancellor and nnder-treasurer of the exchequer by king William, and was admitted into a high degree of favour and confidence with that prince. He continued in that post till the 11th of February, 1707-8, when he was made one of the principal secretaries of state, in the room of Robert Harley, esq. and was consequently one of the ministry when the reputation of England was carried to so great an height, and when the queen obtained so many successes in defence of the common cause of Europe. In this station he took all occasions of shewing his regard for men of genius and learning; and soon after the battle of Blenheim, was employed by the lord treasurer Godolphin, at the solicitation of the lord Halifax, to go to Mr. Addison, and desire him to write some piece, which might transmit the memory of that glorious victory to posterity. Mr. Addison, who was at that time but indifferently lodged, was surprised with this visit from a person of Mr. Boyle’s rank and station; who, after having acquainted him with his business, added, that the lord treasurer, to encourage him to enter upon this subject, had already made him one of the commissioners of the appeals; but entreated him to look upon that post only as an earnest of something more considerable. In short, Mr. Boyle said so many obliging things, and in so graceful a manner, as gave Mr. Addison the utmost spirit and encouragement to begin that poem, which he entitled “The Campaign;” soon after the publication of which, he was, according to Mr. Boyle’s promise, preferred to a considerable post. In 1710, Mr. Boyle was one of the managers at the trial of Dr. Sacheverell; but upon the general change of the ministry, not long after, was dismissed from the post of secretary of state; in which he was succeeded by Henry St. John, esq. afterwards lord viscount Bolingbroke. “I never,” says Swift, “remember such bold steps taken by a court; I am almost shocked at it, though I did not care if they were all hanged.” Upon the accession of his late majesty king George I. in 1714, he was created a baron of this kingdom, by the title of baron Carleton of Carleton, in the county of York, and was soon after made lord president of the council, in which post he continued till his death, which happened on Sunday the 14th of March, 1724-5, at his house in Pall-mall, now the residence of his royal highness the Prince Regent. Mr. Budgell tells us, that he was endowed with great prudence and a winning address; and that his long experience in public affairs had given him a thorough knowledge in business. He spoke frequently while he was a member of the house of commons; and it was allowed by very good judges, that he was never once known to say an imprudent thing in a public debate, or to hurt the cause which he engaged in; a circumstance peculiar to himself above most other speakers in so public an assembly. The author of the “Spectator,” in the dedication to him of the third volume of that work, observes likewise, that there was no person, whose merit was more universally acknowledged by all parties, and who had made himself more friends and fewer enemies: that his great abilities and unquestioned integrity in those high employments which he had passed through, would not have been able to have raised this general approbation, had they not been accompanied with that moderation in a high fortune, and that affability of manners, which were so conspicuous through all parts of his life: that his aversion to any ostentatious arts of setting to show those great services which he had done the public, contributed likewise not a little to that universal acknowledgment which was paid him by his country: and that he was equally remarkable for the great figure which he made in the senate, as for that elegance and politeness, which appeared in his more retired conversation. Davis, in his characters published under the name of Mackay, says of him, “He is a good companion in conversation; agreeable among the ladies; serves the queen very assiduously in council; makes a considerable figure in the house of commons; by his prudent administration obliges every body in the exchequer; and in time may prove a great man.” To this Swift added in his copy of the book, “had some very scurvy qualities, particularly avarice.”

, president of what was called the “high court of justice” in which Charles I. was condemned to be beheaded, was oue of an antient family in the county of Lancaster, but of a branch seated, some say, at Bradshaw, or Bradshaigh, in Derbyshire, others at Marple, in Cheshire: where he was educated is not recorded; the first notice we have of him is that he studied law in Gray’s-inn, and after being admitted to the bar, had much chamber practice among the partizans of the parliament, to which he was zealously devoted. Lord Clarendon says he was not without parts, but insolent and ambitious. In 1644, he was appointed by the parliament to prosecute lord Macquire and Macmahon, the Irish rebels. In Oct. 1646, he was a joint commissioner of the great seal for six months, by a vote of the house of commons, and in Feb. following, both houses voted him chief justice of Chester. In June of the same year (1647) he was named by parliament one of the counsel to prosecute the loyal judge Jen kins; and was called to the rank of Serjeant Oct. 12, 1648. When the death of the king was determined upon, Bradshaw was one of die few lawyers who could be preraile4 upon to act, and was appointed President, an office which, had he declined, there is some reason to think it would hav$ been difficult to find a substitute. When called upon, Jan, 12, 1648, by the court to take his seat as President^ he affected to make an earnest apology and excuse. Lord Clarendon, says that he seemed much surprized and very resolute tp refuse it, and even required time to consider of it, but next day accepted the office, and soon demonstrated tba.t he was exactly fitted for it, by his contemptuous treatment of his unnappy sovereign, The court then bestowed on him the title of Lord President, without as well as within the court, during the commission and sitting of the court. A retinue of officers was appointed to attend him, going and returning from Westminster-hall; lodgings were provided for him in New Palace-yard; he was to be preceded by a sword and a mace, carried by two gentlemen, and in court he had a guard of two hundred soldiers; he had a chair of crimson velvet in the middle of the court; he wore his hat when his majesty appeared, and was highly offended that his sovereign should not be uncovered in his presence, which was, however, after the first day of the trial, duly enjoined. Besides these pompous honours, he was rewarded for his coarse and brutal behaviour on his majesty’s trial, with the deanery house in Westminster, as his residence; the sum of 3000l. was given him to procure an equipage suitable to his new rank: he received also the seat of the duke of St. Alban’s called Summer-hill, and lord Cottington’s estate in Wiltshire, valued at 1500l. -per annum, with other landed property, amounting in all to about 4000l. per annum, to him and his heirs. He was also made chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. Those writers, therefore, who represent him as no more accessary to the murder of Charles I. than any other members of the council, or court, must see from these circumstances, which would not otherwise be worth repeating, that the republicans attached the greatest importance to the part he had to perform, and considered it as worthy, not only to be honoured with the most splendid accompaniments, but to be rewarded with the richest gifts and -grants. Bradshaw was in truth a more thorough republican than most of the party, and became obnoxious to Cromwell for disapproving of the latter placing himself at the head of the government. This occasioned frequent disputes between them, ajid Cromwell at length prevailed in depriving him of the office of chief justice of Chester. On the death of Cromwell, when the long parliament was restored, Bradshaw obtained a seat in the council, was elected president, and would have been appointed commissioner of the great seal, but his infirm state of health obliged him to decline the latter. He died Nov. 22, 16.59, declaring, consistently enough with his former principles, that if the king were to be tried and condemned again, he would be the first man that should do it. He was pompously interred in Westminster abbey, from whence his body was taken up, at the restoration) and exposed on the gibbet with those of Cromwell and Ireton. Doubts have been entertained as to this fact, and some have supposed he went abroad and died at Jamaica, because a cannon was found therewith an inscription signifying that his dust was deposited near it. Nothing, however, can be better ascertained than his death in. England.

, an English divine of good parts and learning, the son of Nicholas Brady, an officer in the king’s army in the civil wars of 1641, was born at Bandon, in the county of Cork, Oct. the 28th, 1659; and continued in Ireland till he was 12 years of age. Then he was sent over to England to Westminster-school; and from thence elected stuJent to Christ-church in Oxford. After continuing there about four years, he went to Dublin, where his father resided; at which university he immediately commenced B. A. When he was of due stanuing, his diploma for the degree of D. D. was, on account of his uncommon merit, presented to him by that university while he was in England; and brought over by Dr Pratt, then senior travelling fellow, afterwards provost of that college. His first ecclesiastical preferment was to a prebend in the cathedral of St. Barry, at Cork; to which he was collated by bishop Wettenhal, whose domestic chaplain he was. He was a zealous promoter of the revolution, and in consequence of his zeal suffered for it. In 1690, when the troubles broke out in Ireland, by his interest with king Tatnes as general, M'Carty, he thrice prevented the burning of the town of Bandon, after three several orders given by that prince to destroy it. The same year, having been deputed by the people of Bandon, he went over to England, to petition the parliament for a redress of some grievances they had suffered while king James was in Ireland; and afterwards quitting his preferments in Ireland, he settled in London; where, being celebrated for his abilities in the pulpit, he was elected minister of St. Catherine Cree church, and lecturer of St. Michael’s Wood-street. He afterwards became minister of Richmond in Surry. and Stratford upon Avon in Warwickshire, and at length rector of Clapham in Surry; which last, together with Richmond, he held till his death. His preferments amounted to 600l. a year, but he was so little of an Œconomist as to be obliged to keep a school at Richmond. He was also chaplain to the duke of Ormond’s troop of horse-guards, as he was to their majesties king William and queen Mary. He died May 20, 1726, aged 66, leaving behind him the character of being a person of an agreeable temper, a polite gentleman, an excellent preacher, and a good poet. He has no high rank, however, among poets, and would have long ere now been forgotten in that character, if his name was not so familiar as a translator of the new version of the “Psalms,” in conjunction with Mr. Tate, which version was licensed 1696. He translated also the Æneids of Virgil,“published by subscription in 1726, 4 vols. 8vo,­and a tragedy, called” The Rape, or the Innocent Impos-­tors,“neither performances of much character. His prose works consist of” Sermons," three volumes of which were published by himself in 1704, 1706, and 1713, and three others by his eldest son, who was a clergyman at Tooting, in Surry, London, 1730, 8vo.

, a noted historian and physician of the seventeenth century, was born in the county of Norfolk, and admitted in Caius college in Cambridge, February 20, 1643. He took his degree of bachelor of physic in 1653, and was created doctor in that faculty September 5, 1660, by virtue of the king’s mandatory letters. On the first of December the same year, he was, in pursuance of king Charles’s mandate, elected master of his college, upon the resignation of Dr. Bachcroft. About the year 1670, or as some think not until 1685, he was appointed keeper of the records in the Tower of London; in which office he employed himself in perusing those most valuable monuments in his possession, with a view to his historical works. Some time after, he was chosen regius professor of physic in the university of Cambridge. In 1679, he wrote a letter to Dr. Sydenham, on the influence of the air, &c. which is published among that learned person’s works. But his largest and most considerable performance was, “An Introduction to the old English History,” in which he maintains these three propositions: 1. That the representatives of the commons in parliament, viz. knights, citizens, and burgesses, were not introduced till the forty-ninth of Henry III.; 2. That William, duke of Normandy, made an absolute conquest of the nation; 3. That the succession to the crown of England is hereditary (descending to the nearest of blood), and not elective: And “A complete History of England, from the first entrance of the Romans, unto the end of the reign of king Richard II.” in three vols. fol. about which he was employed several years, and which was printed 1685 and 1700, usually bound in two volumes. In the year 1681 he was chosen one of the representatives for the university of Cambridge, in that parliament which met at Oxford; and again in 1685, in the parliament of king James II. He was likewise physician in ordinary to this king; and, on the twenty -second of October, 1688, was one of those persons who gave in their depositions concerning the birth of the pretended prince of Wales. He died on the nineteenth of August, 1700. He was an accurate writer, and a curious and diligent searcher into our ancient records; but his impartiality has been called in question, particularly by those who contend for the higher antiquity of parliaments, and a larger proportion of popular influence in the constitution. Tyrell wrote his “General History of England,” in opposition to that of Brady. Dr. Gilbert Stuart, who hated all Scotch historians except himself, maintains that Hume executed his History on Brady’s principles; allowing Brady to pdssess an excellent understanding and admirable quickness, Dr. Stuart asserts also, that he was the slave of a faction. Dr. Brady’s other publications were, “An Answer to Mr. Petyt’s Book on Parliaments,” London, 1681, 8vo;- and “An Historical Treatise of Cities and Burghs or Boroughs,” ibid. 1690, fol. reprinted 1704.

In this retreat Tycho Brahe passed twenty years, and greatly improved the science of astronomy by the diligence and exactness of his observations. He maintained several scholars in his house for the purpose of instructing them in geometry and astronomy, some of whom were sent and their expences defrayed by the king; others, who voluntarily offered themselves, he received and supported at his own expence. He lived at the same time in a most sumptuous manner, kept an open house with unbounded hospitality, and was always happy to entertain and receive all persons, who flocked in crowds to pay their respects to a person of his renown. During his residence in the island of Huen, he received numerous visits from persons of the highest rank. Among these must be particularly mentioned Ulric duke of Mecklenburgh, in company with his daughter Sophia, queen of Denmark; William, landgrave of Hesse Cassel, whose correspondence with Brahe on astronomical subjects has been given to the public, and who had shewn himself a constant patron to the Danish astronomer. In 1590 Tycho was honoured with a visit from James the First, then king of Scotland, when that monarch repaired to the court of Copenhagen, to conclude his marriage with the princess Anne, and was so delighted with Brahe’s apparatus and conversation, that he remained eight days at Uranienburgh. On retiring he presented Tycho with a magnificent present, and afterwards accompanied his royal licence for the publication of Tycho Brahe’s works with the following flattering testimony of his abilities and learning: “Nor am I acquainted with these things from the relation of others, or from a mere perusal of your works; but I have seen them with my own eyes, and heard them with my own ears, in your residence at Uranienburgh, during the various learned and agreeable conversations which I there held with you, which even now affect my mind to such a degree, that it is difficult to decide, whether I recollect them with greater pleasure or admiration; which I now willingly testify by this licence to present and future generations, &c.” His majesty also, at his particular request, composed, in honour of the Danish astronomer, some Latin verses, more expressive indeed of his esteem and admiration than remarkable for classic elegance.

, secretary to the society of antiquaries, and rector of the united parishes of St. Mary-hill and St. Andrew Hubbard, in the city of London, was born at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, about 1743, and educated at Lincoln college, Oxford, where he took his bachelor’s degree, but left college in 1774, on being presented by Matthew Ridley, esq. to the curacy of Cramlington, a chapel of ease to St. Nicholas at Newcastle, from which it is distant about eight miles. While at the university, he published a poem “On Illicit Love; written among the Ruins of Godstow Nunnery,” 1775, 4to. The spot where this poem was written is the burial-place of the celebrated Rosamond, mistress of Henry II. whose history has afforded subject for various productions both of the amorous and elegiac kind; but perhaps none in which the criminality of an unlawful passion is more forcibly exposed, or chastity recommended in a warmer strain of poetry than in this production by Mr. Brand. The sentiments are glowing and just, the imagery is animated, and the poem is in general beautiful, pathetic, and moral. Mr. Brand, however, does not appear to have much cultivated his poetical talent, and had already begun to devote himself to researches into the antiquities of his native country. In 1777 he evinced a general knowledge of ancient manners and customs, by publishing “Observations on Popular Antiquities, including the whole of Mr. Bourne’s Antiquitates Vulgares, with Addenda to every chapter of that work; as also an Appendix, containing such articles on the subject as have been omitted by that author,” 8vo. This work is dated from Westgate-street, Tyne, where the author then resided. He afterwards continued to augment his materials by subsequent and more extensive researches, and left a much enlarged edition in ms. which is now in the hands of an eminent antiquary, and is intended for publication. About the time of the publication of his “Popular Antiquities,” he was admitted a member of the society of Antiquaries, and in 1784 was presented by the duke of Northumberland, who, if we mistake not, had been his earliest friend and patron, to the rectory of St. Mary-hill. In the same year he was elected resident secretary to the Society of Antiquaries, on the death of Dr. Morell, the duties of which office he performed with uncommon ability, and to the entire satisfaction of the society, who continued to re-elect him annually until his death.

, or, as some call him, Sebastian, a German chemist, much addicted to the fanciful researches of the period in which he lived, was born in 1458, and died in May 1521. Leibnitz, in the Melanges de Berlin for 1710, cited by Chaptal, in his “Elements of Chemistry,” vol. III. p. 350, mentions Brandt as a chemist of Hamburg, who, during a course of experiments upon urine, with a view of extracting a fluid proper for converting silver into gold, discovered phosphorus in 1667, or, as others say, in 1669. He communicated his discovery to Kraft, who imparted it to Leibnitz, and, as it is pretended, to Boyle. Leibnitz, says Chaptal, introduced Brandt to the duke of Hanover, before whom he performed the whole operation; and a specimen of it was sent to Huygens, who shewed it to the academy of sciences at Paris. It is said that Kunckel had associated himself with Kraft to purchase the process from Brandt; but Kunckel having been deceived by Kraft, who kept the secret to himself, knowing that urine was made use of, set to work, and discovered a process for making the substance and hence it has been called Kunckel’s phosphorus.

, was second son of sir Richard Bray, one of the privy council to king Henry VI. who lies buried in the north aile of Worcester cathedral, in which county sir Reginald was born. One of this family (which were lords of Braie, or Bray, in Normandy) came with William the Conqueror into England, where they flourished in the counties of Northampton and Warwick; but Edmond, the father of sir Richard, is styled of Eton Bray, in the county of Bedford, which county they had represented in parliament in 18 Ed. I. and 6 Ed. II. In 1 Rich. III. this Reginald had a general pardon granted to him, probably on account of his having taken part with Henry VI. to whose cause he had a personal as well as hereditary attachment being receiver- general to sir Henry Stafford, who married Margaret, countess of Richmond, mother to the earl of Richmond, afterward king Henry VII. and continued in her service after the death of sir Henry, and was put in trust for her dowry, on her marriage to Thomas, earl of Derby. When the duke of Buckingham had concerted with Morton, bishop of Ely (then his prisoner at Brecknock in Wales), the marriage of the earl of Richmond with the princess Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Edward I V. and the earl’s advancement to the throne, the bishop recommended sir Reginald for the transaction of the affair with the countess, telling the duke he had an old friend with her, a man sober, secret, and well-witted, called Reginald Bray, whose prudent policy he had known to have compassed matters of great importance; and accordingly wrote to him in Lancashire, where he then was with the countess, to come to Brecknock with all speed. He readily obeyed the summons, entered heartily into the design, and was very active in carrying it on; and soon engaged sir Giles Daubeney (afterwards lord Daubeney), sir John Ciieney, Richard GuiUbrd, esq. and many other gentlemen of note, to take part with Henry. After the success at Bosworth, he gradually rose into great favour with the king, who eminently distinguished and liberally rewarded his services. His attachment to that prince was sincere and uriremitted; and such were his ptudence and abilities, that he never forfeited the confidence he had acquired, during an attendance of seventeen years on the most suspicious monarch of his time. He was made a knight banneret, probably at the battle of Bosworth; a knight of the bath at the king’s coronation, and afterwards a kni“ht of the garter. In the first year of the kind’s reign he had a grant of the constableship of the castle of Oakham in Rutlandshire, and was appointed joint chie‘ justice, with the lord Fitzwalter, of all the forests south of Trent, and chosen of the privy council. After this he was appointed high-treasurer, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, and nigh steward of the university of Oxford. At the queen’s coronation, the ducliess of Norfolk, &c. sat at one side-table at the other, lady Ferrars, v>f Chartley, lady Bray, &c. At the christening of prince Arthur, sir Reginald bore a rich salt of gold which was given by the earl of Derby. He was amongst the knights bannerets when Henry, the king’s second son, was created duke of York in 1494. In the 7th year of the king, he by indenture covenanted to serve him in his wars beyond sea a whole year, with twelve men, himself accompted, each having his custrell and page, twenty-four demy lances, seventy-seven archers on horseback, two hundred and thirty-one archers, and bil’.es on foot twenty-four. In the 10th year he had a grant for life of the Isle of Wight, castle of Carisbrook, and the manors of Swainston, Brixton, Thorley, and Welow, in that isle, at th^ rent of 308l. 6s. 8rf. Camden mentions the grant of the Isle of Wight at the rent of 300 marks. In June 1497 he was at the battle of Blackheath, when the lord Audley, having joined the Cornish rebels, was taken prisoner; on whose execution and attainder, his manor of Shire Vachery and Crap ley in Surry, with a large estate there, was given to sir Reginald. He received many other marks of the king’s bounty and favour, and died 5th August 1503, possessed of a very great estate; notwithstanding which, and his activity as a minister, under a monarch whose love of, money was the cause of great and just complaints amongst the people, historians call him the father of his country, a sage and grave person, a fervent lover of jusuce, and one who would often admonish the king when he did any thing contrary to justice or equity. That he should do this, and the king still continue his favour, is an ample proof of the sense which his sovereign entertained of his services and abilities. He appears to have taken great delight in architecture, and to have had no small skill in it, as he had a principal concern and direction in building Henry Vllth’s chapel in Westminster-abbey, and in the finishing and bringing to perfection the chapel of St. George at Windsor, to which he was a liberal benefactor in his life-time, and for the completion of which he made farther provision by his will. His arms, crest, and device (R. B.) are exhibited on the cieling of the chapel at Windsor in many places; and in the middle of the south aile is a spacious chapel erected by him, and still called by his name, in which also, by his own particular direction, he was interred, though his executors neglected to erect a tomb for him, as he desired. Perhaps they thought his merit would be the most lasting monument. It is supposed that he is buried under the stone which covers Dr. Waterland; for, on opening the vault for that gentleman, who died in 1740, a leaden coffin, of ancient form and make, was found, which by other appearances also was judged to be that of sir Reginald, and was, by order of the dean, immediately arcned over with great decency. He was of great devotion, according to the piety of the times, and a bountiful friend, in his life-time, to many churches. In one of the letters of the dean and chapter of Westminster, John, abbot of Newminster in Northumberland, addresses him as founder of the monastery of Pipwell (in Northamptonshire); but this must be on account of some donations, as that house was founded by William Boutevileyr in 1143. In 1494, being then high steward of Oxford, he gave 40 marks to repair the church of St. Mary’s, in a window of which were the figures of him and his wife kneeling, their coats of arms on their backs, remaining in 1584. The dean and chapter of Lincoln, in recompence for his services to them, receive him and my lady his wife to be brother and sister of their chapter, and to be partakers of all suffrages, prayers, masses, fastings, almsdeeds, and other good deeds, whatever they be, done in the said church, both in their lives and after their deceases. The prior of the cathedral church of Durham receives him in like manner. In a south window of the priory church of Great Malvern in Worcestershire, were the portraits of Henry VII. Elizabeth his queen, prince Arthur, sir Reginald Bray, John Savage, and Thomas LoveJ), esquires, with their coats of arms on their armour, and the following words underneath:” Orate pro bono statu nobilissimi et excellentissimi Regis Henrici Septimi et Elizabeths Reginse, ac Domini Arthuri Principis filii eorundem, nee not) praedilectissimae consortis suoe, ac suorum trium militum." The portraits of the king and sir Reginald remained in 1774, and are engraved in Mr. Strutt’s View of the Arms and Habits of the English, vol. II, plate 60. The others have been broken and destroyed. He had no issue, and his elder brother John having only one daughter, married to sir William Sandes, afterwards lord Sandes of the Vine, he left the bulk of his fortune to Edmund, eldest son of his younger brother John (for he had two brothers of that name). This Edmund was summoned to parliament in 1530, as baron of Eaton Bray; but his son John lord Bray dying without issue in 1557, the estate was divided amongst six daughters of Edmund. Sir Reginald left very considerable estates to Edward and Reginald, younger brothers of Edmund. From Edward the manor of Shire Vachery and Cranley, above mentioned, has descended to the rev. George Bray, who was owner in 1778. Reginald settled at Barrington in Gloucestershire, where the male line of that branch became extinct about sixty years ago.

, one of the supporters of the reformation, was born at Wile in Suabia, in 1499, a city of which his father had been mayor for many years. He was educated at Heidelberg school and university, and when only fifteen years old commenced bachelor. Such was his thirst for learning, that he usually rose at midnight to his studies, which became afterwards so much a habit, that he never slept longer than midnight. At eighteen he took his master’s degree in arts, and about the same time the perusal of some of Luther’s writings induced him to change his mind in many important points, which he endeavoured to communicate to his fellow-students by lecturing to them from the gospel of St. Matthew, and his auditors increasing, it was objected to him by those who were jealous of his talents, that he was not fit for such a work, not being in orders. To remove that, he entered into orders, and became a very popular preacher. He was then called to be pastor at Hall in Suabia, where he gave such satisfaction that the senate confirmed him in the office, although he was only twenty-three years old. When Muncer and his adherents rose in arms in Germany, and threatened to besiege Hall, he not only wrote against these enthusiasts, but encouraged the citizens to defend the place, which they did with great bravery. We find him aftersvards attending a conference of the reformed clergy for the purpose of reconciling the contention between Luther and Zuinglius, respecting the real presence; and in 1530 he was at the diet of Augsburgh, where the celebrated confession of faith was drawn up. When Ulric, prince of Wirtemberg, meditated the introduction of the reformed religion in his dominions, and particularly in the university of Tubingen, he employed Brentius in that seat of learning, who accomplished the purpose to his entire satisfaction. In 1547, when the emperor Charles V. and his army came to Hall, Brentius found it necessary to make his escape; and some letters of his being found, in which he justified the protestant princes for taking arms against the emperor, he became still in more danger; but on the emperor’s removing his army, he returned to Hall again. In 1548, however, when the emperor had published the Interim, Brentius declared himself so strongly against it, that the emperor sent a commissary to Hall, charging him to bring Brentius to him, alive or dead. The magistrates and citizens would have still protected him, but, as the emperor threatened to destroy their city if he were not given up, they connived at his escape, and presently after Ulric prince of Wirtemberg afforded him an asylum, until he got to Basil. He remained^ in this kind of banishment until 1550, when Christopher duke of Wirtemberg, in room of his father Ulric deceased, resolved to restore the ministers who were driven away by the Interim, and to complete the reformation; and therefore sent for Brentius to his castle at Stutg&rd, where he might have his advice and assistance. Here at his request, Brentius drew up a confession of faith, including the controverted points, which the duke intended to send to the council of Trent; and the year after the pastor of Stutgard dying, Brentius was chosen in his room, and held the situation for life. In 1557 he went to the conferences at Worms, which ended unsatisfactorily, as the popish representatives would not admit the authority of scripture in deciding their controversies. A more important service he performed in his old age. As there were many monasteries in Wirtemberg, from which the friars had been expelled, he persuaded his prince to convert them into schools, which was accordingly done, and Brentius visited them once in two years, directing and encouraging their studies. He died in 1570, and was buried with every mark of public respect. His works were printed together in 8 vols. fol. at Tubingen, 1576 i)0: most of them had been printed separately at various periods of his life. His opinions coincided in general with those of Luther, except on the subject of the real presence, in which he held some sentiments peculiar to himself, although perhaps essentially not very different from those of the Lutheran church.

