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

His last work was posthumous, “Letters from Italy,” written in 1754 and 1755, to William Duucombe, esq. and published, in 1774, by the rev. Mr. John Buncombe, who well knew and highly esteemed lord Cork’s talents and virtues. Mr. Buncombe has prefixed a life of his lordship, with the following particulars of his character: “The character of John earl of Cork, as a writer and as a man, may partly be collected from his own works, and partly from the testimonies which have been given of him by some of the most distinguished among his contemporaries. I shall only beg leave to add, that, in every domestic and social relation, in alltthe endearing connections of life, as a husband, a father, a friend, a master, he had few equals. The lustre which he received from rank and title, and from the personal merit of his family, he reflected back, unimpaired and undhninished; and though ‘the post of honour’ which he chose and preferred was ‘a private station,’ though he was neither a statesman nor a soldier, like the first lord Cork, the first lord Orrery, and his own father; the rival of Palladio, like the late lord Burlington; or the rival of Bacon, like Mr. Robert Boyle; yet in a general taste for literature, or, as they are commonly called, polite studies, he was by no means inferior to his ancestors. Being much in the great world at the beginning of his life, he despised and detested it when he arrived at years of reflection. His constitution was never strong, and he was very thankful that it was not so; as his health was a true and no very irksome excuse to avoid those scenes, by which his body would have been hurt, and his mind offended. He loved truth even to a degree of adoration. He was a real Christian; and. as such, constantly hoped for a better life, there trusting to know the real causes of those effects, which here struck him with wonder, but not with doubt.”

Dr. Johnson, less biassed by friendship, and more discriminating, said of him, “My friend, the late earl of Cork, had a great desire to maintain the literary character of his family: he was a genteel man, but did not keep up the dignity of his rank. He was so generally civil, that nobody thanked him for it.” Warburton, in his letters to bishop Hurd, lately published, employs the full measure of his coarse censure on him for publishing his character 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.

, earl of Cork and Orrery, the second son of John, earl of Orrery, the subject of the last article but one, was born in February 1730, and educated at Westminster-school, where the masterly manner in which he acted the part of Ignoramus, and spoke the epilogue, did great credit to his genius. In June 1748, he was matriculated at Oxford, and December following was admitted student of Christ-church, and proceeded regularly to the degree of LL. B. In 1762 he succeeded his father in the earldom, his elder brother having deceased three years before. In 1763, he was created LL. D. by diploma, and at the same time appointed high steward of the university of Oxford. He continued student of Christ church on a faculty till his death, which happened at Marston house, Jan. 17, 1764. He is recorded as an author from having contributed two papers to the “World,” drawn up with vivacity, elegance, and humour, and affording a proof that if his life had been continued, he would have added new literary honour to his celebrated name and family. These papers are No. 60 and 170.

, 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.”

In 1747, he published his Letter to the earl of Macclesfield, concerning an apparent motion observed in some of the fixed stars; on account of which he obtained the annual gold prize-medal from the royal society. It was in consequence of the royal society’s annual visit to the observatory at Greenwich, during which he represented to them the necessity of repairing the old instruments, &c. that in 1748 George II. by his sign manual, directed to the commissioners and principal officers of his navy, ordered the payment of 1000 to James Bradley, D. D. his astronomer, and keeper of the royal observatory, in order to repair the old instruments in the said observatory, and to provide new ones. This enabled him to furnish it with the noblest and most accurate apparatus in the known world, suited to the 'dignity of the nation and the royal donor: in the executive part of this useful work, those eminent artists, Mr. George Graham and Mr. Bird, deserve honourable mention, who contributed much towards the perfection of those instruments, which enabled Dr. Bradley to leave behind him the greatest number of the most accurate observations that were perhaps ever made by any one man. Nor was this the last instance by which his late majesty distinguished his royal astronomer; for, upon his refusing to accept the living of Greenwich from a conscientious scruple, “that the duty of a pastor was incompatible with his other studies and necessary engagements,” his majesty granted him an annuity or yearly pension of 250l. during pleasure in consideration (as the sign manual, dated Feb. 15, 1752, expresses it) of his great skill and knowledge in the several branches of astronomy, and other parts of the mathematics, which have proved so useful to the trade and navigation of this kingdom. This pension was continued to the demise of the late, and renewed by the present king. The same year he was chosen one of the council of the royal society.

Upon the restoration of the church and monarchy, he returned to England, and was from the first designed for higher promotion. Most people imagined it would be the archbishopric of York; but at last he was appointed archbishop of Armagh, to which he was translated upon the 18th of January, 1660-1. The same year he visited his diocese, where he found great disorder; some having committed horrible outrages; and many imbibed very strong prejudices, both against his person and the doctrine and discipline of the church; but, by argument, persuasion, and long suffering, he gained upon them even beyond his own expectation. His biographer affords one instance of his prudence, in turning the edge of the most popular objection of that time against conformity. When the benefices were called over at the visitation, several appeared, and exhibited only such titles as they had received from the late powers. He told them, “they were no legal titles, but in regard he heard well of them, he was willing to make them such to them by institution and induction;” which they thankfully accepted of. But when he desired to see their letters of orders, some had no other but their certificates of ordination by some presbyterian classes, which, he told them, did not qualify them for any preferment in the church. Upon this, the question arose, “Are we not ministers of the gospel r” To which his grace answered, That is not the question; at least, he desired for peace sake, that might not be the question for that time. “I dispute not,” said he, “the value of your ordination, nor those acts you have exercised by virtue of it; what you are, or might be here when there was no law, or in other churches abroad. But we are now to consider ourselves as a national church limited by law, which among other things takes chief care to prescribe about ordination: and I do not know how you could recover the means of the church, if any should refuse to pay you your tithes, if you are not ordained as the law of this church requireth; and I am desirous that she may have your labours, and you such portions of her revenue, as shall be allotted you in a legal and assured way.” By this means he gained such as were of the moderate kind, and wished to be useful. As he was by his station president of the convocation, which met upon the 8th of May, 166 1, so was he also chosen speaker of the house of lords, in the parliament which met at the same time: and so great a value had both houses for him, that they appointed committees to examine what was upon record in their books concerning him and the earl of Strafford, and ordered the scandalous charges against them to be torn out, which was accordingly done. In this parliament many advantages were procured, and more designed, for the church, in which he was very industrious. About this time he had a violent sickness, being a second fit of the palsy, which was very near putting an end to his life; but he recovered. A little before his death, he visited his diocese; and having provided for the repair of his cathedral, and other affairs suitable to his pastoral office, he returned to Dublin about the middle of May 1663. The latter end of June, he was seized with a third fit of the palsy; of which he soon died, being then 70 years old. At this time he had a trial for some part of his temporal estate at Omagh, with sir Audley Mervyn, depending in the court of claims; and there, at the time of hearing, the third fit of the palsy so affected him, that he sunk in the court, was carried out senseless, and never recovered. The cause, however, was determined in his favour.

, 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.

, a painter of history, landscape, and conversations, was born at Antwerp in 1683, and instructed by his father Alexander Van Breda, who was much esteemed as an artist, with whom he continued, profiting by good example and advice, till he was 18 years of age. Having established his reputation in Holland, he accompanied Rysbrack the sculptor to London, where he was highly esteemed and obtained considerable patronage, and particularly that of the earl of Derwentwater, who was beheaded for rebellion in 1715. In London he was much employed by the court and nobility, and was hardly able to supply the demands for his performances. From London, after a residence of five years, he returned to Antwerp, much enriched; and in 1746, when Louis XIV. visited that city, he honoured this master by purchasing four of his pictures; viz. “Christ at the sea of Tiberias,” “Christ performing miracles,” and “two landscapes.” He certainly approached nearer to those great masters whose manner he imitated, Brueghel and Wouwermans, than any other artist of his time. His landscapes are in the style and taste of the former; and his conversations, historical figures, fairs, and battles, are in the manner of the latter. He died in 1750.

For some years after his arrival in Ireland, little is known of his life, except that lord Chesterfield, when viceroy, conferred upon him the office of barrack-master. His pen, however, was not idle. In 1741, he contributed to Ogle’s version of Chaucer, “Constantia, or the Man of Law’s Tale;” and in 1745, according to one account, his tragedy of the “Earl of Westmoreland” was performed on the Dublin stage; but the editor of the Biographia Dramatica informs us that it was first acted at Dublin in 1741, under the title of the “Betrayer of his Country,” and again in 1754 under that of “Injured Honour.” Its fame, however, was confined to Ireland, nor was it known in England until the publication of his poetical works in 1778. A more important publication was his “Farmer’s Letters,” written in 1745, on the plan of Swift’s D rapier’s Letters, and with a view to rouse the spirit of freedom among the Irish, threatened, as they were, in common with their fellow-subjects, by rebellion and invasion.

In 1762, he published a pamphlet entitled “The Trial of the Roman Catholics,” the object of which was to remove the political restraints on that class, and to prove that this may be done with safety. In this attempt, however, his zeal led him so far as to question incontrovertible facts, and even to assert that the history of the Irish massacre in 1641 is nothing but an old wives fable; and upon the whole he leans more to the principles of the Roman catholic religion, than an argument professedly political, or a mere question of extended toleration, seemed to require. His next work excited more attention in England. In 1766 appeared the first volume of the “Fool of Quality, or the History of the earl of Moreland,” a novel, replete with knowledge of human life and manners, and in which there are many admirable traits of moral feeling and propriety, but mixed, as the author advances towards the close, with so much of religious discussion, and mysterious stories and opinions, as to leave it doubtful whether he inclined most to Behmenism or popery. It became, however, when completed in five volumes, 1770, a very popular novel, and has often been reprinted since.

From all, however, that can now be learned, Brooke was a man of a most amiable character and ingenuous temper, and perhaps few men have produced writings of the same variety, the tendency of all which is so uniformly in favour of religious and moral principle. Yet even in this there are inconsistencies which we know not how to explain, unless we attribute them to an extraordinary defect in judgment. During a great part of his life, his religious opinions approached to what are now termed methodistical, and one difficulty, in contemplating his character, is to reconcile this with his support of the stage, and his writing those trifling farces we find among his works. Perhaps it may be said that the necessities of his family made him listen to the importunity of those friends who considered the stage as a profitable resource; but by taking such advice he was certainly no great gainer. Except in the case of his “Gustavus” and “Earl of Essex,” there is no reason to think that he was successful, and the greater part of his dramas were never performed at all, or printed until 1778, when he could derive very little advantage from them. Nor can we impute it to any cause, except a total want of judgment and an ignorance of the public taste, that he intermixed the most awful doctrines of religion, and the lighter incidents and humorous sketches of vulgar or fashionable life, in his novels. He lived, however, we are told, more consistently than he wrote. No day passed in which he did not collect his family to prayer, and read and expounded the scriptures to them : Among his tenants and humble friends he was the benevolent and generous character which he had been accustomed to depict in his works, and while he had the means, he literally went about doing good.

At Cambridge, Broughton became one of the fellows of Christ’s college, and there laid the first foundation of his Hebrew studies, under a Frenchman, who read upon that tongue in the university. His parts and learning soon rendered him very conspicuous at Cambridge, and also attracted the notice of the earl of Huntingdon, who became a liberal patron to him, and greatly encouraged him in his studies. From the university he repaired to London, where he distinguished himself as a preacher, and increased the number of his friends, some of whom were of high rank. He still, however, continued to prosecute his studies with the most unremitting assiduity; so that he is said frequently to have spent sixteen hours out of the fourand-twenty at his books .

He continued several years in London, where he procured many friends. One of these was Mr. William Cotton, whose son Rowland, who was afterwards knighted, he instructed in the Hebrew tongue. In 1589 Mr. Broughton went over into Germany, accompanied by Mr. Alexander Top, a young gentleman who had put himself under his care, and travelled with him, that he might continually receive the benefit of his instructions. He was some time at Frankfort, where he had a long dispute in the Jewish synagogue, with rabbi Elias, on the truth of the Christian religion. He appears to have been very solicitous for the conversion of the Jews, and his taste for rabbinical and Hebrew studies naturally led him to take pleasure in the conversation of those learned Jews whom he occasionally met with. In the course of his travels, he had also disputes with the papists; but in hig contests both with them and with the Jews, he was not very attentive to the rules either of prudence or politeness. It appears, that in 1590 he was at Worms; but in what other places is not mentioned. In 1591 he returned again to England, and met at London with his antagonist Dr. Reynolds; and they referred the -decision of the controversy between them, occasioned by his “Consent of Scripture,” to Dr. Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury, and Dr. Aylmer, bishop of London. Another piece which he published, entitled “An Explication of the article of Christ’s Descent to Hell,” was a source of much controversy, though his opinion on this subject is now generally received. Two of his opponents in this controversy were archbishop Whitgift and bishop Bilson. He addressed on this subject “An Oration to the Geneveans,” which was first published in Greek, at Mentz, by Albinus. In this piece he treats the celebrated Beza with much severity. In 1592 he was in Germany again, and published a piece called “The Sinai Sight,” which he dedicated to the earl of Essex, and had the odd whim of having it engraved on brass, at a considerable expence. About the year 1596, rabbi Abraham Reuben wrote an epistle from Constantinople to Mr. Broughton, which was directed to him in London; but he was then in Germany. He appears to have continued abroad till the death of queen Elizabeth; and during his residence in foreign countries, cultivated an acquaintance with Scaliger, Raphelengius, Junius, Pistorius, Serrarius, and other eminent and learned men. He was treated with particular favour by the archbishop of Mentz, to whom he dedicated his translation of the Prophets into Greek. He was also offered a cardinal’s hat, if he wo<;ld have embraced the Romish religion. But that offer he retused to accept, and returned again to England, soon after the accession of king James I. In 1603 he preached before prince Henry, at Oatlands, upon the Lord!s Prayer. In 1607 the new translation of the Bible was begun; and Mr. Broughton’s friends expressed much surprize that he was not employed in that work. It might probably be disgust on this account, which again occasioned him to go abroad; and during his stay there, he was for some time puncher to the English at Middleburgh. But finding his health decline, 'having a consumptive disorder, which he found to increase, he returned again to England in November, 1611. He lodged in London, during the winter, at a friend’s house in Cannon-street; but in the spring he was removed, for the benefit of the air, to the house of another friend, at Tottenham High-cross, where he died of a pulmonary consumption on the 4th of August, 1612, in the sixty-third year of his age. During his illness he made such occasional discourses and exhortations to his friends, as his strength would enable him; and he appears to have had many friends and admirers’ even to the last. His corpse was brought to London, attended by great numbers of people, many of whom had put themselves in mourning for him; and interred in St. Amholin’s church, where his funeral sermon was preached by the rev. James Speght, B. D. afterwards D. D. minister of the church in Milkstreet, London. Lightfoot mentions it as a report, that the bishops would not suffer this sermon to be published; but it was afterwards printed at the end of his works.

Brown now began to make no small figure as a writer 5 and in 1751, published Jiis “Essays on Shaftesbury’s Characteristics,” 8vo, a work written with elegance and spirit, aud so applauded as to be printed a fifth time in 1764. This was suggested to him by Warburton, and to Warburton by Pope, who told Warburton that to his knowledge the Characteristics had done more harm to revealed religion in England than all the works of infidelity put together. He is imagined to have had a principal hand in another book, published also the same year, and called w An essay on musical expression;“though the avowed author was Mr. Charles Avison. (See Avison.) In 1754 he printed a sermon,” On the use and abuse of externals in religion: preached before the bishop of Carlisle, at. the consecration of St. James’s church in Whitehaven, and soon after he was promoted to Great Horkesiey in Essex; a living conferred upon him by the late earl of Hard wick e. His next appearance was as a dramatic writer. In 1755, hk tragedy “Barbarossa,” was produced upon the stage, and afterwards his “Athelstan” in 1756. These tragedies were acted with considerable success, under the management of Garrick; and the former long remained what is called a stock-piece, notwithstanding many critical objections offered to it in the publications of the time.

, an English divine of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, from whom the sect of the Brownists derived its name, was descended of an ancient and worshipful family, says Fuller, (one whereof founded a fair hospital in Stamford), and was nearly allied to the lord-treasurer Cecil. He was the son of Anthony Brown, of Tol thorp, in Rutlandshire, esq. (though born at Northampton, according to Mr. Collier), and grandson of Francis Brown, whom king Henry VIII. in the eighteenth year of his reign, privileged by charter to wear Jiis cap in the presence of himself, his heirs, or any of his nobles, and not to uncover but at his own pleasure; which charter was confirmed by act of parliament. Robert Brown studied divinity at Cambridge, in Corpus Christi college, and was afterwards a schoolmaster in Southwark. He was soon discovered by Dr. Still, master of Trinity-college, to have somewhat extraordinary in him that would prove a great disturbance to the church. Brown soon verified what the doctor foretold, for he not only jm^ bibed Cartwright’s opinions, but resolved to refine upon his scheme, and to produce something more perfect of his own. Accordingly, about the year 1580, he began to inveigh openly against the discipline and ceremonies of the church of England, and soon shewed that he intended to go much farther than Cartwright had ever done. In his discourses the church government was antichristian; her sacraments clogged with superstition; the liturgy had a mixture of Popery and Paganism in it; and the mission of the clergy was no better than that of Baal’s priests in the Old Testament. He first preached at Norwich, in 1581, where the Dutch having a numerous congregation, many of them inclined to Ahabaptism; and, therefore, being the more disposed to entertain any new resembling opinion, he made his first essay upon them; and having made some progress, and raised a character for zeal and sanctity, he then began to infect his own countrymen; for which purpose he called in the assistance of one Richard Harrison, a country schoolmaster, and they formed churches out of both nations, but mostly of the English. He instructed his audience that the church of England was no true church; that there was little of Christ’s institution in the public ministrations, and that all good Christians were obliged to separate from those impure assemblies; that their only way was to join him and his disciples, among whom all was pure and unexceptionable, evidently inspired by the Spirit of God, and refined from all alloy and prophanation. These discourses prevailed on the audience; and his disciples, now called Brownists, formed a society, and made a total defection from the church, refusing to join any congregation in any public office of worship. Brown being convened before Dr. Freake, bishop of Norwich, and other ecclesiastical commissioners, he maintained his schism, to justify which he had also written a book, and behaved rudely to the court, on which he was committed to the custody of the sheriff of Norwich; but his relation, the lord treasurer Burghley, imputing his error and obstinacy to zeal, rather than malice, interceded to have him charitably persuaded out of his opinions, and released. To this end he wrote a letter to the bishop of Norwich, which procured his enlargement. After this, hisjordship ordered Brown up to London, and recommended him to archbishop Whitgift for his instruction and counsel, in order to his amendment; but Brown left the kingdom, and settled at Middleburgh in Zealand, where he and his followers obtained leave of the states to form a church according to their own model, which was drawn in a book published by Brown at Middleburgh in 1582, and called “A treatise of Reformation, without staying for any man.” How long he remained at Middleburgh, is not precisely known; but he was in England in 1585, when he was cited to appear before archbishop Whitgift, to answer to certain matters contained in a book published by him, but what this was, we are not informed. The archbishop, however, by force of reasoning, brought Brown at last to a tolerable compliance with the church of England; and having dismissed him, the lord treasurer Burgh.­Jey sent him to his father in the country, with a letter to recommend him to his favour and countenance, but from another letter of the lord treasurer’s, we learn that Brown’s errors had sunk so deep as not to be so easily rooted out as was imagined; and that he soon relapsed into his former opinions, and shewed himself so incorrigible, that his good old father resolved to own him for his son no longer than his son owned the church of England for his mother; and Brown chusing rather to part with his aged sire than his new schism, he was discharged the family. When gentleness was found ineffectual, severity was next practised; and Brown, after wandering up and down, and enduring great hardships, at length went to live at Northampton, where, industriously labouring to promote his sect, Lindsell, bishop of Peterborough, sent him a citation to come before him, which Brown refused to obey; for which contempt he was excommunicated. This proved the means of his reformation; for he was so deeply affected with the solemnity of this censure, that he made his submission, moved for absolution, and received it; and from that time continued in the communion of the church, though it was not in his power to close the chasrn^ or heal the wound he had made in it. It was towards the year 1590 that Brown renounced his principles of separation, antl was soon after preferred to the rectory of Achurch, near Thrapston in Northamptonshire. Fuller does not believe that Brown ever formally recanted his opinions, either by word or writing, as to the main points of his doctrine; but that his promise of a general compliance with the church of England, improved by the countenance of his patron and kinsman, the earl of Exeter, prevailed upon the archbishop, and procured this extraordinary favour for him. He adds, that Brown allowed a salary for one to discharge his cure; and though he opposed his parishioners in judgment, yet agreed in taking their tithes. He was a man of good parts and some learning, but was imperious and uncontroulable; and so far from the Sabbatarian strictness afterwards espoused by some of his followers, that he led an idle and dissolute life. In a word, says Fuller, he had a wife with whom he never lived, and a church in which he never preached, though he received the profits thereof: and as all the other scenes of his life were stonny and turbulent, so was his end: for the constable of his parish requiring, somewhat roughly, the payment of certain rates, his passion moved him to blows, of which the constable complaining to justice St. John, he rather inclined to pity than punish him but Brown behaved with so much insolence, that he was sent to Northampton gaol on a feather-bed in a cart, being very infirm, and aged above eighty years, where he soon after sickened and died, anno 1630, after boasting, “That he had been committed to thirty-two prisons, in some of which he could not see his hand at noon-day.” He was buried in his church of Achurch in Northamptonshire.

Towards the latter end of Brown’s life, we are informed by Mr. Jacob, that he was in favour with the earl of Dorset, who invited him to dinner on a Christmas-day, with Dryden, and some other men of genius; when Brown, to his agreeable surprise, found a bank note of 50/, under his plate; and Dryden at the same time was presented with another of 100l. Brown died in 1704, and was interred in the cloister of Westminster-abbey, near the remains of Mrs. Behn, with whom he was intimate in his life-time. His whole works were printed in 1707, consisting of dialogues, essays, declamations, satires, letters from the dead to the living, translations, amusements, &c. in 4 vols. Much humour and not a little learning are, as we have already observed, scattered every where throughout them, but they are totally destitute of delicacy, and have not been reprinted for many years. Dr. Johnson, in his Life of Dryden, very justly says that “Brown was not a man deficient in literature, nor destitute of fancy; but he seems to have thought it the pinnacle of excellence to be a `merry fellow;' and therefore laid out his powers upon small jests or gross buffoonery, so that his performances have little intrinsic value, and were read only while they were recommended by the novelty of the event that occasioned them. What sense or knowledge his works contain is disgraced by the garb in which it is exhibited.”

, an English judge, the son of sir Weston Browne of Abhess-roding in Essex, was born in that county, and educated for some time at Oxford, whence he removed to the Middle Temple, where he became eminent in the law, and was chosen summer reader in the first of queen Mary, 1553. The following year he was made serjeant at law, and was the first of the call. Soon after he was appointed serjeant to the king and queen, Philip and Mary. In 1558, he was preferred to be lord chief justice of the common pleas; but removed upon queen Mary’s decease, to make way for sir James Dyer, for though a Roman catholic, and queen Elizabeth might not chuse he should preside in that court, she had such an opinion of his talents that he was permitted to retain the situation of puisne on the bench as long as he lived. It is even said that he refused the place of lord keeper, which was offered to him, when the queen thought of removing sir Nicholas Bacon for being concerned in Hales’s book, written against the Scottish line, in favour of the house of Suffolk. This book sir Anthony privately answered , or made large collections for an answer, which Leslie, bishop of Ross, and Morgan Philips afterwards made use of, in the works they published in defence of the title of Mary queen of Scots. Sir Anthony Browne died at his house in the parish of Southwold in Essex, May 6, 1567. The only works attributed to him were left in ms.: namely, 1. “A Discourse upon certain points touching the Inheritance of the Crown,” mentioned already, and 2. “A book against Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester,” mentioned by Dr. Matthew Paterson, in his “Jerusalem and Babel,” 1653, p. 587, but the object of which we are unacquainted with. Plowden says of sir Anthony, that he was “a judge of profound genius and great eloquence.”

Upon the death of Dr. Smith, provost of Queen’s, Nor. 23, 1756, Dr. Browne offered himself a candidate for the headship, and had for his formidable competitor, Dr. George Fothergill, principal of Edmund-hall, who had likewise been fellow of the college, an eminent tutor, and a person universally esteemed. The election lasted three days, and each candidate having upon every day’s scrutiny an equality of votes, both among the senior and junior fellows, Dr. Browne being the senior candidate, was, as the statute directs, declared duly elected. This contest, however, made no disagreement between the two competitors; they lived in the same harmony and friendship as before. In 1759, Dr, Browne was appointed vicechancellor, which arduous office, together with that of his headship, he managed with great prudence and ability, till March 25, 1765, when a stroke of the palsy rendered him utterly incapable of business. Under this calamity he languished till June 17, 1767, when he died, leaving the character of being a well-bred man, a polite as well as a profound scholar, an agreeable companion, and a steady friend. There was a gravity and authority in his looks and deportment, that reflected dignity upon the offices he sustained. He cbntinued vice-chancellor an unusual length of time, and presided at the memorable Enccenia when the earl of Litchfield was installed. It is said that his death prevented his being advanced to one of the first vacancies Oh the episcopal bench.

On the 10th of February 1743-4, Mr. Browne married Jane, daughter of the rev. Dr. David Trimnell, archdeacon of Leicester, and precentor of Lincoln, and niece to the right rev. Dr. Charles Trimnell, bishop of Winchester, a woman of great merit, and of a very amiable temper. He was chosen twice to serve in parliament; first upon a vacancy in December 1744, and then at the general election in 1748, for the borough of Wenlock in Shropshire, near to which his estate lay. This was principally owing to the interest of William Forester, esq. a gentleman of great fortune and ancient family in Shropshire, who recommended Mr. Browne to the electors, from the opinion he entertained of his abilities, and the confidence he had in his integrity and principles. As Mr. Browne had obtained his seat in parliament without opposition or expence, and without laying himself under obligations to any party, he never made use of it to interested or ambitious purposes. The principles, indeed, in which he had been educated, and which were confirmed by reading and experience, and the good opinion he had conceived of Mr. Pelham’s administration, led him usually to support the measures of government; but he never received any favour, nor desired any employment. He saw with great concern the dangers arising from parliamentary influence, and was determined that no personal consideration should biass his public conduct. The love of his country, and an ardent zeal for its constitution and liberties, formed a distinguishing part of his character. In private conversation, Mr. Browne possessed so uncommon a degree of eloquence, that he was the admiration and delight of all who knew him. It must, therefore, have been expected that he should have shone in the house of commons, as a public speaker. But he had a modesty and delicacy about him, accompanied with a kind of nervous timidity, which prevented him from appearing in that character. His case, in this respect, was similar to that of the third earl of Shaftesbury, Mr. Addison, and other ingenious men. Dr. Johnson said of him, “I. H. Browne, one of the first witsof this country, got into parliament, and never opened hismouth.”

, 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.

The earl of Dorset recommended this book to the perusal of sir Kenelm Digby, who returned his judgment upon it, not in a letter, but in a book; in which, though mingled with some positions fabulous and uncertain, there are acute remarks, just censures, and profound speculations, yet its principal claim to admiration is, that it was written in twenty-four hours, of which part was spent in procuring Browne’s book, and part in reading it. This induced sir Thomas to publish a more correct edition of his work, which had great success. A Mr. Merryweather of Cambridge, turned it, not inelegantly, into Latin, and from his version it was again translated into Italian, German, Dutch, and French, and at Strasburgh the Latin translation was published with large notes, by Lenuus Nicolaus Moltfarius. Of the English annotations, which, in all the editions from 1644, accompany the book, the author is unknown. Merryweather, we are told, had some difficulty in getting his translation printed in Holland. The first printer to whom he offered it carried it to Salmasius, “who laid it by (says he) in state for three months,” and then discouraged its publication: it was afterwards rejected by two other printers, and at last was received by Hackius. The peculiarities of the book raised the author, as is usual, many admirers and many enemies; but we know not of more than one professed answer, written under the title of “Medicus Ivledicatus,” by Alexander Ross, which was universally neglected by the world. Abroad it was animadverted upon as having an irreligious tendency, by Guy Patin, by Tobias Wagner, by Muller, Reiser, and Buddeus, and w&s put into the Index Expurgatorius. At present it will probably be thought that it was both too much applauded and too much censured, and that it would have been a more useful book had the author’s fancy been more guided by judgment.

In 1716 there appeared a book of his in 12mo, entitled “Christian Morals,” published from the original and correct manuscript of the author, by John Jeffery, D. D. archdeacon of Norwich. It was dedicated by our author’s daughter, Mrs. Elizabeth Littleton, to David, earl of Buchan. Of this a second edition was published in 1756 by Mr. John Payne, bookseller, and one of Dr. Johnson’s early patrons, who solicited him to write a life of sir Thomas. This, of which we have availed ourselves in the preceding account, may be classed among Dr. Johnson’s best biographical performances, and the present article may be very properly concluded with his character of Browne’s works. After mentioning the various writers who have noticed Browne, he adds, “But it is not on the praises of others, but on his own writings, that he is to depend for the esteem of posterity; of which he will not easily be deprived, while learning shall have any reverence among men: for there is no science in which he does not discover some skill; and scarce any kind of knowledge, profane or sacred, abstruse or elegant, which he does not appear to have cultivated with success. His exuberance of knowledge, and plenitude of ideas, sometimes obstruct the tendency of his reasoning, and the clearness of his decisions: on whatever subject he employed his mind, there started up immediately so many images before him, that he lost one by grasping another. His memory supplied him with so many illustrations, parallel or dependent notions, that he was always starting into collateral considerations: but the spirit and vigour of his pursuit always gives delight; and the reader follows him, without reluctance, through his mazes, in themselves flowery and pleasing, and ending at the point originally in view. To have great excellencies, and great faults, ‘ magn<e virtutes nee minora vitia, is the poesy/ says our author, l of the best natures.’ This poesy may be properly applied to the style of Browne: it is vigorous, but rugged; it is learned, but pedantic; it is deep, but obscure; it strikes, but does not please; it commands, but does not allure; his tropes are harsh, and his combinations uncouth. He fell into an age, in which our language began to lose the stability which it had obtained in the time of Elizabeth; and was considered by every writer as a subject on which he might try his plastic skill, by moulding it according to his own fancy. Milton, in consequence of this encroaching licence, began to introduce the Latin idiom; and Browne, though he gave less disturbance to our structures and phraseology, yet poured in a multitude of exotic words; many, indeed, useful and significant, which, if rejected, must be supplied by circumlocution, such as commensality for the state of many living at the same table; but many superfluous, as a paralogical for an unreasonable doubt; and some so obscure, that they conceal his meaning rather than explain it, as arthriticai analogies for parts that serve some animals in the place of joints. His style is, indeed, a tissue of many languages; a mixture of heterogeneous words, brought together from distant regions, with terms originally appropriated to one art, and drawn by violence into the service of another. He must, however, be confessed to have augmented our philosophical diction; and in defence of his uncommon words and expressions, we must consider, that he had uncommon sentiments, and was not content to express in many words that idea for which any language could supply a single term. But his innovations are sometimes pleasing, and his temerities happy: he has many verba ardentia, forcible expressions, which he would never have found, but by venturing to the utmost verge of propriety; and flights which would never have been reached, but by one who had very little fear of the shame of falling.”

In 1616, he published the second part of his “Britannia’s Pastorals,” recommended as before, by his poetical friends, whose praises he repaid with liberality in the body of the work. The two parts were reprinted in 8vo in 1625, and procured him, as is too frequently the case, more fame than profit. About a year before this, he appears to have taken leave of the muses, and returned to< Exeter college, in the capacity of tutor to Robert Dormer, earl of Caernarvon, a nobleman who fell at the battle of Newbury in 1643, while fighting gallantly for his king, at the head of a regiment of horse, and of whom lord Clarendon has given us a character drawn with his usual discrimination and fidelity. While guiding the studies of this nobleman, Browne was created master of arts, with this honourable notice in the public register, “Vir omni huinana literatura et bonarum artium cognitione instructus.”

After leaving the university with, lord Caernarvon, hefound a liberal patron in William earl of Pembroke, of whom likewise we have a most elaborate character in Clarendon, some part of which reflects honour on our poet.­“He was a great lover of his country, and of the religion and justice, which he believed could only support it: and his friendships were only it ith men of those principles. And as his conversation was most with men of the most pregnant parts and understanding; so towards any such, who needed support, or encouragement, though unknown, if fairly recommended to him, he was very liberal.” This nobleman, who had a respect for Browne probably founded on the circumstances intimated in the above character, took him into his family, and employed him in such a manner, according to Wood, that he was enabled to purchase an estate. Little more, however, is known of his history, nor is the exact time of his death ascertained. Wood finds that one of both his names, of Ottery St. Mary in Devonshire, died in the winter of 1645, but knows not whether this be the same. He hints at his person in these words, “as he had a little body, so a great mind;” a high character from this biographer who had no indulgence for poetical failings.

, a celebrated French writer, was born at Rouen, Aug. 26, 1688, and commenced his noviciate among the Jesuits of Paris, Sept. 8, 1704. In 1706, he began his philosophical course in the royal college, and in 1708 was sent to Caen to complete his studies that he might take orders. Some of his pieces are dated from that city in 1710 and 1712, and one from Bourges in 1719. He appears indeed to have passed several years in the country, where he taught rhetoric. In 1713, he returned to Paris to study theology, and in 1722 he was again at Paris, where he took the vows in the society of Jesuits, and was intrusted with the education of the prince of Talmont. About the same time he assisted in the “Memoirs of the Arts and Sciences,” and continued his labours in that journal until 1729, when he was obliged to leave Paris for some time for having assisted in publishing father Margat’s History of Tamerlane, which it appears had g=ven offence. His absence, however, was not long, and on his return, or soon after, he was employed in continuing the “History of the Gallican church,” of which six volumes had been published by fathers Longueval and Fontenay. In 1725, he was appointed professor of mathematics, and filled that chair for six years with much reputation. It was probably in this situation that he read his lecture, on the “use of mathematical knowledge in polite literature,” now printed in the second volume of his works, nor did his various public employments prevent his publishing many other works, which were well received by the public. In 1722 he published, but without his name, his “Morale Chretienne,” Paris, a small volume, of which four editions were soon bought up. In 1723, he also published the first of his three letters, entitled “Examen du poema (de M. Racine) sur la grace,” 8vo, and in 1724, “La vie de Timperatrice Eleonore,” taken from that by father Ceva; the same year, “Abreg des vertus de soeur Jeanne Silenie de la Motte des Goutes,” Moulins, 12mo; and a new edition of father Mourgues “Traite de la Poesie Francoise,” with many additions, 12mo. But the work which contributed most to his reputation was his “Greek Theatre,” entitled “Theatre des Grecs, contenant des traductions ct analyses des tragedies Grecques, des discours et des remarques concernant la theatre Grec, &c.” 1730, 3 vols. 4to, and often reprinted in 12mo, in France and Holland. This useful work, not now in such high reputation as formerly, is yet well known in this country by the translation published by Mrs. Charlotte Lennox in 1760, 3 vols. 4to; to which the earl of Corke and Orrery contributed a general preface, and translated the three preliminary discourses: Dr. Sharpe, Dr. Grainger, and Mr. Bourryau translated some other parts, and Dr. Johnson contributed a dissertation on the Greek comedy, and the general conclusion of the work, which, in this translation, is certainly highly polished and improved. “Brumoy,” says Dr. Warton, “has displayed the excellencies of the Greek tragedy in a judicious and comprehensive manner. His jtranslations are faithful and elegant; and the analysis of those plays, which on account of some circumstances in ancient manners would shock the readers of this age, and would not therefore bear an entire version, is perspicuous and full. Of all the French critics, he and the judicious Fenelon have had the justice to confess, or perhaps the penetration to perceive, in what instances Corneille and Racine have falsified and modernized the characters, and overloaded with unnecessary intrigues the simple plots of the ancients.”

, an English poet and warrior, was born of a genteel family, educated at Oxford, and afterwards spent some time in travelling abroad. In 1522, he attended, in a military capacity, the earl of Surrey on his expedition to the coast of Britany, and commanded the troops in the attack of the town of Morlaix, which he took and burnt. For this service he was knighted on the spot by the earl, which Tanner says took place in Germany, 1532, instead of Britany, 1522. In 1528 he was in Spain, but in what service is doubtful. In 1529 he was sent ambassador to France, and the following year ta Rome on account of the king’s divorce. He had also been therein 1522, in the same capacity, when cardinal Wolsey’s election to the holy see was in agitation. In 1533 he was one of those sent by Henry to be witnesses to the interview between the pope and the king of France at Marseilles. He was gentleman of the privy chamber to Henry VIII. and to his successor Edward VI. in the beginning of whose reign he marched with the protector against the Scots, and after the battle of Musselborough in 1547, in which he commanded the light horse with great bravery, he was made banneret. In 1549 he was appointed chief governor of Ireland, by the title of lord chief justice, and there he married the countess of Ormond. He appears to have died in 1550, and was buried at Walerford. He was nephew to John Bourchier, lord Berners, the translator of Froissart.

, 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 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.

In the year 1561, he returned to Scotland, and finding the reformation in a manner established there, he openly renounced the Romish religion, and declared himself a Protestant, but attended the court of queen Mary, and even superintended her studies. In 1563 the parliament appointed him, with others, to inspect the revenues of the universities, and to report a model of instruction. He was also appointed by the assembly of the church, to revise the “Book of Discipline.” In 1564 the queen gave him a pension of five hundred pounds Scotch, which has been, not very reasonably, made the foundation of a charge of ingratitude against him, because he afterwards could not defend the queen’s conduct with respect to the murder of her husband, and her subsequent marriage with Bothwell. About 1566 he was made principal of St. Leonard’s college, in the university of St. Andrew’s, where he taught philosophy for some time; and he employed his leisure hours in collecting all his poems, such of them excepted as were in the hands of his friends, and of which he had no copies. In 1567, on account of his uncommon abilities and learning, he was appointed moderator of the general assembly of the church of Scotland. He joined himself to the party that acted against queen Mary, and appears to have been particularly connected with the earl of Murray, who had been educated by him, and for whom he had a great regard. He attended that nobleman to the conference at York, and afterwards at Hampton -court, being nominated one of the assistants to the commissioners who were sent to England against queen Mary. He had been previously appointed, in an assembly of the Scottish nobility, preceptor to the young king James VI.

During his residence in England, he wrote some encomiastic verses in honour of queen Elizabeth, and several English ladies of rank, from whom he received presents. He appears to have been very ready to receive favours of that kind; and, like Erasmus, not to have been at all backward in making his, wants known, or taking proper measures to procure occasional benefactions from the great. In 1571 he published his “Detectio Marise Reginae,” in which he very severely arraigned the conduct and character of queen Mary, and expressly charged her with being concerned in the murder of her husband lord Darnly. At the beginning of 1570, his pupil, the earl of Murray, regent of Scotland, was assassinated, which, Mackenzie says, “was a heavy stroke to him, for he loved him as his own life.” He continued, however, to be in favour with some of those who were invested with power in Scotland; for, after the death of the earl of Murray, he was appointed one of the lords of the council, and lord privy seal. It appears also that he had a pension of one hundred pounds a year, settled on him by queen Elizabeth. In 1579 he published his famous treatise “De Jure Regni apud Scotos;” which he dedicated to king James. In 1582 he published at Edinburgh, his “History of Scotland,” in twenty books, on which he had chiefiy employed the last twelve or thirteen years of his life. He died at Edinburgh the same year, on the 5th of December, in the seventy-sixth year of his age. Towards the close of his life, he had sometimes resided at Stirling. Ife is said, that when he was upon his death-bed, he was informed that the king was highly incensed against him for writing his book “De Jure Regni,” and his “History of Scotland;” to which he replied, that “he was not much conterned about that; for he was shortly going to a place where there were few kings.” We are also told, that when he was dying, he called for his servant, whose name was Young, and asked him how much money he had of his; and finding that it was not sufficient to defray the expences of his burial, he commanded him to distribute it amongst the poor. His servant thereupon asked him: “Who then would be at'the charge of burying him?” Buchanan replied, “That he was very indifferent about that; for if he were once dead, if they would not bury him, they might let him lie where he was, or throw his corpse where they pleased.” Accordingly, he was buried at the expence of the city of Edinburgh. Archbishop Spotswood says of Buchanan, that “in his old age he applied himself to write the Scots History, which he renewed with such judgment and eloquence, as no country can shew a better: only in this he is justly blamed, that he sided with the factions of the time, and to justify the proceedings of the noblemen against the queen, he went so far in depressing the royal authority of princes, and allowing their controulment by subjects; his bitterness also in writing of the queen, and of the times, all wise men have disliked; but otherwise no man hath merited better of his country for learning, nor thereby did bring to it more glory. He was buried in the common burial-place, though worthy to have been laid in marble, and to have had some statue erected to his memory; but such pompous monuments in his life he was wont to scorn and despise, esteeming it a greater credit, as it was said of the Roman Cato, to have it asked, Why doth he lack a statue? than to have had one, though never so glorious, erected.”

, an eminent English prelate, was the son of William Buckeridge, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Thomas Keblewhyte of Basilden in Berks, son of John Keblewhyte, uncle to sir Thomas White, founder of St. John’s college, Oxford. He was educated in Merchant Taylors’ school, and thence sent to St. John’s college, Oxon, in 1578, where he was chosen fellow, and proceeded, through other degrees, to D. D. in the latter end of 1596. After leaving the university, he became chaplain to Robert earl of Essex, and was rector of North Fambridge in Essex, and of North Kiiworth in Leicestershire, and was afterwards one of archbishop Whitgii't’s chaplains, and made prebendary of Hereford, and of Rochester. In 1604, he was preferred to the archdeaconry of Northampton; and the same year, Nov. 5, was presented by king James to the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, in which he succeeded Dr. Andrews, then made bishop of Chichester. About the same time he was chaplain to the king; was elected president of St. John’s college, 1605, and installed canon of Windsor, April 15, 1606. His eminent abilities in the pulpit were greatly esteemed at court; insomuch that he was chosen to be one of the four (Dr. Andrews, bishop of Chichester, Dr. Barlow of Rochester, and Dr. John King, dean of Christ-church, Oxford, being the other three) who were appointed to preach before the king at Hampton-court in September 1606, in order to bring the two Melvins and other presbyterians of Scotland to a right understanding of the church of England. He took his text out of Romans xiii. 1. and managed the discourse (as archbishop Spotswood, who was present, relates), both soundly and learnedly, to the satisfaction of all the hearers, only it grieved the Scotch ministers to hear the pope and presbytery so often equalled in their opposition to sovereign princes.

, D. D. a learned and ingenious English clergyman and antiquary, was born in 1716, and educated at Oriel college, Oxford, where he took his master’s degree in 1739. He was afterwards elected a fellow of All-Souls college, where he proceeded B. D. in 1755, and D. D. in 1759. In 1755 he was presented to the vicarage of Cumner in Berkshire, by the earl of Abingdon. He was also rector of Frilsham in the same county. He died and was buried at Cumner, Dec. 24, 1780, being at that time likewise keeper of the archives in the university of Oxford, to which office he was elected in 1777. His talents would in all probability have advanced him to higher stations, had they been less under the influence of those honest principles, which, although they greatly dignify a character, are not always of use on the road to preferment. In truth, says the author of his epitaph, he preserved his integrity chaste and "pure: he thought liberally, and spoke openly; a mean action was his contempt. He possessed not great riches, secular honours, or court favours; but he enjoyed blessings of a much higher estimation, a competency, a sound mind, an honest heart, a good conscience, and a faith unshaken.

Whilst he remained minister of this parish, the providence of God wonderfully interposed for the preservation of his life; for his lodgings being near a powder-mill, Mr. Morgan, a gentleman of the parish, represented to him. the danger of his situation, and at the same time invited him to his own house. Mr. Bull, at first, modestly declined the offer, but after some importunity accepted it; and, not many days after his removal to Mr. Morgan’s, the mill was blown up, and his apartment with it. In this part of his life he took a journey once a year to Oxford, where he stayed about two months, to enjoy the benefit of the public libraries. In his way to and from Oxford, he always paid a visit to sir William Masters, of Cirencester, by which means he contracted an intimacy with Mr. Alexander pregory, the minister of the place, and after some time married Bridget, one of his daughters, on the 20th of May, 1658. The same year he was presented by the lady Pool, to the rectory of Suddington St. Mary, near Cirencester, in Gloucestershire. The next year, 1659, he was made privy to the design of a general insurrection in favour of king Charles II. and several gentlemen of that neighbourhood who were in the secret, chose his house at Suddington for one of the places of their meeting. Upon the restoration, Mr. Bull frequently preached for his father-in-law, Mr. Gregory, at Cirencester, where there was a large and populous congregation; and his sermons gave such general satisfaction, that, upon a vacancy, the people were very solicitous to have procured for him the presentation; but the largeness of the parish, and the great duty attending it, deterred him Trom consenting to the endeavours they were making for that purpose. In 1662, he was presented by the lord high-chancellor, the earl of Clarendon, to the vicarage of Suddington St. Peter, which lay contiguous to Suddington St. Mary, at the request of his diocesan Dr. Nicholson, bishop of Gloucester, both livings not exceeding 100l. a year. When Mr. Bull came first to the rectory of Suddington, he began to be more open in the use of the liturgy of the church of England, though it was not yet restored by the return of the king; for, being desired to marry a couple, he performed the ceremony, on a Sunday morning, in the face of the whole congregation, according to the form prescribed by the book of common -prayer. He took the same method in governing these parishes, as in that of St. George’s, and with the same success; applying himself with great diligence to the discharge of his pastoral functions, and setting the people an admirable example in the government and œconomy of his own family. During his residence here, he had an opportunity of confirming two ladies of quality in the protestant communion, who were reduced to a wavering state of mind by the arts and subtleties of the Romish missionaries. The only dissenters he had in his parish were quakers; whose extravagances often gave him no small uneasiness. In this part of his life, Mr. Bull prosecuted his studies with great application, and composed most of his works during the twenty-seven years that he was rector of Suddington. Several tracts, indeed, which cost him much pains, are entirely lost, through his own neglect in preserving them; particularly a treatise on the posture used by the ancient Christians in receiving the Eucharist; a letter to Dr. Pearson concerning the genuineness of St. Ignatius’ s epistles; a long one to Mr. Glanvil, formerly minister of Bath, concerning the eternity of future punishments; and another, on the subject of popery, to a person of very great quality. In 1669, he published his Apostolical Harmony, with a view to settle the peace of the church, upon a point of the utmost importance to all its members; and he dedicated it to Dn William Nicholson, bishop of Gloucester. This performance was greatly disliked, at first, by many of the clergy, and others, on account of the author’s departing therein from the private opinions of some doctors of the church, and his manner of reconciling the two apostles St. Paul and St. James, as to the doctrine of justification. It was particularly opposed by Dr. Morley, bishop of WinChester; Dr. Barlow, Margaret-professor of divinity at Oxford; Mr. Charles Gataker, a presbyterian divine; Mr. Joseph Truman, a non-conformist minister; Dr. Tully, principal of St. Edmund’s-hall; Mr. John Tombes, a famous anabaptist preacher; Dr. Lewis Du Moulin, an independent; and by M. De Marets, a French writer, who tells us, “that the author, though a professed priest of the church of England, was more addicted to the papists, remonstrants, and Socinians, than to the orthodox party.” Towards the end of 1675, Mr. Bull published his “Examen Censuræ,” &c. in answer to Mr. Gataker, and his “Apologia pro Harmonia,” &c. in reply to Dr. Tully. Mr. Bull’s notion on this subject was “That good works, which proceed from faith, and are conjoined with faith, are a necessary condition required from us by God, to the end that by the new and evangelical covenant, obtained by and sealed in the blood of Christ the Mediator of it, we may be justified according to his free and unmerited grace.” In this doctrine, and throughout the whole book, Mr. Bull absolutely excludes all pretensions to merit on the part of men; but the work nevertheless excited the jealousy of many able divines both in the church and among the dissenters, as appears from the above list. About three years after, he was promoted by the earl of Nottingham, then lord chancellor, to a prebend in the church of Gloucester, in which he was installed the 9th of October, 1678. In 1680, he finished his “Defence of the Nicene Faith,” of which he had given a hint five years before in his Apology. This performance, which is levelled against the Arians and Socinians on one hand, and the Tritheists and Sabellians on the other, was received with universal applause, and its fame spread into foreign countries, where it was highly esteemed by the best judges of antiquity, though of different persuasions. Five years after its publication, the author was presented, by Philip Sheppard, esq. to the rectory of Avening in Gloucestershire, a very large parish, and worth two hundred pounds per annum. The people of this parish, being many of them very dissolute and immoral, and many more disaffected to the church of England, gave him for some time great trouble and uneasiness; but, by his prudent conduct and diligent discharge of his duty, he at last got the better of their prejudices, and converted their dislike iuto the most cordial love and affection towards him. He had not been long at Avening, before he was promoted, by archbishop Sancroft, to the archdeaconry of Landaff, in which he was installed the 20th of June, 1686. He was invited soon after to Oxford, where the degree of doctor in divinity was conferred upon him by that university, without the payment of the usual fees, in consideration of the great and eminent services he had done the church. During the reign of James II. the doctor preached very warmly against popery, with which the nation was then threatened. Some time after the revolution, he was put into the commission of the peace, and continued in it, with some little interruption, till he was made a bishop. In 1694, whilst he continued rector of Avening, he published his “Judicium Ecclesia? Catholicse, &c.” in defence of the “Anathema,” as his former book had been of the Faith, decreed by the first council of Nice. The last treatise which Dr. Bull wrote, was his “Primitive Apostolical Tradition,” &c. against Daniel Zwicker, a Prussian. All Dr. Bull’s Latin works, which he had published by himself at different times, were collected together, and printed in 1703, in one volume in folio, under the care and inspection of Dr. John Ernest Grabe, the author’s age and infirmities disabling him from undertaking this edition. The ingenious editor illustrated the work with many learned annotations, and ushered it into the world with an excellent preface. Dr, Bull was in the seventy-first year of his age, when he was acquainted with her majesty’s gracious intention of conferring on him the bishopric of St. David’s; which promotion he at first declined, on account of his ill state of health and advanced years; but, by the importunity of his friends, and strong solicitations from the governors o*f the church, he was at last prevailed upon to accept it, and was accordingly consecrated in Lambeth-chapel, the 29th of April, 1705. Two years after, he lost his eldest son, Mr. George Bull, who died of the small-pox the 11th of May, 1707, in, the thirty-seventh year of his age. Our prelate took his seat in the house of lords in that memorable session, when the bill passed for the union of the two kingdoms, and spoke in a debate which happened upon that occasion, in favour of the church of England. About July after his consecration, he went into his diocese, and was received with all imaginable demonstrations of respect by the gentry and clergy. The episcopal palace at Aberguilly being much out of repair, he chose the town of Brecknock for the place of his residence; but was obliged, about half a year before his death, to remove from thence to Abermarless, for the benefit of a freer air. He resided constantly in his diocese, and carefully discharged all the episcopal functions. Though bishop Bull was a great admirer of our ecclesiastical constitution, yet he would often lament the distressed state of the church of England, chiefly owing to the decay of ancient discipline, and the great number of lay-impropriations, which he considered as a species of sacrilege, and insinuated that he had known instances of its being punished by the secret curse which hangs over sacrilegious persons. Some time before his last sickness, he entertained thoughts of addressing a circular letter to all his clergy; and, after his death, there was found among his papers one drawn up to that purpose. He had greatly impaired his health, by too intense and unseasonable an application to his studies, and, on the 27th of September, 1709, was taken with a violent fit of coughing, which brought on a spitting of blood. About the beginning of February following, he was seized with a distemper, supposed to be an ulcer, or what they call the inward piles; of which he died the 17th of the same month, and was buried, about a week after his death, at Brecknock/ leaving behind him but two children out of eleven.

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.

, younger brother of the preceding, was born at Vache, May 8, 1543, came to Oxford in 1558, and after taking his bachelor’s degree, was chosen perpetual fellow of Magdalen college in 1562. He then took his master’s degree, and entered into holy orders in 1567. He was appointed chaplain to the earl of Bedford, and leaving his fellowship in 1571, went to the north of England, where he became a frequent and popular preacher, like his brother. In May 1572 he was inducted into a prebend of Durham; in 1573 he was made archdeacon of Northumberland, and in 1578 he was presented to the rectory of Ryton in the bishopric of Durham, on which he resigned his archdeaconry. He died April 16, 1617, a few weeks after his brother, and wa’s buried in Ryton church. Wood represents him as a zealous enemy of popery, an admirer of Calvin, and a man of great charity. His works are three tracts against cardinal Bellarmm and popery; an “Exposition of Romans iii. 28, on Justification b) Faith,” London, 1616, 4to; and “Plain and familiar exposition of the Ten Commandments,” ibid. 1617, 8vo. He also wrote a commentary on the prophet Joel, being the substance of some sermons; but, according to Wood, this was left in manuscript.

, a dissenting divine of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a wit himself, and “the cause of wit in other men,” particularly dean Swift and his contemporaries, was born in 1645 at Staines in Middlesex, where his father then was minister, but was afterwards, at the restoration, ejected for nonconformity from the living of Collingbourne Ducis, in Wiltshire. Daniel was educated at Westminster school, and in 1660 went to Magdalen-hall, Oxford, but having some scruples of the nonconformist stamp, he left the university without a degree. It would appear, however, that he had taken orders, as we are told that immediately after he was invited to be chaplain to a gentleman of Chute in Wiltshire, and afterwards to a Mr. Smith of Tedworth, where he was tutor to that gentleman’s son. In 1667, the earl of Orrery, lord president of Munster, took Mr. Burgess over to Ireland, and appointed him master of a school which he had established at Charleville for the purpose of strengthening the protestant interest in that kingdom, and Mr. Burgess, while here, superintended the education of the sons of some of the Irish nobility and gentry. After leaving this school, he was chaplain to lady Mervin, near Dublin; but about this time, we are told, he was ordained in Dublin as a presbyterian minister, and married a Mrs. Briscoe in that city, by whom he had a son and two daughters.

The celebrity of such works soon made Mr. Burke known to the literati; amongst whom were the late George lord Lyttelton, the right honourable William Gerard Hamilton, the late Dr. Markham, archbishop of York, Dr. Johnson, sir Joshua Reynolds, and many other eminent characters, who were proud to patronize a young man of such good private character, and such very distinguished talents. It was in consequence of these connections that we soon after find Mr. Burke in the suite of the earl of Halifax, appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland, October 1761. Here, by his talents, as well as by his convivial and agreeable manners, he made himself not only useful at the castle, but renewed and formed several valuable acquaintances.

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.

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.

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.

Although our author at this time had no parochial cure, he did not refuse his attendance to any sick person who desired it, and was sent for, amongst others, to one wha had been engaged in a criminal amour with Wilmot, earl of Rochester. The manner he treated her, during her illness, gave that lord a great curiosity of being acquainted with him, and for a whole winter, in a conversation of at least one evening in a week, Burnet went over all those topics with him, upon which sceptics, and men of loose morals, are wont to attack the Christian religion. The effect of these conferences, in convincing the earl’s judgment, and leading him to a sincere repentance, became the subject of a well-known and interesting narrative which he published in 1680, entitled “An Account of the Life and Death of the Earl of Rochester.” This work has lately been reprinted more than once, perhaps owing to the character Dr. Johnson gave of it in his Life of Rochester: he there pronounces it a book “which the critic ought to read for its elegance, the philosopher for its arguments, and the saint for its piety.”

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.

, 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.”

, a puritan divine, was born in 1599, and educated at Cambridge, but was obliged to quit that university for nonconformity. He sheltered himself for some time under the hospitable roof of the earl of Warwick, and afterwards retired to Holland, where he was chosen minister of an English congregation at Rotterdam. In 1642 he returned to England, and became preacher of two of the largest and most numerous congregations in London, Stepney and Cripplegate. It was not his object to spread sedition, but peace, for which he earnestly laboured. His “Irenicum” was one of the last subjects upon which he preached. He was a man of learning, candour, and modesty, and of irreproachable life. A considerable number of his writings are in print, many of Vhich were published after his death, which happened November 14, 1646. When the assembly of divines reformed the church by placing that of Scotland in lieu of that of England, Mr. Burroughes was a dissenter from their decrees, and lamented that after all the mischiefs of rebellion and revolution, men were not allowed to have liberty of conscience any more than before. These divisions are said to have shortened his days. Baxter used to say that if all presbyterians had been like Mr. Marshall, and all independents like Mr. Burroughes, their differences might easily have been compromised. Such men, however, in those distracted times were the “rari nantes in gurgite vasto.” We have before us a list of twelve quartos, and four octavos, mostly published from his Mss. after his death, among which is an “Exposition on Hosea,” 3 vols. but none of them seem, to have attained any great degree of popularity.

, born in 1701, was made master of the crown-office in 1724, and was elected F. R. S. 1737, F. A. S. 1751. On the death of Mr. West in 1772, he was prevailed on to fill the president’s chair at the royal society till the anniversary election, when he resigned it to sir John Pringle; and Aug. 10, 1773, when the society presented an address to his majesty, he received the honour of knighthood. He retained his mastership of the 'crown-office till his death, Nov. 5, 1782. An elegant whole-length portrait of sir James Burrow was engraved, after Devis, by Basire, in 1780. During the memorable presidency of the great earl of Mansfield, sir James seems to have been the first reporter of law cases. From a series of many years’ attendance on the court of king’s bench officially, and from a constant habit and attention to accuracy in preserving notes of the business in that court, and being further assisted by the records which passed through his hands in the cpurse of his office, he was particularly enabled to give a collection of the Cases from 26 George II. to 12 George III. in which generally the arguments of the counsel as well as those of the court, are related in a very full and accurate manner, and in a method adapted to give a regular view of the actual progress of the cause as it occurred in court, which of course led the reporter into a more diffuse and circumstantial detail of the arguments than has in general been thought necessary by other reporters, but which appears to have been considered by the author as essential to an exact report of tfhe case, as well as conducive to the improvement of the student. These reports have therefore been considered as a work of the first necessity in the library of a modern lawyer. They have passed through four editions, the last of which was printed with “additional notes and references in 1790, 5 vols. royal 8vo. He also published a separate collection of his” Reports of the Decisions of the Court of King’s Bench, upon Settlement cases, from the year 1732 to 1776,“having during the whole of that period uniformly attended that court, and made it a part of his employment to record the proceedings of it; and in this part of his labours he had the satisfaction of being greatly instrumental in promoting the knowledge of this much litigated branch of the law, and his work seems to have had the effect of lessening the number of appeals to the court of king’s bench. These decisions have been twice printed, first in 4to, 1768, 1772, and 1776, to which were subjoined a few thoughts on pointing (published separately in 1769 and 1772), and secondly in 1786, with marginal notes and references. It is said that he intended to have published his reports of the cases decided in the court of king’s bench, during the time of the three chief justices immediately preceding lord Mansfield, and that the manuscripts of such cases were in the hands of Robert Burrow, esq. his nephew, lately deceased. Sir James also published, without his name, a few” Anecdotes and observations relating to Oliver Cromwell and his family, serving to rectify several errors concerning him, published by Nicol. Comnenus Papadopoli, in his “Historia gymnasii Patavini,” 1763, 4to.

, was born at Birsall in Yorkshire, about 1579; and educated at St. John’s college in Cambridge, where he took both his degrees in arts. He was afterwards incorporated M. A. at Oxford, and took the degree of B. D. He first was tutor to the sons of lord Carey of Lepington (created in 1625 earl of Monmouth), and afterwards, probably by his lordship’s interest, clerk of the closet to prince Henry; and after his death to prince Charles, whom he was appointed to attend into Spain in 1623; but, for reasons unknown, was set aside after part of his goods were shipped, and upon that prince' succession to the crown was removed from being his clerk of the closet. Burton, highly disgusted at this treatment, took every opportunity of expressing his resentment, particularly by railing against the bishops.

, 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.

, 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 lis return, he was sworn of the privy council, on March 30, 1717; and in the month of July ensuing, was constituted general of all his majesty’s foot forces employed, or to be employed, in his service. The following year he was again appointed ambassador extraordinary at the Hague, where he arrived on Sept. 17, 1717; and, havingbrought his negotiations to a conclusion, embarked at the Brill for England, on Nov. 7, and put to sea the same evening. Qn May 8, 1718, he was advanced to the dignity of Baron of Oakley, viscount Caversham, and earl of Cadogan, with remainder of the barony of Oakley to Charles his brother. He set out for the Hague immediately after, where he arrived May 15, 1718, and on the 18th was visited by the public ministers, and by the president of the States General in the name of that body. Ten days after he was at Antwerp, where he conferred with tjie marquis de Prie, governor for the emperor in the Netherlands, in order to put an end to the difficulties that had long obstructed the execution of the barrier treaty; and bringing him to comply with what was demanded, he returned to the Hague on June 2 following, and communicated to the States his transactions at Antwerp, who appeared sensible of his friendly offices, and of the great obligations they were under to his Britannic majesty. And having fixed for his public entry the king his master’s birth-day, it was conducted with great splendour and magnificence. He then laboured with great diligence to adjust the difficulties, which deferred the finishing of the convention for the entire execution of the treaty of barrier, and had frequent conferences with the Imperial ministers and the State? General for that purpose.

His lordship married Margaretta- Cecilia Munter, daughter of William Munter, counsellor of the court of Holland, by his wife Cecilia Trip, of Amsterdam; and by her left issue only two daughters; the lady Sarah, married to Charles, second duke of Richmond; and the lady Margaret, married to Charles John count Bentinck, second son to William earl of Portland, by his second wife. His lordship dying on July 17, 1726, was buried in Westminsterabbey. Her ladyship survived him till August, 1749, when she departed this life at the Hague, from whence her corpse was brought the next month, and interred by his lordship’s in Westminster-abbey. As they left no male issue, the titles of viscount and earl became extinct, and the barony of Oakley devolved on Charles, his brother, second lord Cadogan, who died in 1776.

, a learned civilian, was born near Tottenham, in Middlesex, in 1557. His father was Cæsar Adelmar, physician to queen Mary and queen Elizabeth lineally descended from Adelmar count of Genoa, and admiral of France, in the year 806, in the reign of Charles the Great. This Cæsar Adelmar’s mother was daughter to the duke de Cesarini, from whom he had the name of Cæsar which name Mary I. queen of England, ordered to be continued to his posterity and his father was Peter Maria Dalmarius, of the city of Trevigio in Italy, LL. D. sprung from those of his name living at Cividad del Friuli. Julius, who is the subject of this article, had his education in the university of Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. May 17, 1575, as a member of Magdalen hall. Afterwards he went and studied in the university of Paris where, in the beginning of 1581, he was created D. C. L. and had letters testimonial for it, under the seal of that university, dated the 22d of April, 1531. He was admitted to the same degree at Oxford, March the 5th, 1583; and also became doctor of the canon law. In the reign of queen Elizabeth, he was master of requests, judge of the high court of admiralty, and master of St. Catherine’s hospital near the Tower. On the 22d of January, 1595, he was present at the confirmation of Richard Vaughan, bishop of Bangor, in the church of St. Mary-le-Bow, London. Upon kingJames’s accession to the throne, having before distinguished himself by his merit and abilities, he was knighted by that prince, at Greenwich, May 20, 1603. He was also constituted chancellor and under- treasurer of the exchequer and on the 5th of July, 1607, sworn of his majesty’s privy council. January 16th, in the eighth of king James I. he obtained a reversionary grant of the office of master of the rolls after sir Edward Phillips, knight; who, departing this life September 11, 1614, was succeeded accordingly by sir Julius, on the 1st of October following; and then he resigned his place of chancellor of the exchequer. In 1613 he was one of the commissioners, or delegates employed in the business of the divorce between the earl of Essex and his countess; and gave sentence for that divorce. About the same time, he built a chapel at his house, <on the north side of the Strand, in London, which was consecrated, May 8, 1614. As he had been privy-counsellor to king James I. so was he also to his son king Charles I.; and appears to have been custos rotulorum of the county of Hertford. We are likewise informed by one author, that he was chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. After having thus passed through many honourable employments, and continued in particular, master of the rolls for above twenty years, he departed this life April 28, 1636, in the seventy-ninth year of his age. He lies buried in the church of Great St. Helen’s within Bishopgate, London, under a fair, but uncommon monument, designed by himself; being in form of a deed, and made to resemble a ruffled parchment, in allusion to his office as master of the rolls. With regard to his character, he was a man of great gravity and integrity, and remarkable for his extensive bounty and charity to all persons of worth, or that were in want: so that he might seem to be almoner-general of the nation. Fuller gives the following instance of his uncommon charity “A gentleman once borrowing his coach (which was as well known to poor people as any hospital in England) was so rendezvouzed about with beggars in London, that it cost him all the money in his purse to satisfy their importunity, so that he might have hired twenty coaches on the same terms.” He entertained for some time in hisr house the most illustrious Francis lord Bacon, viscount St. Alban’s. He made his grants to all persons double kindnesses by expedition, and cloathed (as one expresses it) his very denials in such robes of courtship, that it was not obviously discernible, whether the request or denial were most decent. He had also this peculiar to himself, that he was very cautious of promises, lest falling to an incapacity of performance he might forfeit his reputation, and multiply his certain enemies, by hisoiesign of creating uncertain friends. Besides, he observed a sure principle of rising, namely, that great persons esteem better of such they have done great courtesies to, than those they have received great civilities from; looking upon this as their disparagement, the other as their glory.