, son of Francis Durant de Breval, D. D. prebendary of Westminster, was educated at Westminster-school, to which he was admitted 1693, and removed thence to Trinity-college, Cambridge, in 1697. He was elected fellow of it about the year 1702; but, upon some disagreement between him and Dr. Bentley, the master, he quitted his fellowship, and went into the army, then in Flanders, as an ensign. The ease with which he acquired the Flemish and German languages, his great knowledge, his exquisite pencil, and genteel behaviour, were soon noticed by the duke of Marlborough; who promoted him to the rank of captain, and also employed him in jdivers negotiations with several German princes. He began his travels about 1720, published the two first volumes of them in 1723 and 1725, and the third and fourth in 1738, all in folio. It may be matter of surprise to see Mr. Breval’s name among the gentlemen of the Dunciad; but, soon after the unsuccessful exhibition of the “Three hours after marriage,” which, though with only Gay’s name to it, was certainly the joint production of Gay, Pope, and Arbuthnot, Breval, under the assumed name of Joseph Gay, produced a farce called “The Confederates,” and this exposed him to Pope’s resentment. He published also in 1734: 1. “The History of the house of Nassau,” 8vo. 2. “The Hoop-petticoat, a poem,” 1716. 3. “The Art of Dress, an heroi-eomical poem,” 1717. 4. “Mac Dermot, or the Irish Fortune-hunter,” 1717. 5. “Calpe, or Gibraltar,” apoem, 1717; and io, the following year produced a comedy called “The Play is the Plot,” which not succeeding in that shape, he reduced it to a farce called “The Strollers,” which met with more favour. In 1737 he brought out at Coventgarden, a musical opera called “The Rape of Helen.” As to what is said above, of his quitting his fellowship, the fact is, that he and a Mr. Miller were expelled. Breval, speaking of the conduct of Dr. Bentley on this occasion, used the remarkable expression of “Tantum non jugulavit.”

, translator of the duke de Rohan’s Memoirs, was the younger brother of sir Thomas Bridges, of Keinsham abbey in Somersetshire, and son of Edward Bridges, esq. of the same place, by Philippa, daughter of sir George Speke, K. B. He died Jan. 1, 1677, and was buried in Keinsham church. His translation was entitled “The Memoirs of the Duke of Rohan or a faithful relation of the most remarkable occurrences iij France, especially those concerning the reformed churches there; from the death of Henry the Great until the peace made with them, in June 1629. Together with divers politic discourses upon several occasions. Written originally in French, by the duke of Rohan, and now Englished by George Bridges, of Lincoln’s-inn, esq.” London, 1660, 8vo. The translation is dedicated to James, marquis of Onnond, lord lieutenant of Ireland. The translator says he was principally induced to publish it in our language, by some passages tending to the vindication of Charles I. in the matter of relieving the inhabitants of Rochelle, during the memorable siege of that place. A very interesting account of the family of Mr. Bridges may be seen in our authority.

Dr. Briggs’s chief patron, during his foreign travels, was the right hon. Ralph Montagu, esq. ambassador of France, and afterwards duke of Montagu. It was through this gentleman’s protection that Dr. Briggs went and studied at Montpelier, under Vieussens, to whom he acknowledged himself chiefly indebted for what skill he had in that science. The doctor was a benefactor to the college in which he had been educated. In order to render the kitchen of it more cleanly and wholesome, he caused it ta be paved with square stones; and gave besides, twenty pounds, for the augmentation of the stock for commons. He made presents, likewise, of books to the library. Dr. Briggs had a brother, Robert Briggs, who was educated in the same college, and succeeded him in his fellowship. He became successively A. B. A. M. and LL. D. was made a fellow of the royal society; and was chosen, on the 7th of February, 1686, professor of law in Gresham college, which office he held to his death, on the 22d of December, 1718.

The disappointment of Mr. Brindley’s good designs in this respect must have made the less impression upon him, as his attention was soon after called off to another object, which, in its consequences, hath proved to be of the highest national importance; namely, the projecting and executing of Inland Navigations, from whence the greatest benefits arise to trade and commerce. By these navigations the expence of carriage is lessened; a communication is opened from one part of the kingdom to another, and from each of those parts to the sea; and hence the products and manufactures of the country are afforded at a moderate price. In this period of our great mechanic’s life, we shall see the powers given him by the God of Nature, displayed in the production of events, which, in any age less pregnant with admirable works of ingenuity than the present, would have constituted a national aera. We shall see him triumphing over all the suggestions of envy or prejudice, though aided by the weight of established customs; and giving full scope to the operations of a strong and comprehensive mind, which was equal to the most arduous undertakings. This he did under the protection of a noble duke, who had the discernment to single him out, and the steadiness and generosity to "support him, against the opinions of those who treated Mr. Brindley’s plans as chimeras, and laughed at his patron as an idle projector.

His grace the late duke of Bridgevvater had, at Worsley, about seven miles from Manchester, a large estate, rich with mines of coal, which had hitherto lain useless in the bowels of the earth, because the expence of carriage by ]and was too great to find a market for consumption. The duke, wishing. to work these mines, perceived the necessity of a canal from Worsley to Manchester; upon which occasion, Mr. Brindley, who was now become famous in the country, was consulted. Having surveyed the ground, he declared the scheme to be practicable. In consequence of this, an act was obtained, in 1758 and 1759, for enabling his grace to cut a canal from Worsley to Salford, near Manchester, and to carry the same to or near Hollin Ferry, in the county of Lancaster. It being, however, afterwards discovered, that the navigation would be more beneficial, b*th to the duke of Bridgewater and the public, if carried over the river Irwell, near Barton bridge, to Manchester, his grace applied again to parliament, and procured an act, which enabled him to vary the course of his canal agreeably to this new plan, and likewise to extend a side branch to Longford bridge in Stretford. Mr. Brindley, in the mean time, had begun these great undertakings, being the first of the kind ever attempted, in England, with navigable subterraneous tunnels aird elevated aqueducts. The principle laid down at the commencement of this business reflects much honour on the noble undertaker, as well as upon his engineer. It was resolved that the canal should be perfect in its kind, and that, in order to preserve the level of the water, it should be free from the usual obstructions of locks. But, in accomplishing this end, many difficulties occurred, which were deemed unsurmountable. It was necessary that the canal should be carried over rivers, and many large and deep vallies, where it was evident that such stupendous mounds of earth must be raised, as could scarcely, it was thought, be completed by the labour of ages: and, above all, it was not known from what source so large a supply of water could be drawn, as, even upon this improved plan, would be requisite for the navigation. But Mr. Brindley, with a strength of mind peculiar to himself, and being possessed of the confidence of his great patron, who spared no expence to accomplish his favourite design, conquered all the embarrassments thrown in his way, not only from the nature of the undertaking itself, but by the passions and prejudices of interested individuals: and the admirable machines he contrived, and the methods he took, to facilitate the progress of the work, brought on such a rapid execution of it, that the world began to wonder how it could have been esteemed so difficult. Thus ready are men to find out pretences for lessening the merit of others, and for hiding, if possible, from themselves, the unpleasant idea of their own inferiority.

When the canal was completed as far as Barton, where the Irwell is navigable for large vessels, Mr. Brindley proposed to carry it over that river, by an aqueduct of thirty -nine feet above the surface of the water. This, however, being generally considered as a wild and extravagant project, he desired, in order to justify his conduct towards his noble employer, that the opinion of another engineer might be taken; believing that he* could easily convince an intelligent person of the practicability of his design. A gentleman of eminence was accordingly called in; who, being conducted to the place where it was intended that the aqueduct should be made, ridiculed the attempt; and when the height and dimensions were communicated to him, he exclaimed, “I have often heard of castles in the air, but never before was shewn where any of them were to be erected.” This unfavourable verdict did not deter the duke of Bridgewater from following the opinion of his own engineer. The aqueduct was immediately begun; and it was carried on with such rapidity and success, as astonished all those who but a little before condemned it as a chimerical scheme. This work commenced in September, 1760, and the first boat sailed over it on the 17th of July, 1761. From that time, it was not uncommon to see a boat loaded with forty tons drawn over the aqueduct, with great ease, by one or two mules; while below, against the stream of the Irwell, persons had the pain of beholding ten or twelve men tugging at an equal draught: a striking instance of the superiority of a canalnavigation over that of a river not in the tideway. The works were then extended to Manchester, at which place the curious machine for landing coals upon the top of the bill, gives a pleasing idea of Mr, Brindley’s address in diminishing labour by mechanical contrivances. It may here be observed^ that the bason, in particular, for conveying the superfluous water into the Irwell, below the canal, is an instance of what an attentive survey of this ingenious man’s works will abundantly evince, that, where occasion offered, he well knew how to-unite elegance with utility.

The duke of Bridgewater perceiving, more and more, the importance of these inland navigations, extended his ideas to Liverpool; and though he had every difficulty to encounter, that could arise from the novelty of his undertakings, or the fears and prejudices of those whose interests were likely to be effected by them, his grace happily overcame all opposition, and obtained, in 1762, an act of parliament for branching his canal to the tideway hi the Mersey. This part of the canal is carried over the rivers Mersey and Bollan, and over many wide and deep vallies. Over the yaliies it is conducted without the assistance of a single lock; the level of the water being preserved by raising a mound of earth, and forming therein a mould, as it may be called, for the water. Across the valley at Stretford, through which the Mersey runs, this kind of work extends nearly a mile. A person might naturally have been led to conclude, that the conveyance of such a mass of earth must have employed all the horses and carriages in the country, and that the completion of it would be the business of an age. But our excellent mechanic made his canal subservient to this part of his design, and brought the soil in boats of a peculiar construction, which were conducted into caissoons or cisterns. On opening the bottoms of the boats, the earth was deposited where it was wanted; and thus, in the easiest and simplest manner, the valley was elevated to a proper level for continuing the canal. The ground across the Bollan was raised by temporary locks, which were formed of the timber used in the caissoons just mentioned. In the execution of every part of the navigation, Mr. Brindley displayed singular skill and ingenuity; and, in order to facilitate his purpose, he produced many valuable machines, which ought never to be forgotten in this kingdom. Neither ought the oeconomy and forecast which are apparent through the whole work to be omitted. His ceconomy and forecast are peculiarly discernible in the stops, or floodgates, fixed in the canal, where it is above the level of the land. These stops are so constructed, that, should any of the banks give way, and thereby occasion a current, the adjoining gates will rise by that motion only, and prevent any other part of the water from escaping than what is near the breach between the two gates.

The success with which the duke of Bridgewater’s undertakings were crowned, encouraged a number of gentlemen and manufacturers, in Staffordshire, to revive the idea of a canal navigation through that county, for the advancement of the landed interest and the benefit of trade, in conveying to market, at a cheaper rate, the products and manufactures of the interior parts of the kingdom. This plan was patronized, and generously supported, by lord Gower and Mr. Anson; and it met with the concurrence of many persons of rank, fortune, and influence in the neighbouring counties. Mr. Brindley was, therefore, engaged to make a survey from the Trent to the Mersey; and, upon his reporting that it was practicable to construct a canal, from one of these rivers to the other, and thereby to unite the ports of Liverpool and Hull, a subscription for carrying it into execution was set on foot in 1765, and an act of parliament was obtained in the same year. In 1766, this canal, - called, by the proprietors, “The Canal from the Trent to the Mersey,” but more emphatically, by the engineer, the Grand Trunk Navigation, on account of the numerous branches which, he justly supposed, would be extended every way from it, was begun; and, under his direction, it was conducted, with great spirit and success, as long as he lived. Mr. Brindley’s life not being continued to the completion of this important and arduous undertaking, he left it to be finished by his brother-in-law, Mr. Henshall, who put the last hand to it, in May 1777, being somewhat less than eleven years after its commencement. We need riot say, that the final execution of the Grand Trunk Navigation gave the highest satisfaction to the proprietors, and excited a general joy in a populous country, the inhabitants of which already receive every advantage they could wish from so truly noble an enterprize. This canal is ninety-three miles in length; and, besides a large number of bridges over it, has seventy-six locks and five tunnels. The most remarkable of the tunnels is the subterraneous passage of Harecastle, being 2880 yards in length, and more then seventy yards below the surface of the earth. The scheme of this inland navigation had employed the thoughts of the Ingenious part of the kingdom for upwards of twenty years before, and some surveys had beeo made. But Harecastle hill, through which the tunnel is constructed, could neither be avoided nor overcome by any expedient the ablest engineers could devise. It was Mr. Brindley alone who surmounted this and other difficulties, arising from the variety of measures, strata, and quick-sands, which none but himself would have attempted.

Mr. Brindley had, for some time, the direction of the Calder navigation; but he declined a farther inspection of it, on account of a difference in opinion among the commissioners. In the year 1766, he laid out a canal from the river Calder, at Cooper’s bridge, to Huddersfield in Yorkshire, which hath since been carried into execution. In 1768, he revised the plan for the inland navigation from Leeds to Liverpool. He was, likewise, at the first general meeting of the proprietors after the act of parliament had been obtained, appointed the engineer for conducting the work: but the multiplicity of his other engagements obliged him to decline this employment. In the same year, he planned a canal from Stockton, by Darlington, to Winston in the bishopric of Durham. Three plans, of the like kind, were formed by him in 1769; one from Leeds to Selby; another from the Bristol channel, near Uphill in Somersetshire, to Glastonbury, Taunton, Wellington, Tiverton, and Exeter; and a third from Langport, in the county of Somerset, by way of Ilminster, Chard, and Axminster, to the South channel, at Axmouth, in the county of Devon. In 1770, he surveyed the country, for a canal from Andover, by way. of Stockb'ridge and Rumsey, to Redbridge, near Southampton; and, in 1771, from Salisbury, by -Fordingbridge and Ringwood, to Christchurch. He performed the like office, in 1772, for a navigation of the same kind, proposed to be carried on from Preston to Lancaster, and from thence to Kendal, in Westmoreland. He surveyed, likewise, and planned out a canal, to join that of the duke of Bridgewater’s at Runcorn, from Liverpool. If this scheme had been executed, it was Mr. Brindley’s intention to have constructed the work, by an aqueduct over the river Mersey, at a place where the tide flows fourteen feet in height. He also surveyed the county of Chester, for a canal from the Grand Trunk to the city-of Chester. The plan for joining the Forth and the Clyde was revised by him; and he proposed some considerable alterations, particularly with regard to the deepening of the Clyde, which have been attended to by the managers. He was consulted upon several improvements with respect to the draining of the low lands, in different parts of Lincolnshire and the Isle of Ely. A canal was, likewise, laid out by him, for uniting that of Chesterfield, by the way of Derby, with the Grand Trunk at Swarkstone. To the corporation of Liverpool, he gave a>*plan for cleansing their docks of mud. This hath been put into execution with the desired effect: and he pointed out, also, -the method, which has been attended with equal success, of building walls against the sea without mortar. The last of our great mechanic’s ingenious and uncommon contrivances, that we shall mention, is his improvement of the machine for drawing water out of mines, by a losing and a gaining bucket: This he afterwards employed, to advantage, in raising up coals from the mines.

who very soon gave indications of uncommon talents, and extensive views, in the application of mechanical principles; and who, by a happy concurrence of circumstances, the chief of which was the patronage of his grace the duke of Bridgewater, was favoured with an opportunity of unfolding and displaying his wonderful powers, in the execution of works new to this country, and such as will ex*-. tend his fame, and endear his memory, to future times. The public could only recognize the merit of this extraordinary man in the stupendous undertakings which he carried to perfection, and exhibited to general view. But those who had the advantage of conversing with him familiarly, and of knowing him well in his private character, respected him still more for the uniform and unshaken integrity of his conduct; for his steady attachment to the interest of the community; for the vast compass of his understanding, which seemed to have a natural affinity with all grand objects; and, likewise, for many noble and beneficent designs, constantly generating in his mind, and which the multiplicity of his engagements, and the shortness of his life, prevented him from bringing to maturity.

, an eminent French physician, was born at Fontenai-le-Comte, in Poitou, 147s, and about 1495 was sent to Paris, where he went through a course of philosophy under Villemar, a famous professor of those times. By his advice, Brissot resolved to be a physician, and studied physic there for four years. Then he began to teach philosophy in the university of Paris; and, after he had done this for ten years, prepared himself for the examinations necessary to his doctor of physic’s degree, which he took in May 1514, Being one of those men who are not contented with custom and tradition, but choose to examine for themselves, he made an exact comparison between the practice of his own times and the doctrine of Hippocrates and Galen and he found that the Arabians had introduced many things into physic that were contrary to the doctrine of those two great masters, and to reason and experience. He set himself therefore to reform physic; and for this purpose undertook publicly to explain Galen’s books, instead of those of Avicenna, Rhasis, and Mesu'i, which were commonly explained in the schools of physic; but, finding himself obstructed in the work of reformation by his ignorance of botany, he resolved to travel, in order to acquire the knowledge of plants, and put himself into a capacity of correcting pharmacy. Before, however, he left Paris, he undertook to convince the public of what he deemed an inveterate error; but which now is considered as a matter of little consequence. The constant practice of physicians, in the pleurisy, Was to bleed from the arm, not on the side where the distemper was, but the opposite side. Brissot disputed about it in the physic-schools, confuted that practice, and shewed, chat it was falsely pretended to be agreeable to the doctrine of Hippocrates and Galen. He then left Paris in 1518, and went to Portugal, stopping there at Ebora, where he practised physic; but his new way of bleeding in the pleurisy, notwithstanding his great success, did not please every body, He received a long and rude letter about it from Denys, physician to the king of Portugal; which he answered, and would have published if death had not prevented him in 1522. It was printed, however, three years after at Paris, and reprinted at Basil in 1529. Renatus Moreau published a new edition of it at Paris in 1622, with a treatise of his own, “De missione sanguinis in pleuritide,” and the life of Brissot; out of which this account is taken. He never would marry, being of opinion that matrimony did not well agree with study. One thing is related of him, which his biographer, rather uncharitably, says, deserves to be taken notice of, because it is singular in the men of his profession; and it is, that he did not love gain. He cared so little for it, that when he was called to a sick person, he looked into his purse; and, if he found but two pieces of gold in it, refused to go. This, however, it is acknowledged, was owing to his great love of study, from which it was very difficult to take him. The dispute between Denys and Brissot raised a kind of civil war among the Portuguese physicians. The business was brought before the tribunal of the university of Salamanca, Where it was thoroughly discussed by the faculty of physic; but in the mean time, the partisans of Denys had recourse to the authority of the secular power, and obtained a decree, forbidding physicians to bleed on the same side in which the pleurisy was. At last the university of Salamanca gave their judgment; importing, that the opinion of Brissot was the true doctrine of Hippocrates and Galen. The followers of Denys appealed to the emperor about 1529, thinking themselves superior both in authority and number; and the matter was brought before Charles V. They were not contented to call the doctrine of their adversaries false; they added that it was impious, mortal, and as pernicious to the body as Luther’s schism to the souL They not only blackened the reputation of their adversaries by private arts, but also openly accused them of ignorance and rashness, of attempts on religion, and of being downright Lutherans in physic. It fell out Unluckily for them, that Charles III. duke of Savoy, happened to die of a pleurisy, after he had been bled according to the practice which Brissot opposed. Had it not been for this, the emperor, it is thought, would have granted every thing that Erissot’s adversaries desired of him; but this accident induced him to leave the cause undecided. “Two things,” says Bayle, in his usual prattling way, “occur in this relation, which all wise men must needs condemn; namely, the base, the disingenuous, the unphilosophic custom of interesting religion in disputes about science, and the folly and absurdity of magistrates to be concerned in such disputes. A magistrate is for the most part a very incompetent judge of such matters; and, as he Jiiiows nothing of them, so he ought to imitate Gallio in this at least, that is, not to care for them; but to leave those whose business it is, to fight it out among themselves. Besides, authority has nothing to do with philosophy and the sciences; it should be kept at a great distance from them, for the same reason that armed forces are removed from a borough at the time of a % general assize; namely, that reason and equity may have their full play.”