, an eminent nonconformist divine in the seventeenth century, was the sou of a citizen of London, and born there in February 1600. July 4, 1616, he was admitted of Pembroke-hall 5 in the university of Cambridge. In 1619, he took, the degree of bachelor of arts and in 1632, that of bachelor of divinity. He shewed himself very early no friend, to the Arminian party, which was the reason that he could not obtain a fellowship in that society, even when he seemed to be entitled to it from his standing, as well as from his learning and unblemished character. At last, however, he so far conquered all prejudices, that he was elected Tanquam Socius of that hall, which entitled him to wear the cap, and take pupils, but he had no share in the government of the house. Dr. Felton, the pious and learned bishop of Ely, had so great a regard to his diligence in study, and unaffected zeal for religion, that he made him his chaplain, and paid him, during his residence in his family, uncommon marks of respect. His lordship gave him likewise, as a farther mark of his favour, the vicarage of St. Mary’s in Swaffham- Prior, in Cambridgeshire, in which capacity he did much good, though he diid not reside on his cure by reason of its small distance from the episcopal place. But after the death of the bishop in 1626, Mr. Calamy being chosen one of- th$; lecturers of St. Edmund’s-Bury, in Suffolk, he resigned his vicarage, and applied himself wholly to the discharge of his function at Bury. He continued there ten years, and, as some writers say, was during the greatest part of that time a strict conformist. Others, and indeed himself, say the contrary. The truth seems to be, that he was unwilling to oppose ceremonies, or to create a disturbance in the church about them, so long as this might, in, his opinion, be avoided with a safe conscience; but when bishop Wren’s articles, and the reading of the book of sports, came to be insisted on, he thought himself obliged to alter his conduct, and not only avoid conforming for the future, but also to apologize publicly for his former behaviour. He caine now to be considered as an active nonconformist, and being in great favour with the earl of Essex, he presented him to the living of Rochford in Essex, a rectory of considerable value, and yet it proved a fatal present to Mr. Calamy; for, removing from one of the best and wholesomest airs in England, that of St. Edmund’sbury, into the hundreds of Essex, he contracted such an illness as broke his constitution, and left behind it a dizziness in his head, which he complained of as long as he Jived. Upon the death of Dr. Stoughton, he was chosen minister of St. Mary Aldermanbury, which brought him tip to London, 1639. The controversy concerning churchgovernment was tlu n at its greatest height, in which Mr. Calainy had a very large share. In the month of July 1639, he was incorporated of the university of Oxford, which, however, did not take him off from the party in which he was engaged. In 1640 he was concerned in writing that famous book, called Smectymnuus, which himself says, gave the first deadly blow to episcopacy, and therefore we find frequent references to it in all the defences and apologies for nonconformity which have been since published. In 1641 he was appointed by the house of lords a member of the sub-committee for religion, which consisted of very eminent divines, whose conduct, however, has been differently censured. He made a great figure in the assembly of divines, though he is not mentioned in Fuller’s catalogue, and distinguised himself both by his learning and moderation. He likewise preached several times before the house of commons, for which his memory has been very severely treated. He was at the same time one of the Cornhill lecturers, and no man had a greater interest in the city of London, in consequence of his ministerial abilities. He preached constantly in his own parish church for twenty years to a numerous audience, composed of the most eminent citizens, and even persons of great quality. He steadily and strenuously opposed the sectaries, and gave many pregnant instances of his dislike to those violences which were committed afterwards, on the king’s being brought from the Isle of Wight, He opposed the beheading of his sovereign king Charles I. with constancy ^ncl courage. Under the usurpation of Cromwell he was passive, and lived as privately as he could; yet he gave no reason to suspect that he was at all a well-wisher to that government. When the times afforded a favourable opportunity, he neglected not promoting the return of king Charles II. and actually preached before the house of commons on the day they voted that great question, which, however, has not hindered some from suggesting their suspicions of his loyally. After this step was taken, he, Mr. Ash, and other eminent divines were sent over to compliment the king in Holland, by whom they were extremely well received. When his majesty was restored, Mr. Calainy retained still a considerable share in his favour, and in June 1660, was appointed one of his chaplains in ordinary, and was offered the bishopric, of Coventry and Litchfield, which he refused. When the convocation came to be chosen, he and Mr. Baxter were elected, May 2, 1661, for London; but the bishop of that diocese having the power of chusing two out of four, or four out of six, elected within a certain circuit, Dr. Sheldon, who was then bishop, was so kind as to excuse both of them; which, perhaps, was owing to the share they had in the Savoy conference. After the miscarrying of that design, Mr. Calamy made use of all his interest to procure the passing of an act agreeable to the king’s declaration at Breda: but when this was frustrated, and the act of uniformity passed, he took a resolution of submitting to ejection, and accordingly preached his farewel sermon at Aldermanbury, August 17, 1662. He made, however, a last effort three days afterwards, by presenting a petition to his majesty to continue in the exercise of his ministerial office. This petition was signed by many of the London clergy, and Dr. Man ton and Dr. Bates assisted at the presenting it, when Mr; Calamy made a long and moving speech; but neither it nor the petition had any good effect, though the king expressed himself in favour of toleration. He remained, however, in his parish, and came constantly to church, though another was in the pulpit, which proved an occasion of much t;rouble to him for on December 28, 1662, the expected preacher not coming in time, some of the principal persons in the parish prevailed upon Mr. Calamy to supply his place, which, with some importunity, he did; but delivered himself with such freedom, that he was soon after, by the lord mayor’s warrant, committed to Newgate for his sermon. But the case itself being thought hard, and some doubt arising how far the commitment was legal, his majesty in a few days discharged him. He lived to see London in ashes, the sight of which broke his heart. He was driven through the ruins in a coach to Enfield, and was so shocked at the dismal appearance, that he could never wear off the impression, but kept his chamber ever after, and died October 29, 1666, within two naonths after this accident happened. He was, though a very learned man, yet a plain and practical preacher, and one who was not afraid to speak his sentiments freely of and to the greatest; men . He was twice married. By his first wife he had a son and daughter; and by his second seven children, some of whom we shall have occasion to mention in succeeding articles.

, a very eminent divine among the nonconformists, grandson to Mr. Edmund Calamy, minister of Aldermanbury, by his eldest son Mr. Edmund Calamy (who was ejected out of the living of Moreton in Essex, on St. Bartholomew’s day, 1662), was born April 5, 1671. Having made a considerable progress in grammar learning at several private schools, and under Mr. Hartcliffe at Merchant Taylors, where he contracted a close friendship with Mr. Dawes, afterwards sir William Dawes, and archbishop of York, as also with Mr. Hugh Boulter, the primate of Ireland, he went through a course of logic, natural philosophy, and metaphysics, under the tuition of Mr. Samuel Craddock at the academy kept by him at Wickham Brook in Suffolk. In March 1688, he went over to the university of Utrecht, where he studied philosophy under De Vries, and civil law under Vander Muyden, and attended Graevius’s lectures upon Sophocles and Puffendorf’s Introduction. His application to his studies at this place was so great, that he spent one whole night every week among his books; and his proficiency gained him -the friendship of two of his countrymen at that university, who rose afterwards to very high stations in church and state, lord Charles Spencer, the famous earl of Sunderland, and his tutor Mr. Charles Trimnell, afterwards successively bishop of Norwich and of Winchester, with both of whom he kept up his acquaintance as long as he and they lived. Whilst he resided in Holland, an oiler of a professor’s chair in the university of Edinburgh was made him by Mr. Carstairs, principal of that university, sent over on purpose to find a person properly qualified lor such an office; which he declined, and returned to England in 1691, bringing with him letters from Graevius to Dr. Pocock, canon of Christ-church, and regius professor of Hebrew, and to Dr. Edward Bernard, Savilian professor of astronomy, who obtained leave for him to prosecute his studies in the Bodleian library; and his resilience at Oxford procured him the acquaintance of the learned Mr. Henry Dodvvell. Having resolved to make divinity his principal study, he entered into an examination of the controversy between the conformists and nonconformists, and was led to join the latter. Coming to London in 1692, he was unanimously chosen assistant to Mr. Matthew Sylvester at Blackfriars; and oa June 22, 1694, was ordained at Mr. Annesley’s meetinghouse in Little St. Helen’s, which was the first public transaction of the kind, after the passing of the act of uniformity, and was not undertaken without some timidity on the part of the elder nonconformists, such as Mr. Howe and Dr. Bates, who seemed afraid of giving offence to government. Six other young ministers were ordained at the same time, and the ceremony lasted from ten o'clock in the morning to six in the evening. He was soon after invited to become assistant to Mr. Daniel Williams in Hand-alley, Bishupsgate-street. Oct. 20, 1702, he was chosen one of the lecturers at Salters’-lmll, and in 1703 succeeded Mr. Vincent Alsop, as pastor of v. congregation in Westminster. He drew up the table of contents to Mr. Baxter’s History of his life and times, which was sent to the press in 1696, made some remarks on the work itself, and added to it an index; and reflecting on the usefulness of the book, he saw the expediency of continuing it, for Mr. Baxter’s history came no lower than 1684. Accordingly he composed an abridgment of it; with an account of many others of those ministers who were ejected after the restoration of Charles II. their apology for themselves and their adherents; containing the grounds of their nonconformity and practice, as to stated and occasional communion witlx the church of England; and a continuation of their history till the year 1691. This work was published in 1702. The following year Mr. Hoadly (afterwards bishop of Winchckter) published the two parts of his “Reasonableness of Conformity to the Church of England, &c. in answer to Mr. Calamy’s Abridgement of Mr. Baxter’s history, &c.” As a reply to these treatises, Mr. Calamy published the same year, “A Defence of moderate Nonconformity;” and soon after Mr. Hoadly sent abroad, “A serious admonition to Mr Calamy,” occasioned by the first part of his “Defence, of moderate Nonconformity.”

, a famous divine of the church of Scotland, and a distinguished writer in behalf of the presbyterians, was descended of a good family in that kingdom, and born in 1575. Being early designed for the ministry, he applied with great diligence to the study of the scriptures in their original tongues, the works of the fathers, the councils, and the best writers of church history. He was settled, about 1604, at Crailing, not far from Jedburgh, in the south of Scotland. James VI. of that country, and the first of Great Britain, being desirous of bringing the church of Scotland to a near conformity with that of England, laboured earnestly to restore the episcopal authority, and enlarge the powers of the bishops in that kingdom; but this design was very warmly opposed by many of the ministers, and particularly by David Calderwood, who, when James Law, bishop of Orkney, came to visit the presbyteries of the Merse and Teviotdale, declined his jurisdiction, by a paper under his hand, dated May 5, 1603. The king, however, having its success much at heart, sent the earl of Dunbar, then high-treasurer of Scotland, Dr. Abbot, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, and two other divines, into that kingdom, with instructions to employ every method to persuade both the clergy and the laity, of his majesty’s sincere desire to promote the good of the church, and of his zeal for the Protestant religion, in which they succeeded. Calderwood, however, did not assist at the general assembly held at Glasgow, June 8, 1610, in which lord Dunbar presided as commissioner; and it appears from his writings, that he looked upon every thing transacted in it as null and void. Exceptions were also taken by him and his party, against a great part of the proceedings of another general assembly > held with much solemnity at Aberdeen, Aug. 13, 1616. In May following, king James went to Scotland, and in June held a parliament at Edinburgh; at the same time the clergy met in one of the churches, to hear and advise with the bishops; which kind of assembly, it seems, was contrived in imitation of the English convocation. Mr. Calderwood was present at it, but declared publicly that he did not take any such meetings to resemble a convocation; and being opposed by Dr. Whitford and Dr. Hamilton, who were friends to the bishops, he took his leave of them in these words: “It is absurd to see men sitting in silks and satins, and to cry poverty in the kirk, when purity is departing.” The parliament proceeded mean while in the dispatch of business; and Calderwood, with several other ministers, being informed that a bill was depending to empower the king, with advice of the archbishops, bishops, and such a number of the ministry as his majesty should think proper, to consider and conclude, as to matters decent for the external policy of the church, not repugnant to the word of God; and that such conclusions should have the strength and power of ecclesiastical laws: against this they protested for four reasons: 1. Because their church was so perfect, that, instead of needing reformation, it might be a pattern to others. 2. General assemblies, as now established by law, and which ought always to continue, might by this means be overthrown. 3. Because it might be a means of creating schism, and disturb the tranquillity of the church. 4. Because they had received assurances, that no attempts should be made to bring them to a conformity with the church of England. They desired, therefore, that for these and other reasons, all thoughts of passing any such law may be laid aside; but in case this be not done, they protest, for themselves and their brethren who shall adhere to them, that they can yield no obedience to this law when it shall be enacted, because it is destructive of the liberty of the church; and therefore shall submit to such penalties, and think themselves obliged to undergo such punishments, as may be inflicted for disobeying that law. This protest was signed by Archibald Simpson, on behalf of the members, who subscribed another separate roll, which he kept for his justification. It was delivered to Peter Hewet, who had a seat in parliament, in order to be presented; and another copy remained in Simpson’s hands, to be presented in case of any accident happening to the other. The affair making a great noise, Dr. Spotswood, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, asked a sight of the protest from Hewet, one day at court and, upon some dispute between them, it was torn. The other copy was actually presented by Simpson to the clerk register, who refused to read it before the states in parliament. However, the protest, though not read, had its effect; for although the bill before-mentioned, or, as the Scottish phrase is, the article, had the consent of parliament, yet the king thought fit to cause it to be laid aside; and not long after called a general assembly at St. Andrew’s. Soon after, the parliament was dissolved, and Simpson was summoned before the high commission court, where the roll of names which he had kept for his justification, was demanded from him; and upon his declaring that he had given it to Harrison, who had since delivered it to Calderwood, he was sent prisoner to the castle of Edinburgh; and Calderwood was summoned to appear before the high commission court at St. Andrew’s, on the 8th of July following, to exhibit the said protest, and to answer for his mutinous and seditious behaviour.

It may be necessary to say somewhat more of his manuscript history, which is contained in six large folio volumes, in the Glasgow library. In the first volume, immediately after the title-page, there is the following note. “This work, comprehended in pages, is collected out of Mr. Knox’s History, and his Memorials gathered for the continuation of his History, out of Mr. James Melvil’s Observations, Mr. John Davidson his Diary, the Acts of the General Assemblies, and Acts of Parliament, and out of several Proclamations, and Scrolls of diverse; and comprehendeth an History from the beginning of the reign of king James V. to the death of king James VI. but is contracted and digested in a better order, in a work of three volumes, bound in parchment, and is comprehended in 2013 pages. Out of which work contracted, is extracted another, in lesser bounds, but wanting nothing in substance, and comprehended in pages, which the author desireth only to be communicated to others, and this with the other, contracted into three volumes, to serve only for the defence of the third, and preservation of the History, in case it be lost.” The first of the six volumes gives a large introduction, in which the author undertakes to inform us of the time when, and the persons by whom the island of Great Britain was first inhabited; and afterwards brings down the Scottish Civil History as well as the Ecclesiastical, from the first planting of Christianity to the end of James the Fourth’s reign. After his account of the affairs of the state and the church, we have a view of all the most considerable wars and battles (domestic and foreign) wherein the people of Scotland have been engaged before the said period, as also of the ancient honorary titles, and their institution. On this last head he quotes an old manuscript, sent from Icolmkill to Mr. George Buchanan, which testifies that a parliament was held at Forfar, in the year 1061, wherein surnames are appointed to be taken, and several earls, barons, lords, and knights, were created. After this general preface he begins his proper work, The History of the Scottish Reformation. And in this volume advances as far as the marriage of queen Mary with the lord Darnley, in 1565. In his story of Mr. Patrick Hamilton, the protomartyr in this cause, he gives a copy of the sentence pronounced against him, together with a congratulatory letter from the doctors at Louvain to the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, on the occasion of his death. Amongst those learned men, who upon the first persecution fled into Germany, he reckons Mr. George Buchanan. In his large account of the disputes and sufferings of the reformers, under the administration of cardinal Beaton and the queen regent, we have the particulars of the contentions at Frankfurt, which are mostly taken out of a book entitled “A brief discovery of the Troubles of Mr. John Knox, for opposing the English Service Book, in 1554.” After which we have Knox’s Appeal from the sentence of the clergy, to the nobility, estates, and community of Scotland, with a great many letters from the nobility to the queen-regent and him, on the subject of religion. All this part of the history, which in the printed book makes no more than thirteen pages, ends at page 57 1; from whence (to the end of the book at page 902) there is a good collection of curious letters, remonstrances, &c. which are not in the prints, either of Knox or Calderwood. The second volume contains the history from 1565 to the arraignment of the earl of Moreton for treason, in December 15 So, and contains 614 pages, wherein are many valuable discoveries relating to the practices of David Rizzio, the king’s murder, Bothweil’s marriage and flight, &c. and a more periect narrative of the proceedings in the general assemblies, than the printed history will afford us. The third volume comprehends the entire history of both church and state, from the beginning of January 1581 to July 1586, when queen Mary’s letter to Babington was intercepted. Under the year 1584, there is a severe character of Mr. Patrick Adamson, archbishop of St. Andrew’s; which, in the conclusion, refers us for a farther account of him to a poem made by one Robert Semple, and entitled “The Legend of the Limmer’s Life.” Here is also “An account of the State and Church of Scotland to the Church of Geneva,” which was written by Andrew Melvil, in answer to the misrepresentations of the Scottish discipline scattered in foreign countries, by the said archbishop Adamson. The fourth gives the like mixed history of affairs, from July 1586 to the beginning of 1596. Here we have a full collection of papers relating to the trial, condemnation, and execution, of the unfortunate queen Mary, with abundance of others, touching the most remarkable transactions of this Decennium. In 1587 there is a large account of the coming of the sieur du Bartas into Scotland; of his being carried by king James to the university of St. Andrew’s, his hearing of the lectures of Mr. A. Melvil there, and the great opinion he had of the abilities of that professor, &c. In 1590 there are some smart reflections on Dr. Bancroft’s sermon at Paul’s Cross, censuring the proceedings of J. Knox, and others of the northern reformers, with the assembly’s letter to queen Elizabeth about that sermon. The fifth volume reaches from the beginning of January 1596, to the same month in 1607. After the accounts of the proceedings of the assembly in 1596, the author subjoins this pathetic epiphonema: “Here end all the sincere assemblies general of the kirk of Scotland, enjoying the liberty of the gospel under the free government of Christ.” The new and constant Platt of Planting all the Kirks of Scotland (written by Mr. David Lindsay, one of the Octavians) is here inserted at large, as it was presented to the king and states in the said year 1596. The history of the conspiracy of the Cowries, and the manner of its discovery, is likewise here recorded at length, in the same order, wherein the king commanded it to be published. The new form of ojmination to bishoprics, the protestation in parliament against the restitution of episcopacy, and the reasons offered against it by others, are the remaining matters of consideration in this book. The sixth concludes with the death of king James VI.

, a French dramatic and romance writer, was born in the chateau of Toulgon in Perigord, in the diocese of Cahors, about the year 1612, and became gentleman in ordinary to the king. He is said to have conciliated the good opinion of the court by his happy talent for telling agreeable stories. When a very young man he wrote several tragedies and comedies which procured him some reputation, particularly his “Mithridates” and the “Earl of Essex,” but he was most celebrated for his romances, particularly “Cassandra,” “Cleopatra,” and “Pharamond,” which gave place, however, to a better taste in the course of some years, and are now thought intolerable by their insipidity and tediousness. Calprenede had an excellent opinion of himself, and when the cardinal Richelieu said of some of his verses, that they were dull, he replied that “nothing dull belonged to the family of Calprenede.” He died in 1663.

From this school he was removed when about fifteen, years old, in 1566, to Oxford, and entered as a servitor at Magdalen college; and in the school belonging to that college perfected himself in grammar learning under Dr. Thomas Cooper, afterwards bishop of Lincoln and Winchester; but being disappointed of a demi’s place, he removed to Broadgate-hall, now Pembroke college, by the invitation of Dr. Thomas Thornton, canon of Christ church, his patron and tutor, and who had the honour to be tutor both to Camden and to sir Philip Sidney. Camden left behind him in Broadgate-hall a signal mark of the respect paid him by his contemporaries in the short Latin graces composed by him, which were used many years after by the scholars of this society. Three years after he removed from hence to Christ church, on the promotion of Dr. Thornton to a canon ry there. This kind patron provided for him during the rest of his continuance at the university, and he lived in his patron’s lodgings. At this time his acquaintance commenced with the two Carews, Richard and George; the latter of whom was by James I. created baron Clopton, and by Charles I. earl of Totness; and it has been supposed, as they were both antiquaries, their conversation might give Mr. Camden a turn to that study, which he himself informs us he had strongly imbibed before he left school, and improved at Oxford. He was also acquainted with John Packington, Stephen Powel, and Edward Lucy, knights.

Being now more at liberty, he travelled in 1600 as far as Carlisle, with his intimate friend Mr. (afterwards sir) Robert Cotton, and having surveyed the northern counties, returned to London in December. This year he published his account of the monuments in Westminster abbey, “Reges, Regina?, Nobiles, et alii in ecclesia collegiata B. Petri Westmonasterii sepulti, usque ad annum reparatae salutis 1600,” 4to; which, though no more than a collection of epitaphs, has preserved many that have been since destroyed or effaced. He reprinted it with enlargements in 1603, and 1606. This year also, came out a fifth edition of his Britannia, to which he added “An apology to the reader,” in answer to what Ralph Brooke had published to the prejudice of his work. The original difference related only to some mistakes which Brooke imagined he had discovered. But when he fancied himself under the necessity of appealing to the world and to the earl of Essex, then earl marshal, and his patron, he brought in other matter, foreign to his purpose, cljarging Camden with errors in the pedigrees of noble families, with not acknowledging the assistance he derived from Glover’s papers in lord Burleigh’s library, and from Leland, whom he pretends he had pillaged largely. Camden, in answer, acknowledges himself to have been misled by one of his predecessors, Robert Cook, clarencieux; that he had indeed borrowed from Leland, but not without citing him, and that where he says the same things on his own knowledge, that Leland had mentioned on his, he did not think himself obliged to him; and that whereas Leland had spent five years in this pursuit, he had spent thirty in consulting authors both foreign and domestic, living and dead. He concludes with rallying his antagonist, as utterly ignorant of his own profession, incapable of translating or understanding the Britannia, and offers to submit the disputed points to the earl marshal, the college of heralds, the society of antiquaries, or four persons learned in these studies. This did not prevent Brooke from writing “A Second Discoverie of Errors,” in which he sets down the passages from Camden, with his objections to it in his first book; then Camden’s reply, and last of all, his own answer: and in the appendix in two columns, the objectionable passages in the edition of 1594, and the same as they stood in that of 1600. This was not printed till about 100 years after the death.of its author, by Mr. Anstis, in 1723, 4to. The story which Mr. Camden, in his Annals, and Dr. Smith tell of Brooke’s dirty treatment of sir William Segar, another officer in the college, whom he had a pique against, in 1616, will justify us in believing him capable of any thing.

On Feb. 10, 1619, he was seized with a vomiting of blood, which brought on a deliquium, and continued at intervals till August following. In June this year, he had a dispute with his brother kings Garter and Norroy, about the appointment of his deputies to visit for him, which, though founded partly on a mistake, did not prevent their complaining to the commissioners for executing the office of earl marshal. He vindicated himself in his answer to the earl of Arundel, and the matter seems to have ended here. In the beginning of 1621, he was consulted by lord chancellor Bacon on the ceremonies requisite for creating him viscount St. Alban’s, which was performed Jan. 27 following. In June that year, he assisted in Westminster- hall, at the execution of a very extraordinary sentence of degradation passed in parliament on sir Francis Mitchell, knt. for the monopolies which had oppressed the inn-holders: his spurs were broken in pieces, and thrown away by the servants of the earl marshal, his sword broken over his head, and himself declared an arrant knave, as sir Andrew Harcla had formerly been treated. The king at arms sat at the feet of the lord- commissioners during the whole proceeding.

In 1525, when there was an insurrection among the common people through all Germany, commonly called the war of the peasants, Camerarius went into Prussia, but he returned very soon, and was made professor of the belies lettres in an university which the senate of Nuremberg had just founded under the direction and superintendency of Melancthon. In 1526, when the diet of Spires was held, Albert earl of Mansfelt was appointed ambassador to Charles V. of Spain, and Camerarius to attend him as his Latin interpreter; but this embassy being suspended, Camerarius went no farther than Sslirigen, whence he returned home, and was married the year after to Anne Truchses, a lady of an ancient and noble family, with whom he lived forty-six years very happily, and had four daughters and five sons by her, who all did honour to their family. In 1530, the Senate of Nuremberg sent him with some other persons to the diet of Augsburgh, and four years after offered him the place of secretary; but, preferring the ease and freedom of a studious life to all advantages of a pecuniary nature, he refused it. In 1538, Ulric prince of Wittemberg sent him to Tubingen, to restore the discipline and credit of that university and in 1541, Henry, duke of Saxony, and afterwards Maurice his son, invited him to Leipsic, to direct and assist in founding an university there.

, second duke of Argyle, and duke of Greenwich and baron of Chatham, grandson to the unfortunate earl of Argyle, was born on the 10th of October, 1678. He was son to Archibald, duke of Argyle, by Elizabeth, daughter of sir Lionel Talmash, of Helmingham, in the county of Suffolk. He very early -gave signs of spirit and capacity, and at the age of fifteen, made considerable progress in classical learning, and in some branches of philosophy, under the tuition of Mr. Walter Campbell, afterwards minister of Dunoon, in Argyleshire. It soon, however, appeared, that his disposition was towards a military life; and being introduced at the court of king William, under the title of Lord Lorn, he was preferred by that prince to the command of a regiment of foot in 1694, when he was not quite seventeen years of age; and in that station he gave signal proofs of courage and military capacity during the remainder of king William’s reign, and till the death of his father, the first duke of Argyle, 28th of September, 1703, whom he succeeded in his honours and estate and was soon after sworn of queen Anne’s privy council, appointed captain of the Scotch horseguards, and one of the extraordinary lords of session. He was likewise made one of the knights of the order of the thistle the following year, on the restoration of that order.

In 1705, he was nominated her majesty’s lord high commissioner to the Scottish parliament, though he was then only twenty-three years of age, an appointment which gave much satisfaction to that nation, where, on his arrival, he was received with unusual ceremony. On the 28th of June, his grace opened the parliament by a speech, and was so well convinced of the advantages which would result to both kingdoms from an union between England and Scotland, that he employed his whole interest in the promotion of that measure; for which, on his arrival in England, her majesty created him a peer of England, by the title of Baron of Chatham, and Earl of Greenwich. In 1706, he made a campaign under the duke of Marlborough; and greatly distinguished himself by his courage and conduct in the battle of Ramillies, in which he acted as a brigadier-general; and also at the siege of Ostend, and in the attack of Menin, of which his grace took possession on the 25th of August. After that event, he returned to Scotland, in order to be present in the parliament of that kingdom, when the treaty for the union was agitated; and was, as before, very active in the promotion of it, though he declined being one of the commissioners. When a riotous multitude came to the parliament-close, demanding, with loud clamours, “That the treaty of union should be rejected,” his grace went out of the house, and appeased the people who were assembled, by the calmness and strength of reason with which he addressed them; but his zeal in this affair diminished his popularity, though even his enemies did justice to the rectitude of his intentions. In 1708, he commanded twenty battalions at the battle of Oudenarde; and the troops under his command were the first of the infantry that engaged the enemy, a*nd they maintained their post against unequal numbers. He likewise assisted at the siege of Lisle and commanded as major-general at the siege of Ghent, taking possession of the town and citadel on the 3d or' January, 1703-9. He was afterwards raised to the rank of lieutenant-general, and commanded in chief under general Schuyiemberg, at the attack of Tournay. He had also a considerable share, on the llth of September, 1709, in the victory a Malplaquet, where he was much exposed, and gained great honour. On the 20th of December, 1710, he was installed a knight of the garter; and about this time took some part in the debates in parliament, relative to the inquiry which was set on foot concerning the management of affairs in Spain, when he spoke and voted with the tofies, and joined in the censure that was passed on the conduct of the late whig ministry.

In June 1712, the queen appointed him general and commander in chief of all the land forces in Scotland, and captain of the company of foot in Edinburgh castle. But he did not long continue upon good terms with the ministry; and spoke against a bill which was brought in by the administration, appointing commissioners to examine the value of all the grants of crown lands made since the revolution, by which a general resumption was intended to have been made. In 1714, when it was debated in the house of peers, whether it should be resolved, that the protestarit succession was in danger under the then administration, the duke of Argyle maintained the affirmative; and also declared his disapprobation of the proceedings of the ministry, relative to the peace of Utrecht. His grace likewise zealously opposed the extension of the malt- tax to Scotland and was appointed with the earl of Mar, and two Scotch members of the house of commons, to attend the queen, and make a remonstrance to her majesty on this subject. He also supported the motion that was made by the earl of Seafield, for leave to bring in a bill for dissolving the union. In his speech in parliament upon this subject, he admitted, “that he had a great hand in making the union, and that the chief reason that moved him to it was the securing the protestant succession; but that he was satisfied that might be done as well now, if the union were dissolved.” He added, “that he believed in his conscience, it was as much for the interest of England, as of Scotland, to have it dissolved: and if it were not, he did not expect long to have either property left in Scotland, or liberty in England.” This conduct, which was certainly not very consistent, having given great offence to the ministry, he was about this time deprived of all the employments he held under the crown; and continued to oppose the administration to the end of this reign. But when queen Anne’s life was despaired of, he attended the council-chamber at Kensington, without being summoned; and his attendance on this occasion, was considered as highly serviceable to the interests of the house of Hanover. On the demise of the queen, the duke of Argyle was appointed one of the lords justices for the government of the kingdom, till George I. should arrive in England, and on the 27th of September, 1714, he was again. constituted general and commander in chief of the forces in Scotland; and, on the 1st of October following, he was sworn a member of the new privy council. On the 5th of the same month, he was appointed governor of Minorca; and on the 15th of June, 1715, made colonel of the royal regiment of horse-guards in England. He was also one of the commissioners for establishing the household of the prince and princess of Wales, and was made groom of the stole to the prince.

When the rebellion of 1715 was raised in Scotland in favour of the pretender, the duke of Argyle was sent to take the command of the forces there, and on the 13th of November he engaged the rebel army, commanded by the earl of Mar, at Dumblain. The duke’s troops did not consist of more than three thousand five hundred, while those of the earl of Mar amounted to nine thousand. Notwithstanding this inequality of numbers, the rebels were worsted, though the victory was not complete, and was, indeed, claimed by both sides. His grace behaved in the action with great gallantry; and was congratulated, on account of the advantage that he had obtained, in a letter from the town -council of Edinburgh. Soon after, the duke was joined by some dragoons from England, and by six thousand Dutch troops under general Cadogan; and being thus reinforced, he compelled the rebels to abandon Perth, on the 30th of January, 1716; and the pretender was soon afterwards obliged to retire to France with the utmost precipitation. The duke of Argyle now repaired to Edinburgh, where he arrived on the 'J7th of February, and after being magnificently entertained by the magistrates of Edinburgh, in gratitude for the signal services he had rendered to that city and kingdom in the suppression of the rebellion, set out for England, and arrived on the 6th of March in London, where he was very graciously received by his majesty.

On the 10th and 16th of April he spoke in the house of peers in defence of the bill for repealing the triennial act, and rendering parliaments septennial. But soon after this his grace seems to have conceived some disgust against the court, or some dislike was taken at his conduct there, for in June following he resigned all his places. The particular grounds of his dissatisfaction, or of his being removed from his offices, are not mentioned; but we now find him in several instances voting against the ministry. In February 1717-18, he spoke against the mutiny-bill, and endeavoured to shew, by several instances drawn from the history of Great Britain, that “a standing army, in the time of peace, was ever fatal, either to the prince or the nation.” But on the 6th of February 1718-19, he was made lord-steward of the household; and, after that event, we again find his lordship voting with administration; which he generally continued to do for many years afterwards. On the 30th of April, 1718, he was advanced to the dignity of a duke of Great Britain, by the title of duke of Greenwich. His grace opposed, in 1722, the bill “for securing the Freedom of election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament:” and promoted the resolution of the house for expunging the reasons that were urged by some of the lords in their protest against the rejection of the bill. He also supported a motion made by the earl of Sunderland, for limiting the time for entering protests: and he spoke in favour of the bill for suspending the habeas corpus act for a year, on occasion of the discovery of Layer’s plot; as he did likewise, with great zeal and warmth, for the bill of pains and penalties against bishop Atterbury. In 1724, he defended the mutiny-bill; and, it appears, that his grace had not the same fears of a standing army now, as when he was out of place a few years before.

When the case of the city of Edinburgh, relative to the affair of Porteus, came to be agitated in parliament in 1737, the duke of Argyle exerted himself vigorously in favour of that city; and in 1739, from whatever cause it proceeded, he repeatedly voted against administration. He spoke against the Spanish convention with great spirit, and against the motion made by the duke of Newcastle, for an unlimited vote of credit. About this time he was removed from all his places, and engaged vigorously in the opposition against sir Robert Walpole. After the removal of that minister in 1741, he was again made master-general of the ordnance, colonel of his majesty’s royal regiment of horse-guards, and field marshal and commander in chief of all the forces in England. But in less than a month he resigned his employments for the last time, being, probably, dissatisfied with some of the political arrangements that took place after the removal of Walpole. About this time he is said fo have received a letter from the pretender, which some of his enemies are supposed to have procured to be written to him, with a view of injuring him; but he prevented any ill effects from it, by immediately communicating it to his majesty’s ministers. He had been for some years afflicted with a paralytic disorder, which now began to increase: and towards the close of his life he was somewhat melancholy and reserved. He died on the 3d of September, 1743, and was interred in Westminster-abbey, where one of the finest monuments in that place, by Roubiliiac, was afterwards erected to his memory. The titles of duke and earl of Greenwich, and baron of Chatham, became extinct at his death; but in his other titles he was succeeded by his brother Archibald earl of Ila.

, an eminent historical, biographical, and political writer, was born at Edinburgh, March 8, 1708. His father was Robert Campbell, of Glenlyon, esq. and captain of horse in a regiment commanded by the then, earl of Hyndford; and his mother, Elizabeth, the daughter

In 1752, when the act passed for changing the style, Mr. Canton gave to the earl of Macclesfield several memorial canons for finding leap-year, the dominical letter, the epact, &c. This he did with the view of having them inserted in the common-prayer book; but he happened to be too late in his communication, the form in which they now stand having been previously settled. These canons, with an explication of the reasons of the rules, were afterwards given to the rev. Dr. Jennings, who inserted them in his “Introduction to the use of the Globes.”

On July 20, 1752, our philosopher was so fortunate as to be the first person in England, who, by attracting the electric fire from the clouds during a thunder storm, verified Dr. Franklin’s hypothesis of the similarity of lightning and electricity. Dec. 6, 1753, his paper, entitled, “Electrical experiments,” with an attempt to account for their several phenomena, was read at the Royal Society. In the same paper Mr. Canton mentioned his having discovered, by a great number of experiments, that some clouds were in a positive, and some in a negative state of electricity. Dr. Franklin, much about the same time, made the like discovery in America. This circumstance, together with our author’s constant defence of the doctor’s hypothesis, induced that eminent philosopher, immediately on his arrival in England, to pay Mr. Canton a visit, and gave rise to a friendship which ever after continued without interruption or diminution. On November 14, 1754, was read at the royal society, a letter to the right honourable the earl of Macclesfield, concerning some new electrical experiments. On St. Andrew’s day, 1754, he was a second time elected one of the council of the royal society for the year ensuing. In the Lady’s Diary for 1756, our author answered the prize question that had been proposed in the preceding year. The question was, “How can what we call the shooting of stars be best accounted for; what is the substance of this phenomenon; and in what state of the atmosphere doth it most frequently shew itself?” The solution, though anonymous, was so satisfactory to his friend Mr. Thomas Simpson, who then conducted that work, that he sent Mr. Canton the prize, accompanied with a note, in which he said he was sure that he was not mistaken, in the author of it, as no one besides, that he knew of, could have answered the question. Our philosopher’s next communication to the public was a letter in the Gentleman’s Magazine for September 1759, on the electrical properties of the tourmalin, in which the laws of that wonderful stone are laid down in a very concise and elegant manner. On Dec. 13, in the same year, was read, at the royal society, “An attempt to account for the regular diurnal variation of the horizontal magnetic needle; and also for its irregular variation at the time of an aurora borealis.” A complete year’s observations of the diurnal variations of the needle are annexed to the paper. On Nov. 5, 1761, our author communicated to the royal society an account of the transit of Venus, June 6, 1761, observed in Spitai- square. Mr. Canton’s next communication to the society was a letter addressed to Dr. Benjamin Franklin, and read Feb. 4, 1762, containing some remarks on Mr. Delaval’s electrical experiments. On December 16, in the same year, another curious addition was made by him to philosophical knowledge, in a paper entitled, “Experiments to prove that water is not incompressible.” These experiments are a complete refutation of the famous Florentine experiment, which so many philosophers have mentioned as a proof of the incompressibility of water. On St. Andrew’s day, 1763, our author was the third time elected one of the council of the royal society; and on Nov. 8, in the following year, were read, before that learned body, his farther experiments and observations on the compressibility of water, and some other fluids. The establishment of this fact, in opposition to the received opinion, formed on the hasty decision of the Florentine academy, was thought to be deserving of the society’s gold medal. Tt was accordingly moved for in the council of 1764 and after severalinvidious delays, which terminated much to the honour of Mr. Canton, it was pro sented to him Nov. 30, 1765.

, eldest son and heir of the preceding, became his successor, and notwithstanding the sufferings of his father, his estate was under sequestration; but at the restoration, he was, by Charles II. advanced to the title and dignity of viscount Maiden, and earl of Essex, on April 20, 1661. He also was constituted lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Hertford, on July 7, 1660; and lord lieutenant of the county of Wilts, during the minority of the duke of Somerset, on April 2, 1668. In the year 1670, he was sent ambassador to Christian V. king of Denmark, whence he returned with high, favour for having vindicated the honour of the British flag: and upon testimonies of his courage, prudence, and abilities, was sworn of the privy- council in 1672, and made lord-lieutenant of the kingdom of Ireland which high office he exercised in that kingdom to the general satisfaction of the people. After his return, he, in 1678, with Halifax, and the duke of Buckingham, had the chief political influence among the lords; yet, when they moved an address to the king to send the duke of York from court, the majority was against them. In 1679, he was appointed first and chief commissioner of the treasury: and his majesty choosing a new council, he ordered sir William Temple to propose it to the lord chancellor Finch, the earl of Sunderland, and the earl of Essex, but to one after another; on which, when he communicated it to the earl of Essex, he said, “It would leave the parliament and nation in the dispositions to the king, that he found at his coming in.” Accordingly he was sworn of that privycouncil on April 21, 1679, being then first lord commissioner of the treasury; and his majesty valued himself on it so, that the next day he communicated it by a speech to the parliament, which was agreeable to both houses: but not concurring with the duke of York in his measures, his majesty, on November 19 following, declared in council, that he had given leave to the earl of Essex to resign his place of first commissioner of the treasury; yet intended that he should continue of his privy-council. Nevertheless, soon after, being a great opposer of the court measures, and on Jan. 25, 1680-1, delivering a petition against the parliament’s sitting at Oxford, he was accused, with the lord Russel, of the fanatic plot, and sent prisoner to the Tower in the beginning of July, 1683. Bishop Burnet says, that a party of horse was sent to bring him up from his seat in Hertfordshire, where he had been for some time, and seemed so little apprehensive of danger, that his lady did not imagine he had any concern on his mind. He' was offered to be conveyed away, but he would not stir: his tenderness for lord Russel was the cause of this, thinking his disappearing might incline the jury to believe the evidence the more. Soon after his commitment, he was found with his throat cut, on July 13, 1683. The cause of this is variously represented, some imputing it to himself in a fit of despondency, and some to the contrivance of his enemies. From the evidence examined in the Biog. Britannica, a decision seems difficult. See “Bp. Burnet’s late History charged with great partiality,” by Mr. Braddon, 1725, 8vo.

, afterwards earl of Totness (descended from an ancient family in the West of England, originally so named from Carew-castle in Pembrokeshire) was born in 1557. His mother was Anne, daughter of sir Nicolas Harvey, kiTight, and his father, George, archdeacon of Totness, and successively dean of Bristol, of the queen’s chapel, of Windsor, of Christ Church, Oxon, and of Exeter; besides several other preferments, most of which he resigned before his decease, which occurred in 1585. George Carew in 1572 was admitted gentleman commoner of Broadgate-hall (now Pembroke college) in Oxford; where he made a good proficiency in learning, particularly in the study of antiquitie’s, but being of an active temper, he left the university without a degree; and applying himself to military affairs, went and served in Ireland against the earl of Desmond. In 1580 he was made governor of Asketten-castle, and in 1589 was created master of arts at Oxford, being then a knight. Some time after, being constituted lieutenant-general of the artillery, or master of the ordnance in Ireland, he was one of the commanders at the expedition to Cadiz, in 1596; and again, the next year, in the intended expedition against Spain. Having in 1599 been appointed president of Munster, he was in 1600 made treasurer of the army, and one of the lords justices of Ireland. When he entered upon his government, he found every thing in a deplorable condition; all the country being in open and actual rebellion, excepting a few of the better sort, and himself having for his defence but three thousand foot and two hundred and fifty horse; yet he behaved with so much conduct and bravery, that he reduced many castles and forts, took James Fitz Thomas, the titular earl of Desmond, and O'Connor, prisoners; and brought the Bourkes, Obriens, and many other Irish rebels, to submission. He also bravely resisted the six thousand Spaniards, who landed at Kinsale, October 1, 1601, and had so well established the province of which he was president, by apprehending the chief of those he mistrusted, and taking pledges of the rest, that no person of consideration joined the Spaniards. In 1602 he made himself master of the castle of Donboy, which was a very difficult undertaking, and reckoned almost impracticable; and by this means prevented the arrival of an army of Spaniards, which were ready to sail for Ireland. He had for some time been desirous of quitting his burdensome office of president of Minister, but he could not obtain permission till the beginning of 1603, when, leaving that province in perfect peace, he arrived in England the 21st of March, three days before queen Elizabeth’s death. His merit was so great, that he was taken notice of by the nevr king, and made by him, in the first year of his reign, governor of the isle of Guernsey, and Castle Cornet: and having married Joyce*, the daughter and heir of William Clopton, of Clopton, co. Warwick, esq. he was June 4, J 605, advanced to the degree of a baron, by the title of lord Carew, of Clopton. Afterwards he was made vice-chamberlain and treasurer to king James’s queen; and in 1608 constituted master of the ordnance throughout England for life; and sworn of the privy-council to the king, as he had before been to queen Elizabeth. Upon king Charles Ist’s accession to the crown, he was created, Feb. 1, 1625, earl of Totness. At length, full of years and honours, he departed this life at the Savoy in London, March 27, 1629, aged seventy- three years and ten months and was buried at Stratford upon Avon, near Clopton leaving behind him the character of a faahful subject, a valiant and prudent commander, an honest counsellor, a genteel scholar, a lover of antiquities, and a great patron of learning. A stately monument was erected to his memory, by his widow, with a long inscription reciting his actions.

* In a biographical account of the Carew, which was without his knowfamily placed on the back of a picture ledge and consent, and intended to of lord Totness, in the possession of disinherit her but, upon an accidental his descendant, the late Boothby Clop- conversation with captain Carew, found ton, esq. this lady’s name is Anne, and him a gentleman of superior genius not Joyce: and it is added, that Mr. and fine address, *nd settled his estate, Clopton was extremely displeased with which was very considerable, upon him his daughter’s marriage with captain and his dmjghter. library: and made collections, notes, and extracts for writing The History of the reign of king Henry V. which were inserted in J. Speed’s Chronicle. Sir James Ware says, that the earl of Totness translated into English “A History of the affairs of Ireland,” written by Maurice Regan, servant and interpreter to Dermot, son of Murchard king of Leinster, in 1171, and which had been turned into French verse by a friend of Regan. Bishop Nicolson describes this history as extant in the duke of Chandos’s library, under the title of “Mauritii Regani, servi et interpretis Dermitii, filii Murchardi, &c. Historian de Hibernia fragmentum Anglice redditum a D. Georgio Carew, Memoniae preside sub Elizabetha;” and Mr. Harris mentions another ms copy among the bishop of Clogher’s Mss. in the college library, Dublin. Nicolson also informs us that this learned nobleman wrote forty-two volumes relating to the affairs of Ireland, which are in the Lambeth library, and four more of collections from the originals in the Cotton library.

The natural son of the earl of Totness, afterwards sir Thomas Stafford, was secretary to that nobleman when president of Munster; and the earl bequeathed by his will (remaining at Doctors’ Commons, dated Nov. 30, 1625) all his books and Mss. to sir Thomas; who, in 1633, published the earl’s history, as already mentioned, which he dedicated to Charles 1. “to whom nothing could pass through the publisher’s hands which was not justly due, both by common allegiance and particular service.” To sir Thomas the earl also gave his lease of an annuity or pension of 500l. received from the Alienation office; and if sir Thomas survived him, he wished his countess to convey unto him all his estates of Woodgrove in Essex, at Salcombe, Abberton, and Lanceston, or elsewhere, in Devon and Cornwall. Sir Thomas survived both him and his countess; the latter of whom died Jan. 14, 1636-7; and by her will (in the Commons, dated June 9, 1636) she desires her trusty and good friend and chaplain, Richard Wright, clerk, dwelling in Warwickshire, and Richard Wootton, of Fleet-street, London, gent, to peruse all her deeds and evidences, and deliver unto sir Thomas Stafford such as belonged to him.

, brother to Richard, hereafter mentioned, and second son of Thomas Carew, esq. and Elizabeth his wife, was probably born at his father’s seat at East Anthony, but in what particular year we are not able to ascertain. He was educated in the university of Oxford, after which he studied law in the inns of court, and then set out on his travels. On his return to his native country he was called to the bar, and after some time was appointed secretary to sir Christopher Hatton, lord chancellor of England, by the especial recommendation of queen Elizabeth, who gave him a pro thonotary ship in the chancery, and conferred upon him the honour of knighthood. In 1597, being then a master in chancery, he was sent ambassador to the king of Poland. In the next rei.gn, he was one of the commissioners for treating with the Scotch concerning an union between the two kingdoms; after which he was appointed ambassador to the court of France, where he continued from the latter end of the year 1605 till 1609. During his residence in that country, he was regarded by the French ministers as being too partial to the Spanish interest, but probably ttoeir disgust to him might arise from his not being very tractable in some points of his negotiation, and particularly in the demand of the debts due to the king his master. Whatever might be, his political principles, it is certain, that he sought the conversation of men of letters; and formed an intimacy with Thuanus, to whom he communicated an account of the transactions in Poland, whilst he was employed there, which was of great service to that admirable author in drawing up the 12lst book of his History. After sir George Caret’s return from France, he was advanced to the post of master of the court of wards, which honourable situation he did not long live to enjoy; for it appears from a letter written by Thuanus to Camden, in the spring of the year 1613, that he was then lately deceased. In this letter, Thuanus laments his death as a great misfortune to himself; for he considered sir George’s friendship not only as a personal honour, but as very useful in his work, and especially in removing the calumnies and misrepresentations which might be raised of him in the court of England. Sir George Carew married Thomasine, daughter of sir Francis Godolphin, great grandfather of the lord treasurer Godolphin, and had by her two sons and three daughters. Francis, the elder son, was created knight of the bath at the coronation of king Charles the First, and Attended the earl of Denbigh in the expedition for the relief of ilochelle, where he acquired great reputation by his courage and conduct; but, being seized with a fit of sickness in his voyage homeward, he died in the Isle of Wight, on the 4th of June, 1628, at the age of twenty-seven.

When sir George Carew returned in 1G09 from his French embassy, he drew up, and addressed to king James the First, “A Relation of the state of France, with the characters of Henry the Fourth, and the principal persons of that court;” which reflects great credit upon his sagacity and attention as an ambassador, and his abilities as a writer. In this piece are considered, 1. The name of France. 2. Its ancient and modern limits. 3. Its quality, strength, and situation. 4. Its riches. 5. Its political ordeis. 6. Its disorders and dangers. 7. The persons governing, with those who are likely to succeed. 8. In what terms the French live with their bordering neighbours. And lastly, the state of matters between the king of England’s dominions and theirs. These heads are divided, as occasion requires, into other subordinate ones. The characters are drawn from personal knowledge and close observation, and might be of service to a general historian of that period. The composition is perspicuous and manly, and entirely free from the pedantry which prevailed in the reign of king James I. his taste having been formed in a better aera, that of Queen Elizabeth. The valuable tract we are speaking of lay for a long time in manuscript, till happily falling into the hands of the late earl of Hardwicke, it was communicated by him to Dr. Birch, who published it in 1749, at the end of his “Historical view of the Negotiations between the Courts of England, France and Brussels, from the year 1592 to 1617.” That intelligent and industrious writer justly observes, that it is a model, upon which ambassadors may form and digest their notions and representations and the late celebrated poet, Gray, spoke of it as an excellent performance.

, earl of Monmouth, was the eldest son of Robert, the first earl of Monmouth, who died in 1639, and whose “Memoirs,” written by himself, and containing some curious particulars of secret history of the Elizabethan period, were published from a manuscript in the possession of the late earl of Corke and Orrery, in 1759, 8vo. Henry, his son, was born in 1596, admitted a fellow commoner of Exeter college, Oxford, at the age of fifteen, and took the degree of B. A. in 1613, after which he was sent to travel into foreign countries. In 1616 he was made a knight of the bath at the creation of Charles prince of Wales. In 1625 he was known by the name of lord Lepington, his father’s title before he was created earl of Monmouth, and was noted, Wood says, as “a person well skilled in modern languages, and a general scholar.” This taste for study was his consolation when the depression of the nobility after the death of Charles I. threw many of them into retirement. He died June 13, 1661. In Chauncey’s Hertfordshire is the inscription on his monument in the church at Rickmansworth, which mentions his living forty-one years in marriage, with his countess, Martha, daughter of the lord treasurer Middlesex. He was a most laborious writer, but chiefly of translations, and, as lord Orford observes, seems to have distrusted his abilities, and to have made the fruits of his studies his amusement rather than his method of fame. Of his lordship’s publications we have, 1. “Romulus and Tarquin; or De Principe et Tyranno,” Lond. 1637, 12mo, a translation from Malvezzi, in praise of which sir John Suckling has some verses in his “Fragmenta Aurea,” and others were prefixed by Stapylton, Davenant, Carew, &c. It came to a third edition in 1648. 2. “Speech in the house of peers, Jan. 30, 1641, upon occasion of the present distractions, and of his Majesty’s removal from Whitehall,” London, 1641. 3. “Historical relations of the United Provinces, and of Flanders,” London, 1652, fol. translated from Bentivoglio. 4. “History of the Wars in Flanders,” ibid. 1654, fol. from the same author, with a portrait of the translator. 5. Cf Advertisement from Parnassus, in two Centuries: with the politic touchstone,“ibid. 1656, fol. from Boccalini. 6.” Politic Discourses, in six books,“ibid. 1657, fol. 7.” History of Venice,“ibid. 1658, fol. both from Paul Paruta, a noble Venetian. 8.” The use of Passions,“ibid. 1649 and 1671, 8vo, from the French of J. F. Senault. 9.” Man become guilty or the corruption of his nature by sin,“ibid, from the same author. 10.” The History of the late Wair of Christendom,“1641, fol. which lord Orford thinks is the same work with his translation of” Sir Francis Biondi’s History of the Civil Wars of England, between the houses of York and Lancaster.“11.” Capriata’s “History of Italy,” 1663, fol. His lordship began also to translate from the Italian “Priorato’s History of France,” but died before he could finish it. It was completed by William Brent, esq. and printed at London, 1677.

, Lord Dorchester, an eminent statesman in the beginning of the seventeenth century, the eldest surviving son of Anthony Carleton, esq. of Baldwin Briglitweli, near Watlington,Oxon. was born at his father’s seat, March 10, 1573. He was educated at Westminster school, and at Oxford, where he became a student of Christ church about 1591, and distinguished as a young man of parts. From hence, after taking a bachelor’s degree in 15L<5, he set out on his travels, and on his return to Oxford, was created master of arts in July loOO. In the same year we find him appointed secretary to sir Thomas Parry, our ambassador in France and in 1603 he served in the same capacity in the house of Henry earl of Northumberland. He probably became afterwards a courtier, as he speaks in one of his letters of holding the place of gentleman usher. In the first parliament of James I. he represented the borough of St. Mawes in Cornwall, and was considered as an active member and an able speaker. In April 1605, he accompanied lord Norris intoSpain, but in the latter end of that year was summoned to England, and on his arrival imprisoned, as being implicated in the gunpowder treason but his innocence being proved, he was honourably discharged. In 1607 he married a niece of sir Maurice Carey, with whom he resided some time in Chancery- lane, and afterwards in Little St. Bartholomew’s, near West Smitlitield. At this period he appears to have been unprovided for, as in one of his letters he complains of an “army of difficulties, a dear year, a plaguy town, a growing w if e and a poor purse.” After being disappointed, from political reasons, in two prospects, that of going to Ireland, and that of going to Brussels, in an official capacity, he was nominated to the embassy at Venice, and before setting out, in Sept. 1610, received the honour of knighthood. The functions of this appointment he discharged with great ability, and soon proved that he was qualified for diplomatic affairs. In 1615, he returned to England, sir Henry Wotton being appointed in his room, and on his arrival found all ministerial power and favour centered in sir George Villiers, afterwards duke of Buckingham. Soon after, on the recommendation of sir Ralph Win wood, one of the secretaries of state, he was employed in what was then one of the most important embassiesin the gift of the crown, that to the States General of Holland and in this he continued from 1616 to 1628, and was the last English minister who had the honour of sitting in the council of state for the United Provinces, a privilege which queen Elizabeth had wisely obtained, when she undertook the protection of these provinces, and which was annexed to the possession of the cautionary towns.

The king was now determined to give the seals of secretary of state to lord Dorchester; and as the measure^ was taken, though not yet divulged, of making peace as soon as possible both with France and Spain, he judo-ed it of the utmost consequence to have one in that department, whose judgment and skill in negotiation had been exercised in a long course of foreign employment. Lord Conway had for several years discharged that great trust, according to the earl of Clarendon’s expression, with notable insufficiency, and as old age and sickness were now added to his original incapacity, the court and nation must with great satisfaction have seen him succeeded by so able a minister as lord Dorchester, but the parliament, when it Inet on the day appointed, agreed no better with the court than it had done in the preceding session. The lord treasurer Weston, and Dr. Laud, bishop of London, were become as great objects of national dislike as Buckingham had ever been, while the commons shewed their aversion to Weston in the state, and to Laud in the church, by warm remonstrances against the illegal exaction of tonnage and poundage, and the increase of Popisb and Arminian doctrines; on which account the king dissolved the house on the lOth of March. According to some writers, lord Dorchester hi this parliament proposed the laying an excise upon the nation, which was taken so ill, that though he was a privy counsellor, and principal secretary of state, he with difficulty escaped being committed to the Tower. Of this story, which we believe originated in Howel’s letters, and is referred to in Lloyd’s StateWorthies, we find no traces in the parliamentary history, or in thejords and commons journals. It is, however, generally inferred from the authority of the earl of Clarendon, that lord Dorchester was better acquainted with the management of foreign affairs, than with the constitution, laws and customs of his own country. In his capacity of secretary of state, he was a chief agent in carrying on and completing the treaties with France and Spain; and besides these, he directed in the course of the years 1629 and 1630, the negociations of sir Henry Vane in Holland, and sir Thomas Roe in Poland and the maritime parts of Germany. The former was sent to the Hague, to explain to the States the motives of our treaty with Spain, and to sound their dispositions about joining- in it; and the latter was employed as mediator between the kings of Sweden and Poland after which he was very instrumental in persuading the heroic Gustavus Adolphus to undertake his German expedition. Lord Dorchester appears, likewise, to have kept up a private correspondence with the queen of Bohemia, who rising superior to her misfortunes, he used the best offices in his power to prevent misunderstandings between her and the king her brother; and he gave her advice, when the occasion required it, with the freedom and sincerity of an old friend and servant.

With regard to the general abilities and character of lord Dorchester, it appears from alt his political remains, that he was a judicious, faithful, and diligent minister, and better qualified for his department than any who were his immediate predecessors or successors in the same office. King Charles himself, who was a good judge of his servants’ abilities, used to say, as sir P. Warwick relates in his Memoirs, “that he had two secretaries of state, the lords Dorchester and Falkland; one of whom was a dull man in comparison of the other, and yet pleased him the best for he always brought him his own thoughts in his own woreds: the latter cloathed them in so fine a dress, that he did not always know them again.” Allowing for some defects of stiffness and circumlocution, which are common to all the writings of that time, lord Dorchester’s dispatches are drawn up in that plain, perspicuous, and unaffected stile which was fittest for business. Domestic concerns were no part of his province, but entirely managed by the lord treasurer Weston and archbishop Laud. He held the pen singly in foreign affairs, and was regretted by those who were used to receive the instructions of government from a secretary of state, upon whom they could depend that he would make a just report of their services, and that he would not mislead or misrepresent the ministers with whom he corresponded. That he died much lamented by the public in general, and with the reputation of an honest and well-deserving statesman, is declared by sir Thomas Roe, in a manuscript letter to a friend in Holland. The earl of Clarendon’s assertion, that lord Dorchester was unacquainted with the government, laws, and customs of his own country, and the nature of the people, is disputed by Dr. Birch, in his “Review of the Negociations,” who considers it as absolutely incompatible with the experience which he must have acquired in the house of commons. But, not to mention that the noble historian, who had no prejudice against his lordship, could not well be deceived in the fact, it is, we think, confirmed by the figure he made in the parliament of 1626, and by his acquiescence in all the obnoxious measures of Buckingham, Weston, and Laud. The following articles are attributed to his pen, by Anthony Wood and lord Orford: 1. “Balance pour peser en toute equite & droicture la Harangue fait vagueres en L'Assemblee des illustres & puissans Seignoures Messeigneurs les Estats generaux des Provinces Unies du Pais has, &c.” 1618, 4to. 2. “Harangue fait au Counseile de Mess, les Estats generaux des Provinces Unies, touchant le Discord & le Troubles de PEglise & la Police, causes par la Doctrine d'Arminius,” 6 Oct. 1617, printed with the former. 3. Various Letters in the “Cabala, or Scrinia sacra,” London, 1663, fol. 4. Various Letters to George, duke of Buckingham, in “Cabala, or Mysteries of State,” London, 1654, 4to. 5. Several French and Latin Letters to the learned Vossius, printed in “Ger. Jo. Vossii & clarorum Virorum ad.eum Epistoiae,” London, 1690, fol. 6. Several Speeches in Parliament, in 1626, in Rushworth’s Collections. 7. Several Letters in the three volumes of “Sir Ralph Winwood’s Memorials,” published at London, in folio, 1725. 8. A Letter to the earl of Salisbury, printed in “Howard’s Collection.” 9. Memoirs for Dispatches of political Affairs relating to Holland and England, arm. 1618; with several Propositions made to the States. Manuscript. 10. Particular Observations of the military Affairs in the Palatinate, and the Low Countries, annis 1621, 1622. Manuscript. 11. Letters relating to State Affairs, written to the king and viscount Rochester, from Venice, ann. 1613. Manuscript. The manuscript pieces here mentioned, are probably no more than parts of the collections preserved in the Paper office. The letters from and to sir Dudley Carleton, during his embassy in Holland, from January 1615-16, to December 1620, properly selected, and as occasion required, abridged, or only noted, were published by the late earl of Hardwicke, in 1757, in one vol. 4to, with an historical preface. The second edition of the same work, with large additions to the historical preface, appeared in 1775, and has been twice reprinted since. These letters, if some allowances be made for party violences and prejudices, contain more clear, accurate, and interesting accounts of that remarkable period of Dutch history to which they relate, than are anj where extant. There are, likewise, discussed in the course of them, many points of great importance, at that time, to the English commerce. Lord Hardwicke’s excellent preface has furnished the materials of the present sketch.

In August 1777, sir Guy was made a lieutenant-general in the army, and in 1781 was appointed to succeed sir Henry Clinton as commander in chief in America, where he remained until the termination of the contest, when, after an interview with general Washington, he evacuated New-York, and returned to England. In April 176, he was once more appointed governor of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and, as a reward for his long services, was in August following raised to the peerage, by the title of lord Dorchester, of Dorchester in the county of Oxford. His lordship remained in this extensive government for several years; and returning at length to England, passed his old age in the bosom of his family; first at Kempshot, near Basingstoke, in Hampshire, and afterwards at his seat near Maidenhead. He died Nov. 10, 1808, aged eightyfive, at which time he was colonel of the fourth regiment of dragoons, and a general in the army. In 1772 his lordship married lady Maria, third daughter of Thomas Howard earl of Effingham, by whom he had a numerous issue, and was succeeded in titles and estate by his grandson Arthur Henry Carleton, a minor.

was born at Glasgow in 1682, and educated in the university of that city, where he took his degrees, and was ordained minister at Monimail in Fifcshire. In 1722 he was promoted to be professor of moral philosophy in the university of Glasgow; and for the use of his students wrote some learned notes on “PufYendorfi de officiis hominis.” He intended to have published a system of moral philosophy on a new plan, but did not live to see it completed, as he died at Glasgow in 1738, aged 56. His son Frederick Carmichael was born at Monimail i<i 1708. He received his education in the Marischal college, Aberdeen, where he took his degrees, and was ordained minister at Monimail in 1737, on the presentation of the earl of Leven. In 1743 he was translated to Inveresk; and in 1747 he was elected one of the ministers of Edinburgh, having previously declined an offer made him of the divinity chair in the Marischal college, Aberdeen. In 1751 he was seized i with a fever, which put an end to his life, aged 45. He has left one volume of sermons, which in justness of sentiment and elegance of expression are equal to the best discourses in the English language.

, an eminent civilian of the sixteenth century, was of a Glamorganshire family, and educated at Oxford. Here he chiefly studied the civil law, of which he took the degree of doctor in June 1524, being about that time principal of Greek-hall in St. Edward’s parish. He was admitted at Doctors’ Commons Nov. 13, 1625, and his talents being known at court, he was sent abroad on public affairs, and received the honour of knighthood from the emperor Charles V. In 1530 he was joined in a commission with archbishop Cranmer and others, the purpose of which was to argue the matter of king Henry VIII.'s memorable divorce at the courts of France, Italy, and Germany. Sir Edward Carne afterwards remained at Rome as “a sort of standing agent for Henry, and appears likewise to have continued there during the reign of Edward VI. and had no concern in the reformation. During queen Mary’s reign, he was her agent in the same situation; but on the accession of Elizabeth, the pope ordered him to relinquish that employment. When he was recalled by the queen, with offers of preferment, he thought proper to remain at Rome, and was employed by the pope as director of the English hospital in that city. He was so far a patriot as to inform Elizabeth of the machinations of the catholic powers against her, but he continued inflexible in his attachment to popery, and died in that communion Jan. 18, 1561. Several of his letters relating to the divorce are in Burnet’s” History of the Reformation." Wood remarks that sir Edward Carne was accounted the last ambassador of the kings of England to the pope, until Roger earl of Castlemain was sent to him by king James II.