Brissot, at the period of his residence at Boulogne, had been introduced to mademoiselle Dupont, who was employed under mad. de Genlis as reader to the daughter of the duke of Orleans, and whose mother kept a lodginghouse in that place: and having married this lady, he found it necessary to exert his literary talents for gaining a subsistence. But as France did not afford that liberty, which he wished to indulge, he formed a design of printing, in Swisserland or Germany, a series of works in a kind of periodical publication, under the title of “An universal Correspondence on points interesting to the welfare of Man and of Society,” which he proposed to smuggle into France. With this view, he visited Geneva and Neuchatel, in order to establish correspondences; and he also made a journey to London, which was to be the central point of the establishment, and the fixed residence of the writers. His intentions, however, were divulged by the treachery of some of his confidential associates; and the scheme totally failed. During his abode in London, he concerted the plan of a periodical work or journal, on the literature, arts, and politics of England, which, being published in London, was allowed to be reprinted at Paris, and first appeared in 1784. The avowed object of this publication, as he himself declares, was “the universal emancipation of men.” In London, he was arrested for debt; but, being liberated by the generosity of a friend, he returned to Paris, where he was committed to the Bastille in July 1784, on the charge of being concerned in a very obnoxious publication. But by the interest of the duke of Orleans, he was released, on condition of never residing in England, and discontinuing his political correspondence. In 1785, he published two letters to the emperor Joseph II. “Concerning the Right of Emigration, and the Right of the People to revolt,” which he applied particularly to the case of the Waiachsans: and in the following year appeared his “Philosophical Letters on the History of England,” in 2 vols. and “A critical Examination of the Travels of the marq is de Chatelleux in North America.” With a view of promoting a close, political, and commercial union between France and the United States, he wrote in 1787, with the assistance of Claviere, a tract, entitled “De la France et des Etats Unis, &c.” “On France and the United States or on the Importance of the American Revolution to the kingdom of France, and the reciprocal advantages which will accrue from a commercial Intercourse between the two nations.” Of this work, an English translation was published, both in England and America. At this time he was in the service of the duke of Orleans, as secretary to his chancery, with a handsome salary, and apartments in the palais royal; and, without doubt, employed in aiding that monster in his schemes of ambition. In this situation, he wro:e a pamphlet against the administration of the archbishop of Sens, entitled “No Bankruptcy, &c.” which occasioned the issuing of a lettre de cachet against him. But to avoid its effect, he went to Holland, England, and the Low Countries; and at Mechlin, he edited a newspaper, called “Le Courier Beigique.” For the purpose of promoting the views of a society at Paris, denominated “Les Amis des Noirs,” and established for the purpose of abolishing negro slavery, he embarked for America in 1788; and, during his residence in that country, he sought for a convenient situation, in which a colony of Frenchmen might be organized into a republic, according to his ideas of political liberty. But his return was hastened in 1789 by the intelligence he received of the progress of the French revolution. After his arrival, he published his “Travels in America;” (Nouveau Voyage dans les Etats Unis, &. Paris, 1791, 3 vols. 8vo), and as he found the attention of the public directed to the approaching assembly of the states-general, he wrote his “Plan of Conduct for the Deputies of the People.” At this time, he had withdrawn from the partisans of the duke of Orleans; and he took an active part in the plans that were then projected for the organization of the people, with a view to their union and energy in accomplishing the revolution. To the lodgings of Brissot, as a person who was held in estimation at this period, the keys of the Bastille, when it was taken, were conveyed; he also became president of the Jacobin club; and he distinguished himself in various ways as a zealous promoter of those revolutionary principles, which afterwards gave occasion to a great jiumber of atrocious excesses. After the king’s flight to Varennes, Brissot openly supported the republican cause; but, as some form of monarchy was still the object of the national wish, he was obliged to restrain his impetuosity. The popularity acquired by his writings and conduct was such, as to induce the Parisians to return him as one of their members in the “Legislative national assembly,” which succeeded the “Constituent assembly,” in October 1791, of which assembly he was appointed secretary; and he became afterwards a member of the committee of public instruction. Although inferior to many others in talents and knowledge, his activity raised him to the rank of head or chief, in the party denominated “Girondists” or “La Gironde,” the name of the department to which several of its members belonged, and also from his own name “Brissotins.” In his career of ambition, he does not seem to have been influenced by pecuniary cc nsiderations; power, more than wealth, being the object of his aim; for, at this time, he and his family lodged in an apartment up four pair of stairs, and subsisted on his stipend as deputy, and the inconsiderable gains accruing from a newspaper. As a determined enemy to monarchy, he was unremitting in his efforts to engage the nation in a war, with the avowed purpose of involving the king and his ministers in difficulties which would terminate in their ruin, and this part of his political conduct must ever be lamented and execrated by the friends of freedom and of mankind. In the impeachment of M. Delessart, the minister for foreign affairs, Brissot took a principal lead; and alleged against him several articles of accusation, in consequence of which, he was apprehended, tried by the high national court at Orleans, and condemned to die, without being h'rst heard in his own defence, so that he became the first victim to that desperate faction, which afterwards deluged France with blood. His colleagues were so complex ly terrified by this event, that they requested leave to resign, and the ministry was at once completely dissolved. Their successors, appointed by the king, under the direction and inriuence of Brissot, were Dumourier, Roland, and Ciaviere. This appointment was followed bya declaration of war, decreed by the national assembly, against the king of Hungary and Bohemia; and Brissot, during the existence of this administration, which terminated soon, was considered as the most powerful person in France. About this time, Brissot began to entertain secret jealousy and suspicion of La Fayette, and concurred with other members of the assembly, in signing an accusation against him, which, however, he was not able to substantiate. He and his republican party were likewise industrious in their endeavours to throw an odium on the court, by alleging, that a private correspondence was carried on between the king and queen and the emperor; and they even averred, that an “Austrian Committee,” and a conspiracy in favour of the enemies of the country, existed among the friends of the court. The charge seemed to be unsupported by sufficient evidence; the king publicly contradicted these accusations as calumnies; nevertheless, they made no small impression on the minds of the public. To the writings and conduct of Brissot, the horrid massacres at the Tuiileries, on the 10th of August, 1792, have been principally ascribed; and it is a poor excuse that he is said to have preserved the lives of several of the Swiss guards on that fatal day. He was employed to draw up the declaration to the neutral powers concerning the suspension of the king’s authority; but he is said to have regarded with horror the sanguinary spirit that was now predominant among the leaders of the jacobins. Whilst, indeed, he was ascending to the pinnacle of power, he seems to have been the ardent advocate of insurrection and the revolutionary power: but as he found himself raised to that station, he began to inculcate “order and the constitution,” the usual cant of all demagogues who think they have attained their object. In the shocking massacre of the prisoners at Paris in September, he had probably no other concern, than the inwhich his irritating speeches and writings had created on the minds of the more active agents. When the “National convention,” the idea of which is said to have been suggested by him, assumed the direction of the state, and assembled on the 20th of September, 1792, he was returned as member for the department of Eure and Loire, his native country. In this assembly, he openly avowed himself an advocate for a republican government, in opposition both to the Jacobins and Orleanists; and was expelled the Jacobin club. On this occasion, he wrote a vindication of his public conduct, under the title of “An Address to all the Republicans.” He is said to have been so far shocked by the prospect of the fatal issue of the king’s trial, as to have attempted the preservation of his life, by deferring his execution till the constitution should be perfected; a proposition of which the absurdity and cruelty are nearly equal. The war with England, which soon followed the death of Louis, is ascribed to his ardour find credulity; for he was led to imagine, that the consequence of it would be a civil war in this country; and it is said, that this, as well as the war with Holland, was decreed in the national convention, Feb. 1, 1793, at his motion. This charge, however, he retorts on his accusers, and says, that the anarchists, by voting the death of the king, were themselves the authors of the war,

About the commencement of the last century, a passion prevailed among several persons of distinction, of collecting old books and Mss.; and it was their Saturday’s amusement during winter, to ramble through various quarters of the town in pursuit of these treasures. The earls of Oxford, Pembroke, Sunderland, and Winchelsea, and the duke of Devonshire, were of this party, and Mr. Bagford and other collectors assisted them in their researches. Britton appears to have been employed by them; and, as he was a very inodest, decent, and unpresuming man, he was a sharer in their conversation, when they met after their morning’s walk, at a bookseller’s shop in Ave-Maria lane, Britton used to pitch his coal-sack on 'a bulk at the door, and, dressed in his b ue frock, to step in and spend an hour with the company. But it was not only by a few literary lords that his acquaintance was cultivated; his humble roof was frequented by assemblies of the fair and the gay; and his fondness for music caused him to be known by many dilettanti and professors, who formed themselves into aciub at his house, where capital pieces were played by some of the first professional artists, and other practitioners; and here Duboprg, when a child, played, standing upon a joint-stool, the Hrst solo that he ever executed in public.

On the 28th of September 1754, he obtained an honorary degree from the university of Dublin, and was admitted to Cambridge ad eundem the 16th of December following. In virtue of this degree at Cambridge, he became a fellow of the college of London the 25th of June 1756; and, on the 7th of October 1758 (on the recommendation of Dr. Shaw, favoured by the patronage of the late lord Barrington), he was appointed physician to the army. In this capacity he attended in Germany the best part of what is called “the seven years’ war,” where he was soon distinguished by his knowledge, his zeal, and humanity; and particularly recommended himself to the notice of his grace the duke of Richmond, the late lord Pembroke, and others, which with the former mellowed into a friendship, only terminated by the doctor’s life. On the 27th of October 1760, he was appointed physician to the hospitals for the British forces, and returned to England some time before the peace of 1763.

On his return he settled in Norfolk-street, in the Strand, where he was considered as a physician of very extensive experience, particularly in all diseases incident to the army. His practice spread in proportion to his reputation; and, with his half-pay, and an estate of about six hundred pounds per year, which devolved on him by the death of his father, he was now enabled to live in a very handsome manner, and his table was frequently filled with some of the most distinguished persons for rank, learning, and abilities in the kingdom. In the course of his practice, his advice as well as his purse was ever accessible to the poor, as well as to men of merit who stood in need of either. Besides giving his advice to the poor of all descriptions, which he did with an active and unwearied benevolence, he had always upon his list two or three poor widows, to whom he granted small annuities; and who, on the quarter day of receiving their stipends, always partook of the hospitalities of his table. To his relations who wanted his assistance in their business or professions, he was not only liberal, but so judicious in his liberalities as to supersede the necessity of a repetition of them. To his friend Dr. Johnson (when it was in agitation amongst his friends to procure an enlargement of his pension, the better to enable him to travel for the benefit of his health), he offered an establishment of one hundred pounds per year during his life: and, upon doctor Johnson’s declining it (which he did in the most affectionate terms of gratitude and friendship), he made him a second offer of apartments in his own house, for the more immediate benefit of medical advice. To his old and intimate friend Edmund Burke, he had many years back bequeathed by will the sum of one thousand pounds; but recollecting that this event might take place (which it afterwards did) when such a legacy could be of no service to him, he, with that judicious liberality for which he was always distinguished, gave it to him in advance, “ut pignus arnicitite;” it was accepted as such by Mr. Burke, accompanied with a letter, which none but a man feeling the grandeur and purity of friendship like him, could dictate. Passing through a life thus honourably occupied in the liberal pursuits of his profession, and in the confidence and friendship of some of the first characters of the age for rank or literary attainments, the doctor reached his 73d year; and finding those infirmities, generally attached to that time of life, increase upon him, he gave up a good deal of the bustle of business, as well as his half-pay, on being appointed, by his old friend and patron the duke of Richmond, physician general to the royal regiment of artillery and corps of engineers, March, 1794. This was a situation exactly suited to his time of life and inclinations; hence he employed his time in occasional trips to Woolwich, with visits to his friends and patients. In this last list he never forgot either the poor or those few friends whom he early attended as a medical man gratuitously. Scarcely any distance, or any other inconvenience, could repress this benevolent custom; and when he heard by accident that any of this latter description of his friends were ill, and had through delicacy abstained from sending for him, he used to say, somewhat peevishly, “Why am I treated thus? Why was not I sent for?”

In 1746 he wrote an epilogue on the birth-day of the duke of Cumberland, spoken by Mr. Garrick in Dublin, and a prologue to Othello. In 1747 he contributed to Moore’s volume of Fables, four of great poetical merit, viz. “The Temple of Hymen;” “The Sparrow and Dove;” “The Female Seducers,” and “Love and Vanity.” In 1748 he wrote a prologue to the Foundling, and a dramatic opera entitled “Little John and the Giants.” This was acted only one night in Dublin, being then prohibited on account of certain political allusions. On this occasion he wrote “The last speech of John Good, alias Jack the Giant Queller,” a satirical effusion, not very pointed, and mixed with political allegory, and a profusion of quotations from scripture against tyrants and tyranny. In 1749, his “Karl of Essex,” a tragedy, was performed at Dublin, and afterwards, in 1760, at Drury-lane theatre, with so much success as to he preferred to the rival plays on the same subject by Banks and Jones. At what time his other dramatic pieces were written, or acted, if acted at all, is uncertain .

, late Somerset-herald, was the son of William Brooke, M. D. of Fieidhead, near Dodsworth in Yorkshire, and a gentleman by descent. He was born in 1748, and put apprentice to Mr. James Kirkby, a chemist, in Bartlett’s-buildings, London; but discovering a strong turn to heraldic pursuits, and having, by a pedigree of the Howard family, which he drew, attracted the notice of the then duke of Norfolk, he procured him a place in the college of arms, by the title of Rouge Croix pursuivant, in 1775, from which, in 1778. he was advanced to that of Somerset herald, which office he held at his death, and by the interest of the present duke of Norfolk he was also one of the lieutenants in the militia of the West Riding of Yorkshire. On Feb. 3, 1794, he was suffocated, with his friend Mr. Pingo of York, and many other persons, in attempting to get into the pit at the little theatre in the Hay market. It did not appear that he had been thrown down, but was suffocated as he stood; his countenance had the appearance of sleep, and even the colour in his cheeks remained. He was interred, with great respect, and the attendance of the principal members of the college and of the society of antiquaries, Feb. 6, in a vault under the heralds’ seat, in the church of St. Bennet, Paul’s Wharf. A mural monument, by Ashton, has since been placed over his remains by Edmund Lodge x esq. Lancaster herald.

The world were not a little surprised at the elevation of Farinello. But to those who looked narrowly into his moral character it was no wonder at all; and they rejoiced at it. He had nothing in. him of what are called the airs of a courtier. He enjoyed the favour of the monarch more in being serviceable to others, than in turning it to his own emolument. When right and equity spoke in behalf of any one, that person might be sure of his interest with the king; but, if the case was reversed, he was immoveable as a rock. One of the great men applied to him once for his recommendation to be appointed viceroy of Peru, and offered him a present of 400,000 piastres by way of inducement. Another sent him a_ casket filled with gold, desiring no other return than his friendship. He generously spurned at the proposals of both. General Montemar had brought with him from Italy a great number of musicians and other artists, who, on the disgrace of that officer, were all left destitute of bread. Farinello took them into his protection, and furnished them with the means of gaining a livelihood. Among them was Jacob Campana Bonavera, whom he placed as assistant to the machinist Pavia, and afterwards promoted him to the inspectorship of the royal theatre. Theresa Castellini of Milan, the singer who had been called by queen Barbara to Madrid, and who at that time had a greater disposition than qualification for the art, he took under his instruction, and completed her for her employment In the dreadful distresses that ensued upon the earthquake at Lisbon, when the vocal performers and dancers implored his assistance, to the collection he made for them from the royal family and his friends, he added two thousand doubloons from his own private purse. Disposed as he was to be liberal in his bounty towards others, he found it no less difficult to ask for any thing that had reference to himself. It was not by his recommendation, but by his own deserts, that his brother Riccardo was promoted to the office of commissary at war for the marine department. This Riccardo died in 1756, in the flower of his age. He had been master of the band in the service of the duke of Wurtemberg; and a musical work printed at London is a proof of his force and skill in composition.

The loss of such a friend, and the consequences of it, were extremely distressing to Farinello. The king had hardly closed his eyes, but the favourite’s apartments were as solitary as a desert. Friends and acquaintance, whom he had loaded with benefits, now turned their backs upon him, and a general revolution took place in his affairs. Two days after the king’s death he returned to Madrid, and there remained till the arrival of king Charles from Italy. He went as far as Saragossa to ineet him, to thank him for the assurance he had given him of continuing his appointment. The king received him very graciously, and confirmed the promise he had already made him the foregoing year, at the same time adding, that he was induced to this by his moderation and discretion, and that he was thoroughly convinced that he had never abused the king’s partiality for him. After a stay of three weeks at Saragossa, he bent his course towards Italy, without returning to Madrid, where he had commissioned a friend to send his baggage after him. In Italy his first care was to wait upon don Philippo duke of Parma, and the king of Naples, who gave him a very gracious reception. The joy which his old friends and patrons testified on his retarn to Naples is not to be described. After remaining here six months, he repaired to Naples by the way of Bologna, where he passed the rest of his days in tranquillity.

, a learned divine, and one of the original writers of the Biographia Britannica, was born at London, July 5, 1704, in the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn; of which parish his father was minister. At an early age he was sent to Eton-school, where he soon distinguished himself by the acuteness of his genius and the studiousness of his disposition. Being superannuated on this foundation, he removed, about 1722, to the university of Cambridge; and, for the sake of a scholarship, entered himself of Gonville and Caius college. Here two of the principal objects of his attention were, the acquisition of the knowledge of the modern languages, and the study of the mathematics under the famous professor Sanderson. May 28, 1727, Mr. Broughton, after taking the degree of B. A. was admitted to deacon’s orders. In the succeeding year, Sept. 22, he was ordained priest, and proceeded to the degree of M. A. At this time he removed from the university to the curacy of Offley in Hertfordshire. In 1739, he was instituted to the rectory of Stepington, otherwise Stibmgton, in the county of Huntingdon, on the presentation of John duke of Bedford, and was appointed one of that nobleman’s chaplains. Soon after, he was chosen reader to the Temple, by which means he became known to bishop Sherlock, then master of it, who conceived so high an opinion of our author’s merit, that, in 1744, this eminent prelate presented Mr. Broughton to the valuable vicarage of Bedminster, near Bristol, together with the chapels of St. Mary Redcliff, St. Thomas, and Abbot’s Leigh, annexed. Some short time after, he was collated, by the same patron, to the prebend of Bedminster and Redcliff, in the cathedral of Salisbury. Upon receiving this preferment, he removed from London to Bristol, where he married the daughter of Thomas Harris, clerk of that city, by whom he had seven children, six of whom survived him. He resided on his living till his death, which happened Dec. 21, 1774, in the 71st year of his age. He was interred in the church of St. Mary RedclifF.

, a celebrated painter, according to some, was born at Oudenarde, in Flanders, or according to others, at Haerlem, in Holland, in 1608. His parents were of the poorer sort. His mother sold to the country people bonnets and handkerchiefs, on which Adrian, when almost in infancy, used to paint flowers and birds, and while thus employed, was discovered by Francis Hals, an eminent artist, who, charmed with the ease and taste he displayed in his art, proposed to take him as an apprentice, and Brouwer did not long hesitate about accepting such an dffer. His master soon discovered his superior talents, and separated him from his companions, that he might profit the better by him, locked him up in a garret, and compelled him to work, while he nearly starved him, but some pieces he painted by stealth, which probably irritated his jailor to be more watchful of him. By the advice, however, of Adrian Van Ostade, one of his companions, he contrived to make his escape, and took refuge in a church. There, almost naked, and not knowing where to go, he was recognised by some person, who brought him back to his master, and by means of a suit of clothes and some caresses, effected a temporary reconciliation; but being again subjected to the same mercenary and tyrannical usage, he made his escape a second time, and went to Amsterdam, where he had the happiness to find that his name was well known, and that his works bore a great price. A picture dealer with whom he lodged, gave him an hundred ducatoons for a painting representing gamesters, admirably executed, which Brouwer, who had never possessed so much money, spent in a tavern in the course of ten days. He then returned to his employer, and when asked what he had done with his money, answered that he had got rid of it, that he might be more at leisure; and this unfortunate propensity to alternate work and extravagance marked the whole of his future life, and involved him in many ridiculous adventures and embarrassments unworthy of a man of genius. As soon as ‘he had finished any piece, he offered it for sale; and if it did not produce a stipulated price, he burnt it, and began another with greater care. Possessing a vein of low humour, and engaging, both sober and drunk, in many droll adventures, he removed from Amsterdam to Antwerp, where he was arrested as a spy, and committed to prison. This circumstance introduced him to an acquaintance with the duke d’Aremberg, who, having observed his genius, by some slight sketches drawn with black lead while in custody, requested Rubens to furnish him with materials for painting. Brouwer chose for his subject a groupe of soldiers playing at cards in a corner of the prison; and when the picture was finished, the duke himself was astonished, and Rubens, when he saw it, offered for it the sum of 600 guilders. The duke, however, retained it, and gave the painter a much larger sum. Upon this, Rubens procured his release, and received him into his house; but, uninfluenced by gratitude to his benefactor, he stole away, and returned to the scenes of low debauch, to which he had been formerly accustomed. Being reduced to the necessity of flying from justice, he took refuge in France; and, having wandered through several towns, he was at length constrained by indigence to return to Antwerp, where he was taken ill, and obliged to seek relief in an hospital; and in this asylum of self-procured poverty and distress he died in his 32d year. Rubens lamented his death, and procured for him an honourable interment in the church of the Carmelites.

, vicar of Olney in Buckinghamshire, and chaplain of Morden college, was born in 1703, and was originally a pen-cutter. Early in life he distinguished himself by his, poetical talents, and when only twenty years of age, published a tragedy called “Polidus,” and a farce called “All-bedevilled,” which were played together at a private theatre in St. Alban’s-street, neither of much merit. He became afterwards a frequent contributor to the Gentleman’s Magazine, and carried off several of the prizes which Cave, the printer and proprietor of that Magazine, then offered for the best compositions. When, Cave published a translation of Du Halde’s China, he inscribed the different plates to his friends, and one to “Moses Browne,” with which familiar designation Browne thought proper to be offended, and Cave, to pacify him, directed the engraver to introduce Mr. with a caret under the line. In 1729, he published his “Piscatory Eclogues,” without his name, which were reprinted in 1739, among his “Poems on various subjects,” 8vo, and again in an extended form, with notes, in 1773. For along time, however, even after his abilities were known, he remained in poverty, and in 1745, when it appears he had a wife and seven children, we find him applying to Dr. Birch for the situation of messenger, or door-keeper, to the royal society. In 1750, he published an edition of Walton and Cotton’s Angler, with a preface, notes, and some valuable additions, which was republished in 1759 and 1772, and in the former year drew him into a controversy with sir John Hawkins, who happened to be then publishing an improved edition of the same work. From his poems, as well as from the scattered observations in the “Angler,” he appears to have been always of a religious turn; and in 1752 published in verse, a series of devout contemplations, entitled “Sunday Thoughts,” which went through a second edition in 1764, and a third in 1781. In 1753, having some prospect of encouragement in the church, he took orders, and soon after his ordination was presented by the earl of Dartmouth to the vicarage of Olney in Buckinghamshire, on the cession of Mr. Wolsey Johnson. In 1754 he published a sermon, preached at Olney, on Christmas day, entitled “The Nativity and Humiliation of Jesus Christ, practically considered.” In 1755, he published a small quarto poem, entitled “Percy Lodge,” a seat of the duke and duchess of Somerset, written by command of their late graces, in 1749. In what year he was presented to the vicarage of Sutton, in Lincolnshire, we are not informed; but in 1763, he was elected to the chaplainship of Morden college in Kent, and some time after appointed the late rev. John Newton for his curate at Olney. In 1765 he published a sermon “preached to the Society for the Reformation of Manners,” and a few years after, a “Visitation Sermon,” delivered at Stony Stratford. Besides these, Mr. Browne is said to have published one or two political tracts; and in 1772, a translation of a work of John Liborius Zimmerman, entitled “The Excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ,” London, 12mo. He died at Morden college, Sept. 13, 1787, aged eighty-four. His wife died in 1783. Mr. Browne was a man of some learning and piety, but as a poet, we fear he cannot be allowed to rank higher than among versifiers.

, a physician of the last century, and a man of a singular and whimsical cast of mind, was born in 1692, and in 1707 was entered of Peterhouse, Cambridge, where he took the degrees, B. A. 1710, M, A. 1714, and M. D. 1721, and soon after settled at Lynn, in Norfolk, where he published v Dr. Gregory’s “Elements of catoptrics and dioptrics,” translated from the Latin original, to which he added: 1. A method for finding the ibcrof all specula, as well as lenses universally; as also magnifying or lessening a given object by a given speculum, or lens> in any assigned proportion. 2. A solution of those problems which Dr. Gregory has left undemonstrated. 3. A particular account of microscopes and telescopes, from Mr. Huygens; with the discoveries made by catoptrics and dioptrics. By an epigram, many of which he provoked, he appears to have been the champion of the fair sex at Lynn, in 1748. On one occasion, a pamphlet having been written against him, he nailed it up against his house-door. Having acquired a competency by his profession, he removed to Queen-square, Ormondstreet, London, where he resided till his death, which happened March 10, 1774, at the age of 82. A great number of lively essays, both in prose and verse, the production of his pen, were printed and circulated among his friends. Among these were: 1. “Ode in imitation of Horace,” ode 3, lib. iii. addressed to the right hon. sir Robert Walpole, on ceasing to be minister, Feb. 6, 1741; designed, he says, as a just panegyric on a great minister, the glorious revolution, protestant succession, and principles of liberty. To which was added the original ode, “defended in commentariolo.” It was inscribed to George carl of Orford, as an acknowledgement of the favours conferred by his lordship as well as by his father and grandfather. On the first institution of the militia, our author was appointed one of the earl’s deputy-lieutenants, and was named in his lordship’s first commission of the peace. 2. Opuscula varia utriusque linguae, medicinam; medicorum collegium; literas, utrasque academias; empiricos, eorum cultores; solicitatorem, prsestigiatorem; poeticen, criticen; patronum, patriam; religionem, libertatem, spectantia. Cum praefatione eorum editionem defendente. Auctore D. Gulielmo Browne, equite aurato, M. D. utriusque et medicorum et physicorum S. R. S. 175, 4to. This little volume (which was dated “Ex area dicta reginali, MDCCLXV. in nonas Januarias, ipso Ciceronis et auctoris natali”) contained, I. Oratio Harveiana, in theatro collegii medicorum Londinensis habita, 1751. II. A vindication of the college of physicians, in reply to solicitorgeneral Murray, 1753. III. Ode in imitation of Horace, Ode I. addressed to the duke of Montague. With a new interpretation, in commentariolo, 1765. IV. The Ode, above-mentioned, to sir Robert Walpole. Some time before, sir William had published odes in imitation of Horace; addressed to sir John Dolben, to sir John Turner, to doctor Askew, and to Robert lord Walpole. 3. Appendix altera ad opuscula; oratiuncula, collegii medicorum Londinensis cathedrae vatedicens. In comitiis, postridie jdivi Michaelis, MDCCLXXVII. ad collegii administrationem renovandam designatis; machinaque incendiis extinguendis apta contra permissos rebelies munitis; habita a D. GuBrowne, equite aurato, praeside? “1768? 4to, This farewell oration contains so many curious particulars of sir William’s life, that the reader will not be displeased to see some extracts from it, and with his own spelling.” The manly age and inclination, with conformable studies, I diligently applied to the practice of physic in the country; where, as that age adviseth, I sought riches and friendships. But afterwards, being satiated witn friends, whom truth, not flattery, had procured; satiated with riches, which Galen, not fortune, had presented; I resorted immediately to this college: where, in further obedience to the same adviser, I might totally addict myself to the service of honour. Conducted by your favour, instead of my own merit, I have been advanced, through various degrees of honour, a most delightful climax indeed, even to the very highest of all which the whole profession of physic hath to confer. In this chair, therefore, twice received from the elects, shewing their favour to himself, he confesseth much more than to the college, your præsident

, son of Gerard, one of the magistrates of Alost, in Flanders, was born in that city in 1531. Having passed through the usual school education “at Ghent, under Simon, a celebrated master, and at Paris and Bruges, at which last place he taught school himself with much credit, he was sent to Rome, where he taught the mathematics for some years; then taming his mind to the study of medicine, he went to Boulogne, and having completed his studies, and taken his degree of doctor, he travelled, for his further improvement, over a great part of France. At Paris, he was introduced to the acquaintance of Adrian Turnebus and Peter Ramus. Returning to Alost, he was made physician and principal magistrate of the city. As he had become a convert to Lutheranism, he readily accepted the invitation of John Albert, duke of Mecklenburgh, to settle at Rostock, where he might with safety profess his religion. He was here appointed professor in mathematics, and soon became popular also as a physician. After residing here 25 years, he was seized with an apoplexy, of which he died, December 31, 1593, His writings were, 1.” De Pritno Motu,“1580, 8vo. 2.” Institutiones -Spherae,“8vo. 5.” Propositiones de morbo. Gallico,“Rostock, 1569, 4to. 4.” Theses de hydrope triplici,“ibid. 1587. 5.” De scorbuto propositiones,“ib,” 1589, 1591, 8vo, reprinted with Eugalenus’s “Liber Observationum de Scorbuto,” Leipsic, 1614. 6. “Epistolae de variis rebus et argumentis medi^cis,” printed with “Smetii Miscellanea,” Francf. 1611, and including his theses on the dropsy.