, baron of Killaghy in the kingdom of Ireland, descended from an ancient and good family in Herefordshire, was born at Pitchers Ocul in that county, February 10, 1657. His father was Mr. Warncomb Carpenter, sixth son of Thomas Carpenter, esq, of the Homme or Holme, in the parish of Dilwyn in Herefordshire. His mother was daughter to Mr. Taylor of the same county, and widow to Mr. John Hill, by whom she had one son. George lord Carpenter was the youngest of seven children, whom his father left at his death, and was educated at a private school in the country. In 1672 he went into the third troop of guards as a private gentleman, and was afterwards appointed quarter-master to the regiment of horse commanded by the earl of Peterborough, and went through the several posts of cornet, lieutenant, captain, &c. till he was advanced to that of lieutenant-colonel of the regiment, in which commission he continued thirteen years, though the regiment was almost coastantly in service. In 1693 he married Alice, daughter of William lord viscount Charlemont, who having a considerable jointure from her first husband James Margetson, esq. by the sale of part of it for her life he was enabled to purchase the regiment of dragoons which he commanded till his death. He served in all the first wars in Ireland and Flanders, and the last in Spain, with unblemished honour and reputation, and distinguished himself to great advantage by his courage, conduct, and humanity. At the unfortunate battle of Almanza in Spain he commanded the rear, and brought up the last squadron in the retreat, which saved the baggage of the army. At the battle of Almenara he was wounded, but received the compliments of Charles then king of Spain, and afterwards emperor of Germany, for his conduct in the engagement. He was again desperately wounded in defending the breach at Britmega against the whole French and Spanish army, where they "were at last taken prisoners. In 1705 he was made a brigadier-general; in 1708 major-general; and in 1710 lieutenant-general. In 1714 he was chosen member of parliament for Whitchurch in Hampshire; and the year following was appointed envoy extraordinary and plenipotentiary to the emperor, whose personal regard and esteem he had gained while he served under that prince in Spain. But the rebellion breaking out that year, he was sent into the North, where he not only prevented the rebels from seizing Newcastle, and marching into Yorkshire, but having overtaken them at Preston, where they were invested by major-general Wills, he, by altering the disposition which that general had made, cut off entirely both their escape and their receiving any supplies, which immediately reduced them to a capitulation. In the beginning of February 1715-16 he sent a challenge to general Wills, but they were prevented from fighting by the interposition of the dukes of Marlborough and Montague. In 1716 he was appointed governor of 'Minorca, and commander in chief of his majesty’s forces in Scotland; and in 1719 was created baron Carpenter of Killaghy in the kingdom of Ireland. In 1722 he was chosen member of parliament for the city of Westminster, and upon all occasions voted for what he thought to be the real good of his country, without any regard to party. In October 1731 being near seventy-four years of age, he began to labour under the failure of appetite, and having had a fall, by which his teeth were loosened on that side which had not been wounded, he was capable of taking but little nourishment, which together with old age, and a decay of nature, put an end to his life February 10, 1731-2. He was interred near his beloved wife in the chancel of the parish church of Owselbury in Hampshire, where a monument of marble was erected to his memory by his son, the late lord Carpenter, who was the only issue he left.

, a political character of considerable fame in Scotland, was the descendant of an ancient family, and born in 1649 at Cathcart in Glasgow. He was educated in divinity and philosophy at Edinburgh and Utrecht, to which his father sent him that he might avoid the political contests which disturbed the reign of Charles II. but he had a zeal which prompted him to interfere in what regarded his country, although removed from it, and he must have given some proofs of a talent for political affairs at a very early period. When England was alarmed about the popish succession, Carstares was introduced to the pensionary Fagel, and afterwards to the prince of Orange, and entrusted with his designs relating to British affairs. During his residence in Holland, his principles both in religion and politics, were strongly confirmed; and upon his return to his native country he entered with zeal into the counsels and schemes of those noblemen and gentlemen who opposed the tyrannical measures of government; and although about this time he took orders in the Scotch church, his mind seemed to have acquired such a decided bias towards towards politics, that he determined to revisit Holland. On his way thither he passed through London, and was employed by Argyle, and the other Scots patriots, in treating with the English, who were for excluding the duke of York from succession to the crown. Towards the close of 1682, he held various conferences with the heads of that party, which terminated in his being privy to what has been called the “Rye-house plot.” Accordingly, he was committed to close custody in the Gate-house, Westminster. After several examinations before the privy council, he was sent for trial to Scotland; and as he refused to give any information respecting the authors of the exclusion scheme, he was put to the torture, which he endured with invincible firmness, but yielded to milder methods of a more insidious nature, and when a pardon was proposed, with an assurance that no advantage should be taken of his answers as evidence against any person, he consented to answer their interrogatories. The privy-council immediately caused to be printed a paper, entitled, “Mr. Carstares’s Confession,” which contained, as he said, a false and mutilated account of the whole transaction; and in direct violation of their promise, they produced this evidence in open court against one of his most intimate friends. This treachery and its conquences very deeply affected him; but as soon as he was cleared, he obtained permission to retire to Holland, towards the close of 1684, or the beginning of 1685, where he was kindly received by the prince of Orange, who appointed him one of his chaplains, caused him to be elected minister of the English protestant congregation at Leyden; and when the prince determined to transport an army to England, Carstares accompanied him as his chaplain, and continued about his person till the settlement of the crown. During the whole of this reign he was the chief agent between the church of Scotland and the court, and contributed by his influence with the king to the establishment of presbytery in Scotland, to which his majesty was disinclined, and to a degree of coalescence or accommodation on the part of the presbyterian clergy with the episcopalians. When an act was passed in 1693, by the Scots parliament, obliging all officers, civil and ecclesiastical, to take an oath of allegiance, and also to sign an assurance (as it was called) declaring William to be king dejure, as well as de facto, the ministers refused to sign the declaration, and appealed to the privy council, who recommended to the king to enforce the obligation. Accordingly, measures were adopted for this purpose; and the body of the clergy applied to Carstares, requesting his interference in their favour. The king persisted in his resolution; orders were renewed in peremptory terms, and dispatches were actually delivered to the messenger to be forwarded next morning. In these critical circumstances Carstares hastened to the messenger at night, demanded the dispatches, which had been delivered to him in the king’s name, and instantly repaired to Kensington, where he found his majesty gone to bed. Having obtained admission into his chamber, he gently waked him, fell on his knees, and asked pardon for the intrusion, and the daring act of disobedience of which he had been guilty. The king at first expressed his displeasure; but when Carstares further stated the case, his majesty caused the dispatches to be thrown into the fire, and directed him to send such instructions to the royal commissioners of the general assembly as he thought most conducive to the public good. In consequence of this seasonable interposition, the oath and assurance were dispensed with on the part of the clergy. By this timely service Carstares acquired the confidence of the presbyterian party to such a degree, and so successfully cultivated the friendship of the earl of Portland, and other men of influence about the court, that he was regarded in the management of Scotch affairs, as a kind of viceroy for Scotland, though he possessed no public character. All applications passed through his hands, all employments, honours, and offices of state, were left to his disposal; and without public responsibility, he engrossed the secret direction of public affairs. Few Scotchmen obtained access to the king, unless through his intervention; and in his correspondence with every department, says a late historian, it is curious to remark how the haughty nobility condescended to stoop and truckle to a presbyterianx clergyman, whom their predecessors in office had tortured and deceived. His moderation, secrecy, and a prudence apparently disinterested, recommended him to king William, who once said of him, in the presence of several of his courtiers, “that he had long known Mr. Carstares; that he knew him well, and knew him to be an honest man” He is represented on the other hand, as a cunning, subtle, insinuating priest, whose dissimulation was impenetrable; an useful friend when sincere; but, from an air of smiling sincerity, a dangerous enemy.

It is highly probable that the success and popularity of Kapin’s History gave considerable disgust to Mr. Carte, and other gentlemen of the same principles, and suggested the scheme of a new undertaking. It is evident, from some letters written about this time to Dr. Z. Grey by our author, that he laid a great stress upon that part of his Life of the duke of Ormonde which vindicated Charles I. in his transactions with the earl of Glamorgan, and which brought a charge of forgery against that nobleman, but in this it has since been proved he was mistaken. Some booksellers of Dublin having formed a design of printing in Ireland a piratical edition of the “History of the duke of Ormonde,” Mr. Carte recollected an order of the house of lords, made in 1721, which was full to his purpose. By this order, which had been issued upon occasion of Curll’s publication of the duke of Buckingham’s writings, it was declared that whoever should presume to print any account of the life, the letters, or other works of any deceased peer, without the consent of his heirs or executors, should be punished as guilty of a breach of privilege of that house. An attested copy of the order was carried by our historian to the earl of Arran, and his lordship sent it to his agent in Dublin, to serve upon the booksellers concerned in the pirated impression, and to discharge them in his name from proceeding in the design. But as this was a remedy only in Mr. Carte’s case, and arising from the particular naiure of his work, he was very solicitous that a new act of parliament should be passed, to secure the property of authors in their writings, and. drew up a paper recommending such an act. Lord Cornbury, at the instance of the university of Oxford, had procured the draught of a bill to be prepared, which was approved by the speaker of the house of commons but we do not find that any farther measures were pursued in the affair. In April 1738, Mr. Carte published on a separate sheet, “A general account of the necessary materials for a history of England, of the society and subscriptions proposed for defraying the expences of it, and the method in which he intended to proceed in carrying on the work.” In the following October he had obtained subscriptions, or the promise of subscriptions, to the amount of 600l. a year. Not long after, he was at Cambridge, collecting materials for his history, from the university and other libraries. Whilst he was thus employed, his head quarters were at Madingly, the seat of sir John Hinde Cotton, bart. whose large collection of old pamphlets and journals, published during the civil war between 1639 and 1660, he methodized, and procured to be bound in a great number of volumes now in the library there. March 8, 1744, a cause in chancery was determined in his favour against his brother Samuel and his sister Sarah, with regard to a doubt concerning their father’s will. Not many weeks after, our author fell under the suspicions of administration, and was taken into custody, together with a Mr. Garth, at a time when the habeas-corpus act was suspended, in consequence of some apprehended designs in favour of the pretender. It is certain that nothing material was discovered against him, for he was soon discharged out of custody, May 9, 1744- *. This event did not detract from his popularity, or prevent his receiving such encouragement in his historical design, as never before or since has been afforded, or expected in any literary undertaking. On July 18, the court of common-council of the city of London agreed to subscribe 5()l. a year for seven years to Mr, Carte, towards defraying the expence of his writing the history of England. In the next month was printed, in an 8vo pamphlet, “A collection of the several papers that had been published by him relative to his rgreat work.” Oct. 18, the company of goldsmiths voted 2 5l. a year for seven years, towards de­* Whilst under examination, the walking in a heavy shower, he wa

no reason to expect that honour.“Daniel Purcell, another nonjuror. Soon after the accession of George I., fraying the expences of transcribing letters, negotiations, and other materials of the like nature; and, in the December following, the companies of grocers and vintners subscribed 25l. a year each to the same purpose; and the chapter of Durham, 2 1l. The university of Oxford, and the societies of New-college, Magdalen, Brazen-nose, and Trinity, were contributors, but no mention is made of Cambridge in the dedication of the first volume. Pro^ posals for printing the history were circulated in 1746, and the first volume of it was completed in December 1747; when the credit of a work which had been ushered into the world with so much preparation and expectation, and which had been supported by such ample subscriptions, was almost wholly overturned by a remarkable act of literary indiscretion. Mr. Carte, having taken occasion to speak of the unction of our kings, and of the great effects annexed to it, introduced in a note a story of one Christopher JLovel, a native of Wells, in Somersetshire, who is represented as having been healed of the evil, at Avignon, in 1716, by application to the pretender. The indiscretion he had been guilty of was hurtful to his interest, and produced the three following pamphlets: 1.” Remarks on Mr. Carte’s General History of England;“2.” A letter to the Jacobite Journalist, concerning Mr. Carte’s History, by Duncan Mac Carte, a Highlander; 11 and 3. “Some Specimens of Mr. Carte’s History of England, with Remarks thereon, by Donald Mac Carte.” But this was not all: the corporation of London unanimously resolved, in April 1748, to withdraw their subscription; and the history fell into very general neglect . It is to the honour of Mr. Carte’s fortitude, that he was not discouraged from prosecuting his undertaking; and perhaps he might receive private aid and support, though public assistance was withdrawn. Whatever may have been the case in that respect, his second volume, containing an account of all public transactions, from the accession of Henry III. in 1216, to the death of Henry VII. in 1509, appeared in 1750. The third volume, which extended to the marriage of the elector palatine with the princess Elizabeth, daughter of James I. in 1613, was published in 1752. The fourth volume, which Mr. Carte did not live to complete, appeared in 1755. It was intended to have been carried on to the restoration, but concludes with the year 1654. It was his design to have brought the narration down to the revolution, for which purpose he had been at uncommon pains to cpllect materials wherever they could be found. Notwithstanding our author’s peculiar opinions and prejudices, his general history is undoubtedly a work of great merit in point of information. It is written with eminent exactness and diligence, and with a perfect knowledge of original authors; and has of late years risen considerably in reputation, as well as in price, especially since it was discovered how much Hume was indebted to it. Mr. Carte died at Caldecot-house, near Abingdon, Berkshire, April 2 S 1754, and was buried at Yattenden church, in a vault on the north side of the chancel. The disorder which carried him off, was a diabetes. At his decease, all his papers came into the hands of his widow, daughter of colonel Brett, who afterwards married Mr. Jernegan, a gentleman intended for orders in the church of Rome. Mrs. Carte left the papers to her second husband for life, and after his death to the university of Oxford. They are now deposited in the Bodleian library, having been delivered by Mr. Jernegan to the university, 1778, for a valuable consideration. Whilst they were in this gentleman’s possession, the earl of Hardwicke paid 200l. for the perusal of them, and, it is said, might have purchased them for 1500/, but we do not see how this can be reconciled with the terms of the will. It is certain, however, that as late as 1775, Mr. Jernegan advertised the use of them. For a consideration of 300l. Mr. Macpherson had the use of them; who, from these and other materials, compiled his history and state papers. Mr. Carte was a man of a strong constitution, and indefatigable application. When the studies of the day were over, he would eat heartily; and in conversation was cheerful and entertaining; but his external appearance was slovenly and uninviting.

Mrs. Carter and Mrs. Montague had been acquainted from their earliest years. The latter, though not born in Kent, had an early connection with it, by her father’s succession to the estate and seat at Horton near Hythe, where she passed many of her juvenile years. From 1754 their correspondence was regular and uninterrupted; and MrsCarter’s visits to Mrs. Montague at her house in London, where she met an union of rank and talent, were constant, and at her seat at Sandleford in the summer or autumn, not unfrequent. The epistolary communication between these two celebrated women would unquestionably be highly acceptable to the public, and we trust it will not be long withheld. In 1756, sir George Lyttelton, afterwards lord Lyttelton, visited Mrs. Carter at Deal; and from thence a gradual intimacy grew up between them, which ended only with his life. About the same time she became acquainted with the celebrated William Pulteney, earl of Bath, who delighted in her society, and regarded her intellectual powers and acquisitions with unfeigned admiration. By his persuasion she published the volume of her poems, already noticed, 1762, 8vo, and dedicated them to him. They are introduced by some poetical compliments from the pen of lord Lyttelton.

, a loyalist in the time of Charles f. of uncommon firmness and bravery, the descendant of an ancient family, originally from Normandy, but afterwards settled at Guernsey and Jersey, was born at Jersey in 1599, his father Ilelier Carteret, esq. being at that time deputy governor of the island. He entered early into the sea service, and had acquired the character of an experienced officer, when king Charles I. ascended the throne. This circumstance recommending him to the notice and esteem of the duke of Buckingham, he was appointed, in 1626, joint governor of Jersey, with Henry, afterwards lord Jermyn and, in 1C '6 9, he obtained a grant of the office and place of comptroller of all his Majesty’s ships. At the commencement of the civil war, when the parliament resolved to send out the earl of Warwick as admiral of the fleet, they also resolved, that captain Carteret should be vice-ad miral. But he, thinking that he ought not to accept the command without knowing the royal pleasure, addressed himself to the king for direction, who ordered him to decline the employment; and captain, Batten, surveyor-general, was substituted in his place. His Majesty was probably mistaken in this advice; for, if captain Carteret had accepted of the charge, he might probably have prevented the greater part of the fleet from engaging in the cause of the parliament. Captain Carteret, however, likewise quitted the post of comptroller, and retired, with his family, to the island of Jersey, the inhabitants of which were confirmed by him in their adherence to the king; and desirous of more active service, he transported himself into Cornwall, with the purpose of raising a troop of horse. When he arrived in that country, finding there was a great want of powder, he went into France to procure that and other necessary supplies; and was so successful, that, through the remainder of the war, the Cornish army was never destitute of ammunition. This was so important and seasonable a service, that the king acknowledged it by particular approbation; and by conferring upon him, at Oxford, the honour of knighthood, which was speedily followed by his being advanced, on the 9th of May 1645, to the dignity, of a baronet. Returning the same year into Jersey, he found that several of the inhabitants had been induced to embrace the cause of the parliament, on which account he threw some of them into confinement. This was so alarming and offensive to the members at Westminster, that an order was made, that if, for the future, he should put to death any of the island whom he should take prisoners, for every one so slain, three of the king’s men should be hung up. From the words here used, it seems implied that sir George Carteret had actually executed some one or more of the people of Jersey who had appeared for the Parliament; a step highly injudicious, whence, in all the subsequent propositions for peace with the king, sir George was excepted from pardon. When the prince of Wales, and many persons of distinction with him, came into Jersey in 1646, and brought with them very little for their subsistence, they were all chear fully entertained, and at a large expence, by sir George Carteret who, being sensible how much it behoved him to take care for supplies, equipped about half a score small frigates and privateers, which soon struck a terror through the whole channel, and made a number of captures. Upon the prince’s leaving the island, at the positive command of the queen, several of the council chose to stay with sir George; au<=! the chancellor of the exchequer (afterwards earl of Clarendon) resided with him above two years. After the death of the king, sir George Carteret, though the republican party was completely triumphant, and though Charles II. was at the Hague in a very destitute condition, immediately proclaimed him at Jersey, with all his titles. Some months afterwards his Majesty determined to pay a second visit to the island of Jersey, and arrived in the latter end of September 1649, accompanied by his brother the duke of York, with several of the nobility. Here they were supplied by sir George with all necessaries. The king, when prince of Wales, had procured his father’s leave for making sir George Carteret his vice-chamberlain, and he now appointed him treasurer of his navy; which however, at this time, chiefly consisted of the privateers that sir George hue! provided, and of the men of war with prince Rupert. Charles II. staid in the island till the latter end of March 1650, when he embarked for Holland, in order to be more commodiously situated for treating with the Scots, who had invited him into that kingdom. This defiance of sir George Carteret in harbouring the king, and taking many of their trading vessels, enraged the republicans so much, that they determined to exert every nerve for the reduction of Jersey. A formidable armament being prepared, it put to sea in October 1651, under the command of admiral Blake, and major-general Holmes, to the last of whom the charge of the forces for the descent was committed. In this crisis, sir George Carteret prevented the landing of the republican army as long as possible; and when that was effected, and the remaining forts of the island were taken, he retired into Elizabeth castle, resolving to hold it out to the last extremity. The king being safely arrived in France, after the, fatal battle of Worcester, sir George informed him of the state of the garrison, but the king not being able to assist him, he advised sir George Carteret, rather to accept of a reasonable composition, than, by too obstinate a defence, to bring himself and the loyal gentlemen who were with him into danger of being made prisoners of war. Sir George was ambitious that Elizabeth castle should be the last of the king’s garrisons (as was in fact the case) which should yield to the prevailing powers. He determined, therefore, to conceal his majesty’s permission to treat, that the knowledge of it might not renew the cry for a surrender. But, at length, provisions growing scarce, the number of defenders lessening daily by death and desertion, and there being no possibility of supplies or recruits, Elizabeth castle was surrendered in the? latter end of December, and sir George went first to St. Maloes, and afterwards travelled through several parts of Europe. To facilitate his reception at the different courts and places he might be disposed to visit, he obtained from his royal master a very honourable and remarkable certificate of recommendation. In 1657, sir George had given such offence to Oliver Cromwell, by some hostile design or attempt against the English vessels trading to the French ports, that, by the Protector’s interest with cardinal Mazarine, he was committed prisoner to the Bastile from which he was, after some time, released by the intercession of his friends, upon condition of his quitting France. In 1659, however, we find him at Rheims, from whence, he repaired to the king at Brussels, and followed him to Breda. Upon his majesty’s being restored to his kingdoms, sir George Carteret rode, with him in his triumphant entry into the city of London, on the 2<nh of May 1660, and next day he was declared vice-chamberlain of the hoiishold, an-d sworn of the privy council. He was also constituted treasurer of the navy; and at the coronation of the king, he had the honour of being almoner for the day. In the first parliament called by Charles II. in May, 1661, sir George Carteret was elected representative for the corporation of Portsmouth; and it appears, that he was au active member of the house. When the duke of York, 1673, resigned the office of high admiral of England, sir George was constituted one of the commissioners of the admiralty; and“in 1676, he was appointed one of the lords of the committee of trade. He was also vice-treasurer of Ireland, and treasurer of the military forces there. At length, in consequence of his merit and services, the king determined to raise him to the dignity of a peerage; but before the design could be accomplished, he departed this life, on the 14th of January, 1679, being nearly eighty years of age. On the 11th of February following, a royal warrant was issued, in which it is recited,” That whereas sir George Carteret died before his patent for his barony was sued out, liis Majesty authorizes Elizabeth, his widow, and her youngest children, James Carteret, Caroline, wife of sir Thomas S<:ot, kut. and Louisa, wife of sir Robert Atkins, knt. to enjoy their precedency and pre-eminency, as if the said sir George Carterei hail actually been created a baron." Sir George’s rldest son, by his jady Elizabeth, who was his cousin-gr nnan, being the daughter of sir PhiUp Carteret, was ijained Philip after his grandfather. This gentleman eminently distinguished himself in the civil wars, and was khighted by Charles II on his arrival in Jersey. After the king’s restoration, sir Philip Carteret married Jemima, daughter of Edward Montague, the first earl of Sandwich, and perished with that illustrious nobleman, in the great sea-fight with the Dutch, in Solbay, on the 28th of May, 1672. Sir Philip determined, whilst many others left the ship, to share the fate of his father-in-law. His eldest son George was the first lord Carteret, and father to the subject of the following article.

, earl Granville, one of the most distinguished orators and statesmen of the last century, was born on the 22d of April, 1690. His father was George lord Carteret, baron Carteret, of Hawnes in the county of Bedford, having been so created on the 19th of October 1681, when he was only fifteen years of age and his mother was lady Grace, youngest daughter of John earl of Bath. He succeeded his father when only in his fifth year. He was educated at Westminster school, from which he was removed to Christ-church Oxford in both which places he made such extraordinary improvements, that he became one of the most learned young noblemen of his time; and he retained to the last his knowledge and love of literature. Dr. Swift humorously asserts, that he carried away from Oxford, with a singularity scarcely to be justified, more Greek, Latin, and philosophy, than properly became a person of his rank; indeed, much more of each, than most of those who are forced to live by their learning will be at the unnecessary pains to load their heads with. Being thus accomplished, lord Carteret was qualified to make an early figure in life. As soon as he was introduced into the house of peers, which was on the 25th of May, 1711, he distinguished himself by his ardent zeal for the protestant succession, which procured him the eariy notice of king George 1. by whom he was appointed, in 1714, one of the lords of the bed-chamber in 1715, bailiff of the island of Jersey and in 1716, lord lieutenant and custis rotulorum of the county of Devon which last office he held till August 1721, when he resigned it in favour of Hugh lord Clinton. His mother also, lady Grace, was created viscountess Carteret and countess Grai>ville, by letters patent, bearing date on the first of January, 1714-15, with limitation of these honours to her son John lord Carteret. His lordship, though still young, became, from the ea.ly part of king George the First’s reign, an eminent speaker in the house of peers. The first instance of the display of his eloquence, was in the famous debate on the bill for lengthening the duration of Parliaments, in which he supported the duke of Devonshire’s motion for the repeal of the triennial act. On the 18th of February, 17 t 7- 18, he spoke in behalf of the bill for punishing mutiny and desertion; and in the session of parliament which met on the llth of November following, he moved, for the address of thanks to the king, to congratulate his majesty on the seasonable success of his naval forces; and to assume him, that the house would support him in the pursuit of those prudent and necessary measures he had taken to secure the trade and quiet of his dominions, and the tranquillity of Europe. In Jan. 1718-19 he was appointed ambassador extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the queen of Sweden, with whom his first business was to, remove the difficulties which the British subjects had met with* Jo their commerce in the Baltic, and to procure satisfaction for the losses they had sustained; and in both he completely succeeded. On the 6th of November, 1719, lord Carteret first took upon him the character of ambassador extraordinary ana plenipotentiary; at which time, in a private audience, he offered his royal master’s mediation t<v make peace between Sweden and Denmark, and between Sweden and the Czar; both of which were readily accepted by the queen. A peace between Sweden, Prussia, and Hanover, having been concluded by lord Carteret, it was proclaimed at Stockholm on the 9th of March, 1719-L'O. This was the prelude to a reconciliation between Sweden and Denmark, which he also effected, and the treaty was signed July 3, 1720. In August his lordship was appointed, together with earl Stanhope and sir Robert Siutcm, ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary at the congress of Cambray but whether he acted in this capacity does not appear. From Denmark, however, he arrived in England Dec. 5, and a few weeks after took a share in the debates on the state of the national credit, occasioned by the unfortunate and iniquitous effects of the South-Sea scheme, maintaining that the estates of the criminals, whether directors or not directors, ought to be confiscated. Whilst this affair was in agitation, he was appointed ambassador extraordinary to the court of France, and was on the point of setting out, when the death of secretary Craggs induced his majesty to appoint lord Carteret his successor, May 4, 1721, and next day he was admitted into office, and sworn of his majesty’s most honourable privy council. Whilst lord Carteret was secretary of state, he not only discharged the general duties of his employment to the satisfaction of his royal master, but ably defended in parliament the measures of administration. This he did in the debate concerning Mr. Law, the famous projector of the Mississippi scheme, whose arrival in England, in 1721, by the connivance, as it was thought, and even under the sanction of the ministry, excited no small degree of disgust; and he also took a part on the side of government, in th debate on the navy debt, and with regard to the various other motions and bills of the session. In the new parliament, which met on the llth of October, 1722, his lordship, on occasion of Layer’s plot, spoke in favour of suspending the habeas corpus act for one year; acquainted the house with the bishop of Rochester’s, lord NortU and Grey’s, and the earl of Orrery’s commitment to the Tower; and defended the motion for the imprisonment of the duke of Norfolk. In all the debates concerning this conspiracy, and particularly with regard to Atterbury, lord Carteret vindicated the proceedings of the tectart; as he did, likewise, in the case of the act for laying an extraordinary tax upon papists. On the 26th of May, 1723, when the king’s affairs called him abroad, his lordship was appointed one of the lords justices of the kingdom; but notwithstanding this, he went to Hanover, in conjunction with lord Townshend, the other secretary; and both these noblemen, in their return to England, had several conferences at the Hague, with the principal persons of the Dutch administration, on subjects of importance. In the session of parliament, January, 1723-4, lord Carteret, in the debate on the mutiny bill, supported the necessity of eighteen thousand men being kept up, as the number of land- forces, in opposition to lord Trevor, who had moved that the four thousand additional men, who had been raised the year before, should be discontinued., Not many days after this debate, several alterations took place at court. Lord Carteret quitted the office of secretary of state, in which he was succeeded by the duke of Newcastle; and on the same day, being the third of April, 1724, he was constituted lord -lieutenant of Ireland, and in October arrived at Dublin, where he was received with the usual solemnity. The Irish were at that time in a great ferment about the patent for Wood’s halfpence, which makes so signal a figure in the life and writings of Dr. Swift. One of the first things done by the lord-lieutenant was to publish a proclamation, offering a reward of three hundred pounds for a discovery of the author of the Drapier’s Letters. When he was asked, by Dr. Swift, howhe could concur in the prosecution of a poor honest fellow, who had been guilty of no other crime than that of writing three or four letters for the good of his country, his excellency replied, in the words of Virgil,

We now come to a part of lord Carteret’s life, including nearly twelve years, from 1730 to 1742, during which he engaged in the grand opposition, that was carried on so long, and with so much pertinacity, against sir Robert Walpole. In this opposition he took a very distinguished part, and was one of its ablest and most spirited leaders. There was scarcely any motion or question on which his eloquence was not displayed. His powers of oratory are allowed to have been eminently great; and it is highly probable, that they were invigorated and increased by that superior ardour which naturally accompanies an attack upon the measures of government. In the session of parliament, 1730-1, he supported the bill against pensioners being permitted to sit in that house; and the motion for discharging the twelve thousand Hessian forces in the pay of Great Britain. In the subsequent session, which opened on the 13th of January, 1731-2, besides speaking in favour of the pension bill, lord Carteret exerted his whole ability against the passing of the act for reviving the salt duty. This tax he asserted to be grievous, pernicious, and insupportable; oppressive to the lower part of the people; and dangerous to public liberty, by the numerous dependents it would create upon the crown. In the next year, the grand objects that engaged the attention of the minority were, the motion for the reduction of the land forces; the produce of the forfeited estates of the SouthSea directors in 1720; and the bill for granting eightythousand pounds for the princess-royal’s marriage settlement, and a sum out of the sinking fund; on which occasions lord Carteret displayed his usual energy and eloquence. In the session which began on the 17th of January, 1733-4, his lordship made the motion for an address to the king, to know who had advised the removal of the duke of Bolton and lord Cobham from their regiments; and took the lead in the memorable debate which arose upon that question, and an, active part in the other matters that were agitated in this and the following sessions. It is observable that, about this time, Dr. Swift had some doubts concerning lord Carteret’s steadiness in the cause of opposition, yet, in the session>f parliament which opened on the 1st of February, 1736-7, his lordship distinguished himself greatly in the several question-s concerning the riots at Edinburgh, and the affair of captain Porteus; and he was the mover, in the house of peers, for the settlement of an hundred thousand pounds a year, out of the civil list, upon the prince of Wales; a matter which excited a very long and violent debate. He exercised the same vigour with regard to all the motions and questions of that busy session; and it is evident, from the records of the times, that he was the prime leader of opposition in the upper house. This character was preserved by lord Carteret in the parliament which met on the 15th of November, 1739; and in the following session, when the minority exerted their whole strength to overturn the administration, he made the motion in the house of peers, Feb. 13, 1740-1, to address his majesty, that he would graciously be pleased to remove sir Robert Walpole from his presence and councils for ever, and prefaced his proposal with the longest, as well as the ablest speech that, he ever appears to have delivered. A year after, when views of opposition were attained, so far as related to the displacing of sir Robert Walpole, lord Carteret, Feb. 12> 1741-42, was appointed one of his majesty’s principal secretaries of state, and then began to change his parliamentary language, opposing the motion for the commitment of the pension -bill, and the bill to indemnify evidences against Robert earl of Orford, not consistently, although with some reason. In September 1742, he was sent to the States General, to concert measures with them, for the maintenance of the liberties of the United Provinces, and the benefit of the common cause and soon after his return, he opposed the motion for discharging the Hanoverian troops in British pay and distinguished himself in favour of the bill for retailing spirituous liquors. In 1743 he waited upon his majesty at Hanover, and attended him through the whole interesting campaign of that year; and the king placed the greatest confidence in his counsels, to which he was the more entitled, as he was eminently ^killed in foreign affairs. On the death of his mother, upon the 18th of October, 1744, he succeeded to the titles of viscount Carteret and earl Granville, and, a few weeks after, resigned the seals as secretary of state, unable to oppose the patriotic party, whom he had suddenly forsaken, and the duke of Newcastle and his brother, Mr. Pelham, who formed analliance with them against him. George II. however, with reluctance parted with a minister who had gained his personal affection by his great knowledge of the affairs of Europe, by his enterprizing genius, and, above all, by his ready compliance with the king’s favourite views. In the beginning of 1746, his lordship made an effort to retrieve his influence in the cabinet, but the duke of Newcastle and Mr. Pelham, who knew his aspiring disposition, refused to admit him into administration, yet mismanaged their intrigues so much, that at first they were themselves obliged to resign, and earl Granvilie was appointed secretary of state, and resumed the reins of administration, in February 1745-6: finding, however, that he could not counteract the accumulated opposition that preponderated against him, he resigned the seals four days after they had' been put into his hands. Still lord Granville’s political antagonists were not able to prevent his receiving,. personal marks of royal favour. On the 22d of June, 1749J he was elected at Kensington, one of the knights companions of the most noble order of the garter, and next year was again brought into the ministry, in connection with the very men by whom he had been so long and so warmly opposed. He was then constituted president of the council, and notwithstanding the various revolutions of administration, was continued in this high post till his decease. When his majesty went to Hanover, in 17- r >2, earl Granville was appointed one of the lords justices of the kingdom and he was in the commissions for opening and concluding the session of parliament, which began on the 31st of May, 1754, and ended on the 5th of June following. The Ifist time in which he spoke in the house of peers, was in opposition to the third reading of the militia-bill, on the 24th of May, 1756, but not with his usual effect. When, in October 1761, Mr. Pitt proposed in council, an immediate declaration of war with Spain, and urged the measure with his usual energy, threatening a resignation, if his advice should not be adopted; lord Granville is said to have replied to him in terms both pointed and personal. Mr. Wood, in the preface to his “Essay on the original Genius and Writings of Homer,” informs us, that “being directed to wait upon his lordship, a few days before he died, with the preliminary articles of the treaty of Paris, he found him so languid, that he proposed postponing his business for another time; but earl Granville insisted that he should stay, saying, it could not prolong his life to neglect his duty; and repeating a passage out of Sarpedon’s speech in Homer, he dwelled with particular emphasis on one of the lines which recalled to his mind the distinguishing part he had taken in public affairs.” After a pause he desired to hear the treaty read and gave it the approbation of a “dying statesman (his own words) on the most glorious war, and most honourable peace, this nation ever saw.” In other respects, lord Granville so much retained his vivacity to the close of his life, as to be able to break out into sallies of wit and humour. He died Jan. 2, 1763, in. the seventy-third year of his age. He was twice married; first at Long-Leat, on the 17th of October, 1710, to Frances, only daughter of sir Robert Worsley, bart.; and secondly, on the 14th of April, 1744, to lady Sophia, daughter of Thomas earl of Pomfret. By his former wife he had three sons and five daughters; by the latter, only one daughter. Lord Granville’s character has been drawn as follows, by the late earl of Chesterfield: “Lord Granville had great parts, and a most uncommon share of learning for a man of quality. He was one of the best speakers in the house of lords, both in the declamatory and the argumentative way. He had a wonderful quickness and precision in seizing the stress of a question, which no art, no sophistry, could disguise in him. In business he was bold, enterprizing, and overbearing. He had been bred up in high monarchical, that is, tyrannical principles of government, which his ardent and impetuous temper made him think were the only rational and practicable ones. He would have been a great first minister in France, little inferior, perhaps, to Richelieu; in this government, which is yet free, he would have been a dangerous one, little less so, perhaps, than lord Strafford. He was neither ill-natured nor vindictive, and had a great contempt for money. His ideas were all above it. In social life he was an agreeable, good-humoured, and instructive companion; a great but entertaining talker. He degraded himself by the vice of drinking, which, together with a great stock of Greek and Latin, he brought away with him from Oxford, and retained and practised ever afterwards. By his own industry, he had made himself master of all the modern languages, and had acquired a great knowledge of the law. His political knowledge of the interest of princes and of commerce was extensive, and his notions were just and great. His character may be summed up, in nice precision, quick decision, and unbounded presumption.”

Very severe measures had now been adopted for several years against the puritans; on whose behalf a piece was published, intituled, “An admonition to the parliament;” to which were annexed, A letter from Beza to the earl of Leicester, and another from Gualter to bishop Parkhurst, recommending a reformation of church discipline. This work contained what was called the “platform of a church;” the manner of electing ministers; their several duties; and arguments to prove their equality in government. It also attacked the hierarchy, and the proceedings of the bishops, with much severity of language. The admonition was concluded with a petition to the two houses, that a discipline more consonant to the word of God, and agreeing with the foreign reformed churches, might be established by law. Mr. Field and Mr. Wilcox, authors of the admonition, and who attempted to present it to parliament, were committed to Newgate on the second of October 1572. Notwithstanding which, Mr. Cartwright, after his return to England,“wrote” a second admonition to the parliament,“with an humble petition to the two houses, for relief against the subscription required by the ecclesiastical commissioners. The same year Dr. Whitgift published an answer to the admonition: to which Mr. Cartwright published a reply in 1573; and aboat this time a proclamation was issued for apprehending him. In 1574 Dr. Whitgift published, in folio,” A defence of the answer to the admonition, against the reply of T. C.“In 1575 Mr. Cartwright published a second reply to Dr. Whitgift; and in 1577 appeared,” the rest of the second reply of Thomas Cartwright, against master Doctor Whitgift’s answer, touching the church discipline.“This seems to have been printed in Scotland; and it is certain, that before its publication Mr. Cartwright had found it necessary to leave the kingdom, whilst his opponent was raised to the bishopric of Worcester. Mr. Cartwright continued abroad about five years, during which time he officiated as a minister to some of the English factories. About the year 1580 James VI. king of Scotland, having a high opinion of his learning and abilities, sent to him, and offered him a professorship in the university of St. Andrew’s; but this he 'thought proper to decline. Upon his return to England, officers w.e re sent to apprehend him, as a promoter of sedition, and he was thrown into prison. He probably obtained his li­* berty through the interest of the lord treasurer Burleigh, and the earl of Leicester, by both of whom he was favoured: and the latter conferred upon him the mastership of the hospital which he had founded in Warwick. In 1583 he was earnestly persuaded, by several learned protestant divines, to write against the Rhemish translation of the New Testament. He was likewise encouraged in this design by the earl of Leicester and sir Francis Walsingham: and the latter sent him a hundred pounds towards the expences of the work. He accordingly engaged in it; but after some time received a mandate from archbishop Whitgift, prohibiting him from prosecuting the work any farther. Though he was much discouraged by this, he nearly completed the performance; but it was not published till many years after his death in 1618, fol. under the title” A Confutation of the Rhemish Translation, Glosses, and Annotations on the New Testament.“It is said, that queen Elizabeth sent to Beza, requesting him to undertake a work of this kind; but he declined it, declaring that Cartwright was much more capable of the task than himself. Notwithstanding the high estimation in which he was held, and his many admirers, in the year 1585 he was again committed to prison by Dr. Aylmer, bfshop of London; and that prelate gave some offence to the queen by making use of her majesty’s name on the occasion. When he obtained his liberty is not mentioned: but we find that in 1590, when he was at Warwick, he received a citation to appear in the starchamber, together with Edmund Snape, and some other puritan ministers, being charged with setting up a new discipline, and a new form of worship, and subscribing their names to stand to it. This was interpreted an opposition and disobedience to the established laws. Mr. Cartwright was also called upon to take the oath ex officio; but this he refused, and was committed to the Fleet. In May 1591 ije was sent for by bishop Ay liner to appear before him, and some others of the ecclesiastical commissioners, at that prelate’s house. He had no previous notice given him, to prevent any concourse of his adherents upon the occasion. The bishop threw out some reproaches against him, and again required him to take the oath ex officio. The attorney general did the same, and represented to him” how dangerous a thing it was that men should, upon the conceits of their own heads, and yet under colour of conscience, refuse the things that had been received for laws for a long time.“Mr. Cartwright assigned sundry reasons for refusing to take the oath; and afterwards desired to be permitted to vindicate himself from some reflections that had been thrown out against him by the bishop and the attorney general. But to this bishop Aylmer would not consent, alleging,” that he had no leisure to hear his answer,“but that he might defend himself from the public charges that he had brought against him, by a private letter to his lordship. With this Mr. Cartwright was obliged to be contented, and was immediately after again committed to the Fleet. In August 1591 he wrote a letter to lady Russel, stating some of the grievances under which he laboured, and soliciting her interest with lord Burleigh to procure him better treatment. The same year king James wrote a letter to queen Elizabeth, requesting her majesty to shew favour to Mr. Cartwright and his brethren, on account of their great learning and faithful labours in the gospel. But he did not obtain his liberty till about the middle of the year 1592, when he was restored to his hospital at Warwick, and was again permitted to preach: but his health appears to have been much impaired by his long confinement and close application to study. He died on the 27th of December 1603, in the 68th year of his age, having preached a sermon ou mortality but two days before. He was buried in the hospital at Warwick. He was pious, learned, and laborious; an acute disputant, and an admired preacher; of a disinterested disposition, generous and charitable, and particularly liberal to poor scholars. It is much to be regretted that such a man should have incurred the censure of the superiors either in church or state; but inuovations like those he proposed, and adhered to with obstinacy, could not be tolerated in the case of a church establishment so recently formed, and which required every effort bf its supporters to maintain it. How far, therefore, the reflections which have been cast on a the prelates who prosecuted him are just, may be safely left to the consideration of the reader. There is reason also to think, that before his death Cartwright himself thought differently of his past conduct. Sir Henry Yelverton, in his epistle to the reader, prefixed to bishop Moreton’s” Episcopacy justified,“says that the last words of Thomas Cartwright, on his death-bed, were, that he sorely lamented the unnecessary troubles he had caused in the church, by the schism, of which he had been the great fomenter; and that be wished he was to begin his life again, that he might testify to the world the dislike he had of his former ways In tnis opinion, says sir Henry, he died; and it appears certain, that he abated something of the warmth of his spirit towards the close of his days. When he had obtained his pardon, of the queen, which, as sir George Paule asserts, was at the instance of aichbishop Whitgilt, Cartwright, in his letters of acknowledgment to that prelate, vouchsafed to stile him a” Right Reverend Fatner in God, and his Lord the Archbishop’s Grace of Canterbury.“This title of Grace he often yielded to Whitgift in the course of their correspondence. Nay, the archbishop was heard to say, that if Mr. Cartwright had not so far engaged himself as he did in the beginning, he verily thought tnat he would, in his letter time, have been drawn to conformity: for when he was freed from his troubles, he often repaired to the archbishop, who used him kindly, and was contented to tolerate his preaching at Warwick for several years, upon his promise that he would not impugn the laws, orders, and government of the church of England, but persuade and procure, as much as he could, both publicly and privately, the estimation and peace of the same. With these terms he complied; notwithstanding which, when queen Elizabeth understood that he preached again, though in the temperate manner which had been prescribed, she would not permit him to do it any longer without subscription; and was not a little displeased with the archbishop, for his having connived at his so doing. Sir George Paule farther adds, that, by the benevolence and bounty of his followers, Mr Cartwright was said to have died rich. Besides the pieces already mentioned, Mr. Cartwright was author of the following works: 1.” Commentaria practica in totam historiam evangelicam, ex quatuor evangelistis harmonice concinnatam,“1630, 4to. An elegant edition of this was printed at Amsterdam, by Lewis Elzevir, in 1647, under the following title:” Harmonia evangelica commentario analytico, metaphrastico, practice, illustrata,“&c. 2.” Commentarii succincti & dilucidi in proverbia Salomonis,“Amst. 1638, 4to. 3.” Metaphrasis & homiliae in librum Salomonis qui inscribitur Ecclesiastes,“Amst. 1647, 4to. 4.” A Directory of Church Government,“1644, 4to. 5.” A Body of Divinity," Lond. 1616, 4to.

, eldest son of the preceding, was born, as is supposed, at Burford in Oxfordshire, about 1610. He received his academical learning at Trinity college in Dublin, and St. John’s college in Cambridge* Before he came to be twenty years of age, he was muster of an ample fortune, which descended to him by the gift of a grandfather, without passing through his father and mother, who were then alive. Shortly after that, and before he was of age, he went into the Low Countries, with a resolution of procuring a command; but was diverted from it by the complete inactivity of that summer. On his return to England, he entered upon a very strict course of study. We are informed by lord Clarendon, that his house being within a little more than ten miles of Oxford, he contracted familiarity and friendship with the most polite and accurate men of that university, who found such an immenseness of wit, and such a solidity of judgment in him, so infinite a fancy, bound in by most exact reasoning, such a vast knowledge, that he was not ignorant in any thing, yet. such an excessive humility, as if he had known nothing, that they frequently resorted, and dwelt with him, as in a college situated in a purer air; so that his house was a university in a less volume, whither they came, not so much for repose, as study; and to examine and refute those grosser propositions which laziness and consent made current in vulgar conversation. Before he was twenty-three years of age, he had read over all the Greek and Latin fathers, and was indefatigable in looking over all books, which with great expence he caused to be transmitted to him from all parts. About the time of his father’s death, in 1633, he was made one of the gentlemen of the privy-chamber to Charles I. In 1639 he was in the expedition against the Scots, and afterwards went a volunteer with the earl of Essex. He was chosen, in 1640, a member of the house of commons for Newport in the isle of Wight, in the parliament which began at Westminster April 13, the same year. The debates being there managed with all imaginable gravity and sobriety, he contracted such a reverence for parliaments, that he thought it really impossible they could ever procjiice mischief or inconvenience to the kingdom, or that the kingdom could be tolerably happy in the intermission of them. From the unhappy and unseasonable dissolution of that parliament, he probably harboured some jealousy and prejudice to the court, towards which he was not before immoderately inclined. He was chosen again for the same place in that parliament which began the 3d of November following;, and in the beginning of it declared himself very sharply and severely against those exorbitances of the court, which Vo*. Viij, Z had been most grievous to the state. He was so rigid an observer of established laws and rules, that he could not endure a breach or deviation from them; and thought no mischief so intolerable, as the presumption of ministers of state to break positive rules for reasons of state, or judges to transgress known laws upon the plea of conveniency or necessity. This made him so severe against the earl of Strafford and the lord Finch, contrary to his natural gentleness and temper. He likewise concurred in the first bill to take away the votes of bishops in the house of lords. This gave occasion to some to believe that he was no friend to the church, and the established government of it; it also caused many in the house of commons to imagine and hope that he might be brought to a further compliance with their designs. Indeed the great opinion he had of the uprightness and integrity of those persons who appeared most active against the court, kept him longer from suspecting any design against the peace of the kingdom; and though he differed from them commonly in conclusions, he believed their purposes were honest. When better informed what was law, and discerning in them a desire to controul that law by a vote of one or both houses, no man more opposed those attempts, and gave the adverse party more trouble, by reason and argumentation. About six months after passing the above-mentioned bill for taking away the bishops’ votes, when the same argument came again into debate, he changed his opinion, and gave the house all the opposition he could, insomuch that he was by degrees looked upon as an advocate for the court; to which he contributed so little, that he declined those addresses, and even those invitations which he was obliged almost by civility to entertain. He was so jealous of the least imagination of his inclining to preferment, that he affected even a moroseness to the court and to the courtiers, and left nothing undone which might prevent and divert the king’s or queen’s favour towards him, but the deserving it. When the king sent for him once or twice to speak to him, and to give him thanks for his excellent comportment in those councils which his majesty termed doing him service, his answers were more negligent, and Jess satisfactory, than might be expected; as if he cared only that his actions should be just, not that they should be acceptable: and he took more pains, and more forced his nature to actions unagreeable and unpleasant to it, that he might not be thought to incline to the court, than most men have done to procure an office there: not that he was in truth averse from receiving public employment, for he had a great devotion to the king’s person* and had before used some small endeavour to be recommended to him for a foreign negotiation, and had once a desire to be sent ambassador into France; but he abhorred an imagination or doubt should sink into the thoughts of any man, that in the discharge of his trust and duty in parliament he had any bias to the court; or that the king himself should apprehend that he looked for a reward for being honest. For this reason, when he heard it first whispered, that the king had a purpose to make him a privy-counsellor, for which there was in the beginning no other ground but because he was known to be well qualified, he resolved to decline it, and at last suffered himself to be over-ruled by the advice and persuasion of his friends to submit to it. Afterwards, when he found that the king intended to make him secretary of state, he was positive to refuse it, declaring to his friends that he was most unfit for it, and that he must either do that which would be great disquiet to his own nature, or leave that undone which was most necessary to be done by one that was honoured with that place; for the most just and honest men did, every day, that which he could not give himself leave to do. He was so exact and strict an observer of justice and truth, that he believed those necessary condescensions and applications to the weakness of other men, and those arts and insinuations which are necessary for discoveries and prevention of ill, would be in him a declension from his own rules of life, though he acknowledged them fit, and absolutely necessary to be practised in those employments. However, he was at last prevailed upon to submit to the king’s command, and became his secretary: but two things he could never bring himself to whilst he continued in that office (which was to his death), for which he was contented to be reproached, as for omissions in a most necessary part of his place. The one, employing of spies, or giving any countenance or entertainment to them; not such emissaries, as with danger would venture to view the enemy’s camp, and bring intelligence of their number* or quartering, or any particulars that such an observation can comprehend; but those who, by communication of guilt, or dissimulation of manners, wind themselves into such trusts and secrets, as enable them to make discoveries. The other, the liberty of opening letters, upon a suspicion that they might contain matter of dangerous consequence. For the first, he would say such instruments must be void of all ingenuity and common honesty, before they could be of use and afterwards they could never be fit to be credited and that no single preservation could be worth so general a wound and corruption of human society, as the cherishing such persons would carry with it. The last he thought such a violation of the law of nature, that no qualification by office could justify him in the trespass; and though he was convinced by the necessity and iniquity of the time, that those advantages of information were not to be declined, and were necessarily to be practised, he found means to put it off from himself, whilst he confessed he needed excuse and pardon for the omission. In all other particulars he filled his place with great sufficiency, being well versed in languages, and with the utmost integrity, being above corruption of any kind.

He was one of the lords, who, June 5, 1642, signed a declaration, wherein they professed they were fully persuaded that his majesty had no intention to raise war upon his parliament. About the same time he subscribed to levy twenty horse for his majesty’s service. Upon which, and other accounts, he was excepted from the parliament’s favour in the instructions given by the two houses to their general the earl of Essex. Whilst he was with the king at Oxford, his majesty went one day to see the public library, where he was shewed among other books a Virgil, nobly printed and exquisitely bound. The lord Falkland, to divert the king, would have his majesty make a trial of his fortune by the Sortes Virgiliana?, an usual kind of divination in ages past, made by opening a Virgil. The king opening the book, the passage which happened to come up, was that part of Dido’s imprecation against ^Lneas, iv. 615, &c. which is thus translated by Dryden

, son of the preceding, was born, at Genoa, in 1625, and studied in the school of Doineniqo Fiasella; but he owed his principal knowledge in the art of painting to studying the works of the most celebrated masters at Milan and Parma, by which he improved his taste of design, composition, and colouring. His reputation for drawing, colouring, and the elegant turn of his figures, placed him in a rank far superior to his father. His most favourite subjects were battles, which he composed with spirit, and executed with a pleasing variety; and his horses are drawn in an admirable style, full of motion, action, and life. In this style of painting he is said to have united the fire of Tintoretto with the fine taste and composition of Paolo Veronese. With respect to historical subjects, he possessed great merit both in easel pictures and in those of larger dimensions; and his works, although not frequent, are held in great estimation. Among those of the great style, the cupola of the church, and the Annunciation at Genoa, which is described as a noble composition, was painted by this master; and at Florence, in the palace of the grand duke, there is another excellent painting, the Rape of the Sabines. His pictifre, representing Christ taken down from the cross, is in the collection of the earl of Pembroke at Wilton; and it is said that more of the easel pictures of Castelli are to be found in the collections of England than in any other part of Europe. His health was injured by his assiduous labour; and he died at Genoa at the early age of 34, in 1659.

When Castiglione was eighteen years of age, he went into military service, under Lewis Sforza, duke of Milan; but his father dying soon after, and some disastrous circumstances overtaking that state, he was obliged to quit the camp, and return to Mantua. He engaged a second time in the service of the duke, and distinguished himself much by his bravery and conduct; but returning soon after, and being desirous to see other courts, particularly that of Rome, he went thither at the very time that Julius II. obtained the popedom. His fame was not unknown to this pontiff; and the high opinion he had of his abilities and merit, made him write to Guido Ubaldo, duke of Urbino, his cousin, that if he would send him to the court of Rome, in his own name, with the character of a public minister, he should take it as a singular obligation. Castiglione was twenty-six years of age; and Guido Ubaldo sent him ambassador to pope Julius, to transact affairs of the highest importance. He was sent upon a second embassy to Lewis XII. of France, and upon a third to Henry VII. of England; whither he went to be invested with the order of the garter, as proxy for the duke his master. On his arrival in England he was received with every mark of honour and esteem, being met at the port where he landed by the earl of Huntingdon, who was then lord of the bedchamber, accompanied by many other lords, and a king at arms. After he had dispatched his business here, and was returned home, to gratify the importunities of Alfonso Ariosto, his particular friend, he began his celebrated work, “The Courtier,” which in a small space of time he completed at Rome, in March 1516. From this work we may perceive how intimate he was with the Greek and Latin authors, having here gleaned together the first flowers of their wit, and treasured up, as it were, in a single cabinet, the richest jewels of antiquity. The book has been universally well received, both in Italy, and abroad; often reprinted, and translated into several languages. It is lull of moral and political instructions; and, it' we wish to study the Italian tongue, it is said that it can no where be found in more purity.

This unfortunate affair occasioned a new parliament to be summoned on Jan. 16, 1541-2, in which the archbishop, the duke of Suffolk, the earl of Southampton, and the bishop of Winchester, were appointed to examine the queen; which they did on the 28th of that month. Their report is recorded only in general, that she confessed; but no particulars are mentioned. Upon this the parliament passed an act in the form of a petition, in which, after desiring the king not to be grieved at this misfortune, they requested, that the queen and her accomplices, with her procuress the lady Rochford, might be attainted of high treason; and that all those, who knew of the queen’s Vicious course before her marriage, and had concealed it, as the duchess dowager of Norfolk her grandmother, the countess of Bridgwater, the lord William Howard her uncle, and his kidy, with the four other men and five women, who were already attainted by the course of common law (except the duchess of Norfolk and the countess of Bridgwater), might be attainted of misprision of treason. It was enacted also, that whoever knew any thing of the incontinence of the queen for the time being, should reveal it with all possible speed, under the pains of treason: and that if the king, or his successors, should incline to marry any woman, whom they took to be a virgin, if she, not being so, did not declare the same to the king, it should be high treason; and all, who knew it, and did not reveal it, were guilty of misprision of treason: and if the queen, or the prince’s wife, should procure any person, by messages or words, to have criminal conversation with her; or any other, by messages or words, should solicit them; they, their counsellors and abettors, were to be adjudged guilty of high treason.

, second son of Thomas Cavendish of Cavendish, in Suffolk, clerk of the pipe in the reign of Henry VIII. was born about 1505. He received a liberal education, and had settled upon him, by his father, certain lands in Suffolk. Cardinal Wolsey, who was a native of Suffolk, took him into his splendid i'an;ily, which consisted of one earl, nine barons, and several hundred knights, gentlemen, and inferior officers. He served the Cardinal as gentleman usher, and was admitted into more intimacy with him than any other servant, and therefore would not desert him in his fall; but was one of the few who stuck close to him when he had neither office nor salary to bestow. This singular fidelity^ joined to his abilities, recommended him to his sovereign, who received him into his own family and service. In 1540 he was appointed one of the auditors of the court of augmentation, and soon after obtained a grant of several lordships in the county of Hertford. In 1546 he was made treasurer of the chamber to his majesty, had the honour of knighthood conferred on him, and was soon after sworn of the privy council. He continued to enjoy both these honours during eleven years; in which time his estate was much increased by grants from Edward VI. in seven different counties; nor does it appear that he was in less credit or favour with queen Mary, under whose reign he died in 1557. He married three wives. His third and last, who survived him, was the widow of Robert Barley, esq. and justly considered as one of the most famous women of her time. She was the daughter of John Hard wick, of Hard wick, in Derbyshire, by Elizabeth the daughter of Thomas Leeke, of Lousland in the same county, esq. and in process of time became coheiress of his fortune, by the death of her brother without children. When she was scarce fourteen, she was married to Robert Barley, of Barley, in Derbyshire, esq. a young* gentleman of a large estate, all which he settled absolutely upon her on their marriage; and by his death without issue she came into possession of it in 1532. After remaining a widow about twelve years she married Cavendish, by whom she had Henry Cavendish, esq, who was possessed of considerable estates in Derbyshire, but settled at Tutbury in Staffordshire; William Cavendish the first earl of Devonshire; and Charles Cavendish settled at Welbeck in Nottinghamshire, father of William baron Ogle and duke of Newcastle; and three daughters: Frances, who married sir Henry Pierpoint of Holm Pierpoint, in the county of Nottingham, from whom the dukes of Kingston are descended; Elizabeth, who espoused Charles Stuart earl of Lenox, younger brother to the father of James I.; and Mary. After the death of sir William Cavendish, this lady consenting to become a third time a wife, married sir William St. Lowe, captain of the guard to queen Elizabeth, who had a large estate in Gloucestershire; which in articles of marriage she took care should be settled on her and her own heirs, in default of issue; and accordingly, having no child by him, she lived to enjoy his whole estate, excluding as well his brothers who were heirs male, as his own female issue by a former lady. In this third widowhood the charms of her wit and beauty captivated the then greatest subject of the realm, George Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury, whom she brought to terms of honour and advantage to herself and children; for he not only yielded to a considerable jointure, but to an union of families, by taking Mary her youngest daughter to be the wife of Gilbert his second son, and afterwards his heir; and giving the lady Grace, his youngest daughter, to Henry her eldest son. Nov. 18, 1590, she was a fourth time left, and to death continued, a widow. A change of condition that perhaps never fell to any one woman to be four times a happy wife to rise by every husband into greater wealth and higher honours to havein unanimous issue by one husband only to have all those children live, and honourably disposed of in her lifetime and, after all, to live seventeen years a widow in absolute power and plenty .

, the first duke of Devonshire, was born Jan. 25, 1640. He made the tour of Europe, under the care of Dr. Killigrew, afterwards master of the Savoy. In 1661 he was chosen to represent the county of Derby, and continued a member of the long parliament till its dissolution. Sept. 21, 1663, he was created M. A. of the university of Oxford, by the special command of the chancellor. In 1665 he went a volunteer on board the fleet under the duke of York, and in 1669 accompanied Mr. Montague in his embassy to France. Being accidentally at the opera in Paris, three officers of the French king’s guard, intoxicated with liquor, came upon the stage, and one of them coming up to him with a very insulting question, he gave him a severe blow on the face; upon which they all drew, and pushed hard upon him. He set his back against one of the scenrs, and made a stout defence, receiving several wounds; till a sturdy Swiss, belonging to the ambassador Montague, caught him up in his arms, and threw him over the stage into the pit. In his fall one of his arms caught upon an iron spike, which tore out the flesh. The three assailants were, by the king’s command, sent to prison, and not released but by his intercession. In 1677 he distinguished himself in the house of commons, by a vigorous opposition to the measures of the court. The year following he assiduously promoted an inquiry into the murder of sir Edmundbury Godfrey, and other particulars of the popish plot; and was one of the committee appointed to draw up articles of impeachment against the treasurer Dan by. In the parliament which met in the spring of 1679, he again represented Derby. This year he was chosen one of the king’s new privy-council: but soon finding that his attendance at the board would be wholly ineffectual, he, in conjunction with lord Russel and others, desired leave to withdraw. The county of Derby again elected him their representative in that parliament which met Oct. 21, 1680. The articles of impeachment against the chief justice Scroggs, for his arbitrary and illegal proceedings in the court of king’s bench, were carried up by him to the house of lords. When the king declared his resolution not to consent to a bill of exclusion, lord Cavendish made a motion, that a bill might be brought in for the association of all his majesty’s protestant subjects. He was also one of those who openly named the evil counsellors, and promoted the address to his majesty to remove them from all offices, and from his majesty’s councils and presence for ever. He shewed the same steadiness and zeal in the next parliament, in which also he represented Derbyshire. When parliaments were kid aside, though he was as obnoxious to the court as any, he was not afraid of meeting and conversing with his noble friends; but he condemned a bold overture which was made at one of those meetings, and declared, with great earnestness, that he would never more go with them. At the lord Russel’s trial, when it was almost as criminal to be a witness for him as to be his accomplice, he dared to appear to vindicate him in the face of the court. He afterwards sent him a message by sir James Forbes, that he would come and change clothes with him in the prison, and stay there to represent him, if he thought he could make his escape, but lord Russei was too generous to accept of this proposal. He prosecuted the immediate murderers of his friend Mr. Thynne to condign punishment, and brought the great abettor of it, count Koningsmark, to his trial, who happened to be acquitted by a jury prepossessed, or rather prepared, in favour of him. Lord Cavendish felt great indignation at the discharge of the count, which he thought owing to corruption; and knowing that an appeal to single combat was anciently the last resort in law for convicting a murderer, he obtained the favour of a noble peer to go in his name to count Koningsmark to charge the guilt of blood upon him, and to offer to prove it in the open field; but this method of trial the count thought fit to decline. In Nov. 1684 he became, by the decease of his father, earl of Devonshire. In the reisrn of James he was the same man in greater honour, and in greater zeal and concern for his country. He had been very much affronted within the verge of the court by colonel Culpepper; but restrained his resentment at the time, and pardoned him upon condition he should never more appear at Whitehall, but when, immediately after the defeat of the duke of Mon mouth, the colonel was encouraged to come publicly to court, and was rising to some degree of favour, the earl of Devonshire meeting him in the king’s presencechamber, and receiving from him, as he thought, an insulting look, took him by the nose, led him out of the room, and gave him some di>dainful blows with the head of his cane. For this bold act he v\as prosecuted in the king’s-bench upon an information, and had an exorbitant fine of 30,000l. imposed upon him; and, though a peer, was committed to the king’s-bench prison till he should make payment of it. He was never able to bear any confinement he could break from; and therefore escaped. only to go home to his scat at Chatsworth. Upon the news of his being there, the sheriff of Derbyshire had a precept to apprehend him, and bring him with his posse to town. But he invited the sheriff in, and kept him a, prisoner of honour, till he had compounded for his own liberty, by giving bond to pay the full sum of 3O,000l. This bond was found among the papers of king James, and given up by king William.