, a very eminent scholar and historian, derived his name of Aretine, or Aretino, from Arezzo, in which city he was born in the year 1370, of parents sufficiently wealthy to bestow on him a good education. In his early youth he was incited to a love of letters by an extraordinary accident. A body of French troops, who were marching to Naples to assist Louis of Anjou in maintaining his claim to trie sovereignty of that kingdom, at the solicitation of the partizans of a faction which had been banished from Arezzo, made an unexpected attack upon that city; and, after committing a great slaughter, carried away many of the inhabitants into captivity; and, among the rest, the family of Bruni. Leonardo being confined in a chamber in which hung a portrait of Petrarch, by daily contemplating the lineaments of that illustrious scholar, conceived so strong a desire to signalize himself by literary acquirements, that immediately upon his enlargement he repaired to Florence, where he prosecuted his studies with unremitting diligence, under the direction of John of Ravenna, and Manuel Chrysoloras. During his residence at Florence, he contracted a strict intimacy with the celebrated Poggio Bracciolini, and the latter being afterwards informed by Leonardo that he wished to procure a presentation to some place of honour or emolument in the Roman chancery, took every opportunity of recommending him. In consequence of this, pope Innocent VII. invited him to Rome, where he arrived March 24, 1405, but was at first disappointed in his hopes, the place at which he aspired being intended for another candidate, Jacopo d'Angelo. Fortunately, however, the pope having received certain letters from the duke of Berry, determined to assign to each of the competitors the task of drawing up an answer to them, and the compositions being compared, the prize was unanimously adjudged to Leonardo, who was instantly advanced to the dignity of apostolic secretary, and by this victory considerably increased his reputation, as his competitor was a man of very considerable talents. (See Angelo, James.) In 1410 Leonardo was elected chancellor of the city of Florence, but finding it attended with more labour than profit, resigned it in 1411, and entered into the service of pope John XXII. and soon after went to Arezzo, where he married a young lady of considerable distinction in that city. He was thought by his contemporaries rather too attentive to the minutiae of economy, and having married a lady who loved dress and ornaments, was somewhat disappointed. In a letter to his friend Poggio, after giving an account of his marriage expences, he adds, “In short, I have in one night consummated my marriage, and consumed my patrimony.” In 1415 he accompanied pope John XXIII. to the council of Constance, and this pope having been there deposed, Leonardo returned to Florence, where he was chosen secretary to the republic, and was employed in several political affairs of importance. He died in thebeginning of 1444, and was interred with the most solemn magnificence in the church of Santa Croce, with the following inscription, which is still legible, but not worthy of the object:

, an Italian writer to whom atheism has been generally, but unjustly, imputed, was born atNola in the kingdom of Naples, about the middle of the sixteenth century. His talents are said to have been considerable, but this is hardly discoverable from his works: he early, however, set up for an inquirer and innovator, and very naturally found many things in the philosophy and theology then taught in Italy, which he could not comprehend. Being fond of retirement and study, he entered into a monastery of Dominicans, but the freedom of his opinions, and particularly of his censures on the irregularities of the fraternity, rendered it soon necessary to leave his order and his country. In 1582, he withdrew to Geneva, where his heretical opinions gave offence to Calvin and Beza, and he was soon obliged to provide for his safety by flight. After a short stay at Lyons he came to Paris, and his innovating spirit recommended him to the notice of multitudes, who at this time declared open hostilities against the authority of Aristotle. In a public disputation, held in the royal academy, in 1586, he defended, three days successively, certain propositions concerning nature and the world, which, together with brief heads of the arguments, he afterwards published in Saxony, under the title of “Acrotismus,” or “Reasons of the physical articles proposed against the Peripatetics at Paris.” The contempt with which Bruno, in the course of these debates, treated Aristotle, exposed him to the resentment of the academic professors, who were zealous advocates for the old system; and he found it expedientto leave thekingdom of France. According to some writers, he now visited England, in the train of the French ambassador Castelneau, wherehe was hospitably received by sir Philip Sydney and sir Fulke Gre.ville, and was introduced to queen Elizabeth. But though it is certain from his writings that he was in England, he probably made this visit in some other part of his life, and we should suppose before this, in 1583 or 1584. For, about the middle of the same year in which he was at Paris, we find him, at Wittenburg, a zealous adherent of Luther. In this city he met with a liberal reception, and full permission to propagate his doctrines: but the severity with which he inveighed against Aristotle, the latitude of his opinions in religion as well as philosophy, and the contempt with which he treated the masters of the public schools, excited new jealousies; and complaints were lodged against him before the senate of the university. To escape the disgrace which threatened him, Bruno, after two years residence in Wittenburg, left that place, and took refuge in Helmstadt, where the known liberality of the duke of Brunswick encouraged him to hope for a secure asylum. But either through the restlessness of his disposition, or through unexpected opposition, he went next year to Francfort, to superintend an edition of his works, but before it was completed was obliged again, probably from fear of persecution, to quit that city. His next residence was at Padua; where the boldness with which h.e taught his new doctrines, and inveighed against the court of Rome, caused him to be apprehended and brought before the inquisition at Venice. There he was tried, and convicted of his errors. Forty days being allowed him to deliberate, he promised to retract them, and as at the expiration of that term, he still maintained his errors, he obtained a further respite for forty days. At last, it appearing that he imposed upon the pope in order to prolong his life, sentence was finally passed upon him on the 9th of February 1600. He made no offer to retract during the week that was allowed him afterwards for that purpose, but underwent his punishment on the 17th, by being burnt at a stake.

, a general of infantry in the Prussian army, an honorary member of the royal academy of sciences of Berlin, and second cousin to his Britannic majesty, was born at Brunswick, Oct. 20, 1741. He was the second son of Charles, reigning duke of Brunswick, by the duchess PhilippineCharlotte, daughter of Frederick William I. king of Prussia, and sister to Frederick the Great. His education was intrusted to men of talents and virtue, and his progress was in proportion. He entered the military service in 1761, as colonel of his father’s regiment of infantry in the allied army, under the commander in chief, his uncle, the duke Ferdinand. In that year, and in 17 2, he distinguished himself in several actions. In 1763, he entered into the service of Frederick II. king of Prussia, and in 1768 married the only daughter of the reigning duke of Wirtemberg-Oels. From that time he fixed his residence entirely at Berlin, where he devoted his time to military and literary studies. His father-in-law dying about the end of the year 1792, he succeeded him in the principality of Oels, to which he went in the month of June 1793. The following year he resigned all his military preferments, in order to attend to his principality, and was not more distinguished as a statesman and a soldier than as a patron of learning and learned men, contributing liberally to the publication of many useful works. He died at Weimar Oct. 8, 1805.

It is said, that the history of Florence, composed by our Bruto, and printed at Lyons in 1562, under the title 46 Florentine Historian, Libri octo priores,“is not favourable to the house of Medicis; and that it greatly displeased the duke of Florence, on which it was so far suppressed, that few copies are now to be met with. He published also” De Origine Venetiarum,“Leyden, 1560, 8vo, and” Epistolse," Berlin, 1690, 8vo.

, one of the most learned English scholars of the eighteenth century, who adds a very illustrious name to the “Worthies of Devon,” was born at Plymouth in that county in 1715. His father held an office in the custom-house, but before his son arrived at his seventh year, was removed thence into Kent, a circumstance which may be mentioned as a proof of Mr. Bryant’s extraordinary memory; for, in a conversation with the late admiral Barrington, not long before his death, when some local circumstances in respect to Plymouth were accidentally mentioned, Mr. Bryant discovered so perfect a recollection of them, that his friend could scarcely be persuaded he had not been very recently on the spot, though he had never visited the place of his nativity after the removal of his father. Mr. Bryant received his grammatical education first under the rev. Sam. Thornton of Ludsdown in Kent, and afterwards at Eton, and undoubtedly was one of the brightest luminaries of that institution. The traditions of his extraordinary attainments still remain, and particularly of some verses which he then wrote. From Eton he proceeded to King’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of A. B. in 1740, and A. M. in 1744, obtained 3 fellowship, and was equally distinguished by his love of learning, and his proficiency in every branch of the academic course. He was afterwards first tutor to sir Thomas Stapylton, and then to the marquis of Blandford, now duke of Marlborough, and to his brother lord Charles Spencer, when at Eton school, which office, on account of an inflammation in his eyes, he quitted in 1744, and his place was supplied by Dr. Erasmus Saunders; but Mr. Bryant, after his recovery in 1746, again returned to his office, and in 1756 was appointed secretary to the late duke of Marlborough, when master-general of the ordnance, and ac-< companied him into Germany. His grace also promoted him to a lucrative appointment in the ordnance-office.

As Mr. Bryant had long outlived his contemporaries, few particulars, except what we have just related, are known of his early life and habits. He appears, even while connected with the late duke of Marlborough, whose family remained his kind patrons during the whole of his life, to have devoted himself to study, and to that particular branch which respects the ancient history of nations. Whatever his fortune might be, he appears to have been satisfied if it supplied the means of extending his studies in retirement, and we do not find that he ever inclined to pursue any of the learned professions. One of his contemporaries, the late rev. William Cole of Milton, informs us, in his ms Athenae Cantab, (in Brit. Mus.) that he had twice refused the mastership of the Charter-house, which one time was actually granted to him by a majority of the governors; and notice of his nomination was sent to him by Mr. Hetherington, a gentleman who afterwards left him his executor and 3,000l. as a legacy; but at what time these offers were made, Mr. Cole has not specified. It is certain, however, that he early formed his plan of life, a long life spent entirely in literary pursuits, and persevered in it with uncommon assiduity and steadiness, consecrating his talents to the best purposes of learning and religion.

In 1783 was printed, at the expence of the duke of Marlborough, for private distribution, that splendid work, “The Maryborough Gems,” under the title of “Gemmarum antiquarurn delectus ex prsestantioribus desumptus in Dactylotheca Ducis Marburiensis.” The first volume of the exposition of these gems was written in Latin by Mr. Bryant, and translated into French by Mr. Maty. That of the second was written by Dr. Cole, prebendary of Westminster, and translated by Mr. Dutens. The friendship which subsisted between Mr. Bryant and the family of his patron, prompted him on all occasions to attend to their wishes, and to this disposition the public owe his “Treatise on the Authenticity of the Scriptures, and the Truth of the Christian Religion,” 1792, 8vo, which was written at the request of the dowager lady Pembroke, and is an excellent book for popular instruction. In two years after he published a large volume, entitled “Observations upon the Plagues inflicted upon the Egyptians; in which is shewn the peculiarity of those judgments, and their correspondence with the rites and idolatry of that people; with a prefatory Discourse concerning the Grecian Colonies from Egypt,” 8vo. This is certainly to be reckoned amongst Mr. Bryant’s best performances, and as such will be studiously read.

, a man of abilities, succeeded his father William, fourth lord Chandos, in Nov. 1602. He was a friend of the earl of Essex, in whose insurrection he was probably involved, for his name appears on the list of prisoners confined in the Fleet on that account, Feb. 1600. He was made a knight of the bath at the creation of Charles duke of York, Jan. 1604, and in August 1605 was created M. A. at Oxford, the king being present. He was an associate of that active and romantic character, lord Herbert of Cherbury. and appears to have volunteered his services in the Low Countries, when the prince of Orange besieged the city of Juliers in 1610, and the Low Country army was assisted by four thousand English soldiers, under the command of sir Edward Cecil. From the great influence which his hospitality and popular manners afterwards obtained in Gloucestershire, and his numerous attendants when he visited the court, he was styled king of Cotswould, the tract of country on the edge of which his castle of Sudeley was situated. On November 18, 1617, he was appointed to receive and introduce the Muscovite ambassadors, who had brought costly presents from their master to the king. He died August 20, 1621. There is no doubt, says sir Egerton JBrydges (by whom the preceding notices were drawn together) that lord Chandos was a man of abilities as well as splendid habits of life, and by no means a literary recluse, although he is supposed to have been the author of “Horae subsecivas, Observations and Discourses,” Lond. 1620, 8vo, a work containing a fund of good sense and shrewd remark. In sir John Beaumont’s poems are some lines on his death, highly expressive of an excellent character.

, a learned antiquary, was born in Lincolnshire, in the sixteenth century, and flourished in the beginning of the seventeenth. He was descended from the ancient family of the Bucs, or Buckes, of West Stanton, and Herthill, in Yorkshire, and Melford-hall, in Suffolk. His great grandfather, sir John Buc, knight, was one of king Richard the Third’s favourites, and attended that unfortunate prince to the battle of Bosworth, where he lost his crown and life. In the first parliament of king Henry VII. this sir John Buc was attainted for being one of the chief aiders and assistants to the king just now mentioned, in the battle of Bosworth, and soon after was beheaded at Leicester. By this attainder his posterity were reduced to very great distress; but, through the interest of Thomas duke of Norfolk, the great patron of the family, they had probably some of their estates restored to them, and, among others, that in Lincolnshire, where our author was born. In the reign of king James I. he was made one of the gentlemen of his majesty’s privy-chamber, and knighted. He was also constituted master of the revels, whose office was then kept on St. Peter' s-hill, in London. What he mostly distinguished himself by, was writing “The Life and Reign of Richard III. in five books,” wherein, in opposition to the whole body of English historians, he endeavours to represent that prince’s person and actions in a quite different light from what they have been by others; and takes great pains to wipe off the bloody stains that have been fixed upon his character. He has also written: “The third universitie of England; or, a treatise of the foundations of all the colledges, ancient schooles of priviledge, and of houses of learning, and liberall arts, within and about the most famous citie of London. With a briefe report of the sciences, arts, and faculties therein professed, studied, and practised.” And a treatise t)f “The Art of Revels.” Mr. Camden gives him the character of “a person of excellent learning,” and thankfully acknowledges that he “remarked many things in his historiei, and courteously communicated his observations to him.” He has since received very able support, and Richard III. has found a powerful advocate in Horace Walpole, the late lord Orford, who in his “Historic Doubts” has, with much ingenuity, at least, shewn that the evidence produced in confirmation of Richard’s crimes, is far from being decisive, But we have now an “historic doubt” to bring forward of more importance to the present article, which we find in a note on Malone’s Shakspeare, in the following words: “I take this opportunity of correcting an error into which Anthony Wood has fallen, and which has been implicitly adopted in the new edition of the Biographia Britannica, and many other books. The error I allude to, is, that this sir George Buc, who was knighted at Whitehall by king James the day before his coronation, July 23, 1603, was the author of the celebrated * History of king Richard the Third;' which was written above twenty years after his death, by George Buck, esq. who was, I suppose, his son. The precise time of, the father’s death, I have not been able to ascertain, there being no will of his in the prerogative office; but I have reason to believe that it happened soon after the year 1622. He certainly died before August 1629.”

, a Scottish historian, and Latin poet, of great eminence, and uncommon abilities and learning, was descended from an ancient family, and was born at Killairn, in the shire of Lenox, in Scotland, in the month of February 1506. His father died of the stone in the prime of life, whilst his grandfather was yet living; by whose extravagance the family, which before was but in low circumstances, was now nearly reduced to the extremity of want. He had, however, the happiness of a very prudent mother, Agnes, the daughter of James Heriot of Trabrown, who, though she, was left a widow with five sons and three daughters, brought them all up in a decent manner, by judicious management. She had a brother, Mr. James Heriot, who, observing the marks of genius which young George Buchanan discovered when at school, sent him to Paris in 1520 for his education. There he closely applied himself to his studies, and particularly cultivated his poetical talents but before he had been there quite two years, the death of his uncle, and his own ill state of health, and want of money, obliged him to return home. Having arrived in his native country, he spent almost a year in endeavouring to re-escablish his health; and in 1523, in order to acquire some knowledge of military affairs, he made a campaign with the French auxiliaries, who came over into Scotland with John duke of Albany. But in this new course of life he encountered so many hardships, that he was confined to his bed by sickness all the ensuing winter. He had probably much more propensity to his books, than to the sword; for early in the following spring he went to St. Andrews, and attended the lectures on logic, or rather, as he says, on sophistry, which were read in that university by John Major, or Mair, a professor in St. Saviour’s college, and assessor to the dean, of Arts, whom he soon after accompanied to Paris. After struggling for about two years with indigence and ill fortune, he was admitted, in 1526, being then not more than twenty years of age, in the college of St. Barbe, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1527, and M. A. in 1528, and in 1529 was chosen procurator nationis, and began then to teach grammar, which he continued for about three years. But Gilbert Kennedy, earl of Cassils, a young Scottish nobleman, being then in France, and happening to fall into the company of Buchanan, was so delighted with his wit, and the agreeableness of his manners, that he prevailed upon him to continue with him five years. According to Mackenzie, he acted as a kind of tutor to this young nobleman; and, during his stay with him, translated Linacre’s Rudiments of grammar out of English into Latin; which was printed at Paris, by Robert Stephens, in 1533, and dedicated to the earl of Cassils. He returned to Scotland with that nobleman, whose death happened about two years after; and Buchanan had then an inclination to return to France: but James V. king of Scotland prevented him, by appointing him preceptor to his natural son, James, afterwards the abbot of Kelso, who died in 1548, and not, as some say, the earl of Murray, regent of that kingdom. About this time, he wrote a satirical poem against the Franciscan friars, entitled, “Somnium;” which irritated them to exclaim against him as a heretic. Their clamours, however, only increased the dislike which he hud conceived against them on account of their disorderly and licentious lives; and inclined him the more towards Lutheranism, to which he seems to have had before no inconsiderable propensity. About the year 1538, the king having discovered a conspiracy against himself, in which he suspected that some of the Franciscans were concerned, commanded Buchanan to write a poem against that order. But he had probably already experienced the inconveniency of exasperating so formidable a body; for he only wrote a few verses which were susceptible of a double interpretation, and he pleased neither party. The king was dissatisfied, that the satire was not more poignant; and the friars considered it as a heinous offence, to mention them in any way that was not honourable. But the king gave Buchanan a second command, to write against them with more seventy; which he accordingly did in the poem, entitled, “Franciscanus;” by which he pleased the king, and rendered the friars his irreconcileable enemies. He soon found, that the animosity of these ecclesiastics was of a more durable nature than royal favour: for the king had the meanness to suffer him to feel the weight of their resentment, though it had been chiefly excited by obedience to his commands. It was not the Franciscans only, but the clergy in general, who were incensed against Buchanan: they appear to have made a common cause of it, and they left no stone unturned till they had prevailed with the king that he should be tried for heresy. He was accordingly imprisoned at the beginning of 1539, but found means to make his escape, as he says himself, out of his chamber-window, while his guards were asleep. He fled into England, where he found king Henry the Eighth persecuting both protestants and papists. Not thinking that kingdom, therefore, a place of safety, he again went over into France, to which he was the more inclined because he had there some literary friends, and was pleased with the politeness of French manners. But when he came to Paris, he had the mortification to find there cardinal Beaton, who was his great enemy, and who appeared there as ambassador from Scotland. Expecting, therefore, to receive some ill offices from him, if he continued at Paris, he withdrew himself privately to Bourdeaux, at the invitation of Andrew Govea, a learned Portuguese, who was principal of a new college in that city. Buchanan taught in the public schools there three years; in which time he composed two tragedies, the one entitled, “Baptistes, sive Calurania,” and the other “Jephthes, Votum;” and also translated the Medea and Alcestig of Euripides. These were all afterwards published;-but they were originally written in compliance with the rules of the school, which every year required some new dramatic exhibition; and his view in choosing these subjects was, to draw off the youth of France as much as possible from the allegories, which were then greatly in vogue, to a just imitation of the ancients; in which he succeeded beyond his hopes. During his residence at Bourdeaux, the emperor Charles V. passed through that city; upon which Buchanan presented his imperial majesty with an elegant Latin poem, in which the emperor was highly complimented, and at which he expressed great satisfaction. But the animosity of cardinal Beaton still pursued our poet: for that haughty prelate wrote letters to the archbishop of Bourdeaux, in which he informed him, that Buchanan had fled his country for heresy; that he had lampooned the church in most virulent satires; and that if he would put him to the trial, he would find him a most pestilentious heretic. Fortunately for Buchanan, these letters fell into the hands of some of his friends, who found means to prevent their effects: and the state of public affairs in Scotland, in consequence of the death of king James V. gave the cardinal so much employment, as to prevent any farther prosecution of his rancour against Buchanan.

During the life of Govea, who was a great favourite of his Portuguese majesty, matters went on extremely well with Buchanan in Portugal; but after the death of Govea, which happened in 1548, a variety of ill treatment was practised against the learned men who followed him, and particularly against Buchanan. He was accused of being author of the poem against the Franciscans, of having eaten flesh in time of Lent, and of having said that, with respect to the Eucharist, St. Augustine was more favourable to the doctrine of the reformers, than to that of the church of Home. Besides these enormities, ibwas also deposed against him by certain witnesses, that they had heard from divers reputable persons, that Buchanan was not orthodox as to the Romish faith and religion. These were sufficient reasons in that country for. putting any man into the inquisition; and accordingly, Buchanan was confined there about a year and a half. He was afterwards removed to a more agreeable prison, being confined in a monastery till he should be better instructed in the principles of the Romish church. He says of the monks under whose care he was placed, that “they were altogether ignorant of religion, but were otherwise, men neither bad in their morajs, nor rude in their behaviour.” It was during his re-­sidence in this monastery, that he began to translate the Psalms of David into Latin verse; and which he executed, says Mackenzie, “with such inimitable sweetness and elegancy, that this version of the Psalms will be esteemed and admired as long as the world endures, or men have any relish for poetry.” Having obtained his liberty in 1551, he desired a passport of the king, in order to return to France; but his majesty endeavoured to retain him in his service, and assigned him a small pension till he should procure him an employment. But these uncertain hopes did not detain him long in Portugal; and indeed, it was not to be supposed that the treatment which he had received there, could give a man of Buchanan’s temper any great attachment to the place. He readily embraced an opportunity which offered of embarking for England, where, however, he made no long stay, though some advantageous offers were made him. Edward VI. was then upon the throne of England, but Buchanan, apprehending the affairs of that kingdom to be in a very unsettled state, went over into France at the beginning of the year 1553. It seems to have been about this time that he wrote some of those satirical pieces against the monks, which are found in his “Fratres Fraterrimi.” He was also probably now employed at Paris in teaching the belleslettres; but though he seems to have been fond of France, yet be sometimes expresses his dissatisfaction at his treatment and situation there. The subject of one of his elegies is the miserable condition of those who were employed in teaching literature at Paris. His income was, perhaps, small; and he seems to have had no great propensity to ceconomy; but this is a disposition too common among the votaries of the Muses, to afford any peculiar reproach against Buchanan. In 1555, the marshal de Brissac, to whom he had dedicated his “Jephthes,” sent for Buchanan into Piedmont, where he then commanded, and made him preceptor to Timoleon de Cosse, his son; and he spent five years in this station, partly in Italy, and partly ill France. This employment probably afforded him much leisure; for he now applied himself closely to the study of the sacred writings, in order to enable him to form the more accurate judgment concerning the subjects in controversy between the Protestants and Papists. It was also during this period that he composed his ode upon the taking of Calais by the duke of Guise, his epithalamiuni upon the marriage of Mary queen of Scots to the Dauphin of France, and part of his poem upon the Sphere.