, baron Ogle, viscount Mansfield, earl, marquis, and duke of Newcastle, one of the most accomplished persons, as well as one of the most able generals and most distinguished patriots of the age, was son of sir Charles Cavendish, youngest son of sir William Cavendish, and younger brother of the first earl of Devonshire, by Catherine, daughter of Cuthbert lord Ogle. He was born in 1592, and discovering great capacity in his infancy, his father had him educated with such success, that he early acquired a large stock of solid learning, to which he added the graces of politeness. This soon made him be taken notice of at the court of James I. where he was quickly distinguished by the king’s favour; and in 1610, was made knight of the bath, at the creation of Henry prince of Wales. In 1617, his father died, by which he came to the possession of a very large estate and having a great interest at court, he was by letters- patent, dated November 3, 1620, raised to the dignity of a peer of the realm, by the style and title of baron Ogle and viscount Mansfield; and having no less credit with Charles I. than with his father king James, was in* the third year of the reign of that prince advanced to the higher title of earl of Newcastle upon Tyne, and at the same time he was created baron Cavendish of Bolesover. Our genealogists and antiquaries give us but a very obscure account of these honours, or at least, of the barony of Ogle, to which, in the inscription upon his own and his grandmother the countess of Shrewsbury’s tomb, he is said to have succeeded in right of his mother. His attendance on the court, though it procured him honour, brought him very early into difficulties; and there is some reason to believe that he was not much liked by the great duke of Buckingham, who perhaps was apprehensive of the large share he had in his master’s favour. However, he did not suffer, even by that powerful favourite’s displeasure, but remained in full credit with his master; which was notwithstanding so far from being beneficial to him, that the services expected from him, and his constant waiting upon the king, plunged him very deeply in debt, though he had a large estate, of which we find him complaining heavily in his letters to his firm and steady friend the lord viscount Wentworth, afterwards earl of Strafford. But th&e difficulties never in the least discouraged him from doing his duty, or from testifying his zeal and loyalty, when the king’s service required it. In 1638, when it was thought requisite to take the prince of Wales, afterwards Charles II. from the nursery, the king made choice of the earl of Newcastle, as the person in his kingdom most fit to have the tuition of his heir-apparent and accordingly declared him governor to the prince. In the spring of 1639, the first troubles in Scotland broke out, which induced the king to assemble an army in the north; soon after which, he went down thither to put himself at the head of it; and in his way, was most splendidly entertained by the earl of Newcastle, at his noble seat at Welbeck, as he had been some years before when he went into that kingdom to be crowned; which though in itself a very trivial matter, yet such was the magnificence of this noble peer, that from the circumstances attending them, both these entertainments have found a place in general histories. But this was not the only manner in which he expressed his warm affection for his master. Such expeditions require great expences, and the king’s treasury was but indifferently provided, for the supply of which, the earl contributed ten thousand pounds, and also raised a troop of horse, consisting of about two hundred knights and gentlemen, who served at their own charge; and this was honoured with the title of the Prince’s troop. These services, however, rather heightened than lessened that envy borne to him by some great persons about the court, and the choice that had been made of his lordship for the tuition of the prince, which was at first so universally approved, began now to be called in question by those who meant very soon to call every thing in question. On this the earl desired to resign his office, which he did; and in June 1640, it was given to the marquis of Hertford. As his lordship took this step from the knowledge he had of the ill-will borne him by the chief persons amongst the disaffected, so he thought he could not take a better method to avoid the effects of their resentment, than to retire into the country; which accordingly. he did, and remained there quietly till he received his majesty’s orders to visit Hull; and though these came at twelve o'clock at night, his lordship went immediately thither, though forty miles distant, and entered the place with only two or three servants, early the next morning. He cffered his majesty to have secured for him that important fortress, and all the magazines that were there: but instead of receiving such a command as he expected, his majesty sent him instructions to obey whatever directions were sent him by the parliament; upon the heels of which, came their order for him to attend the service of the house; which he accordingly did, when a design was formed to have attacked him, but his general character was so good, that this scheme did not succeed. He now again retired into the country, but soon after, upon the king’s coming to York, his lordship was sent for thither; and in June 1642, his majesty gave him directions to take upon him the care of the town of Newcastle, and the command of the four adjacent counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham. These orders were easily issued, but they were not so easily to be carried into execution; for at this time, the king had not either money, forces, or ammunition; and yet there never was more apparent necessity, for at that juncture his majesty had not a single port open in his dominions; and if either the order had been delayed a few days, or had been^ sent to any other person, the design had certainly miscarried. But, as soon as he received his majesty’s commands, he repaired immediately to the place, and by his own interest there secured it: he raised also a troop of one hundred and twenty horse, and a good regiment; of foot, which secured him from any sudden attempts. Soon after, the queen, who was retired out of the kingdom, sent a supply of arms and ammunition, which being designed for the troops under the king’s command, the earl took care they should be speedily and safely conducted to his majesty under the escdVt of his only troop, which his majesty kept, to the great prejudice of his own affairs in the nor x th. The parliament, in the mean time, had not forgotten the earl’s behaviour towards them, but as a mark of their resentment excepted him by name; which was so far from discouraging, that it put his lordship upon a more decided part: and having well considered his own influence in those parts, he offered to raise an army in the north for his majesty’s service. On this the king gave him a commission, constituting him general of all the forces raised north of Trent; and likewise general and commander in chief of such as might be raised in the counties of Lincoln, Nottingham, Lancaster, Chester, Leicester, Rutland, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex; with power to confer the honour of knighthood, coin money, and to print and set forth such declarations as should seem, to him expedient; of all which extensive powers, though freely conferred, and without reserve, his lordship made a very sparing use. But with respect to the more material point of raising men, his lordship prosecuted it with such diligence, that in less than three months he had an army of eight thousand horse, foot, and dragoons, with which be marched directly into Yorkshire; and his forces having defeated the enemy at Fierce-bridge, his lordship advanced to York, where sir Thomas Glen ham, the governor, presented him with the keys, and the earl of Cumberland and many of the nobility resorted thither to compliment and to assist his lordship. He did not long remain there; but, having placed a good garrison in the city, marched on towards Tadcaster, where the parliament forces were very advantageously posted. The design which the earl had formed, not only for reducing that 'place, hut for making the troops that were there prisoners, tailed, through the want of diligence in some of his officers; hut notwithstanding this, his lordship attacked the place so vigorously, that the enemy thought fit to retire, and leave him in possession of the hest part of Yorkshire. This advantage he improved to the utmost, hy estahiishing garrisons in proper places, particularly at Newark upon Trent, by which the greatest part of Nottinghamshire, and some part of Lincolnshire, were kept in obedience. In the beginning of 1643, his lordship gave orders for a great convoy of ammunition to be removed from Newcastle to York, under the escort of a body of horse, commanded by lieutenantgeneral King, a Scotch officer, whom his majesty had lately created lord Ethyn. The parliament forces attempted to intercept this convoy at Y arum-bridge, but were beaten on the 1st of February with a great loss. Soon after this, her majesty landing at Burlington, the earl drew his forces that way to cover her journey to York, where she safely arrived on the 7th of March, and having pressing occasions for money, his lordship presented her with three thousand pounds, and furnished an escort of fifteen hundred men, under the command of lord Percy, to conduct a supply of arms and ammunition to the king at Oxford, where he kept them for his own service. Not long after, sir Hugh Cholmondley and captain Brown Bushel were prevailed upon to return to their duty, and give up the important port and castle of Scarborough. This was followed by the routing Ferdinando lord Fairfax on Seacroft, or as some call it Bramham-moor, by lord George Goring, then general of the horse under the earl, when about eight hundred of the enemy were taken prisoners; and this again made way for another victory gained on Tankersly-moor. In the month of April, the earl marched to reduce Rotherham, which he took by storm, and soon after Sheffield; but in the mean time, lord Goring and sir Francis Mackworth were surprised, on the 2 1st of May, at Wakefield, where the former and most of his men were made prisoners, which was a great prejudice to the service. In the same month her majesty went from York to Pomfret under the escort of the earPs forces; and from thence she continued Jier journey tp Oxford, with a body of seven thousand horse, foot, and dragoons, detached for that service by the earl; and those forces, likewise, the king kept about him. In the month of June the earl reduced Howly-house by storm; and on the 30th gained a complete victory over Ferdinando lord Fairfax, though much superior to him in numbers, on Adderton- heath, near Bradford, where the enemy had seven hundred men killed, and three thousand taken prisoners; and on the 2d of July following Bradford surrendered. The earl advanced next into Lincolnshire, where he took Gainsborough and Lincoln; but was then recalled by the pressing solicitations of the gentlemen of Yorkshire into that country, wherq Beverley surrendered to him on the 28th of August, and in the next month, his lordship was prevailed on to besiege Hull, the only place of consequence then held for the parliament in those parts. Notwithstanding these important successes obtained by an army raised, and in a great measure kept up by his lordship’s personal influence and expence, there have not been wanting censures upon his conduct; of which, however, his majesty had so just a sense, that by letters-patent dated the 27th of October, he advanced him to the dignity of marquis of Newcastle; and in the preamble of his patent all his services are mentioned with suitable encomiums. That winter the earl marched into Derbyshire, and from thence to his own house at Welbeck in Nottinghamshire, where he received the news of the Scots intending to enter England, which brought him back into Yorkshire, from whence he sent sir Thomas Glenham to Newcastle, and himself for some time successfully opposed the Scots in the bishopric of Durham: but, the forces he left behind under the command of lord Bellasis at Selby being routed, the marquis found himself obliged to retire, in order, if possible, to preserve York; and this he did with so much military prudence, that he arrived there safely in the month of April 1644, and retaining his infantry and artillery in that city, sent his horse to quarter in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Leicestershire, for the sake of subsistence. The city was very soon blocked up by three armies, who quickly commenced a regular siege, and were once very near taking the place by storm; and at last, having lain before it three months, brought the garrison into great distress for want of provision; and if the marquis had not very early had recourse to a short allowance, had infallibly reduced it by famine. For though sir Charles Lucas, who commanded the marquis’s horse, importuned the king for relief, yet it was the latter end of June before his majesty could send a sufficient body, under the command of prince Rupert, to join sir Charles Lucas, and attempt the forcing the enemy to raise the siege; which, however, upon their approach, they did, remaining on the west side of the Owse with all their forces, while the king’s army advanced on the east side of the same river. By this quick and vigorous march, prince Rupert had done his business; but, as is very well observed by a most judicious historian of these times, he would needs overdo it; and not content with the honour of raising the siege of York by a confederate army much superior to his own, he was bent upon having the honour to beat that army also; and this brought on the fatal battle of Hessom, or, as it is more generally called, Marston-moor, which was fought July 2, 1644, against the consent of the marquis of Newcastle, who, seeing the king’s affairs totally undone thereby, made the best of his way to Scarborough, and from thence, with a few of the principal officers of his army, took shipping for Hamburgh. After staying about six months at Hamburgh, he went by sea to Amsterdam, and from thence made a journey to Paris, where he continued for some time; and where, notwithstanuing the vast estate he had when the civil war broke out, his circumstances were now so bad, that himself and his young wife were reduced to the pawning their cloaths for a dinner. He removed afterwards to Antwerp, that he might be nearer his own country; and there, though under very great difficulties, he resided for several years; while the parliament in the mean time levied prodigious sums upon his estate, insomuch that the computation of what he lost by the disorders of those times, though none of the particulars "can be disproved, amount in the whole to a sum that is almost incredible. It has been computed at 733,579l. All these hardships and misfortunes never broke his spirit in the least, which his biographer somewhat fondly says was chiefly owing to his great foresight; for as he plainly perceived after the battle of Marston-moor, that the affairs of Charles I. were irrecoverably undone, so he discerned through the thickest clouds of Charles lid’s adversity, that he would be infallibly restored: and as he had predicted Hie civil war to the father before it began, so he gave the strongest assurance to the son of his being called home, by addressing to him a treatise upon Government and the Interests of Great Britain with respect to the other powers of Europe; which he wrote at a time when the hopes of those about his majesty scarcely rose so high as the marquis’s expectations. During this long exile of eighteen years, in which he suffered so many and so oreat hardships, this worthy nobleman wanted not some consolations that were particularly such to one of his high and generous spirit. He was, notwithstanding his low and distressed circumstances, treated with the highest respect, and with the most extraordinary marks of distinction, by the persons entrusted with the government of the countries where he resided. He received the high compliment of having the keys of the cities he passed through in the Spanish dominions offered him: he was visited by don John of Austria, and by several princes of Germany. But what comforted him most was the company very frequently of his royal master, who, in the midst of his sufferings, bestowed upon him the most noble order of the garter. On his return to England at the restoration, he was received with all the respect due to his unshaken fidelity and important services was constituted chief justice in Eyre of the counties north of Trent, and, by letters- patent dated the 16th of March 1664, was advanced to the dignity of earl of Ogle, and duke of Newcastle. He spent the remainder of his life, for the most part, in a country retirement, and in reading and writing, in which he took singular pleasure. He also employed a great part of his time in repairing the injuries which his fortune had received, and at length departed this life December 25, 1676, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. His grace was twice married, but had issue only by his first lady. His body lies interred, with that of his duchess, under a most noble monument at the entrance into Westminster-abbey, with an inscription suitable to his merits. His titles descended to his son Henry, earl of Ogle, who was the last heir male of this family, and died July 26, 1691, in whom the title of Newcastle, in the line of Cavendish, became extinguished, but his daughters married into some of the noblest families of this kingdom.

The following is a list of her works, almost all of which are now very scarce, and in considerable demand by the collectors of literary curiosities: 1. “The World’s Olio,” Lond. 1655, folio. 2. “Nature Picture, drawn by fancy’s pencil to the life. In this volume there are several feigned stories of natural descriptions, as comical, tragical, and tragicomical, poetical, romancical, philosophical, and historical, both in prose and verse, some all verse, some all prose, some mixt, partly prose and partly verse. Also there are some morals, and some dialogues; but they are as the advantage loaf of bread to the baker.'s dozen, and a true story at the latter end, wherein there is no feigning,” London, 1656, folio. To this book was prefixed a curious print of the duke and duchess sitting at a table with their children, to whom the duchess is telling stories; and at the end is a very curious account of her birth, education, and life; the same, if we mistake not, which sir William Musgrave transcribed into his copy of the life of the duke, now in the British Museum, and from which Mr. Park has given an extract. 3. “Orations of divers sorts, accommodated to divers places,” Lond. 1662, fol. 4. “Plays,” Lond. 1662. 5. “Philosophical and Physical Opinions,” Lond. 1663, fol. 6. “Observations upon Experimental Philosophy: to which is added, the Description of a new World,” Lond. 1666, fol. Mr. James Bristow began to translate some of these philosophical discourses into the Latin tongue, but found it impossible to understand them. 7. “Philosophical Letters or Modest Reflections upon some opinions in Natural Philosophy, maintained by several famous and learned authors of this age, expressed by way of letters,” Lond. 1664, fol. 8. “Poems and Phancies,” Lond. 1653, and 1664, fol. 9. “CCXI Sociable Letters,” Lond. 1664, fol. 10. “The Life of the thrice noble, high, and puissant Prince William Cavendishe, duke, marquiss, and earl of Newcastle, &c.” Lond. 1667, fol. This work (which Mr. Langbaine styles the crown of her labours) was translated into Latin, and printed with the following title “De Vita & rebus gestis nobilissimi illustrissimique Principis Gulielmi, Ducis Novo-Castrensis, commentarii: Ab excellentissima principe Margareta, ipsius Uxore sanctissima conscripti, et ex Anglico in Latinum conversi,” Lond. 1668, folio. 11. “Plays, never before printed,” Lond. 1668. To one of these plays are added twenty-nine supernumerary scenes, and in another, entitled “The unnatural Tragedy,” is a whole scene written against Camden’s Britannia! Three more volumes in folio, of her poems, are preserved in manuscript, which Gibber says were once in the possession of Mr. Thomas Richardson and bishop Willis. In 1676, a folio volume was printed containing “letters and poems in honour of the incomparable princess Margaret duchess of Newcastle.” These, says Mr. Park, consist of such inflated eulogies on her grace’s parts, from the rector magnificus of Leyden, and the academical caputof Cambridge, to the puffs of Tom Shadwell, that it must have been enough to turn any brain previously diseased with a cacocthes scribendi.

It will be difficult, however, to give Caxton praise for the general strength and soundness of his judgment; not so much from the selection of such pieces as he has printed (for these were published in conformity with the prevailing studies of the day), as from the promptitude and prodigality of his praises towards objects not always deserving of commendation. Nor can we admire him for his unqualified belief of all the marvellous stones recorded in Godfrey of Boulogne; although the admiration with which he speaks of, and his uniform attachment to, this kind of composition, may dispose us to forgive him for the plenitude of his faith. In a word, if Caxton does not enjoy the intellectual reputation of an Aldus, a Stephens, a Turnebus, a Plantin, or a Bowyer, it must be remembered with what a slender stock of materials, and in what an uncivilized period, he commenced his career; that our land was then yet moist with the blood that had flowed in the civil wars of the houses of York and Lancaster; and that the education of youth, and the encouragement of what is called the belles lettres, were confined within the narrowest boundaries. The most illustrious patrons of which our printer could boast, were the earl Rivers and the earl of Worcester; but even the rank and accomplishment of these noblemen, especially of the latter, were insufficient to protect them from insult, persecution, and a premature end.

Such early encouragement diverted Mr. Cecil from the profession of the law, and his marriage with the sister of the celebrated sir John Cheke, who introduced him to the earl of Hertford, afterwards duke of Somerset, probably directed his views to politics. In the beginning of the reign of Edward VI. he came into possession of his office of custos brevium, worth 240l. a year, and having married, as his second wife, Mildred, daughter of sir Anthony Cook, his interest at court became more considerable. In 1547, his patron the protector duke of Somerset, bestowed on him the place of master of requests, and took him with him in his expedition into Scotland, in September of that year, where he was present at the battle of Musselburgh, and very narrowly escaped a cannon-shot. On his return to court, Edward VI. advanced him to the high post of secretary of slate, which he enjoyed twice in that reign, first in 1548, and then, after an interval, in 1551, but historians are not agreed in these dates, although what we have given appear to be pretty near the truth. When the party was formed against the protector, Mr. Cecil shared in his fall, which followed soon afterwards, and was sent to prison in November 1549, where he remained three months.

The queen’s regard to lord Burleigh, though sincere and permanent, was occasionally intermixed with no small degree of petulance and ill humour. He was severely reproached by her in 1594, on account of the state of affairs in Ireland; and, on another occasion, when he persisted, against her will, in a design of quitting the court for a few days, for the purpose of taking physic, she called him “a froward old fool.” He fell also under her majesty’s displeasure because he disagreed with her in opinion concerning an affair which related to the earl of Essex. Having supported the earl’s claim, in opposition to the queen, her indignation was so much excited against the treasurer, that she treated him as a miscreant and a coward. Lord Burleigh being in the latter part of his life much subject to the gout, sir John Harrington observes, in a letter to his lordship, that he did not invite the stay of such a guest by rich wines, or strong spices. It is probable that the frequent return of this disorder, in conjunction with the weight of business, and the general infirmities of age, contributed to the peevishness into which he was sometimes betrayed. In a conversation which he had with Mons. de Fouquerolles, an agent from Henry the Fourth, king of France, he lost himself so much, as to yeflect in the grossest terms upon that monarch. This was, indeed, an astonishing act of imprudence, in a man of his years and experience; and affords a striking instance of the errors and inadvertencies to which the wisest and best persons are liable. When the lord treasurer died, queen Elizabeth was so much affected with the event, that she took it very grievously, shed tears, and separated herself, for a time, from all company.

Out of the large multitude of lord Burleigh’s letters, which are extant in various places, many have found their way to the press. Thirty-three are printed in Peck’s Desiderata Curiosa, and three in Howard’s Collections. Many more may be met with in Dr. Forbes’s, Haynes’s, and Murdin’s State Papers. The two last publications are specifically taken from the original letters, and other authentic memorials left by lord Burleigh, and now remaining at Hatfield -house, in the library of the earl of Salisbury. Haynes’s collection, which was published in 1740, extends from 1542 to 1570. Murdin’s, which appeared in 1759, reaches from 1571 to 1596. Both these publications throw great light on the period to which they relate, and have been of eminent service to our recent historians. The whole course of the proceedings, relative to Mary queen of Scots, is particularly displayed in these collections; on which account much use has lately been made of them by Dr. Gilbert Stuart. In the original papers of Mr. Anthony Bacon, are several letters of lord Burleigh, from which various extracts have been given by Dr. Birch, in his “Memoirs of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth.” There is also in the Nugsc Antiques, a letter of advice, written by his lordship in 1578, to Mr. Harrington (afterwards sir John Harrington), then a student at the university of Cambridge. In the earl of Hardwicke’s miscellaneous State Papers, besides a number of letters addressed to Cecil, there are seven of his own writing, relative to important public concerns. One of them shews in a striking view, the friendly behaviour of lord Burleigh to the earl of Leicester, when that nobleman laboured under the queen’s displeasure, and reflects great honour on the old treasurer’s memory. It is strange, says the earl of Hardwicke, that Camden passes it over in silence: but, indeed, adds his lordship, that historian’s omissions are very unpardonable, considering the lights he had. As to lord Burleigh’s unpublished papers, they are still exceedingly numerous, and are extant in the British Museum, in the libraries of the earls of Salisbury and Hardwicke, and in other places.

His lordship was buried at Stamford, where an elegant monument is erected to his memory. By his first wife he had his son and heir Thomas earl of Exeter, and by his second a numerous issue, who all died before him except the subject of the following article, to whom he addressed those valuable “precepts” so often reprinted. Few men knew better than lord Burleigh how to advise the young. Peacham, in his “Gentleman,” informs us that when any one came to the lords of the council for a licence to travel, he would first examine him of England, and if he found him ignorant, he would bid him stay at home, and know his own country first.

, earl of Salisbury, son to the preceding, was born, probably, about the year 1550, and being of a weakly constitution, was tenderly brought up by his mother, and educated under a careful and excellent tutor till he was sent to St. John’s college, Cambridge. Here he had conferred upon him the degree of M. A. and was afterwards incorporated in the same degree at Oxford. In the parliaments of 1585 and 1586 he served for the city of Westminster; as he did afterwards, in 1588, 1592, 1597, and 1600, for the county of Hertford. In 1588 he was one of the young nobility who went volunteers on board the English fleet sent against the Spanish armada. He was a courtier from his cradle, having the advantage of the instructions and experience of his illustrious father, and living in those times when queen Elizabeth had most need of the ablest persons, was employed by her in affairs of the highest importance, and received the honour of knighthood in the beginning of June 1591, and in August following was sworn of the privy-council. In 1596 he was appointed secretary of state, to the great disgust of the earl of Essex, who was then absent in the expedition against Cadiz, and had been zealous for the promotion of sir Thomas Bodley. Whilst he was in that post he shewed an indefatigable address in procuring foreign intelligence from all parts of the world, holding, at his own charge, a correspondence with all ambassadors and neighbouring states. By this means he discovered queen Elizabeth’s enemies abroad, and private conspiracies at home* and was on this account as highly valued by die queen as he was hated by the popish party, who vented their malice against him in several libels, both printed and manuscript, and threatened to murder him; to some of which he returned an answer, both in Latin and English, declaring that he despised all their threats for the service of so good a cause as he was engaged in, that of religion and his country.

In 1597 he was constituted cbancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. In February 1597-8 he went to France with Mr. Herbert and sir Thomas Wylkes, to endeavour to divert Henry IV. from the treaty at Vervins; and in May 1599, succeeded his father in the office of master of the court of wards, for which he resigned a better place, that of chancellor of the duchy, being so restrained in the court of wards, by new orders, that he was, as he expressed it, a ward himself. He succeeded his father likewise in the post of principal minister of state, and from that time public affairs seem to have been entirely under his direction. During the last years of his queen, he supported her declining age with such vigour and prudence as at once enabled her to assist her allies the States General, when they were ingloriously abandoned by France, and to defeat a dangerous rebellion in Ireland, which was cherished by powerful assistance from Spain. But though he was a faithful servant to his mistress, yet he kept a secret correspondence with her successor king James, in which he was once in great danger of being discovered by the queen. As her majesty was taking the air upon Blackheath, near her palace at Greenwich, a post riding by, she inquired from whence it came; and being told from Scotland, she stopped her coach to receive the packet. Sir Robert Cecil, who attended her, knowing there were in it some letters from his correspondents, with great presence of mind, called immediately for a knife toopen it, that a delay might not create suspicion. When he came to cut it open, he told the queen that it looked and smelt very ill, and therefore was proper to be opened and aired before she saw what it contained; to which her majesty consented, having an extreme aversion to bad smells. Upon her decease he was the first who publicly read her will, and proclaimed king James; and his former services to that prince, or the interest of sir George Hume, afterwards earl of Dunbar, so effectually recommended him to his majesty, that he took him into the highest degree of favour, and continued him in his office of principal minister; and though in that reign public affairs were not carried on with the same spirit as in the last, the fault cannot justly be charged on this minister, but on the king, whose timid temper induced him to have peace with all the world, and especially with Spain at any rate. But though sir Robert Cecil was far from approving, in his heart, the measures taken for obtaining that inglorious peace, yet he so far ingratiated himself with his sovereign that he was raised to greater honours; being on May 13, 1603, created baron of Essenden, in Rutlandshire; on the 20th of August, 1604, viscount Cranborne, in Dorsetshire (the first of that degree who bore a coronet), and on May 4, 1605, earl of Salisbury.

He shewed himself upon all occasions a zealous servant to his prince, without neglecting at the same time, the real advantage of his country, and never heartily espousing the Spanish interest, though it was the only one countenanced by king James; and some of the courtiers, by encouraging it, acquired great riches. The court of Spain was so sensible of his disinclination to them, that they endeavoured to alienate the king’s favour from him by means of the queen; and it was moved there in council, to send complaints to England of his malignant humour, or envy to the Spanish nation; upon which, if he did not alter his conduct, then a shorter course should be taken with him, by destroying him. Afterwards they entertained great hopes of him, and resolved to omit no means to gain him over to their side. But when all the popish designs were defeated by the discovery of the gunpowder plot, which has since been represented by some of that party as a political contrivance of his, his activity in the detection of it, and zeal for the punishment of those concerned in it, enraged them to such a degree, that several of the papists formed a combination against him. This, however, taking no effect, they again attempted to ruin him in the king’s favour, by reporting that he had a pension of forty thousand crowns from the States of the United Provinces, for being their special favourer and patron. They branded him likewise with the appellation of a puritan, a name peculiarly odious to king James. At last they conspired to murder him by a musquet-shot out of the Savoy, or some house near, as he was going by water to court. But these nefarious designs proved abortive, though it appears they had not desisted from them in 1609. Upon the death of sir Thomas Sackville, earl of Dorset, lord-high-treasurer, in April 1605, he succeeded him in that post and his advancement to it was universally applauded, a great reformation being expected from him in the exchequer, which he accordingly effected. Finding it almost totally exhausted, he devised several means for replenishing it with money, particularly by causing the royal manors to be surveyed, which before were but imperfectly known: by reviving the custody of crown lands by commissions of assets; by taking care to have the king’s woods and timber viewed, numbered, marked, and valued; by having an exact survey made of the copyholds held of the crown, which he ordered to be printed; by compounding with the copyholders of the inheritance, and the possessors of wastes and commons, originally appertaining to the king; by appointing commissioners to gather in the fines arising from penal laws, and such as accrued from the king’s manors; by improving the customs from 86,000/, to 120,000l. and afterwards to 135,000l. per ann. and by surrendering up his patent of master of the wards to the king, for his benefit and advantage.

It will be but justice, says Dr. Birch, to the character of so eminent a person as the earl of Salisbury, to consider him as he now appears to us from fuller and more impartial lights than the ignorance or envy of his own time would admit of; and which may be opposed to the general invectives and unsupported libels of Weldon and Wilson, the scandalous chroniclers of the last age. He was evidently a man of quicker parts, and a more spirited writer and speaker than his father, to whose experience he was at the same time obliged for his education and introduction into public business, in the management of which he was accounted, and perhaps justly, more subtle, and less open. And this opinion of his biass to artifice and dissimulation was greatly owing to the singular address which he shewed in penetrating into the secrets and reserved powers of the foreign ministers with whom he treated; and in evading, with uncommon dexterity, such points as they pressed, when it was not convenient to give them too explicit an answer. His correspondence with king James, during the life of queen Elizabeth, was so closely and artfully managed, that he escaped a discovery, which would have ruined his interest with his royal mistress, though he afterwards justified that correspondence from a regard to her service. “For what,” says he, “could more quiet the expectation of a successor, so many ways invited to jealousy, than when he saw her ministry, that were most inward with her, wholly bent to accommodate the present actions of state for his future safety, when God should see his time!” He was properly a sole minister, though not under the denomination of a favourite, his master having a much greater awe of than love for him; and he drew all business, both foreign and domestic, into his own hands, and suffered no ministers to be employed abroad but who were his dependents, and with whom he kept a most constant and exact correspondence: but the men whom he preferred to such employments, justified his choice, and did credit to the use he made of his power. He appears to have been invariably attached to the true interest of his country, being above corruption from, or dependence upon, any foreign courts; which renders it not at all surprising, that he should be abused by them all in their turns; as his attention to all the motions of the popish faction made him equally odious to them. He fully understood the English constitution, and the just limits of the prerogative; and prevented the fatal consequences which might have arisen from the frequent disputes between king James I. and his parliaments. In short, he was as good a minister as that prince would suffer him to be, and as was consistent with his own security in a factious and corrupt court; and he was even negligent of his personal safety, whenever the interest of the public was at stake. His post of lord treasurer, at a time when the exchequer was exhausted by the king’s boundless profusion, was attended with infinite trouble to him, in concerting schemes for raising the supplies; and the manner in which he was obliged to raise them, with the great fortune which he accumulated to himself, in a measure beyond perhaps the visible profits of his places, exposed him to much detraction and popular clamour, which followed hi ui to his grave; though experience shewed 1 that the nation sustained an important loss by his death since he was the only minister of state of real abilities during the whole course of that reign. He has been thought too severe and vindictive in the treatment of his rivals and enemies: but the part which he acted towards the earl of Essex, seems entirely the result of his duty to his mistress and the nation. It must, however, be confessed, that his behaviour towards the great but unfortunate sir Walter Raleigh is an imputation upon him, which still remains to be cleared up; and it probably may be done from the ample memorials of his administration in the Hatfield library.

A more elaborate apology for the earl of Salisbury was written soon after his decease, and addressed to king James, by sir Walter Cope. This may be seen in Gutch’s “Collectanea Curiosa,” vol. I. from which, as well as from the account of his death in Peck’s “Desiderata,” the ambitious may derive a salutary lesson. His “Secret Correspondence” with king James, was published by lord Hailes in 1766, and the conclusion which his lordship thinks the reader will draw is, that Salisbury was no less solicitous to maintain his own power than to settle the succession to his aged benefactress queen Elizabeth. Various letters, speeches, memorials, &c. from his pen are mentioned in our authorities. Lord Salisbury married Elizabeth, sister tp the unhappy Henry Brooke, lord Cobham, by whom, who died in 1591, he had a daughter Frances, married to Henry Clifford, earl of Cumberland, and an only son, William, second earl of Salisbury. His descendant, James, the seventh earl of Salisbury, was advanced to the title of marquis in 1789.