, usually ranked among the German reformers, was born Sept. 28, 1529, at Schonaw near Wittemberg, at which university he was educated, and where he contracted an acquaintance with Melancthon, and while he was studying the scriptures in their original languages, imbibed the principles of the reformation. In 1555 he went into Silesia, where the senate of Grunbergue invited him to superintend a school newly erected in that city. This offer, by Melancthon' s advice, he accepted in the following year, and raised the school to a very high degree of reputation. Melancthon had so good an opinion of him as to declare that no young man could be supposed unfit for a university, who had been educated under Bucholtzer. Nor was he less celebrated as a preacher; and upon account of his services in promoting the reformation, enjoyed the favour and patronage of Catherine, widow of Henry duke of Brunswick, Ernest prince of Anhalt, and other persons of rank. He died at Freistad in Silesia, Oct. 14, 1584. He composed a chronology from the beginning of the world to the year 1580, under the title of “Isagoge chronologica,” which was often reprinted.

, a celebrated Lutheran divine, was born June 25, 1667, at Anclam, a town in Pomerania, where his father was a clergyman, who bestowed great pains on his education, with a view to the same profession. Before he went to the university, he was taught Greek and Latin, Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Syriac, and had several times read the scriptures in their original tongues. In 1685, at the age of eighteen, he was sent to Wittemberg, where he studied history, oriental learning, and the canon law, under the ablest professors, and with a success proportioned to the stock of knowledge he had previously accumulated. In 1687 he received the degree of M. A. and printed on that occasion his thesis on the symbols of the Eucharist. In 1689 he was assistant professor of philosophy; and some time after, having removed to Jena, gave lessons to the students there with the approbation and esteem of the professors. In 1692 he was invited to Cobourg, as professor of Greek and Latin, In 1693, when Frederick, elector of Brandenburgh, afterwards king of Prussia, founded the university of Halle, Buddeus was appointed professor of moral and political philosophy, and after filling that office for about twelve years, he was recalled to Jena in 1705, to be professor of theology. The king of Prussia parted with him very reluctantly on this occasion, but Buddeus conceived his new office so much better calculated for his talents and inclination, that he retained it for the remainder of his life, refusing many advantageous offers in other universities; and the dukes of Saxony of the Ernestine branch, to whom the university of Jena belongs, looking upon Buddeus as its greatest ornament, procured him every comfort, and bestowed their confidence on him in. the case of various important affairs. In 1714, he was made ecclesiastical counsellor to the duke of Hildburghausen; and afterwards was appointed inspector of the students of Gotha and Altenburgh; assessor of the Concilium arctius, which had the care of the university of Jena; and he was several times pro-rector, the dukes of Saxony always reserving to themselves the rectorate of that university. Under his care the university flourished in an uncommon degree, and being an enemy to the scholastic mode of teaching, he introduced that more rational and philosophical system which leads to useful knowledge. Amidst all these employments, he was a frequent and popular preacher, carried on an extensive correspondence with the learned men of his time, and yet found leisure for the composition of his numerous works. He died Nov. 19, 1729. A very long list of his works is given in our authority; the principal are: 1. “Elementa Philosophic prarticæ, instrumentalis ct theoreticæ,” 3 vols. 8vo. 2. “Institutiones Theologiæ Moralis,” 1711, 4to, often reprinted. 3. “Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti,” 1715, 1718, 2 vols, 4to. 4. “Institutiones Theologicse, Dogmaticae, variis observationibus iilustratse,” 1723, 3 vols. 4to. 5. “Miscellanea Sacra,” 1727, 3 vols. 4to. 6. The Great German Historical Dictionary," 2 vols. folio, and often reprinted, was principally drawn up by our author, and published with his name.

Having regularly made his progress in the secretary of state’s office in Ireland, upon the arrival of George I. in England, he was appointed under secretary to Addison, and chief secretary to the lords justices of Ireland. He was made likewise deputy-clerk of the council in that kingdom; and soon after chosen member of the Irish parliament, where he acquitted himself as a very good speaker, and performed all his official duties with great exactness and ability, and with very singular disinterestedness. In 1717, when Addison became principal secretary of state in England, he procured for Mr. Budgell the place of accomptant and comptroller-general of the revenue in Ireland, and might have had him for his under-secretary; but it was thought more expedient for his majesty’s service that he should continue where he was. He held these several places till 1718, at which time the duke of Bolton was appointed lord-lieutenant. His grace carried over with him one Mr. Edward Webster, whom he made a privy-counsellor and his secretary. A misunderstanding arising on some account or other, between this gentleman and Mr. Budgell, the latter treated Mr. Webster himself, his education, his abilities, and his family, with the utmost contempt. Mr. Budgell was indiscreet enough (for he was naturally proud and full of resentment) to write a lampoon, prior to this, in which the lord-lieutenant was not spared; and which he published in spite of all Addison could say against it. Hence many discontents arose between them, till at length, the lord-lieutenant, in support of his secretary, superseded Mr. Budgell, and very soon after got him removed from the place of accomptant-general. Mr. Budgell, not thinking it safe to continue longer in Ireland, set out for England, and soon after his arrival published a pamphlet representing his case, entitled “A Letter to the lord ***, from Eustace Budgell, esq. accomptant-general of Ireland, and late secretary to their excellencies the lords justices of that kingdom;” eleven hundred copies of which were sold off in one day, either from curiosity, or sympathjr with his sufferings, which seem about this time to have affected his reason. In the Postboy of Jan. 17, 1719, he published an advertisement to justify his character against reports which had been spread to his disadvantage; and he did not scruple to declare in all companies, that his life was attempted by his enemies, which deterred him from attending his seat in parliament. Such behaviour made many of his friends conclude him delirious; his passions were certainly very strong, nor were his vanity and jealousy less predominant. Addison, who bad resigned the seals, and was retired into the country for the sake of his health, found it impossible to stem the tide of opposition, which was every where running against his kinsman, through the influence and power of the duke of Bolton; and therefore dissuaded him in the strongest terms from publishing his case, but to no manner of purpose: which made him tell a friend in great anxiety, that “Mr. Budgell was wiser than ^ny man he ever knew, and yet he supposed the world would hardly believe that he acted contrary to his advice.”

Mr. Budgell’s great and noble friend lord Halifax, to whom in 1713 he had dedicated a translation of “Theophrastus’s Characters,” was dead, and lord Orrery, who held him in the highest esteem, had it not in his power to serve him. Addison had indeed got a promise from lord Sunderland, that, as soon as the present clamour was a little abated, he would do something for him; but that gentleman’s death, happening in 1719, put an end to all hopes of succeeding at court: where he continued, nevertheless, to make several attempts, but was constantly kept down by the weight of the duke of Bolton. One case seems peculiarly hard. The duke of Portland, who was appointed governor of Jamaica, made Budgell his secretary, who was about to sail, when a secretary of state was sent to the duke, to acquaint him “that he might take any man in England for his secretary, excepting Mr. Budgell, but that he must not take him” In 1720, the fatal year of the South Sea, he was almost ruined, having lost abdve 20,000l. in it. He tried afterwards to get into parliament at several places, and spent 3000l. more in unsuccessful attempts, which completed his ruin. And from this period he began to behave and live in a different manner from what he had done before; wrote libellous pamphlets against sir Robert Walpole and the ministry, and did many unjust things in regard to his relations, being distracted in his own private fortune, as indeed he waa judged to be in his senses. In 1727 he had 1000l. given him by the duchess of Marlborough, to whose husband, the famous duke, he was related by his mother’s side, with a view to his getting into parliament. She knew that he had a talent for speaking in public, that he was acquainted with business, and would probably run any lengths against the ministry. But this scheme failed, for he could never get chosen. In 1730 he joined the band of writers against the administration, and published many papers in the “Craftsman.” He published also, about the same time, many other pieces of a political nature. In 1733, he began a weekly pamphlet called “The Bee,” which he continued for about a hundred numbers, making seven or eight volumes, 8vo. During the progress of this work, which was entirely filled with his own disputes and concerns, and exhibited many proofs of a mind deranged by oppression, or debased by desperate efforts to retrieve his character, Dr. Tindal died, by whose will Mr. Budgell had 2000l. left him; and the world being surprised at such a gift from a man entirely unrelated to him, to the exclusion of the next heir, a nephew, and the continuator of Rapin’s History of England, immediately imputed! it to his making the will himself. Thus the satirist:

At eighty he is said to have composed, 1. 185 elegies and epigrams, all on religious subjects; and before that, in early life, a poem on the birth of the duke of York, 1721. 2. “Letters to the Earl of Arlington,” 1712, 8vo. 3. “Essays” on subjects of manners and morals, 1715, 8vo. 4. “Memoirs and Reflections upon the reigns and governments of Charles I. and II.” He appears to have been a man of talents and considerable learning, and in his political course, able and consistent. His son Whitlocke Buistrode, who published his “Essays,” enjoyed the office of prothonotary of the marshal’s court, and published a treatise on the transmigration of souls, which went through two editions, 1692, 1693, 8vo, and was translated into Latin by Oswald Dyke, 1725. 2. “Essays, ecclesiastical and civil,” 1706, 8vo. 3. “Letters between him and Dr. Wood,” physician to the pretender. 4. “Compendium of the crown laws, in three charges to the grand jury at Westminster,” 1723, 8vo. He died Nov. 27, 1724, in his seventy-fourth year, and was buried in Heston church, Middlesex, where there is a monument and inscription on the north wall of the chancel.

Tranquillity being restored in Italy, Michel Angelo was again called upon by the duke of Urbino, to complete the monument of Julius II, agreeable to the last design, and was again interrupted by the pope, who wished to employ him at Florence, and Afterwards ordered him to paint the two end walls of the Sistine chapel. Our artist being unable openly to oppose the will of the pope, procrastinated the work as much as possible, and while he was engaged in making a cartoon for the chapel, secretly employed as much of his time as circumstances would allow, in forwarding the monument to Julius II. But this was again interrupted by the next pope, Paul III. although at length, after much riegociation, and after changing the design three times, he was permitted to complete, his task, which was placed, not in St. Peter’s, as originally intended, but in the church of S. Pietro, in Vincoli.

, an eminent bookseller at Paris, is well known to the learned throughout Europe for the able assistance he has afforded to the study of bibliography. Of his personal history very little is related by his countrymen, unless that he was a man of high character in trade; and, as appears from his works, more intimately acquainted with the history of books and editions than perhaps any man of his time in any country. He died July 15, 1782. He first published his “Museum Typographicum,” Paris, 1755, 12mo, a small edition of only twelve copies, which he gave away among his friends. It was published under the name of G. F. Rebude, and according to the Dict. Hist, was reprinted in 1775. Afterwards appeared the “Bibliographic Instructive,” 1763 68, 7 vols. 8vo, succeeded by a small volume of a catalogue of the anonymous publications, and an “Essay upon Bibliography.” The merits of this work are universally acknowledged. The abbe Rive having attacked this work with considerable asperity, De Bure replied in “Appel aux Savans,” 1763, 8vo, and “Reponse a une Critique de la Bibliographic Instructive,” 1763, 8vo. In 1769 he published the catalogue of Gaignat’s library, 2 vols. 8vo, which completely established his reputation as a bibliographer. He was succeeded in these labours by his cousin William, who, with Mons. Van Praet, ^prepared the catalogue of the duke de la Valliere’s library in 1783, and published other valuable catalogues as late as the year 1801.

Mr. Burke’s fame as a writer was now established; and what added another wreath to this character were some pamphlets written before the peace of 1763. These introduced him to the acquaintance of the late Mr. Fitzherbert, father of the present lord St. Helen’s; a gentleman who esteemed and protected men of letters; and who possessed, with a considerable share of elegant knowledge, talents for conversation which were very rarely equalled. Through the medium of Mr. Fitzherbert, and owing to some political essays in the Public Advertiser, he became acquainted with the late marquis of Rockingham, and the late lord Verney; events which opened the first great dawn of his political life: and soon after his acquaintance with lord Rockingham, a circumstance took place which gave this nobleman an opportunity to draw forth Mr. Burke' s talents. The administration formed in 1763, under the honourable George Grenville, becoming unpopular from various causes, his majesty, through the recommendation of his uncle, the duke of Cumberland, appointed a new ministry, of which the duke of Grafton and general Conway were secretaries of state, and the marquis of Rockingham first lord of the treasury. In this arrangement, which took place in 1765, Mr. Burke was appointed private secretary to the marquis of Rockingham, and soon after, through the interest of lord Verney, was returned one of the representatives in parliament for the borough of Wendover in Buckinghamshire. On this he prepared himself for becoming a public speaker, by studying, still more closely than he had yet done, history, poetry, and philosophy; and by storing his mind with facts, images, reasonings, and sentiments. He paid great attention likewise to parliamentary usage; and was at much pains to become acquainted with old records, patents, and precedents, so as to render himself complete master of the business of office. That he might communicate without embarrassment the knowledge which he had thus acquired, he frequented, with many other men of eminence, the Robin Hood society; and, thus prepared, he delivered in the ensuing session his maiden speech, which excited the admiration of the house, and drew very high praise from Mr. Pitt, afterwards earl of Chatham. The proceedings of the administration with which Mr. Burke was connected, belong to history; and it may be sufficient here to notice, that the principal object which engaged their attention was the stamp-act, which had excited great discontents in America. Mr. Grenville and his party, under whose auspices this act was passed, were for inforcing it by coercive measures; and Mr. Pitt and his followers denied that the parliament of Great Britain had a right to tax the Americans. By Mr. Burke’s advice, as it has been said, the marquis of Rockingham adopted a middle course, repealing the act to gratify the Americans, and passing a law declaratory of the right of Great Britain to legislate for America in taxation, as in every other case. But by whatever advice such a measure was carried, it argued little wisdom, the repeal and the declaratory act being inconsistent with each other. The ministry were therefore considered as unfit to guide the helm of a great empire, and were obliged to give way to a new arrangement, formed under the auspices of Mr. Pitt, then earl of Chatham. This change created a considerable deal of political commotion; and the public papers and pamphlets of that day turned their satire against the newly-created earl of Chatham; they charged him with weakening and dividing an interest which the public wished to be supported; and lending his great name and authority to persons who were supposed to be of a party which had been long held to be obnoxious to the whig interest of the country. Though these charges were afterwards fully refuted by the subsequent conduct of the noble earl, the late ministry were entitled to their share of praise, not only for being very active in promoting the general interests of the state by several popular acts and resolutions, but by their uncommon disinterestedness; as they shewed, upon quitting their places, that they retired without a place, pension, or reversion, secured to themselves or their friends. This was a stroke which the private fortune of Mr. Burke could ill bear; but he had the honour of being a member of a virtuous administration; he had the opportunity of opening his great political talents to the public; and, above all, of shewing to a number of illustrious friends (and in particular the marquis of Rockingham) his many private virtues and amiable qualities, joined to a reach of mind scarcely equalled by any of his contemporaries.

In July 1766, Mr. Burke, finding himself disengaged from political business, visited Ireland after an absence of many years; and here he renewed many of those pleasing friendships and connections which engaged the attention of his younger days, always rendered still more pleasing by the prospect of a rising fortune, and a capacity of doing good to those we love and esteem. He returned to England towards the close of the year; and, finding a strong opposition formed against the duke of Grafton, who was tapping the spirit and force of those resolutions passed under the late administration, he threw himself into the foremost ranks, and there soon shewed what a formidable adversary he was likely to be. The opinion which Mr. Burke had of the Grafton administration is thus humorously described by himself. After paying many merited eulogiums on the character of lord Chatham, he claims the freedom of history to speak of the administration he formed, and thus proceeds: “He made an administration so chequered and speckled; he put together a piece of joining so crossly indented and whimsically dove-tailed; a cabinet so variously inlaid; such a piece of diversified Mosaic; such a tessellated pavement without cement; here a bit of black stone, and there a bit of white; patriots and courtiers; king’s friends and republicans; whigs and tories; treacherous friends and open enemies; that it was indeed a very curious show, but utterly unsafe to touch, and unsure to stand upon. The colleagues, whom he had assorted at the same boards, stared at each other, and were obliged to ask, ‘Sir, your name? Sir, you have the advantage of me Mr. Such-a-one Sir, I beg a thousand pardons.’ I venture to say, it did so happen that persons had a single office divided between them who had never spoken to each other in their lives, until they found themselves, they knew not how, pigging together, heads and points, in the same truckle-bed.”

The parliament being dissolved in 1768, Mr. Burke was re-elected for Wendover. The opposition to the duke of Graf ton’s administration consisted of two parties, that of the marquis of Rockingham, and that of Mr. Grenville, but these two parties had nothing in common except their dislike of the ministry. This appeared very strikingly in a pamphlet written by Mr. Grenville, entitled “The present state of the Nation,” which was answered by Burke, in “Observations on the present state of the Nation.” One of the first subjects which occupied the attention of the new parliament was the expulsion of Wilkes for various libels, and the question, whether, after being so expelled, he was eligible to sit in the same parliament. Burke, on this occasion, endeavoured to prove that nothing but an act of the legislature can disqualify any person from sitting in parliament who is legally chosen, by a majority of electors, to fill a vacant seat. It is well known that his friend Dr. Johnson maintained a contrary doctrine in his “False Alarm;” but in this as well as other occasions during the American war, difference of opinion did not prevent a cordial intercourse between two men whose conversation during their whole lives was the admiration and ornament of every literary society. The question itself can hardly be said to have ever received a complete decision. All that followed was the expulsion of Wilkes during the present parliament, and the rescinding of that decision in a future parliament, without argument or inquiry, in order to gratify those constituents who soon after rejected Wilkes with unanimous contempt. The proceedings on this question gave rise to the celebrated letters signed Junius, which appeared in the Public Advertiser, and had been preceded by many other anti-ministerial letters by the same writer, under other signatures. They were at that time, and have often since been attributed to Mr. Burke, and we confess we once, and indeed for many years, were strongly of this opinion, but after the recent publication of these celebrated Letters, with Junius’s private correspondence with Mr. Henry Woodfall, the printer of the Public Advertiser, and with Mr. Wilkes r it is as impossible to attribute them to Burke, as it is at present to discover any other gentleman to whom they may, from any reasonable grounds, be ascribed. It may be added too, that in a confidential conversation with Dr. Johnson, he spontaneously denied them, which, as the doctor very prpperly remarks, is more decisive proof than if he had denied them on being asked the question.

In 1770, the duke of Grafton, unable to resist the opposition within and without doors, resigned, and was succeeded by lord North, whose measures Mr. Burke uniformly opposed, particularly on the great questions agitated, and measures adopted with regard to America. So determined was he in his opposition to that minister, as to ridicule the proposition for a repeal of the obnoxious laws of the preceding administration, retaining only the duty on tea, as a mark of the authority of parliament over the colonies; although this, if wrong, could not be more so than a similar measure which he supported, and, as already noticed, some say he advised, during the marquis of Rockingham’s administration. The most brilliant of his speeches were made in the course of this disastrous war, during which, although the attempt has been made, we are totally at a loss to reconcile his principles with what he adopted on a subsequent occasion, nor are we of opinion that the question can be decided by selecting detached passages from his speeches (the most important of which he published); but from a consideration, not only of the general tendency of the whole towards the welfare of the state, and the sentiments of the nation, but on the actual effects produced. And it must not be omitted that his opposition to government continued after all Europe had leagued against Great Britain, a conduct consistent enough with the character of a partizan, but which has little in it of true independent patriotism. Much of Burke’s ardour in the course of this long political warfare has been thus accounted for by his old friend Gerard Hamilton: “Whatever opinion Burke, from any motive, supports, so ductile is jiis imagination, that he soon conceives it to be right.” We apprehend also, that Burke was more accustomed to philosophize on certain questions than is usually supposed, and that by revolving the question in every possible light, his mind was often as full of arguments on one side as on the other, neither of which he could on all occasions conceal; and hence it is that men of quite opposite opinions have been equally desirous to quote his authority; and that there are in his works passages that may be triumphantly brought forward by almost any party. Burke’s judgment, had he given it full play, would have rendered him an oracle^ to whom all parties would have been glad to appeal; but his political attachments were unfortunately strong while they lasted, and not unmixed with ambition, which frequently brought the independence of his character into suspicion. No opinion was ever more just than that of his friend Goldsmith, that Burke “gave up to party” what “was meant for mankind.”

The Spring of 1782 opened a new scene of great political importance. The American war had continued seven years, and having been unsuccessful, not only the people, but very nearly a majority of the parliament, became tired of it. The minister was now attacked with great force, and the several motions which the opposition introduced, relative to the extinction of the war, were lost only by a very small minority. Finding the prospect of success brightening, the opposition determined to put the subject at issue. Accordingly on the 8th of March, lord John Cavendish moved certain resolutions, recapitulating the failures, the misconduct, and the expences of ‘the war, the debate on which lasted till two o’clock in the morning, when the house divided on the order of the day. which had been moved by the secretary at war, and which was carried only by a majority often. This defection on the side of administration gave heart to the minority, and they rallied with redoubled force and spirits on the 15th of March, when a motion of sir John Rous, “That the house could have no further confidence in the ministers who had the direction of public affairs,” was negatived only by a majority of nine. The minority followed their fortune, and on the 20th of the same month (the house being uncommonly crowded) the earl of Surrey (now duke of Norfolk) rose to make his promised motion, when lord North spoke to order, by saying, “he meant no disrespect to the noble earl; but as notice had been given that the object of the intended motion was the removal of his majesty’s ministers, he meant to have acquainted the house, that such a motion was become unnecessary, as he could assure the house, on authority, that the present administration was no more! and that his majesty had come to a full determination of changing his ministers; and for the purpose of giving the necessary time for new arrangements, he moved an adjournment,” which was instantly adopted. During this adjournment a new administration was formed under the auspices of the marquis of Rockingham, on whose public principles and private virtues the nation seemed to repose, after the violent struggle by which it had been agitated, with the securest and most implicit confidence. The arrangements were as follow: The marquis of Rockingham first lord of the treasury, the earl of Shelburne and Mr. Fox joint secretaries of state, lord Camden president of the council, duke of Grafton privy seal, lord John Cavendish chancellor of the exchequer, and Mr. Burke (who was at the same time made a privy counsellor) paymaster-general of the forces.

Upon the meeting of parliament after the recess, the new ministry, which stood pledged to the country for many reforms, began to put them into execution. They first began with the affairs of Ireland; and as the chief ground of complaint of the sister kingdom was the restraining power of the 6th of George the First, a bill was brought in to repeal this act, coupled with a resolution of the house, “That it was essentially necessary to the mutual happiness of the two countries tha& a firm and solid connection should be forthwith established by the consent of both, and that his majesty should be requested to give the proper directions for promoting the same.” These passed without opposition, and his majesty at the same time appointed his grace the duke of Portland lord lieutenant of that kingdom. They next brought in bills for disqualifying revenue officers for voting in the election for members of parliament; and on the 15th of April, Mr. Burke brought forward his great plan of reform in the civil list expenditure, by which the annual saving (and which would be yearly increasing) would amount to 72,368l. It was objected by some members that this bill was not so extensive as it was originally framed; but Mr. Burke entered into the grounds of those omissions which had been made either from a compliance with the opinions of others, or from a fuller consideration of the particular cases; at the same time he pledged himself, that he should at all times be ready to dbey their call, whenever it appeared to be the general sense of the house and of the people to prosecute a more complete system of reform. This bill was followed by another for the regulation of his own office; but the lateness of the season did not afford time for the completion of all plans of regulation and retrenchment, which were in the contemplation of the new ministry, and indeed all their plans were deranged by the death of the marquis of Rockingham July 1, 1782. On this event it was discovered that there was not that perfect union of principles among the leaders of the majority, to which the country had looked up; for, lord Shelburne (afterwards marquis of Lansdowne) being appointed first lord of the treasury, a statesman who had incessantly and powerfully co-operated with the party in opposition to the late war, except in the article of avowing the independence of America, this gave umbrage to the Rockingham division of the cabinet, who were of opinion that “by this change the measures of the former administration would be broken in upon.” Mr. Fox, therefore, lord John Cavendish, Mr. Burke, and others, resigned their respective offices, and Mr. Pitt, then a very young man, succeeded lord George Cavendish as chancellor of the exchequer, lord Sidney succeeded Mr. Fox as secretary of state, and colonel Barre Mr. Burke as paymaster of the forces, lord Sherburne retaining his office as first minister.

By this change Mr. Burke fell once more into the ranks of opposition, and continued in that situation until after the general peace of 1783, when Mr. Fox, joining his parliamentary interest with that of lord North, gained a majority in the house of commons, which after some ineffectual struggles on the part of Mr. Pitt, terminated in what was called the coalition administration, composed of the duke of Portland first lord of the treasury, lord John Cavendish chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Burke, as before, paymaster of the forces, and Mr. Fox and lord North joint secretaries of state. As this union of political interest was the most unpopular measure adopted in the present reign, and that which it has, above all others, been found most difficult to reconcile with purity and consistency of principle, it may be necessary to state what has been offered in apology, at least as far as Mr. Burke is concerned. It is well known to those in the least, conversant in the politics which immediately preceded this period, how uniformly lord North was upbraided for his conduct throughout the whole course of the American war: every thing that could attach to a bad ministry was laid to his charge, except perhaps the solitary exception of corruption in his own person, which was not much, while he was continually accused of being the mover of a mass of corruption in others; and as Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke were the two leading champions of the house of commons, in their several speeches will be found invectives of such a nature, as to men judging of others in the ordinary habits of life, perhaps would be thought insurmountable barriers to their coalition. But we are told, that forming an administration upon a broad bottom of political interest is quite a different thing from contracting a private friendship; in the former many things are to be conceded, in regard to times and circumstances, and the opinions of others; in the latter the question of right and wrong lies in a narrower compass, and is more readily judged of by the parties and their friends. Mr. Burke, therefore, may say, “that in his several attacks on lord North, he considered him as a principal promoter and encourager of the American war, a war which he held destructive of the interests and constitutional rights of this country. As a minister, therefore, he reprobated his conduct; but the American contest being over, and other measures about to be pursued, which, in his opinion, might heal the bruises of this war, he coalesced with him as a man, who (benefiting himself by his former mistakes) might still render important services to his country.”

About six months after he returned to Scotland, where he declined accepting the living of Saltoun, offered him by sir Robert Fletcher of that place, resolving to travel for some time on the continent, in 1664, he went over into Holland; where, after he had seen what was remarkable in the Seven Provinces, he resided for some time at Amsterdam, and afterwards at Paris. At Amsterdam, by the help of a learned Rabbi, he increased his knowledge in the Hebrew language, and likewise x became acquainted with the leading men of the different persuasions tolerated in that country: among each of whom, he used frequently to declare, he had met with men of such real piety and virtue, that he contracted a strong principle of universal charity. At Paris he conversed with the two famous ministers of Charenton, Dailie and Morus. His stay in France was the longer, on account of the great kindness with which he was treated by the lord Holies, then ambassador at the French court. Towards the end of the year he returned to Scotland, passing through Londo/rr, where he was introduced, by the president sir Robert Murray, to be a member of the royal society. In 1665, he was ordained a priest by the bishop of Edinburgh, and presented by sir Robert Fletcher to the living of Saitoun, which had been kept vacant during his absence. He soon gained the affections of his whole parish, not excepting the presbyterians, though he was the only clergyman in Scotland that made use of the prayers in the liturgy of the church of England. During the five years he remained at Saitoun, he preached twice every Sunday, and once on one of the week-days; he catechized three times a-week, so as to examine every parishioner, old or young, three times in the compass of a year: he went round the parish from house to house, instructing, reproving, or comforting them, as occasion required: the sick he visited twice a day: he administered the sacrament four times a year, and personally instructed all such as gave notice of their intention to receive it. All that remained above his own necessary subsistence (in which he was very frugal), he gave away in charity. A particular instance of his generosity is thus related: one of his parishioners had been in execution for debt, and applied to our author for some small relief; who inquired of him, how much would again set him up in his trade: the man named the sum, and he as readily called to his servant to pay it him: “Sir,” said he, “it is all we have in the house.” “Well,” said Mr. Burnet, “pay it this poor man: you do not know the pleasure there is in making a man glad.” This may be a proper place to mention our author’s practice of preaching extempore, in which he attained an ease chiefly by allotting many hours of the day to meditation upon all sorts of subjects, and by accustoming himself, at those times, to speak his thoughts aloud, studying always to render his expressions correct. His biographer gives us here two remarkable instances of his preaching without book. In 1691, when the sees, vacant by the deprivation of the nonjuring bishops, were filled up, bishop Williams was appointed to preach one of the consecration -sermons at Bow-church; but, being detained by some accident, the archbishop of Canterbury desired our author, then bishop of Sarum, to supply his place; which he readily did, to the general satisfaction of all present. In 1705, he was appointed to preach the thanksgiving-sermon before the queen at St. Paul’s; and as it was the only discourse he had ever written before-hand, it was the only time that he ever made a pause in preaching, which on that occasion lasted above a minute. The same year, he drew up a memorial of the abuses of the Scotch bishops, which exposed him to the resentments of that order: upon which, resolving to confine himself to study, and the duties of his function, he practised such a retired and abstemious course, as greatly impaired his health. About 1668, the government of Scotland being in the hands of moderate men, of whom the principal was sir Robert Murray, he was frequently consulted by them; and it was through his advice that some of the more moderate presbyterians were put into the vacant churches; a step which he himself has since condemned as indiscreet. In 1669, he was made professor of divinity at Glasgow; in which station he executed the following plan of study. On Mondays, he made each of the students, in their turn, explain a head of divinity in Latin, and propound such theses from it as he was to defend against the rest of the scholars; and this exercise concluded with our professor’s decision of the point in a Latin oration. On Tuesdays, he gave them a prelection in the same language, in which he proposed, in the course of eight years, to have gone through a complete system of divinity. On Wednesdays, he read them a lecture, for above an hour, by way of a critical commentary on St. Matthew’s Gospel;' which he finished before he quitted the chair. On Thursdays, the exercise was alternate; one Thursday, he expounded a Hebrew Psalm, comparing it with the Septuagint, the Vulgar, and the English version; and the next Thursday, he explained some portion of the ritual and constitution of the primitive church, making the apostolical canons his text, and reducing every article of practice under the head of one or other of those canons. On Fridays, he made each of his scholars, in course, preach a short sermon upon some text he assigned; and, when it was ended, he observed upon any thing that was defective or amiss in the handling of the subject. This was the labour of the mornings: in the evenings, after prayer, he every day read some parcel of scripture, on which he made a short discourse; and, when that was over, he examined into the progress of their several studies. Ail this he performed during the whole time the schools were open; and, in order to acquit himself with credit, he was obliged to study hard from four till ten in the morning; the rest of the day being of necessity allotted, either to the care of his pupils, or to hearing the complaints of the clergy, who, rinding he had an interest with men of power, were not sparing in their applications to him. In this situation he continued four years and a half, exposed, through his principles of moderation, to the censure both of the episcopal and presbyterian parties. The same year he published his “Modest and free Conference between a Conformist and a Nonconformist.” About this time he was entrusted, by the duchess of Hamilton, with the perusal and arrangement of all the papers relating to her father’s and uncle’s ministry; which induced him to compile “Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton,” and occasioned his being invited to London, to receive farther information, concerning the transactions of those times, by the earl of Lauderdale; between whom and the duke of Hamilton he brought about a reconciliation. During his stay in London, he was offered a Scotch bishopric, which he refused. Soon after his return to Glasgow, he married the lady Margaret Kennedy, daughter of the earl of Cassilis. In 1672, he published his “Vindication of the Authority, Constitution, and Laws, of the Church and State of Scotland,” against the principles of Buchanan and others; which was thought, at that juncture, such a public service, that he was again courted to accept of a bishopric, with a promise of the next vacant archbishopric, but he persisted in his refusal of that dignity. In 1673, he took another journey to London; where, at the express nomination of the king, after hearing him preach, he was sworn one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary. He became likewise in high favour with his majesty and the duke of York . At his return to Edinburgh, finding the animosities between the dukes of Hamilton and Lauderdale revived, he retired to his station at Glasgow; but was obliged the next year to return to court, to justify himself against the accusations of the duke of Lauderdale, who had represented him as the cause and instrument of all the opposition the measures of the court had met with in the Scotch parliament. Thus he lost the favour of the court; and, to avoid putting himself into the hands of his enemies, he resigned the professor’s chair at Glasgow, and resolved to settle in London, being now about thirty years of age. Soon after, he was offered the living of St. Giles’s Cripplegate, which he declined accepting, because he heard that it was intended for Dr. Fowler, afterwards bishop of Gloucester. In 1675, our author, at the recommendation of lord Holies, and notwithstanding the interposition of the court against him, was appointed preacher at the Rolls chapel by sir Harbottle Grimstone, master of the Rolls. The same year he was examined before the house of commons in relation to the duke of Lauderdale, whose conduct the parliament was then inquiring into. He was soon after chosen lecturer of St. Clement’s, and became a very popular preacher. In 1676, he published his “Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton;” and the same year, “An account of a Conference between himself, Dr. Stillingfleet, and Coleman.” About this time, the apprehensions of popery increasing daily, he undertook to write the “History of the Reformation of the Church of England.” The rise and progress of this his greatest and 'most useful work, is an object of too great curiosity to require any apology on account of its length. His own account of it is as follows: “Some time after I had printed the ‘ Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton,’ which were favourably received, the reading of these got me the acquaintance and friendship of sir William Jones, then attorney-general. My way of writing history pleased him; and so he pressed me to undertake the History of England. But Sanders’s book, that was then translated into French, and cried up much in France, made all my friends press me to answer it, by writing the History of the Reformation. So now all my thoughts were turned that way. I laid out for manuscripts, and searched into all offices. I got for some days into the Cotton Library. But duke Lauderdale hearing of my design, and apprehending it might succeed in my hands, got Dolben, bishop of Rochester, to divert sir John Cotton from suffering me to search into his library. He told him, I was a great enemy to the prerogative, to which Cotton was devoted, even to slavery. So he said, I would certainly make an ill use of all 1 had found. This wrought so much on him, that I was no more admitted, till my first volume was published. And then, when he saw how I had composed it, he gave me free access to it.” The first volume of this work lay near a year after it was finished, for the perusal and correction of friends; so that it was not published tiii the year 1679, when the affair of the popish plot was in agitation. This book procured our author an honour never before or since paid to any writer: he had the thanks of both houses of parliament, with a desire that he would prosecute the undertaking, and complete that valuable work. Accordingly, in less than two years after, he printed the second volume, which met with the same general approbation as the first: and such was his readiness in composing, that he wrote the historical part in the compass of six weeks, after all his materials were laid in order. The third volume, containing a supplement to the two former, was published in 1714. “The defects of Peter Heylyn’s” History of the Reformation,“as bishop Kicolson observes,” are abundantly supplied in our author’s more complete history. He gives a punctual account of all the affairs of the reformation, from its beginning in the reign of Henry VIII. to its final establishment under queen Elizabeth, A. D. 1559. And the whole is penned in a masculine style, such as becomes an historian, and is the property of this author in all his writings. The collection of records^ which he gives at the end of each volume, are good vouchers of the truth of what he delivers in the body of the history, and are much more perfect than could reasonably be expected, after the pains taken, in queen Mary’s days, to suppress every thing that carried the marks of the reformation upon it.“Our author’s performance met with a very favourable, reception abroad, and was translated into most of the European languages; and even the keenest of his enemies, Henry Wharton, allows it to have” a reputation firmly and deservedly established.“The most eminent of the French writers who have attacked it, M. Varillas and M. Le Grand, have received satisfactory replies from -the author himself. At home it was attacked by Mr. S. Lowth, who censured the account Dr. Burnet had given of some of archbishop Cranmer’s opinions, asserting that both our historian and Dr. Stillingfleet had imposed upon the world in that particular, and had” unfaithfully joined together“in their endeavours to lessen episcopal ordination. Our author replied to Mr. Lowth, in some” letters. in answer“to his book. The next assailant was Henry Wharton, who, under the name of Anthony Harrner, published” A specimen of some Errors and Defects in the History of the Reformation,“1693, 8vo, a performance of no great candour; to which, however, our historian vouchsafed a short answer, in a” Letter to the Bishop of Lichfield.“A third attack on this History was made by Dr. Hickes in” Discourses on Dr. Burnet and Dr. Tillotson;“in which the whole charge amounts to no more than this, that,” in a matter of no great consequence, there was too little care had in copying or examining a letter writ in a very bad hand,“and that there was some probability that Dr. Burnet” was mistaken in one of his conjectures.“Our author answered this piece, in a” Vindication“of his History. The two first parts were translated into French by M. de Rosemond, and into Latin by Melchior Mittelhorzer. There is likewise a Dutch translation of it. In 1682, our author published” An abridgment of his History of the Reformation," in 8vo, in which he tells us, he had wholly waved every thing that belonged to the records, and the proof of what he relates, or to the confutation of the falsehoods that run through the popish historians; all which is to be found in the History at large. And therefore, in this abridgment, he says, every thing is to be taken upon trust; and those who desire a fuller satisfaction, are referred to the volumes he had before published.

During the affair of the popish plot, Dr. Burnet was often consulted by king Charles, upon the state of the nation; and, about the same time, refused the vacant bishopric of Chichester, which his majesty offered him, “provided he vvould entirely come into his interest.” But, though his free access to that monarch did not procure him preferment, it gave him an opportunity of sending his majesty a most remarkable letter , in which, with great freedom, he reprehends the vices and errors both of his private life and his government The unprejudiced part he acted during the time the nation was inflamed with the discovery of the popish plot; his candid endeavours to save the lives of Staley and the lord Stafford, both zealous papists; his temperate conduct in regard to the exclusion of the duke of York; and the scheme of a prince regent, proposed by him, in lieu of that exclusion; are sufficiently related in his “History of his own Time.” In 1682, when the administration was wholly changed in favour of the duke of York, he continued steady in his adherence to his friends, and chose to sacrifice all his views at court, particularly a promise of the mastership of the Temple, rather than break off his correspondence with them. This year our author published his “Life of sir Matthew Hale,” and his “History of the Rights of Princes, in disposing of ecclesiastical Benefices and Church-lands;” which being attacked bv an anonymous writer, Dr. Burnet published, the same year, “An answer to the Animadversions on the History of the Rights of Princes.” As he was about this time much resorted to by persons of all ranks and parties, as a pretence to avoid the returning of so many visits, he built a laboratory, and, for above a year, went through a course of chemical experiments. Upon the execution of the lord Russel, with whom he was familiarly acquainted, he was examined before the house of commons, with respect to that lord’s speech upon the scaffold, in the penning of which he was suspected to have had a hand. Not long after, he refused the offer of a living of three hundred pounds a year, in the gift of the earl of Halifax, who would have presented him, on condition of his residing *till in London. In 1683, he went over to Paris, where he was well received by the court, and became acquainted with the most eminent persons, both popish and protestant. This year appeared his “Translation and Examination of a Letter, writ by the last General Assembly of the Clergy of France to the Protestants, inviting them to return to their Communion, &c.;” also his “Translation of Sir Thomas More’s Utopia,” with a “Preface concerning the Nature of Translations.” The year following, the resentment of the court against our author was so great, that he was discharged from his lecture at St, Clement’s, by virtue of the king’s mandate to Dr. Hascard, rector of that parish; and in December the same year, bv an order from the lord-keeper North to sir Harbottle Grimstone, he was forbidden preaching any more at the Rolls chapel. In 1685 came out our author’s “Life of Dr. William Bedell, Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland.” Upon the death of king Charles, and accesion of king James, having obtained leave to go out of the kingdom, he went first to Paris, where he lived in great retirement, to avoid being involved in the conspiracies then forming in favour of the difke of Monmbuth. But, having contracted an acquaintance with brigadier Stouppe, a protestant officer in the French service, he was prevailed upon to take a journey with him into Italy, and met with an agreeable reception at Rome and Geneva. After a tour through the southern parts of France, Italy, Switzerland, and many places of Germany, of which he has given an account, with reflections on their several ojovernments, &c. in his “Travels,” published in 1687, he came to Utrecht, and intended to have settled in some quiet retreat within the Seven Provinces; but, being invited to the Hague by the prince and princess of Orange, he repaired thither, and had a great share in the councils then carrying on, concerning the affairs of England. In 1687, our author published a “Translation of Lactantius, concerning the Death of the Persecutors.” The high favour shewn him at the Hague disgusting the English court, king James wrote two severe letters against him to the princess of Orange, and insisted, by his ambassador, on his being forbidden the court; which, at the king’s importunity, was done; though our author continued to be employed and trusted as before. Soon after, a prosecution for high-treason was commenced against him, both in Scotland and England; but the States refusing, at the demand of the English court, to deliver him up, designs were laid of seizing his person, and even destroying him, if he could be taken. About this time Dr. Burnet married Mrs. Mary Scott, a Dutch lady of large fortune and noble extraction. He had a very important share in the whole conduct of the revolution in 1688; the project of which he gave early notice of to the court of Hanover, intimating, that the success of this enterprise must naturally end in an entail of the British crown upon that illustrious house. He wrote also several pamphlets in support of the prince of Orange’s designs, which were reprinted at London in 1689, in 8vo, under the title of “A Collection of eighteen Papers relating to the affairs of Church and State during the Reign of King James II. &c.” And when his highness undertook the expedition to England, our author accompanied him as his chaplain, notwithstanding the particular circumstances of danger to which he was thereby exposed. At Exeter, after the prince’s landing, he drew up the association for pursuing the ends of his highness’s declaration. During these transactions, Dr. Crew, bishop of Durham, who had rendered himself obnoxious by the part he had acted in the high-commission court, having proposed to the prince of Orange to resign his bishopric in favour of Dr. Burnet, on condition of an allowance of 1000l. per annum out of the revenue, our author refused to accept it on those terms. But king William had not been many days on the throne before Dr. Burnet was advanced to the see of Salisbury, and consecrated March 31, 1689 . Our prelate had scarcely taken his seat in the house of lords, when he distinguished himself by declaring for moderate measures with regard to the clergy who scrupled to take the oaths, and for a toleration of the protestant dissenters; and when the bill for declaring the rights and privileges of the subject, and settling the succession of the crown, was brought into parliament, he was the person appointed by king William to propose naming the duchess (afterwards electress) of Brunswick, next in succession after the princess of Denmark and her issue; and when this succession afterwards took place, he had the honour of being chairman of the committee to whom the hill was referred. This made him considered by the house of Hanover as one firmly attached to their interests, and engaged him in an epistolary correspondence with the princess Sophia, which lasted to her death. This year bishop Buruet addressed a “Pastoral Letter” to the clergy of his diocese, concerning the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to king Wiliiam and queen Mary; in which having grounded their majesties title to the crown upon the right of conquest, some members of both houses took such offence at it, that about three years after, they procured an order for burning the book by the hands of the common executioner. After the session of parliament was over, the bishop went down to his diocese, where, by his pious, prudent, and vigilant discharge of the episcopal functions, he gained universal esteem.

In 1698 the bishop lost his wife by the small-pox; but the consideration of the tender age of his children, and his own avocations, soon induced him to supply that loss by a marriage with Mrs. Berkley. This year he was appointed preceptor to his highness the duke of Gloucester, and employed great care in the education of that young prince. In 16.99 our author published his “Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England.” This work was censured by the lower house of convocation in 1701, first, as allowing a diversity of opinions, which the Articles were framed to prevent; 2dly, as containing many passages contrary to the true meaning of the Articles, and to other received doctrines of our church; and, 3dly, as containing some things of pernicious consequence to the church, and derogatory from the honour of the reformation: but that house refusing to enter into particulars, unless they might at the same time offer some other matters to the upper house, which the bishops would not admit of, the affair was dropped. The “Exposition” was attacked, supposed by Dr. William Binckes, in a piece entitled “A prefatory discourse to an examination of a late book, entitled ‘An Exposition, &c.’” London, 1702, 4to. An answer to this discourse came out the year following, supposed by Dr. John Hoadly, primate of Ireland. Dr. Jonathan Edwards likewise attacked our author in a piece entitled “The Exposition given by my lord bishop of Sarum of the second Article of our Religion, examined,” London, 1702, 4to. In answer to which there appeared “Remarks on the Examinist of the Exposition,” &c. London, 1702. At the same time, Mr. Robert Burscough published “A Vindication of the twenty-third Article of Religion, from a late Exposition, ascribed to my lord bishop of Sarum.” Mr. Edmund Elys likewise published, in 1704, “Reflections on a late Exposition of the Thirtynine Articles,” &c. 4to. There were two editions of the Exposition, in folio, the same year. In 1704 the scheme for the augmentation of poor livings, first projected by bishop Bur net, took place, and passed into an act of parliament. In 1706, he published a collection of “Sermons and Pamphlets,” 3 vols. 4to; in 1710, an “Exposition of the Church Catechism;” and in 17 13, “Sermons on several occasions,” with an “Essay towards a new book of Homilies.” This learned and eminent prelate died the 17th of March 1714—15, in the seventy-second year of his age, and was interred in the parish-church of St. James Clerkenwell, in London. Since his death, his “History of his own Time,” with an account of his life annexed, was published in 2 vols. fol. but the best edition is that of 1753, 4 vols. 8vo, edited by the rev. Dr. Flexman, with the life enlarged, and a very large catalogue of his publications, to which some trifling additions were made in the last edition of the Biographia Britannica.

, the third and youngest son of the bishop, had an education equally advantageous with that of his two elder brothers. When he had acquired a sufficient preparation of grammatical learning, he was sent to the university of Oxford, where he becam^a commoner of Merton-college. After this, he studied two years at Leyden, from whence he seems to have made a tour through Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. Having chosen the profession of the law, he was entered at the Temple, where he appears to have contracted wildness of disposition, and irregularity of conduct. To this part of his character there are frequent allusions in the satirical publications of the times; and particularly in Dr. Arbuthnol’s notes and memorandums of the six days preceding the death of a right reverend prelate. Mr. Thomas Burnet was even suspected of being one of the Mohocks mentioned in the Spectator, whose extravagant and cruel exploits made much noise, and excited no small degree of terror at that period. Swift, in one of his letters to Stella, has the following passage: “Young Davenant was telling us, how he was set upon by the Mohocks, and how they ran his chair through with a sword. It is not safe being in the streets at night. The bishop of Salisbury’s son is said to be of the gang. They are all whigs. A great lady sent to me, to speak to her father, and to lord treasurer, to have a care of them, and to be careful likewise of myself; for she heard they had malicious intentions against the ministry and their friends. I know not whether there be any thing in this, though others are of the sante opinion.” The report concerning Mr. Burnet might be groundless; but it is certain that his time was not wholly spent in dissipation; for, being warmly devoted to the cause of the whigs, he commenced political writer against the administration of the four last years of queen Anne. No less than seven pamphlets of this kind, though without his name, were written by him, in 1712 and 1713. His first was entitled “A Letter to the People, to be left for them at the Booksellers; with a word or two of the Bandbox Plot.” This small tract is drawn up in short paragraphs, after the manner of Mr. Asgill; but not in ridicule of that author, who is spoken of in terms of high commendation. Another piece of Mr. Burnet’s was: “Our Ancestors as wise as we, or ancient Precedents for modern Facts, in answer to a Letter from a noble Lord;” which was followed by “The History of Ingratitude, or a second Part of ancient Precedents for modern Facts,” wherein many instances are related, chiefly from the Greek and Roman histories, of the ungrateful treatment to which the most eminent public characters have been exposed; and the whole is applied to the case of the duke of Marlborough. A subsequent publication, that had likewise a reference to the conduct of the ministry towards the same great general, and which was dedicated to him, was entitled “The true Character of an honest Man, especially with relation to public Affairs.” Another of Mr. Burnet’s tracts, which was called “Truth, if you can find it; or a Character of the present Ministry and Parliament,” was entirely of an ironical nature, and sometimes the irony is well supported. But our author’s principal political pamphlet, during the period we are speaking of, was, “A certain Information of a certain Discourse, that happened at a certain Gentleman’s House, in a certain County: written by a certain Person then present; to a certain Friend now at London; from whence you may collect the great Certainty of the Account.” This is a dialogue in defence of the principles and conduct of the whigs; and it gave such offence to queen Anne’s Tory ministry, that on account of it, Mr. Burnet was taken into custody in January 1712—13. He wrote, also, “Some new Proofs by which it appears that the Pretender is truly James the Third;” in which, from the information, we suppose, of his father, he gives the same account, in substance, of the Pretender’s birth, that was afterwards published in the bishop’s History of his own Time. What Mr. Burnet endeavours to make out is, that three supposititious children Vol. VII. C c were introduced; and consequently, that the “Pretender was James the Third;” or, to put it more plainly, “the third pretended James.” Whilst our young author, notwithstanding his literary application and engagements, still continued his wild courses, it is related, that his father one day seeing him uncommonly grave, asked what he was meditating. “A greater work,” replied the son, “than your lordship’s History of the Reformation.” “What is that, Tom?” “My own reformation, my lord.” “I shall be heartily glad to see it,” said the bishop, “but almost despair of it.” This, however, was happily accomplished, though, perhaps, not during the life of the good prelate, and Mr. Burnejt became not only one of the best lawyers of his time, but a very respectable character. After the accession of king George the First, he wrote a letter to the earl of Halifax, on “the Necessity of impeaching the late Ministry,” in which he urges the point with great zeal and warmth, and shews the utmost dislike of treating with any degree of lenity, a set of men whose conduct, in his opinion, deserved the severest punishment. He insists upon it, that the makers of the treaty of Utrecht ought to answer for their treasons with their heads. The letter to the earl of Halifax, which appeared with Mr. Burnet’s name, was followed by an anonymous treatise, entitled “A second Tale of a Tub; or the History of Robert Powel the Puppet-Showman.” This work, which is a satire on the earl of Oxford and his ministry, and is far from being destitute of wit and humour, hath never had the good fortune (nor, indeed, did it deserve it,) of being read and admired like the original “Tale of a Tub.” The author himself, in the latter part of his life, wished it to be forgotten; for we are well informed that he sought much for it, and purchased such copies as he could meet with, at a considerable price. Soon after his father’s death, he published “A Character of the right reverend father in God, Gilbert lord bishop of Sarum; with a true copy of his last Will and Testament.” In ridicule of this publication, was printed in Hudibrastic verse, and with a very small portion of merit, “A certain dutiful Son’s Lamentation for the Death of a certain right reverend; with the certain Particulars of certain Sums and Goods that are bequeathed him, which he will most certainly part with in a ctrtain time.” In 1715, Mr. Burnet, in conjunction with Mr. Ducket, wrote a truvestie of the first book of the Iliad, under the title of “Homerides;” which exposed him to the lash of Mr. Pope, and occasioned that great poet to give him a place, though not with remarkable severity, in the Dunciad. He was likewise concerned in a weekly paper, called “The Grumbler.” He was, however, soon, taken from these literary occupations, by being appointed his majesty’s consul at Lisbon, where he continued several years. Whilst he was in this situation, he had a dispute with lord Tyrawley, the ambassador, in which the merchants sided with Mr. Burnet. During the continuance of the dispute, the consul took an odd method of affronting-' his antagonist. Employing the same taylor, and having learned what dress his lordship intended to wear on a birthday, Mr. Burnet provided the same dress as liveries for his servants, and appeared himself in a plain suit. It is said, that in consequence of this quarrel (though how truly, may, perhaps, be doubted), the ambassador and consul were both recalled. Upon Mr. Burnet’s return to his country, he resumed the profession of the law. In 1723, he published, with a few explanatory notes, the first volume of his father’s “History of his own Time;” and, in 1732, wrote some remarks in defence of that history, in answer to lord Lansdowne’s letter to the author of the “Reflections historical and political.” When Mr. Burnet gave to the public, in 1734, the second volume of the bishop’s history, he added to it the life of that eminent prelate. In Easter term 1736 he was called to the degree of serjeant at law; and, in May 1740, was appointed king’s serjeant, in the room of serjeant Kyre > deceased. When, in 1741, judge Fortescue was raised to the mastership of the rolls, Mr. Burnet, in the month of October in that year, succeeded him as one of the justices of the court of common-pleas. On the 23d of No-/ vember, 1745, when the lord chancellor, the judges, and the associated gentlemen of the law, waited on the king, with their address on occasion of the rebellion, his majesty conferred upon him the honour of knighthood. He was also a member of the royal society. Sir Thomas Burnet continued in the court of common -pleas, with great reputation, to his death, which happened on the 5th of January, 1753. He died of the goat in his stomach, and left behind nim the character of an ab<e and upright judge, a sincere friend, a sensible and agreeable companion, and a munificent benefactor to the poor. Dr. Ferdinando Warner, in his dedication of sir Thomas More’s Life to the then lord keeper Henley, haying mentioned that Mr. justice Burnet recommended to him the translation of the Utopia, adds: “of whom I take this opportunity to say with pleasure, and which your lordship, I am sure, will allow me to say with truth, that for his knowledge of the world, and his able judgment of things, he was equalled by few, and excelled by none of his contemporaries.” The following clause in our learned judge’s will was the subject of conversation after his decease, and was inserted in the monthly collections, as being somewhat extraordinary. “I think it proper in this solemn act to declare, that as I have lived, so I trust I shall die, in the true faith of Christ as taught in the Scriptures; but not as taught or practised in any one visible church that I know of; though I think the church of England is as little stuffed with the inventions of men as any of them; and the church of Rome is so full of them, as to have destroyed all that is lovely in the Christian religion.” This clause gave occasion to the publication of a serious and sensible pamphlet, entitled: “The true Church of Christ, which, and where to be found, according to the Opinion of the late judge Burnet; with an Introduction concerning divine worship, and a caution to gospel preachers; in which are contained, the Reasons for that Declaration in his last Will and Testament.” A judgment may be formed of his abilities in his profession, from his argument in the case of Ryal and Rowls. In 1777 were published in 4to, “Verses written on several occasions, between the years 1712 and 1721.” These were the poetical productions of Mr. Burnet in his youth, of whom it is said by the editor, that he was connected in friendship and intimacy with those wits, which will for ever signalise the beginning of the present century; and that himself shone with no inconsiderable lustre amidst the constellation of geniuses which then so illustriously adorned the British hemisphere.

, a most ingenious and learned writer, was born at Croft, in Yorkshire, about the year 1635. His first education was at the free-school of North-­Alverton, in that county, from whence he was removed in June 1651, to Clare-hall in Cambridge, where he had Dr. Tillotson for his tutor. Dr. Cud worth was at that time master of Clare-hall, but removed from it to the mastership of Christ’s college, in 1654; and thither our author followed him. Under his patronage he was chosen fellow in 1657, commenced M. A. in 1658, and became senior proctor of the university in 1661; but it is uncertain how long after ward she continued his residence there. He was afterwards governor to the young earl of Wiltshire, son of the marquis of Winchester, with whom he travelled abroad ^ and gave such satisfaction, that, soon after his return to England, he was invited and prevailed on by the first duke of Ormond, to travel in the same capacity with the young earl of Ossory, his grace’s grandson and heir-apparent. These honourable connections introduced him into what may properly be called the world: in which he afterwards confirmed the reputation he already had for talents ad learning, by the publication of his “Telluris theoria sacra, orbis nostri originem & mutationes generales, quas olim subiit et subiturus est, complectens.” This Sacred Theory of the Earth was originally published in Latin, in 2 vols. 4to, the two first books concerning the deluge, and paradise, 1681; the two last, concerning the burning of the world, and the new heavens and new earth, in 1689. The uncommon approbation this work met with, and the particular encouragement of Charles II. who relished its beauties, induced the author to translate it into English. Of this translation he published the two first books in 1684, folio, with an elegant dedication to the king; and the two last in 1689, with a no less elegant dedication to queen Mary. “The English edition,” he tells us, “is the same in substance with the Latin, though, he confesses, not so properly a translation, as a new composition upon the same ground, there being several additional chapters in it, and several new moulded.”

On May 19, 1685, he was made master of the Charterhouse, by the interest of the duke of Ormond; and soon after commenced LL. D. At what time he entered into orders is not exactly known; but it is plain that he was a clergyman at his election to this mastership, from the objection then made against him by some of the bishops who were governors, namely, “that he generally appeared in a lay-habit,” which was over-ruled by his patron the duke of Ormond, by asserting in his favour, that he had no living or other ecclesiastical preferment; and that his life and conversation were in all respects suitable to the clerical character. In the latter end of 1686, Dr. Burnet’s integrity, prudence, and resolution, were fully tried in his new station, upon the following occasion: one Andrew Popham, a Roman Catholic, came to the Charter-house, with a letter from king James to the governors, requiring them to choose and admit him the said Andrew Popham a pensioner thereof, “without tendering any oath or oaths unto him, or requiring of him any subscription, recognition, or other act or acts, in conformity to the doctrine and discipline of the church of England as the same is now established; and notwithstanding any statute, order, or constitution, of or in the said hospital; with which, says his majesty, we are graciously disposed to dispense in his behalf.” On the meeting of the governors, the king’s letter was read, and the lord chancellor Jefferies moved, that without any debate they should proceed to vote whether Andrew Popham should be admitted a pensioner of the hospital, according to the king’s letter. The master, Dr. Burnet, as the junior, was to vote first, but he told the governors, that he thought it was his duty to acquaint their lordships with the state and constitution of that hospital; and, though this was opposed by some, yet, after a little debate, he proceeded to observe, that to admit a pensioner into the hospital without his taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, was not only contrary to the constitution of the ho&pital, but to an express act of parliament for the better establishment thereof. One of the governors asked what this was to the purpose? The duke of Ormond replied, that he thought it much to the purpose; for an act of parliament was not so slight a thing as not to deserve a consideration. After some other discourse, the question was put, whether Popham should be admitted? and passed in the negative. A second letter from the king was afterwards sent; to which the governors, in a letter addressed to his majesty, humbly replied, and gave their reasons why they could not admit Andrew Popham as a pensioner of the hospital. This not satisfying king James, he ordered chancellor Jefferies to find out a way how he might compel their submission, and the master was particularly threatened to be summoned before the ecclesiastical commissioners. But his subsequent quarrels with the universities, and the commotions which followed, prevented any farther proceeding on the part of the king. This was the first stand made against the dispensing power of that reign, by any society in England, and was of great importance to the public, A relation of the Charter-house proceedings upon this occasion was published by Dr. Burnet in 1689. After the revolution, he was introduced to court by his tutor and friend, archbishop Tillotson, and was made chaplain to the king, and soon after, clerk of the closet. He was now considered as in the high road to great preferment, and had certainly a fine prospect before him; when he ruined all by some unadvised strokes of his pen. In 1692 he published “Archæologiæ philosophiæ; sive doctrina antiqua de rerum originibus,” 4to, with a dedication to king William, whose character he diws with great strength of genius and art, and in that beautiful style which was peculiar to himself. But neither the high rank and authority of his patron, nor the elegance and learning displayed throughout the work, could protect the author from the clamours raised against him for allegorizing in a very indelicate manner the scripture account of the fall of Adam and Eve. In consequence of which, as appears from a Latin letter written by himself to Walters, a bookseller at Amsterdam, dated Sept. 14, 1694, he desires to have the most offensive parts omitted in the future editions of that work. He had expressed himself to the same purpose, some time before the date of this letter, in a Latin epistle, “Ad virum clarissimum circa nuper editum de Archæologiis Philosophicis libellum;” where he says, that he cheerfully wished that any passages which have given offence to the pious and wise, and particularly the dialogue between Eve and the Serpent, may be expunged. The person to whom this letter is addressed, and also a second afterwards upon the same subject, was generally understood to be archbishop Tillotson. Both the letters are subjoined to the second edition of “Archæologiæ philosophicæ,” printed in 1728, in 8vo, and in both he acknowledges sacred scripture, whether literally or mystically understood, to be given us from heaven, as the rule of our faith, the guide of our life, and the refuge of our salvation; and professes to pay to it all possible respect, honour, and veneration.

, author of the “History of Leicestershire,” and eldest son of Ralph Burton, esq. of Lindley in Leicestershire, was born August 24, 1575, educated at the school of Nuneaton in Warwickshire, and while there distinguished himself by no common taste and skill in Latin poetry. He was admitted of Brazen-nose college, Oxford, 1591, and of the Inner Temple May 20, 1593, B. A. June 22, 1594, and was afterwards a barrister and reporter in the court of common pleas. But “his natural genius,” says Wood, “leading him to the studies of heraldry, genealogies, and antiquities, he became excellent in those obscure and intricate matters; and, look upon him as a gentleman, was accounted by all that knew him to be the best of-his time for those studies, as may appear by his description of Leicestershire.” The author himself says, he began his History of Leicestershire in 1597, not many ): ears after his coming into the Inner Temple. In 1602 he corrected Saxton’s map of that county, with the addition of eighty towns. His weak constitution riot permitting him to follow his business, he retired into the country; and his great work, the “Description of Leicestershire,” was published in folio, 1622. He tells his patron, George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, that “he has undertaken to remove an eclipse from the sun without art or astronomical dimension, to give light to the county of Leicester, whose beauty has long been shadowed and obscured;” and in his preface declares himself one of those who hold that “gloria totius res est vanissima mundi;” and that he was unfit and unfurnished for so great a business: “unfit,” to use his own words, “for that myself was bound for another study, which is jealous, and will admit no partner; for that all time and parts of time, that could possibly be employed therein, were not sufficient to be dispensed thereon, by reason of the difficulty of getting, and multiplicity of kinds of learning therein. Yet if a partner might be assigned or admitted thereto, there is no study or learning so fit or necessary for a lawyer, as the study of antiquities.” He was assisted in this undertaking by his kinsmen John Beaumont of Gracedieu, esq. and Augustus Vincent, rougecroix; but the church notes were taken by himself. He drew up the corollary of Leland’s life, prefixed to the “Collectanea,” with his favourite device, the sun recovering from an eclipse, and motto “Rilucera,” dated Faledi 1612, from Falde, a pleasant village near Tutbury, Staffordshire, and a great patrimony belonging to his family, and then to him. The County History was dated from the same village, Oct. 30, 1622. He also caused part of Leiand’s Itinerary to be transcribed 163), and gave both the transcript and the seven original volumes to the Bodleian library 1632; as also Talbot’s notes. To him his countryman Thomas Purefoy, esq. of Barwell, bequeathed Leland’s Collectanea after his death 1612. Wood charges him with putting many needless additions and illustrations into these Collectanea, from which charge Hearne defends him. Wood adds, he made a useful index to them; which, Hearne says, was only of some religious houses and some authors. In 1625 he resided at Lindley, where, among other works, he compiled a folio volume (which still remains in ms.) under the title of “Antiquitates de Dadling-­ton, manerio com. Leic, sive exemplificatio scriptorum, cartarum veterum, inquisitionum, rotulorum curiarum, recordorum, et evidentium probantium antiquitates dicti manerii de Dadlingtori, et hsereditatem de Burton in dicto manerio de Dadlington, quoe mine sunt penes me Will'mum Burton de Lindley com. Leic. modernum dominum dicti manerii de Dadlington. Lahore et studio mei Will 1 mi Burton de Lindley, apprenticii legum Angliae, et socii Interioris Templi Londini; nuper habitatitis apud Falde com. Staff, nunc apud Lindley, 25 Aug. 1625, set, 50.” He died at Falde, after suffering much in the civil wars April 6, 1645, and was buried in the parish church thereto belonging, called Hanbury. He left several notes, collections of arms and monuments, genealogies, and other matters of antiquity, which he had gathered from divers churches and gentlemen’s houses. Derby collections are mentioned in Gascoigne’s notes, p. 53, probably by himself. In Osborne’s Catalogue, 1757, was “Vincent on Brooke,” with ms notes by William Burton, probably not more than those on Cornwall, which Dr. Rawlinson had. He was one of sir Robert Cotton’s particular friends, and had the honour to instruct sir William Dugdale. He was acquainted with Somner; and Michael Drayton, esq. was his near countryman and acquaintance, being descended from the Draytons of Drayton, or Fenny Drayton, near Lindley. He married, 1607, Jane, daughter of Humphry Adderley, of Wedington, Warwickshire; by whom he had one son, Cassibelan, born 1609, heir of his virtues as well as his other fortunes, who, having a poetical turn, translated Martial into English, which was published 1658. He consumed the best part of his paternal estate, and died Feb. 28, 1681, having some years before given most, if not all, his father’s collections to Mr. Walter Chetwynd, to be used by him in writing the antiquities of Staffordshire. Several printed copies of Burton’s Leicestershire, with ms notes by different persons, are existing in various collections *. “The reputation of Burton’s book,” as Mr. Gough justly observes, “arises from its being written early, and preceded only by Lambarde’s Kent 1576, Carew’s Cornwall 1602, and Norden’s Surveys; and it is in comparison only of these, and not of Dugdale’s more copious work, that we are to understand the praises so freely bestowed on it, and because nobody has treated the subject more remotely and accurately; for Dugdale, says Burton, as well as Lambarde and Carevv, performed briefly. The present volume, though a folio of above 300 pages, if the unnecessary digressions were struck out, and the pedigrees reduced into less compass, would shrink into a small work. The typographical errors, especially in the Latin, are so numerous, and the style, according to the manner of that time, so loose, that the meaning is often doubtful. The description is in alphabetical order, and consists chiefly of pedigrees and moot-cases.” The author, sensible of its defect, greatly enlarged and enriched it with the addition of Roman, Saxon, and other antiquities, as appears from his letter to sir Robert Cotton, dated Lindley, June 9, 1627, still extant among Cotton’s correspondences, in his library, Jul. C. iii. This book, thus augmented, was, with other Mss. by the same author, in the possession of Mr. Walter Chetwynd, of Ingestry, in Staffordshire, whom Camden in Staffordshire calls “venerandae antiquitatis cultor maximus;” and afterwards came to, or was borrowed by, Mr. Charles King, tutor to Mr. Chetwynd, in whose hands Brokesby mentions it, and says Mr. Chetwynd made considerable additions to it. He died in 1693. Lord Chetwynd lent it to sir Thomas Cave, in whose hands Mr. Ashby saw it in 1763 f. It is continued to 1642. It is not necessary to say more of a work now so totally eclipsed, and rendered useless, by the more elaborate, accurate, and satisfactory “History of Leicestershire” lately published by Mr. Nichols, to which we may refer for many curious particu­* These are particularized in the History of Hinckley, p. 131. A new edition of the Description of Leicestershire was absurdly printed in 1777, without the least improvement. lars of Burton’s life, and especially an account by himself in the form of a diary.

, author of the “Lives of the Saints,” the second son of Simon Butler, esq. of Appletree, in the county of Northampton, was born in 1710, and educated for a short time at a school in Lancashire, whence in his eighth year he was sent to the English college at Douay, where he applied himself with uncommon diligence to the studies prescribed in that Roman catholic seminary, and was admired for his early piety. After completing his course, he was admitted an alumnus, and appointed professor of philosophy, in lecturing on which he followed the Newtonian system, then gaining ground in the foreign universities, in preference to the systems of Wolfe and Leibnitz, in which he discovered some things irreconcileable with the opinions of the church. He was next appointed professor of divinity, and while at this college published his first work, “Letters on the History of the Popes, published by Mr. Archibald Bower,” which were written with ease and good humour, and shew various and extensive learning. In 1745 he accompanied the late earl of Shrewsbury, and the hon. James and Thomas Talbot, on their travels through France and Italy. On his 1 return from these travels, he was sent on the English mission, and wished to be settled in London; where he might have access to literary society and the public libraries, with a view to complete his “Lives of the Saints,” on which he had long been engaged; but the vicar apostolic of the middle district claimed him, as belonging to that district, and appointed him, much against his will, to a mission in Staffordshire. Here, however, he did not remain long, being appointed chaplain to Edward duke of Norfolk, and to superintend the education of Mr. Edward Howard, his nephew and presumptive heir, whom he accompanied abroad, but who died soon. During his being at Paris, on this occasion, he completed and sent to press his “Lives of the Saints, which is said to have cost him the labour of thirty years. At the finishing of it he gave, what hisbiographer very truly calls, a very edifying instance of humility. The manuscript of the first volume having been, submitted to Mr. Cnalloner, the vicar-apostolic of the London district, he recommended the omission of all the notes, that the work might be less expensive and more useful. It is easy to suppose what it must have cost our author to consign to oblivion the fruit of so much labour. He obeyed, however, and to this circumstance it is owing, that in the first edition the notes.are omitted. Some years after, he published the” Life of Mary of the Cross,“a nun in the English convent of the poor Clatvs at Rouen, not, strictly speaking, apiece of biography, but a vehicle for instructions on religious life on Roman catholic principles. Sometime after our author’s return to England from his travels with Mr. Edward Howard, he was chosen president of the English college at St. Omer’s, in which station he continued until his death. He had projected many works besides those already mentioned, and among them, his treatise on the” Moveable Feasts,“which was published, after his death, under the inspection of Mr. Challoner. He proposed writing the lives of bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas More, and had made copious collections for both, some of which are in the hands of his biographer. He had begun a treatise on” Natural and revealed religion,“being dissatisfied with what Bergier had published on those subjects. Three volumes of his” Discourses“have been published since his decease. As a preacher, however, we are told, that he almost wholly failed. His sermons were sometimes interesting and pathetic; but they were always desultory, and almost always immeasurably long. His” Short life of Sir Toby Matthews,“has lately been published by his biographer. His literary correspondence was very extensive, and among other correspondents of distinction, may be mentioned the learned Lambertini, afterwards pope Benedict XIV. and the late Dn Lowth, bishop of London; and the assistance he afforded to English men of literature has been liberally acknowledged by Dr. Kennicot, and others. After a life spent in devotion to his profession, and in various studies, he died May 15, 1773, in the sixtythird year of his age; and was interred in the chapel of the English college at St. Omers, where a monument of white marble was erected to his memory, with an elegant Latin inscription. His” Lives of the Saints," although run free from the peculiarities of his predecessors in that branch of biography, is a work of great value and research. It was first published in 1745, 5 vols. 4to; and in 1779, or 1780, an edition was published at Dublin, in 12 vols. 8vo; and in 1799 1800, at Edinburgh, in the same form, to which his nephew, Charles Butler, esq. barrister at law, prefixed a life, from which the preceding sketch is taken.

, duke of Ormond, an eminent statesman, the son of Thomas Butler, esq. a branch of the Ormond family, was born at Newcastle house, in Clerkenwell, 1610. Oh the decease of Thomas, earl, of Ormond, his grandfather Sir Walter Butler, of Kilcash, assumed the title, and his father was styled by courtesy viscount Thurles. After the death of his father, in 1619, who left a widow and seven children in embarrassed circumstances, this title devolved upon him. In 1620 he was sent over to England by his mother, and educated partly at a school at Finchtey, in Middlesex, but king James claiming the wardship of him, he was put under the tuition of. archbishop Abbot, who instilled in him that love for the protestant religion which he afterwards displayed on so many occasions. On the death of king James he was taken home by his grandfather the carl of Ormond; and in 1629 he married his cousin, lady Elizabeth Preston, a match which terminated some disputes that had long been agitated between the families. In 1630 he purchased a troop of horse in Ireland, and two years after succeeded, by the death of his grandfather, to the earldom of Ormond. During the earl of Stratford’s viceroyalty in Ireland, his talents were much noticed by that nobleman, who predicted his future fame. On the commencement of the rebellion in Ireland in 1641, he was appointed lieutenant-generaJ and commander in chief of an army of only 3000 men, but with this inconsiderable force, and a few additional troops raised by himself, he resisted the progress of the rebels, and in 1642 dislodged them from the Naes near Dublin, raised the blockade of Drogheda, and routed them at Kiirush. His exertions, however, being impeded by the jealousies of the lords justices and of the lord lieutenant, the king, that he might act without controui, gave him an independent commission under the great seal, and created him marquis of Ormond. In 1643 he obtained a considerable victory with a very inferior force over the rebels under the command of the Irish general Preston, but for want of suitable encouragement, he was under a necessity of concluding a cessation of hostilities, for which measure he was much blamed in England; though he availed himself of it by sending over troops to the assistance of the king, who was then at war with the parliament. His majesty, however, duly appreciating his services, appointed him lord lieutenant of Ireland, in the room of the earl of Leicester, in the beginning of the year 1644; but in the exercise of this office, he had to contend both with the rebellious spirit of the old Irish, and the machinations of the English parliament, and after maintaining an unsuccessful struggle for three years, he was, in 1647, obliged to sign a treaty with the parliament’s commissioners, and to come over to England, where he waited on 'the king at Hampton-court, and obtained his majesty’s full approbation of all his proceedings; but in the hazardous state of public affairs he thought it most prudent to provide for his own safety by embarking for France.

During his short residence in this country, he corresponded with the Irish for the purpose of inducing them to engage in the royal cause; and having engaged lord Inchiquin to receive him in Munster, he landed at Cork, after escaping the imminent danger of shipwreck, in 1648, and on his arrival, adopted measures which were not a little assisted by the abhorrence which the king’s death excited through the country; and in consequence of this favourable impression, the lord lieutenant caused Charles II. to be immediately proclaimed. But Owen O'Neile, instigated by the pope’s nuncio, and supported by the old Irish, raised obstacles in his way, which he determined to overcome by the bold enterprise of attacking the city of Dublin, then held for the Parliament by governor Jones. This enterprise, however, failed, with very considerable loss on the part of the marquis; and soon after Cromwell arrived in Ireland, and having stormed Drogheda, surrendered it to military execution, thus striking tenor into the Irish, so that they becoming dissatisfied with the lord lieutenant, and insisting on his leaving the kingdom, he embarked for France, in 1650, and joined the exiled family. In order to retrieve his affairs, the marchioness went over to Ireland, and having in some measure succeeded in exempting her own estate from forfeiture, she remained in the country, and never saw her husband till after the restoration. In the mean while the marquis was employed in various Commissions in behalf of the king; and he rendered essential service to his cause by rescuing the duke of Gloucester out of the hands of the queen-mother, and preventing her severe treatment from inducing him to embrace the Catholic religion. He was also instrumental in detaching the Irish Catholic regiments from the service of France, one of which he was appointed to command, and in obtaining the surrender of the town of St. Ghilan, near Brussels, to the Spaniards. In a secret embassy to England for the purpose of inquiring into the actual state of the royal party, he had some narrow escapes from the spies of Cromwell; and at length, when Charles II. was restored to the throne of his ancestors, the Marquis accompanied him, and not only recovered his large estates in the county of Tipperary, but was raised to the dignity of duke of Ormond, and officiated as lord high steward of England at the king’s coronation. In 1662, he was again appointed lord lieutenant, and had considerable success in reducing the country to a state of tranquillity; and he promoted various very important and lasting -improvements, particularly with respect to the growth of flax and manufacture of linen. His attachment to earl Clarendon, however, involved him in the odium which pursued that great man; and notwithstanding the purity of his conduct, he was deprived of his government by the machinations of the duke of Buckingham, in 1669; but in the same year he was elected to the office of chancellor of the university of Oxford. In 1670 a desperate design was formed ' against him by colonel Blood, whom he had imprisoned in Ireland on account of his having engaged in a plot for the surprisal of D.ublin castle. Blood, being at this time in London, determined to seize his person, in his return from an entertainment given in the city to the Prince of Orange; and in the prosecution of his purpose, his accomplices dragged the duke out of his coach, and placed him behind one of them who was on horseback, in order to convey him to Tyburn, and execute him on the pubiic gallows; or, as others say, to take him out of the kingdom, and compel him to sign certain papers relating to a forfeited estate of Blood. The duke by his struggles threw both the man and himself from the horse, and by seasonable assistance he was released from the custody of these assassins. This daring act of violence excited the king’s resentment; but Blood, for certain reasons, having been taken into favour, hi* Majesty requested the duke to forgive the insult. To which message he replied, “that if the king could forgive Blood for attempting to steal his crown, he might easily forgive him for an attempt on his life; and that he would obey his Majesty’s pleasure without inquiring into his reasons.” For seven years the duke was neither in favour with the court nor employed by it; but at length, in 1677, he was surprised by a message announcing the king’s intention to visit him. The object of this visit was to disclose his Majesty’s resolution of appointing him to the lord lieutenancy of Ireland; and this resolution had been adopted by the influence of the duke of York, who had reason to imagine, that the “cabal,” or court party, proposed to introduce the duke of Monmouth into this high station in the room of the earl of Essex, who had been removed. In order to counteract this plan, the duke of York recommended his grace of Ormond to the king, as the most likely person to engage general confidence, and to unite discordant parties in both countries. On this the duke consented, and upon his arrival adopted vigorous measures for disarming the papists and maintaining public tranquillity; and though he did not escape calumny, the king determined to support him against all attempts for removing him, and declared with an oath, *' that while the duke of Ormond lived, he should never be put out of that government." He opposed the duke only in the measure of calling a parliament in Ireland for settling affairs, to which the king would not give his consent. In 1682, when he came over to England to acquaint the king with the state of his government, he was advanced to the dignity of an English dukedom; but, notwithstanding this mark of royal favour, he had given such offence by his importunity with respect to an Irish parliament, that immediately on his return he was apprised of an intention to remove him. Upon the accession of James, the duke caused him to be proclaimed, and soon after resigned his office and came over to England.; Although the duke’s principles did not suit the projects of the new reign, he was treated with respect by the king, and received from him the honour of a visit whilst he was confined to his chamber with the gout. He died at Kingston ^hall, in Dorsetshire, July 21, 1688, in the seventy-eighth year of his age, and was buried in Westminster-abbey.

, earl of Ossory, son of the former, was born in the castle of Kilkenny, July 9, 1634. He distinguished himself by a noble bravery, united to the greatest gentleness and modesty, which very early excited the jealousy of Cromwell, who committed him to the Tower; where, falling ill of a fever, after being confined near eight months, he was discharged. He afterwards went over to Flanders, and on the restoration attended the king to England; and from being appointed colonel of foot in Ireland, was raised to the rank of lieutenant-general of the army in that kingdom. On the 14th of September 1666, he was summoned by writ to the English house of lords, by the title of lord Butler, of Moore-park. The same year, being at Euston in Suffolk, he happened to hear the firing of guns at sea, in the famous battle with the Dutch that began the 1st of June. He instantly prepared to go on board the fleet, where he arrived on the 3d of that month; and had the satisfaction of informing the duke of ^Ibemarle, that prince Rupert was hastening to join him. He had his share in the glorious actions of that and the succeeding day. His reputation was much increased by his behaviour in the engagement off Southwold Bay. In 1673 he was successively made rear-admiral of the blue and the red squadrons; and on the 10th of September, the same year, was appointed admiral of the whole fleet, during the absence of prince Rupert. In 1677 he commanded the English troops in the service of the prince of Orange; and at the battle ojf Mons contributed greatly to the retreat of marshal Luxemburg, to whom Lewis XIV. was indebted for the greatest part of his military glory. His speech, addressed to the earl of Shaftesbury, in vindication of his father, was universally admired: it even confounded that intrepid orator, who was in the senate what the earl of Ossory was in the field. He died July 30, 1680, aged forty-six. The duke of Ormond his father said, “he would not exchange his dead son for any living son in Christendom.”

, a poet of a very singular cast, was born at Strensham in Worcestershire, and baptized Feb. 8, 1612. His father’s condition is variously represented. Wood mentions him as competently wealthy; but the author of the short account of Butler, prefixed to Hudibras, who, Dr. Johnson erroneously says, was Mr. Longueville, asserts he was an honest farmer with some small estates who made a shift to educate his son at the grammar-school of Worcester, under Mr. Henry Bright, from whose care he removed for a short time to Cambridge; but, for want of money, was never made a member of any college. Wood leaves us rather doubtful whether he went to Cambridge of Oxford; but at last makes him pass six or seven years at Cambridge, without knowing in what hall or college: yet it can hardly be imagined that he lived so long in either university, but as belonging to one house or another; and it is still less likely that he could have so long inhabited a place of learning with so little distinction as to leave his residence uncertain. Dr. Nash has discovered that his father was owner of a house and a little land, worth about eight pounds, a year, still called Butler’s tenement. Wood had his information from his brother, whose narrative placed him at Cambridge, in opposition to that of his neighbours, which sent him to Oxford. The brother’s seems the best authority, till, by confessing his inability to tell his hall or college, he gives reason to suspect that he was resolved to bestow on him an academical education, but durst not name a college, for fear of detection. Having, however, discovered an early inclination for learning, his father placed him at the free-school of Worcester; whence he was sent, according to the above report, for some time to Cambridge. He afterwards returned to his native country, and became clerk to one Mr. Jefferys of Earl’s Croomb, an eminent justice of the peace for that county, with whom he lived some years in an easy and reputable station. Here he found sufficient leisure to apply himself to whatsoever learning his inclinations led him; which was chiefly history and poetry; adding to these, for his diversion, music and painting. He was afterwards recommended to that great encourager of learning, Elizabeth countess of Kent; in whose house he had not only the opportunity of consulting all kinds of books, but of conversing with Mr. Seldeo, who often employed him to write letters beyond sea, and translate for him. He lived some time also with sir Samuel Luke, a gentleman of an ancient family in Bedfordshire, and a famous commander under Oliver Cromwell. Whilst he resided in this gentleman’s family, it is generally supposed that he planned, if he did not write, the celebrated Hudibras; under which character it is thought he intended to ridicule that knight. After the restoration of Charles II. he was made secretary to Richard earl of Carbury, lord president of the principality of Wales, who appointed him. steward of Ludlow-castle, when the Court was revived there. In this part of his life, he married Mrs. Herbert, a gentlewoman of a good family; and lived, says Wbod^ upon her fortune, having studied the common law, but never practised it. A fortune she had, says his biographer, but it was lost by bad securities. In 1663 was published the first part, containing three cantos, of the poem of “Hudibras,” which, as Prior relates, was made known at court by the taste and influence of the earl of Dorset, and when known, it was necessarily admired: the king quoted, the courtiers studied, and the whole party of the royalists applauded it. Every eye watched for the golden shower which was to fall upon the author, who certainly was not without his share in the general expectation. In 1664 the second part appeared; the curiosity of the nation was rekindled, and the writer was again praised and elated. But praise was his whole reward. Clarendon, says Wood, gave him reason to hope for “places and employments of value and credit;” but no such advantages did he ever obtain. It is reported, that the king once gave him 300 guineas; but of this temporary bounty we find no proof. Wood relates that he was secretary to Villiers duke of Buckingham, when he was chancellor of Cambridge: this is doubted by the other writer, who yet allows the duke to have been his frequent benefactor. That both these accounts are false there is reason to suspect, from a story told by Pack, in his account of the life ef Wycherley, and from some verses which Mr. Thyer has published in the author’s Remains. “Mr. Wycherley,” says Pack, “had always laid hold of any opportunity which offered of representing to the duke of Buckingham how well Mr. Butler had deserved of the royal family, by writing his inimitable Hudibras; and that it was a reproach to the court, that a person of his loyalty and wit should suffer in obscurity, and under the wants he did. The duke always seemed to hearken to him with attention enough; and, after some time, undertook to recommend his pretensions to his majesty. Mr. Wycherley, in Jiopes to keep him steady to his word, obtained of his grace to name a day, when he might introduce that modest and unfortunate poet to his new patron. At last an appointment was made, and the place of meeting was agreed to be the Roebuck. Mr. Butler and his friend attended accordingly: the duke joined them; but, as the devil would have it, the door of the room where they sat was open, and his grace, who had seated himself near it, observing a pimp of his acquaintance (the creature too was a knight) trip by with a brace of ladies, immediately quitted his engagement, to follow another kind of business, at which he was more ready than in doing good offices to men of desert; though no one was better qualified than he, both in regard to his fortune and understanding, to protect them; and, from that time to the day of his death, poor Butler never found the least effect of his promise!” Such is the story. The verses are written with a degree of acrimony, such as neglect and disappointment might naturally excite; and such as it would be hard to imagine Butler capable of expressing against a man who had any claim to his gratitude. Notwithstanding this discouragement and neglect, he still prosecuted his design; and in. 1678 published the third part, which still leaves the poem imperfect and abrupt. How much more he originally intended, or with what events the action was to be concluded, it is vain to conjecture. Nor can it be thought strange that he should stop here, however unexpectedly. To write without reward is sufficiently unpleasing. He had now arrived at an age when he might think it proper to be in jest no longer, and perhaps his health might now begin to fail. He died Sept. 25, 1680; and Mr. Longueville, having unsuccessfully solicited a subscription for his internment in Westminster abbey, buried him at his own cost in the chureb-yard of Covent Garden. Dr. Simon Patrick read the service. About sixty years afterwards, Mr. Barber, a printer, lord mayor of London, bestowed on him a monument in Westminster abbey.

, lord viscount Torrington, an eminent naval officer, was descended from a family long seated in Kent, his direct ancestor Robert Byng, of Wrotham, inthat county, being high sheriff of it in the 34th year of queen Elizabeth; and he was the eldest son of John Byng, esq. by Philadelphia, daughter of Mr. Johnson, of Loans, Surrey. He was born in 1663, and went a Volunteer to sea in 1678, at the age of fifteen, with the king’s letter given him on the recommendation of the duke of York. In 1681 he quitted the sea-service upon the invitation of general Kirk, governor of Tangier, and served as a cadet in the grenadiers of that garrison; until on a vacancy, which soon happened, the general made him ensign of his own company; and soon after a lieutenant. In 1684, after the demolition of Tangier, lord Dartmouth, general of the sea and land forces, appointed him lieutenant of the Oxford; from which time he constantly kept to the sea-service, remaining likewise an officer in the army several years after. In 1685 he went lieutenant of his majesty’s ship the Phoenix to the East Indies where, engaging and boarding a Zinganian pirate, who maintained a desperate fight, most of those who entered with him were killed, himself much wounded, and the pirate sinking, he was taken out of the sea with scarce any remains of life. In 1688, being first lieutenant to sir John Ashby, in the fleet commanded by lord Dartmouth, fitted out to oppose the designs of the prince of Orange, he was in a particular manner intrusted and employed in the measures then carrying on amongst the most considerable officers of the fleet in favour of that prince; and was the person confided in by them to carry their secret assurances of obedience to his highness, to whom he was privately introduced, at Sherburn, by admiral Russel, afterwards earl of Orford. After his return to the fleet, lord Dartmouth sent him with capt. Aylmer, and capt. Flastings, to carry a message of submission to the prince at Windsor; and made him captain of the Constant Warwick, a ship of the fourth rate. In 1690 he commanded the Hope, a third rate, and was second to sir George Rooke, in the battle off Beachy head. In the years 1691 and 1692, he was captain of the Royal Oak, and served under admiral Russel, who commanded in chief their Majesty’s fleet. In F693, that great officer distinguished him in a particular manner, by promoting him to the rank of his first captain; in which station he served in 1694 and 1695 in the Mediterranean, where the designs of the French against Barcelona were prevented: and also the next year, 1696, in the Channel, to oppose the intended invasion of king James with a French army from the coast of France; which, upon the appearance of the fleet, was laid aside. In 1702, upon the breaking out of the war, he accepted of the command of the Nassau, a third rate, and was at the taking and burning of the French and Spanish fleets at Vigo. The year following he was made rearadmiral of the red, and served in the fleet commanded by *ir Cloudesley Shovel, in the Mediterranean; who detached him with a squadron to Algiers, where he renewed and improved our treaties with that government. In 1704 he served in the grand fleet in the Mediterranean, and commanded the squadron that attacked and cannonaded Gibraltar; and, by landing the seamen, whose valour was very remarkably displayed on this occasion, the town was taken. He was in the battle of Malaga, which followed soon after, and, for his behaviour in that action, had the honour of knighthood conferred on him by his Majesty. In the winter of this year he was sent oat with a squadron to cruise against the French, which he^ did with great success, taking about twenty of their largest privateers in about two months time, with the Thetis, a French man of war of fifty guns. In 1705 he was made vice-admiral of the blue: and upon the election of a new parliament, was returned burgess for Plymouth, which place he represented in every succeeding parliament to the year 1721, when he was advanced to the peerage.

During the summer of 1705, he commanded in chief a squadron in the channel, and blocked up the French fleet in Brest, with a much inferior strength. In 1706, king Charles of Spain, the late emperor, being closely beseiged in Barcelona, by sea and land, by the duke of Anjou, and the place reduced to great extremity, and our fleet in the Mediterranean being too weak to relieve it, sir George Byng was appointed to command a strong squadron fitting out in England; in the hastening of which service, he used such diligence and activity, and joined our fleet with such unexpected dispatch, that the saving of that city was entirely owing to it. He assisted at the other enterprizes of that campaign, and commanded the ships detached for the reduction of Carthagena and Alicant, which he accomplished. In 1707 he served in the second post under Sir Cloudesley Shovel, at the seige of Toulon: and the year following was made admiral of the blue, and commanded the squadron which was fitted out to oppose the invasion designed against Scotland by the pretender with a French army from Dunkirk; which he fortunately prevented, by arriving off the Frith of Edinburgh before their troops could land, and obliged them to betake themselves to flight. On his return from this expedition, he was offered by the queen the place of one of the prince of Denmark’s council in the admiralty, which he then declined. He continued to command all that summer in the channel, and upon the marriage of the queen of Portugal, had the honour of conducting her majesty to Lisbon, where a commission was sent to him to be admiral of the white. In 1709 he commanded in chief her majesty’s fleet in the Mediterranean; and, after his return to England, was made one of the commissioners of the admiralty, and continued so till some time before the queen’s death; when, not falling in with the measures of the court, he was removed, but upon the accession of George I. he was restored to that station. In 1715, upon the breaking out of the rebellion which was at first secretly supported with arms "and warlike stores from France, he was appointed to command a squadron, with which he kept such a watchful eye along the French coast, by examining ships even in their ports, and obtaining orders from the court of France to put on shore at Havre de Grace great quantities of arms and ammunition shipped there for the pretender’s service; that, in reward for his services, the king on Nov. 15, 1715, created him a baronet, and gave him a ring of great value, and other marks of his royal favour. In 1717, upon the discovery of some secret practices of the ministers of Sweden against this kingdom, he was sent with a squadron into the Baltic, and prevented the Swedes appearing at sea. In 1718 he was made admiral and commander in chief of the fleet, and being sent with a squadron into the Mediterranean for the protection of Italy, according to the obligation England was under by treaty, against the invasion of the Spaniards, who had the year before surprized Sardinia, and had this year landed an army in Sicily, he gave a total defeat to their fleet near Messina: for which action he was honoured with a letter from the king, written with his own hand, and received congratulatory letters from the emperor and the king of Sardinia; and was further honoured by his imperial majesty with his picture set in diamonds. He remained for some time in these seas, for composing and adjusting the differences between the several powers concerned, being vested with the character of plenipotentiary to all the princes of Italy; and that year and the next he supported the German arms in their expedition to Sicily; and enabled them, by his assistance, to subdue the greatest part of that island. After performing so many signal services, he attended his majesty, by his command, at Hanover, who made him rear-admiral of England, and treasurer of the navy, and, on his return to England, one of his most honourable privy-council; and on Sept 19, 1721 he was called to the peerage by the title of baron Byng, of Southill, in the county of Bedford, and viscount Torrington, in Devonshire; and 1725 was made one of the knights of the bath on the revival of that order. In 1727, his late majesty, on his accession to the crown, placed him at the head of his naval affairs, as first lord of the admiralty, in which station he died, Jan. 17, 1732-3; and was interred at Southill, in Bedfordshire. Lord Torrington married, in 1691, Mary, daughter of James Master, of East Langdon, in the county of Kent, esq. by whom (who died in 1756) he had eleven sons and four daughters. His fourth son, was the unfortunate John Byng, admiral of the blue, who was condemned by the sentence, of a court-martial in 1757, and shot at Portsmouth March 14th of that year, for a breach of the twelfth article of war. From the best accounts published on this affair, it may be concluded that he was a sacrifice to popular clamour artfully directed to the wrong object.

, a learned Polander, and a very voluminous writer, was descended from a good family, and born in 1567. His parents dying when he was a child, he was educated by his grandmother on the mother’s side, in the city of Prosovitz; and made so good use of the instructions of one of his uncles, that at ten years of age he could write Latin, compose music, and make verses. After this, he went to continue his studies at Cracow, and there took the habit of a Pominican. Being sent into Italy, he read lectures of philosophy at Milan, and of divinity at Bologna. After he returned into his own country, he preached in Posnania, and in Cracow, with the applause of all his hearers; and taught philosophy and divinity. He was principal of a college of his own order; and did several considerable services to that and to his country. Afterwards he went to Rome; where he was received with open arms by the pope, and lodged in the Vatican. From his holiness he certainly deserved that reception, for he imitated Baronius closely in his ambition to favour the power, and raise the glory, of the papal see. His inconsiderate and violent zeal, however, led him to representations in his history of which he had reason to repent. He had very much reviled the emperor Lewis of Bavaria, and razed him ignominiously out of the catalogue of emperors. The duke of Bavaria was so incensed at this audaciousness, that, not satisfied with causing an apology to be wrote for that emperor, he brought an action in form against the annalist, and got him condemned to make a public retractation, and he was also severely treated in the “Apology of Lewis of Bavaria,” published by George Herwart; who affirms, that Bzovius had not acted in his annals like a man of honesty, or wit, or judgment, or memory, or any other good quality of a writer. Bzovius would probably have continued in the Vatican till his deat^h, if the murder of one of his servants, and the loss of a great sum of money, which was carried off by the murderer, had not struck him with such a terror, as obliged him to retire into the convent of Minerva, where he died in 1637, aged seventy. The letter which the king of Poland writ to the pope in 1633, does our Dominican much honour; for in it the king supplicates Urban VIII. most humbly to suffer the good old man to return into Poland, that he might employ him in composing a history of the late transactions there. He declares, that he shall esteem himself much indebted to his holiness, if he will be pleased to grant him that favour, which he so earnestly requests of him.

Cabot’s ship lay, about the beginning of 1527. Directing his course towards the river Parana, he arrived at the fort built by Cabot and about one hundred and ten leagues from this fort he found Cabot himself, in the port of St. Anne, After a short stay there, they returned together to the fort of the Holy Ghost, from whence they sent messengers into Spain. Those who were dispatched by Cabot were Francis Calderon and George Barlow, who gave a very favourable account of the fine countries bordering on the river La Plata, shewing how large a tract of land he had not only discovered, but subdued; and producing gold, silver, and other valuable commodities, as evidences in favour of their commander’s conduct. They then demanded on his behalf, that a supply should be sent of provisions, ammunition, goods proper to carry on a tra'de, and a competent recruit of seamen and soldiers. But the merchants, by whom Cabot’s squadron was fitted out, would not agree to these requisitions, rather choosing to resign their rights to the crown of Castile. The king then took the whole upon himself; but was so dilatory in his preparations, that Cabot, who had been five years employed in this expedition, being quite tired out, determined to return home; which he accordingly did, embarking the remainder of his men and all his effects onboard the largest of his ships, and leaving the rest behind him. He arrived at the Spanish court, where he gave an account of his expedition, in the spring of 1531. But he was not well received: for he had created himself enemies by the rigour with which he had treated his Spanish mutineers; and he had also disappointed the expectations of his owners by not prosecuting his voyage to the Moluccos. Notwithstanding these unfavourable circumstances, he found means to keep his place, and continued in the service of Spain many years after, till at length he resolved to return again to England. What were his particular inducements to this we meet with no certain account, but it was probably about the latter end of the reign of king Henry VIII. that Cabot returned to England, where he resided at Bristol. In the beginning of the following reign he was introduced to the duke of Somerset, then lord protector, who received him into great favour, and by whom he was made known to king Edward VI. That young prince, who was very solicitous to acquire knowledge, and who had much more skill in maritime affairs than could have been expected from his years, took great pleasure in the conversation of Cabot, to whom a pension was granted, by letters patent, dated January 6, 1549, of 166l. 13s. 4rf. a year: and, according to Hakluyt, this annuity was allowed him as grand pilot of England. From this time he continued highly in the king’s favour, and was consulted upon all affairs relative to trade, and particularly in the great case of the merchants of the Steel-yard in 1551.

, first earl of Cadogan, the son of Henry Cadogan, a counsellor at law, by Bridget, daughter to sir Hardress Waller, knt. was educated to a military life, and in 1701 was made quarter-master-general of the army. In 1703 he was constituted colonel of the second regiment of horse, and on August 25, 1704, brigadiergeneral, having that year behaved with great gallantry at the attack of Schellenberg, and the battle of Hochstet. In June 1705 he was elected member of parliament for Woodstock; and on July 18th of the same year, at the forcing of the French lines near Tirlemont, he behaved with remarkable bravery at the head of his regiment, xvhich first attacking the enemy had such success, that they defeated four squadrons of Bavarian guards, drove them through two battalions of their foot, and took four standards. He was also in the battle of Ramilies, fought on May 12, 1706; after which the duke of Marlborough sent from his camp at Meerlebeck, on June 3, brigadier Cadogan, with six squadrons of horse, and his letter to the governor of Antwerp, to invite him and the garrison to the obedience of king Charles III. and having reported to his grace that ten battalions were in the city and castle of Antwerp, who seemed inclined to surrender on honourable terms, the duke sent him authority to treat with them. And after some conferences, they complied, and the garrison, consisting of six French and six Spanish regiments, were allowed to march out in three days, and be conducted to Quesnoy. But of the Walloon regiment, consisting of 600 men each, only 372 men marched out; the rest entering into the service of king Charles, except some few who were not in condition to serve, and returned to their respective dwellings. Afterwards, towards the close of the campaign that year, he was taken prisoner when on a foraging party, and was carried into Tournay, but he remained there only three days, the duke of Vendosme sending him, on August 19, to the duke of Marl bo rough’s camp, upon his parole and five days after he was exchanged for the baron Palavicini, a major-general in the French service, taken at the battle of Ramilies. On Jan. 1, 1706-7, he was promoted to the rank of major-general of her majesty’s forces. On Mr. Stepney’s decease in 1707, he succeeded him as minister plenipotentiary in the government of the Spanish Netherlands. And he soon after, in conference, brought to a conclusion the negotiation for the speedy exchange of prisoners; and, having shared in the most difficult enterprizes throughout the war, was constituted a lieutenant-general on January 10, 1708-9.

On September 10, 1709, the day before the battle of Tanniers, near Mons, when the two armies were in sight of each other, and an officer from the French having made a signal for a truce, several of both sides met in a friendly manner, and the French, inquiring for an officer of distinction, desired him to^acquaint the duke of Marlborough, that the marshal de Villars had some affairs of importance to propose to his grace, and that he would be pleased to send a trusty person, to whom he might communicate the same. On this his grace sent general Cadogan to know what marshal Villars had to offer, whereby being nearer the French army, than otherwise he could have been, he improved the opportunity so effectually, that, by viewing their intrcnchmcuts in the corner of the wood at Tanniers, he directed the colonel of the artillery, whom he took with him, to ohserve wbere he dropped his glove, and there, in the night, to plant his cannon; which, by enfilading their lines the next morning, greatly contributed to the forcing them, and was the principal means of obtaining that victory. Also an the siege of Mons, which ensued, being (as he ever had been) indefatigable in serving the common cause, and going voluntarily into the trenches to animate the troops that were in the attack of a ravelin, he received a dangerous wound in his neck; his aid-de-camp being also wounded by his side, of which he soon expired. In March 1711, he was at the Hague, at the desire of the council of state of the States General, to assist in consulting the operations of the ensuing campaign.