Upon his return to Spain in the spring of the year following, he fixed his residence in Madrid, where his mother and sister then lived. Following his own inclination to letters, he gave himself up anew to the reading of every kind of books, Latin, Spanish, and Italian, acquiring hence a great stock of various erudition. The first product of his genius was his “Galatea,” which he published in 1584, and on Dec. 12 of the same year he married at Esquivias, Donna Catalina de Salazar y Palacios. Madrid was still his place of residence in the years 1585 6 and 7. He turned his studies to the theatres, for which he wrote several pieces, which have never yet been published.- In the year 1596, he lived in Seville, and wrote an ironical sonnet upon the duke of Medina’s triumphal entry into Cadiz, after the earl of Essex had plundered and left the place. Probably Cervantes had a respect for the English from this event. In the fourth of his novels which takes its rise hence, he introduces La Espan'ola Inglesa to our queen Elizabeth, who gives her a very cordial reception, and bids her speak to her in Spanish. In 1598 he was still in Seville, where he wrote a sonnet upon a majestic tomb of enormous height, to celebrate the exequies of Philip II. which he then spoke of as the honour of his writings. It is probable that he had relations in this city, as the illustrious family of the Cervantes y Saavedras was established here. From this year, however, there is a void in his history, and nothing more is known of him till 1604. Some have been willing to supply this defect, and suppose him sent upon a commission to Toboso; that the natives brought a charge against him, threw him into prison, and that he in resentment made Don Quixote and Dulcinea Manchegans. Certain it is that he describes with such accuracy the chorography of that province, and paints with such marks of propriety the manners, dresses, and customs of its natives, that it may be suspected that he had been an eye-witness of the whole. This probably is the whole foundation of the conjecture, for there is no document in proof of this, or any other appointment of Cervantes iq La Mancha. What is certainly known is, that at the beginning of the seventeenth century he was in prison, but for an offence (as don Gregorio Mayans observes) which could not be ignominious, as he himself makes express mention of it. And from the same testimony it is kno.vn, that when in this prison, he wrote his history of “Don Quixote,” of which he published the first part at Madrid in 1605. There was a second edition of this in 1608, at the same place and by the same printer, much corrected and improved, no notice of which is taken by Pellicer, who speaks of that of Valentia of 1605. supposing such to exist, but which he had not seen. There is another of Lisbon in 1605, curious only on the score of its great loppings and amputations.

the younger, the son of the former by his wife Ethelreda, daughter of Mr. Frodsham of Elton in Cheshire, was born in 1559, and being very young at the time of his father’s decease, and his mother soon after marrying a second husband, he owed his education chiefly to the care and protection of the lordtreasurer Burleigh, by whom he was first put under the care of Dr. Malim, master of St. Paul’s school, and afterwards removed to Magdalen college in Oxford, where he closely pursued his studies at the time when his father’s poetical works were published; and as a proof of his veneration for his father’s friend, and gratitude for the many kindnesses himself had received, he prefixed a dedication to this work to his patron the lord Burleigh, He left the college before he took any degree, but not before he had acquired a great reputation for parts and learning. He had, like his father, a great talent- for poetry, which he wrote with much facility both in English and in Latin, but it does not appear that he published any thing before he left England, which was probably about the year 1580. He visited several parts of Europe, but made the longest stay in Italy, fprmed an acquaintance with the gravest and wisest men in that country, who very readily imparted to him their most important discoveries in natural philosophy, which he had studied with much diligence and attention., At his return home, which was some time before 1584, he appeared very much at court, and was esteemed by the greatest men there, on account of his great learning and manners. About this time he married his first wife, the daughter of his father’s old friend sir William Fleetwood, recorder of London, by whom he had several children. In the year 1591 he had the honour of knighthood conferred upon him, as well in regard to his own personal merit“as the great services of his father; and some years after, the first alum mines that were ever known to be in this kingdom, were discovered, by his great sagacity, not far from Gisborough in Yorkshire, where he had an estate. In the latter end of queen Elizabeth’s reign, sir Thomas Chaloner made a journey into Scotland, whether out of curiosity, with a view to preferment, or by the direction of sir Robert Cecil, afterwards earl of Salisbury, who was his great friend, is uncertain; but he soon grew into such credit with king James, that the most considerable persons in England addressed themselves to him for his favour and recommendation. Amongst the rest, sir Francis Bacon, afterwards chancellor, wrote him a very warm letter, which is still extant, which he sent him by his friend Mr. Matthews, who was also charged with another to the king; a copy of which was sent to sir Thomas Chaloner, and Mr. Matthews was directed to deliver him the original, if he would undertake to present it. He accomparried the king in his journey to England, and by his learning, conversation, and address, fixed himself so effectually in that monarch’s good graces, that, as one of the highest marks he could give him of his kindness and confidence, he thought fit to intrust him with the care of prince Henry’s education, August 17, 1603, not as his tutor, but rather governor or superintendant of his household and education. He enjoyed this honour, under several denominations, during the life-time of that excellent prince, whom he attended in 1605 to Oxford, and upon that occasion was honoured with the degree of master of arts, with many other persons of distinction. It does not appear that he had any grants of lands, or gifts in money, from the crown, in consideration of his services, though sir Adam Newton, who was preceptor to prince Henry, appears to have received at several times the sum of four thousand pounds by way of free gift. Sir Thomas Chaloner had likewise very great interest with queen Anne, and appears to have been employed by her in her private affairs, and in the settlement of that small estate which she enjoyed. What relation he had to the court after the death of his gracious master prince Henry, does no where appear; but it is not at all likely that he was laid aside. He married some years before his death his second wife Judith, daughter to Mr. William Biount of London, and by this lady also he had children, to whom he is said to have left a considerable estate, which he had at SteepleClaydon in the county of Buckingham. He died November 17, 1615, and was buried in the parish church of Chiswick in the county of Middlesex. His eldest son William. Chaloner, esq. was by letters patents dated July 20, in the 18th of James I. in 1620, created a baronet, by the title of William Chaloner of Gisborough in the county of York, esq. which title was extinct in 1681. Few or none, either of our historians or biographers, Anthony Wood excepted, have taken any notice of him, though he was so considerable a benefactor to this nation, by discovering the alum mines, which have produced vast sums of money, and still continue to be wrought with very great profit. Dr. Birch, indeed, in his” Life of Henry Prince of Wales,“has given a short account of sir Thomas, and has printed two letters of his, both of which shew him to have been a man of sagacity and reflection. In the Lambeth library are also some letters of sir Thomas Chaloner’s, of which there are transcripts by Dr. Birch in the British Museum. The only publication by sir Thomas Chalouer is entitled” The virtue of Nitre, wherein is declared the sundry cures by the same effected," Lond. 1584, 4to. In this he discovers very considerable knowledge of chemistry and mineralogy.

was descended from an ancient family, and born at Odington in Gloucestershire, 1616. He was educated at Gloucester; became a commoner of St. Edmund-hall in Oxford in 1634; took both his degrees in arts; and was afterwards appointed rhetoric reader. During the civil war in England, he made the tour of Europe. In 1658 he married the only daughter of Richard Clifford, esq. by whom he had nine children. In 1668 he was chosen F. R. S. and in 1669 attended Charles earl of Carlisle, sent to Stockholm with the order of the garter to the king of Sweden, as his secretary. In 1670 the degree of LL. D. was conferred on him at Cambridge, and two years after he was incorporated in the same at Oxford. He was appointed to be tutor to Henry duke of Grafton, one of the natural sons of Charles II. about 1679; and was afterwards appointed to instruct prince George of Denmark in the English tongue. He died at Chelsea in 1703, and was buried in a vault in the church-yard of that parish; where a monument was soon after erected to his memory, by Walter Harris, M. D. with a Latin inscription, which informs us, among other things, that Dr. Chamberlayne was so desirous of doing service to all, and even to posterity, that he ordered some of the books he had written to be covered with wax, and buried with him; which have been since destroyed by the damp. The six books vanity or dotage thus consigned to the grave, are, 1. “The present war paralleled; or a brief relation of the five years’ civil wars of Henry III. king of England, with the event and issue of that unnatural war, and by what course the kingdom was then settled again; extracted out of the most authentic historians and records,” 1647. It was reprinted in 1660, under this title, “The late war paralleled, or a brief relation,” &c. 2. “England’s wants; or several proposals probably beneficial for England, offered to the consideration of both houses of parliament,” 1667. 3. “The Converted Presbyterian; or the church of England justified in some practices,” &c. 1668. 4. “Anglix Notitia or the Present State of England with divers reflections upon the ancient state thereof,” 1668. The second part was published in 1671, &c. This work has gone through many editions; the first twenty of wkich were published by Dr. Edward Chamberlain, and the rest by his son. 5. “An academy or college, wherein young ladies or gentlewomen may, at a very moderate expence, be educated in the true protestant religion, and in all virtuous qualities that may adorn that sex, &c.” 1671. 6. “A Dialogue between an Englishman and a Dutchman, concerning the last Dutch war,‘ ’ 1672. He translated out of Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, into English, 1.” The rise and fall of count Olivarez the favourite of Spain.“2.” The unparalleled imposture of Mich, de Molina, executed at Madrid,“1641. 3.” The right and title of the present king of Portugal, don John the IVth." These three translations were printed at London, 1653.

, for several years chief justice of the supreme court of judicature in Bengal, a man of too exalted merit to be passed with a slight notice, was born in 1737, at Newcastle on Tyne, the eldest son of Mr. Robert Chambers, a respectable attorney of that town. He was educated, as well as his brothers, at the school of Mr. Moises in Newcastle, which had also the honour of training his younger friends sir William Scott and the present lord chancellor, whose attachment to him, thus commenced almost in infancy, was continued not only without abatement, but with much increase, to the very end of his life. Mr. Chambers, and the Scotts afterwards, went to Oxford without any other preparation than was afforded by this Newcastle school, but his abilities soon rendered him conspicuous; and in July 1754 he was chosen an exhibitioner of Lincoln college. He afterwards became a fellow of University college, where he was again united with the Scotts, and with other eminent men, among whom it may suffice to mention sir Thomas Plomer and the ]ate sir William Jones. In January 1762, Mr. Chambers was elected by the university Vinerian professor of the laws of England; a public testimony to his abilities, of the strongest and most unequivocal nature. In 1766, the earl of Lichfield, then chancellor of Oxford, gave him the appointment of principal of New-inn hall; which office, as it required no residence or attendance, he continued to hold through life. He was now advancing honourably in the practice of the law, and was employed in many remarkable causes, in which his professional abilities were evinced. About the same period, and probably by the same means, he attracted the notice and lasting friendship of the ablest men of the time, many of whose names have since been absorbed in well-earned titles of nobility. Among these may be mentioned, the earls Bathurst, Mansfield, Liverpool, and Rosslyn, lords Ashburton, Thurlow, Auckland, and Alvanley; to which list we may add the names of Johnson, Burke, Goldsmith, Garrick, and others of that class, whose judgment of mankind was as accurate as their own talents were conspicuous. At Oxford, he enjoyed the intimacy of Thurlow, afterwards bishop of Durham: and his Vinerian lectures were attended by many pupils, who have since done honour to the profession of the law, or to other public situations. It is a strong proof that his knowledge and talents were highly estimated at an early period, that in 1768, when he was only thirty-one years old, he was offered the appointment of attorney-general in Jamaica, which, from various considerations, he thought proper to decline. From this time he continued the career of his profession, and of his academical labours, till, in 1773, another situation of public trust and honour was proposed to him, which he was more easily induced to accept. This was the appointment of second judge to the superior court of judicature in Bengal, then first established. On this occasion, the esteem, and regard of the university of Oxford for their Vinerian professor was fully evinced. The convocation allowed three years for the chance of his return, from ill health or any other cause: during which interval his office was held for him, and his lectures read by a deputy. Immediately before his departure for the East Indies, Mr. Chambers married Miss Wilton, the only daughter of the celebrated statuary of that name, and his mother, Mrs. Chambers, a woman of uncommon virtues, talents, and accomplishments, undertook the voyage with them, and continued an inmate in their family till her death, which happened in 1782. They sailed for India in April, 1774; and the climate not proving unfriendly, the Vinerian professorship was in due time resigned.

His first residence in London was in Poland- street, but not, as has been asserted, in the business of a carpenter. At a very early period of his life he was considered as one of the best architects and draughtsmen in Europe; and his abilities introduced him to the patronage of the late John eari of Bute, by whose interest he was appointed to be drawing master to his present majesty, then prince of Wales. The first work of consequence in which he was engaged was the villa of the late earl of Besborougb, at Roehampton, in Surry. He delivered to his lordship his plan as architect, and his estimate as surveyor, and, on being applied to afterward to know whether he would undertake to complete the building himself for the money mentioned in the estimate, he readily consented, and, in the execution of his contract, gave and received that satisfaction which seldom fails to result from the happy concurrence of professional taste and skill with the most distinguished character for punctuality and probity. His conduct on this occasion became the most honourable introduction to considerable employment among the nobility and gentry.

, a miscellaneous writer, was the son of Peter Champion, a gentleman of an ancient and respectable family, seated at St. Columb in Cornwall, who Acquired a considerable fortune as a merchant at Leghorn he was born February 5, 1724-5, at Croydon, in Surrey, and received his first instruction in the Greek and Latin languages at Cheani school in that county; from whence, in 173y, he was removed to Eton, and in February 1742, became a member of the university of Oxford having been placed at St. Mary-hall, under the care of the rev. Walter Harte, a celebrated tutor, who was selected at a later period by the earl of Chesterfield to finish his son Mr. Stanhope’s education in classical literature. After having passed two years at Oxford, he was entered as a student of law at the Middle Temple, where he continued to reside to the day of his decease; and was a bencher of that society, to which he bequeathed one thousand pounds. He served in two parliaments, having been elected in 1754 for the borough of St. Germain’s, and in 1761 for Liskard in Cornwall; but the same great modesty and reserve restrained him from displaying the powers of his very discerning and enlightened mind in that illustrious assembly, which prevented him also from communicating to the world his poetical effusions, a collection of which was published in an elegant volume in 1801, by William Henry lord Lyttelton, who prefixed a biographical article, from which the above account is taken. He died Feb. 22, 1801, beloved and lamented, as his noble friend says, by all who were acquainted with the brightness of his genius, his taste for the finer arts, his various and extensive learning, and the still more valuable qualities of his warm and benevolent heart. From his “Miscellanies in prose and verse, English and Latin,” it is discernible that he was a polite scholar, and had many qualities of a poet, but not unmixed with a love for those disgusting images in which Swift delighted.

His writings having procured him a high reputation for learning and abilities, he might easily have obtained the degree of D. D. and offers of that kind were made him; but for some time he declined the acceptance of a diploma, and, as he once said in the pleasantness of con versation, “because so many blockheads had been made doctors.” However, upon making a visit to Scotland, in company with his friend the earl of Finlater and Seafield, he with great propriety accepted of this honour, which was conferred upon him without solicitation, and with every mark of respect, by the two universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow. He had likewise the honour of being afterwards elected F. R. and A. Ss. the former in 1754. On the death of George II. in 1760, Dr. Chandler published a sermon on that event, in which he compared that prince to king David. This gave rise to a pamphlet, which was printed in 1761, entitled “The History of the Man after God’s own Heart” in which the author ventured to exhibit king David as an example of perfidy, lust, and cruelty, fit only to be ranked with a Nero or a Caligula; and complained of the insult that had been offered to the memory of the late British monarch, by Dr. Chandler’s parallel between him and the king of Israel. This attack occasioned Dr. Chandler to publish, in the following year, “A Review of the History of the Man after God’s own Heart;” in which the falsehoods and misrepresentations of the historian are exposed and corrected. He also prepared for the press a more elaborate work, which was afterwards published in 2 vols. 8vo, under the following title: “A Critical History of the Life of David; in which the principal events are ranged in order of time; the chief objections of Mr. Bayle, and others, against the character of this prince, and the scripture account of him, and the occurrences of his reign, are examined and refuted; and the psalms which refer to him explained.” As this was the last, it was, likewise, one of the best of Dr. Chandler’s productions. The greatest part of this work was printed off at the time of our author’s death, which happened May &> 1766, aged seventy-three. During the last year of his life, he was visited with frequent returns of a very painful disorder, which he endured with great resignation and Christian fortitude. He was interred in the burying-ground at Bunhill-fields, on the 16th of the month; and his funeral was very honourably attended by ministers and other gentlemen. He expressly desired, by his last will, that no delineation of his character might be given in his funeral sermon, which was preached by Dr. Amory. He had several children; two sons and a daughter who died before him, and three daughters who survived him. His library was sold the same year.

In 1598 he produced a comedy entitled “The Blind Beggar of Alexandria, most pleasantly discoursing his various humours in disguised shapes, full of conceit and pleasure,” 4to, but not divided either into acts or scenes, and dedicated to the earl of Nottingham, lord high admiral. The following year he published another comedy in 4to, called “Humorous Day’s Mirth,” which was acted by the earl of Nottingham’s servants. He is said to have been much countenanced and encouraged by sir Thomas Walsingham, who, as Wood informs us, had a son of the same name, “whom Chapman loved from his birth.” Henry, prince of Wales, and Carr, earl of Somerset, also patronized him; but the former dying, and the latter being disgraced, Chapman’s hopes of preferment by their means were frustrated. His interest at court was likewise probably lessened by the umbrage taken by king James at some reflections cast on the Scotch nation in a comedy _ called “Eastward Hoe,” written by Chapman, in conjunction with Ben Jonson and John Marston. He is supposed, however, to have had some place at court, either under king James, or his queen Anne.

About this time he published an “Epicede, or Funeral Song on prince Henry;” and when the societies of Lincoln’s Inn and the Middle Temple, in 1613, had resolved to exhibit a splendid masque at Whitehall, in honour of the nuptials of the Palsgrave and the princess Elizabeth, Chapman was employed for the poetry, and Inigo Jones for the machinery. The same year he published, in 4to, a tragedy entitled “Bussy d'Amboise his Revenge,” not acted with much applause. In 1714 he published in 4tq, “Andromeda liberata; or, the Nuptials of Perseus and Andromeda,” dedicated, in a poetical epistle, to Robert, earl of Somerset, and Frances, his countess. The same year he printed his version of the “Odyssey,” which he also dedicated to the earl of Somerset. This was soon followed, by the “Batrachomuomachy,” and the “Hymns,” and “Epigrams.” In 1616 he published in 12mo, a translation of “Musceus,” with a dedication to Inigo Jones, in which he is addressed as the most skilful and ingenious architect that England had yet seen. Mr. Warton remarks, that “there was an intimate friendship between our author and this celebrated restorer of Grecian palaces.” Chapman also published a paraphrastic translation, in verse, of Petrarch’s “Seven Penitential Psalms,” with “A xHymn to Christ upon the Cross;” “The Tragedy of Al­>phonsus, emperor of Germany” “Revenge for Honour,” a tragedy and some attribute to him the “Two Wise Men,” a comedy. He is also supposed to have translated “Hesiod,” but it does not appear to have been printed.

In 1638 his patrons, the earl of Strafford, and the archbishop of Canterbury, preferred him to the bishoprics of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross; and he was consecrated at St. Patrick’s, Dublin, Nov. 11, though he had done all he could to avoid this honour. By the king’s command he continued in his provostship till July 20, 1640; before which time he had endeavoured to obtain a small bishopric in England, that he might return to his native country, as he tells us, and die in peace. But his endeavours were fruitless; and he was left in Ireland to feel all the fury of the storm, which he had long foreseen. He was attacked in the house of commons with great bitterness by the puritan party, and obliged to come to Dublin from Cork, and to put in sureties for his appearance. June 1641, articles of impeachment were exhibited against him to the house of peers, consisting of fourteen, though the substance of them was reduced to two; the first, perjury, on a supposed breach of his oath as provost; the second, malice towards the Irish, founded on discontinuing the Irish lecture during the time of his being provost. The prosecution was urged with great violence, and, as is supposed, for no other reason but because he had enforced uniformity and strict church discipline in the college. This divine’s fate was somewhat peculiar, for although his conduct was consistent, he was abused at Cambridge for being a puritan, and in Ireland for being a papist. Yet as we find the name of archbishop Usher among his opponents in Ireland, there seems reason to think that there was some foundation for his unpopularity, independent of what was explicitly stated. While, however, he laboured under these troubles, he was exposed to still greater, by the breaking out of the rebellion in the latter end of that year. He was under a kind of confinement at Dublin, on account of the impeachment which was still depending; but at length obtained leave to embark for England, for the sake of returning thence to Cork, which, from Dublin, as things stood, he could not safely do. He embarked Dec. 26, 1641, and the next day landed at Milford-haven, after a double escape, as himself phrases it, from the Irish wolves and the Irish sea. He went from Milford-haven to Pembroke, and thence to Tenby, where information was made of him to the mayor, who committed him to gaol Jan. 25. After lying there seven weeks, he was set at liberty by the interest of sir Hugh Owen, a member of parliament, upon giving bond in 1000l. for his appearance; and March 16, set out for Bristol. Here he learnt that the ship bound from Cork to England, with a great part of his effects, was lost near Minehead; and by this, among other things, he lost his choice collection of books. After such a series of misfortunes, and the civil confusions increasing, he withdrew to his native soil, where he spent the remainder of his life in retirement and study; and died at Derby, where he had some time resided, upon Whitsunday, 1649. He published the year before his death, “Methodus concionandi,” that is, the method of preaching, which for its usefulness was also translated into English. His “Use of Holy Scripture,” was printed afterwards in 1653. He left behind him also his own life, written by himself in Latin, which has been twice printed; first from a ms. in the hands of sir Philip Sydenham, bart. by Hearne, and a second time by Peck, from a ms. still preserved in Trinity-hall, Cambridge, for the author left two copies of it. Mr. Peck adds, by way of note upon his edition, the following extract of a letter from Mr. Beaupre Bell: “’Tis certain ‘The whole Duty of Man’ was written by one who suffered by the troubles in Ireland; and some lines in this piece give great grounds to conjecture that bishop Chappel was the author. March 3, 1734.” Thus we see this prelate, as well as many other great and good persons, comes in for part of the credit of that excellent book; yet there is no explicit evidence of his having been the author of it. It appears indeed to have been written before the death of Charles I. although it was not published till 1657, and the manner of it is agreeable enough to this prelate’s plain and easy way of writing; but then there can be no reason given why his name should be suppressed in the title-page, when a posthumous work of his was actually published with it but a few years before.

During all these various pursuits, he employed his pen in essays, in prose and verse, chiefly of the satirical kind. He appears to have read the party pamphlets of the day, and imbibed much of their abusive spirit. In 1769, we find him a very considerable contributor to the Town and Country Magazine, which began about that time. His ambition seems to have been to rise to eminence, entirely by the efforts of his genius, either in his own character, or that of some of the heroes of the Redcliffe chest, in which he was perpetually discovering a most convenient variety of treasure, with which to reward his admirers and secure their patronage. Mr. Burgum, another pewterer, maintains the authenticity of Rowley’s poems. Chatterton rewards him with a pedigree from the time of William the Conqueror, allying him to some of the most ancient fanrilies in the kingdom, and presents him with the “Romaunt of the Cnyghte,” a poem, written by John de Bergham, one of his own ancestors, about four hundred and fifty years before. In order to obtain the good opinion of his relation Mr. Stephens of Salisbury, he informs him that he is descended from Fitzstephen, grandson of the venerable Od, earl of Blois, and lord of Holderness, who flourished about the year 1095. In this manner Chatterton contrived to impose on men who had no means of appreciating the value of what he communicated, and were willing to believe what, in one respect or other, they wished to be true.

, a learned writer of the sixteenth century, descended from an ancient family in the Isle of Wight, was born at Cambridge, June 16, 1514, being the son of Peter Cheke, gent, and Agnes, daughter of Mr. Dufford of Cambridgeshire. After receiving his grammatical education under Mr. John Morgan, he was admitted into St. John’s college, Cambridge, in 1531, where he became very eminent for his knowledge in the learned languages, particularly the Greek tongue, which was then almost universally neglected. Being recommended as such, by Dr. Butts, to king Henry VIII. he was soon after made kind’s scholar, and supplied by his majesty with money for his education, and for his charges in travelling into foreign countries. While he continued in college he introduced a more substantial and useful kind of learning than what had been received for some years; and encouraged especially the study of the Greek and Latin languages, and of divinity. After having taken his degrees in arts he was chosen Greek lecturer of the university. There was no salary belonging to tnat place: but king Henry having founded, about the year 1540, a professorship of the Greek tongue in the university of Cambridge, with a stipend oi forty pounds a year, Mr. Cheke, though but twenty-six years of age, was chosen the first professor. This place he held long after he left the university, namely, till October 1551, and was highly instrumental in bringing the Greek language into repute. He endeavoured particularly to reform and restore the original pronunciation of it, but met with great opposition from Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, chancellor of the university, and their correspondence on the subject was published. Cheke, however, in the course of his lectures,- went through all Homer, all Euripides, part of Herodotus, and through Sophocles twice, to the advantage of his hearers and his own credit. He was also at the same time universityorator. About the year 1543 he was incorporated master of arts at Oxford, where he had studied some time. On the 10th of July 1544 he was sent for to court, in order to be school- master, or tutor, for the Latin tongue, jointly with sir Anthony Cooke, to prince Edward and, about the same time, as an encouragement, the king granted him, being then, as it is supposed, in orders, one of the canonries in his new- founded college at Oxford, now Christ Church but that college being dissolved in the beginning of 1545, a pension was allowed him in the room of his canonry. While he was entrusted with the prince’s education, he made use of all the interest he had in promoting men of learning and probity. He seems also to have sometimes had the lady Elizabeth under his care. In 1547, he married Mary, daughter of Richard Hill, serjeant of the wine-cellar to king Henry VIII. When his royal pupil, king Edward VI. came to the crown, he rewarded him for his care and pains with an annuity of one hundred marks; and also made him a grant of several lands and manors . He likewise caused him, by a mandamus, to be elected provost of King’s college, Cambridge, vacant by the deprivation of George Day, bishop of Chichester. In May 1549, he retired to Cambridge, upon some disgust he had taken at the court, but was the same Summer appointed one of the king’s commissioners for visiting that university. The October following, he was one of the thirty-two commissioners appointed to examine the old ecclesiastical law books, and to compile from thence a body of ecclesiastical laws for the government of the church; and again, three years after, he was put in a new commission issued out for the same purpose. He returned to court in the winter of 1549, but met there with great uneasiness on account of some offence given by his wife to Anne, duchess of Somerset, whose dependent she was. Mr. Cheke himself was not exempt from trouble, being of the number of those who were charged with having suggested bad counsels to the duke of Somerset, and afterwards betrayed him. But having recovered from these imputations, his interest and authority daily increased, and he became the liberal patron of religious and learned men, both English and foreigners. In 1550 he was made chief gentleman of the king’s privy -chamber, whose tutor he still continued to be, and who made a wonderful progress through his instructions. Mr. Cheke, to ground him well in morality, read to him Cicero’s philosophical works, and Aristotle’s Ethics; but what was of greater importance, instructed him in the general history, the state and interest, the laws and customs of England. He likewise directed him to keep a diary of all the remarkable occurrences that happened, to which, probably, we are indebted for the king’s Journal (printed from the original in the Cottonian library) in Burnett’s History of the Reformation. In October, 1551, his majesty conferred on him the honour of knighthood; and to enuhle him the better to support that rank, made him a grant, or gift in fee simple (upon consideration of his surrender of the hundred marks abovementioned), of the whole manor of Stoke, near Clare, exclusively of the college before granted him, and the appurtenances in Suffolk and Essex, with divers other lands, tenements, &c. all to the yearly value of 145l. 19$. 3d. And a pasture, with other premises, in Spalding; and the rectory, and other premises, in Sandon. The same year he held two private conferences with some other learned persons upon the subject of the sacrament, or transubstantiation. The first on November the 25th, in -secretary Cecil’s house, and the second December 3d the same year, at sir Richard Morison’s. The auditors were, the lord Russel, sir Thomas Wroth of the bed-chamber, sir Anthony Cooke, one of the king’s tutors, Throgmorton, chamberlain of the exchequer, Mr. Knolles, and Mr. Harrington, with whom were joined the marquis of Northampton, and the earl of Rutland, in the second conference. The popish disputants for the real presence were, Feckenham, afterwards dean of St. Paul’s, and Yong; and at the second disputation, Watson. The disputants on the other side were, sir John Cheke, sir William Cecil, Horn, dean of Durham, Whitehead, and Grindal. Some account of these disputations is still extant in Latin, in the library of Mss. belonging to Bene't college, Cambridge and from thence published in English by Mr. Strypein his interesting Life of sir John Cheke. Sir John also procured Bucer’s Mss. and the illustrious Leland’s valuable, collections for the king’s library but either owing to sir John’s misfortunes, or through some other accident, they never reached their destination. Four volumes of these collections were given by his son Henry Cheke, to Humphrey Purefoy, esq. one of queen Elizabeth’s council in the north, whose son, Thomas Purefoy, of Barvvell in Leicestershire, gave them to the famous antiquary, William Burton, in 1612 and he made use of them in his description of Leicestershire. Many years after, he presented them to the Bodleian library at Oxford, where they now are. Some other of these collections, after Cheke’s death, came into the hands of William lord Paget, and sir William Cecil. The original of the “Itinerary,” in five volumes, 4to, is in the Bodleian library; and two volumes of collections, relating to Britain, are in the Cottonian.

, the brother of Elizabeth Cheron, was born at Paris in 1660; and having been taught the rudiments of the art in his own country, he travelled to Italy, where his sister supplied him with a competency, to enable him to prosecute his studies for eighteen years. During his continuance in Italy, he made the works of Raphael and Julio Romano the principal object of his studies, by which his future compositions had always a certain air of the antique, though he had no great portion of grace, and his figures were frequently too muscular. Two of his pictures are in the church of Notre Dame, at Paris; the one, of Herodias holding the charger with the head of St. John the Baptist; the other, of Agabus foretelling the persecution of St. Paul. On account of his religion, being a Calvinist, he was compelled to quit his native country, and settled in London, the happy retreat of all distressed artists; and there he found many patrons among the nobility and gentry, particularly the duke of Montague, for whom he painted the Council of the Gods, the Judgment of Paris, and he was also employed at Burleigh and Chatsworth; but finding himself eclipsed by Baptist, Rousseau, and La Fosse, he commenced painting small historical pieces. His most profitable employment, however, was designing for painters and engraver ^ and his drawings were by some preferred to his paintings. He etched several of his own designs, and in particular, a series of twenty-two small prints for the life of David, with which Giffart, a bookseller at Pans, ornamented a French edition of the Psalms published in 1713. Strutt notices also two engravings which he executed from his own designs, of great taste, “The Death of Ananias and Sapphira,' and” St. Paul baptising the Eunuch." His private character was excellent. He died in 1713, of an apoplexy, at his lodgings in the Piazza, CovenNgarden, and was buried in the porch of St. Paul’s church in that parish. He had some time before sold his drawings from Raphael, and his academy figures, to the earl of Derby, for a large sum of money.

, D. D. was born in 1652. He was educated at Eton, and thence removed to Cambridge, where he was fellow of King’s-college in 1683, when he contributed the life of Lycurgus to the translation of Plutarch’s Lives, published in that year. He was intimately connected with Wentworth, earl of Roscommon, whose life, written by him, is preserved in the public library of Cambridge, among Baker’s ms Collections, (vol. XXXVI.) and furnished Fenton with some of the anecdotes concerning that nobleman, which are found among his notes on Waller’s poems. The life of Virgil, and the preface to the Pastorals, prefixed to Dry den’s Virgil, were written by Dr. Chetwood, for whom Dryden had a great regard, a circumstance very necessary to be mentioned, as that life has always been ascribed to Dryden himself.

Jacob mentions that Dr. Chetwood had a claim to an ancient English barony, which was fruitlessly prosecuted by his son, and which accounts for his being styled “a person of honour,” in a translation which he published of some of St. Evremont’s pieces. By the favour probably of the earl of Dartmouth, he was nominated to the see of Bristol by king James II. but soon after his nomination, the king’s abdication took place. In April 1707, he was installed dean of Gloucester, which preferment he enjoyed till his death, which happened April 11, 1720, at Tempsford, in Bedfordshire, where he had an estate, and where he was buried. He married a daughter of the celebrated Samuel Shute, esq. sheriff of London in the time of Charles II. by whom he left a son, John, who, was fellow of Trinity-hall, Cambridge, and died in 1735. Two copies of verses by Dr. Chetwood, one in English, and the other in Latin, are prefixed to lord Roscommon’s “Essay on translated Verse,” 1685, 4to. He was author also of several poems, some of which are preserved in Dryden’s Miscellany, and in Mr. Nichols’s Collection. He likewise published three single sermons, and “A Speech to the Lower House of Convocation, May 20, 1715, against the late riots.”

The following particulars concerning Dr. Chetwood are found in one of Baker’s Mss. in the British Museum, (ms. Harl. 7038), “Knightley Chetwode, extraordinarie electus, born at Coventry, came into the place of Tho. Brinley [as fellow of King’s-college] chaplain to the lord Dartmouth, to the princess of Denmark, and to king James II. prebend of Wells rector of Broad Rissington, Gloucestershire archdeacon of York nominated bishop of Bristol by king James, just before his abdication; went afterwards chaplain to all the English forces [sent] into Holland under the earl of Marlborough 1689; commenced D.D. 1691; dean of Gloucester.”

But before his health was in this unfavourable state, he had published a medical treatise, in 8vo, under the following title: “A new Theory of acute and slow-continued Fevers: wherein, besides the appearances of such, and the manner of their cure, occasionally the structure of the Glands, and the manner and laws of Secretion, the operation of purgative, vomitive, and mercurial medicines are mechanically explained.” To this he prefixed “An essay concerning the Improvements of the Theory of Medicine.” This treatise on fevers was drawn up by Dr. Cheyne, at the desire of Dr. Pitcairne; but it was a hasty performance; and therefore, though it seems to have been favourably received, our author never chose to prefix his name to it. His next publication was a piece on abstracted geometry and algebra, entitled “Fluxionum Methodus inversa; sive quantitatum fluentium leges generaliores.” He afterwards published a defence of this performance, although he never had a very good opinion of it, against Mr. De Moivre, under the following title: “Rudimentorum Methodi Fiuxionurn inversae Specimina, adversus Abr. De Moivre.” In 1705, when he was about thirty-four years of age, at which time he was a fellow of the royal society, he published, in 8vo, “Philosophical Principles of Natural Religion containing the Elements of Natural Philosophy, and the proofs for Natural Religion arising from them.” This piece he dedicated to the earl of Roxburgh, at whose desire, and for whose instruction, it appears to have been originally written.

In the mean time, our author continued to publish some other medical works; particularly “An essay of the truk nature and due method of treating the Gout, together with an account of the nature and quality of Bath Waters, the manner of using them, and the diseases in which they are proper: jas also of the nature and cure of most Chronical distempers.” This passed through at least five editions; and was followed by “An essay on Health and Long Life;” which was well received by the public, but occasioned sundry reflections to be thrown out against him by some persons of the medical profession. In 1726, he published the same work in Latin, enlarged', under the following title: “GeorgiL Cheynsei Tractatus de Infirmorum Sanitate tuenda, Vitaque producenda, libro ejusdern argument! Anglice edito longe auctior et limatior; huic accessit de natura fibrse ej usque laxae sive resolutae morbis tractatus mine primum editus.” In 1733, he published a piece in 8vo, under the title “The English Malady: or, a treatise of Nervous diseases of all kinds; as Spleen, Vapours, Lowness of Spirits, Hypochondriacal and Hysterical distempers, &c.” His next publication, which was printed in 1740, was entitled “An essay on Regimen; together with five discourses, medical, moral, and philosophical: serving to illustrate the principles and theory of philosophical Medicine, and point out some of its moral consequences.” The last work of our author, which he dedicated to the earl of Chesterfield, was entitled “The natural method of curing the Diseases of the Body, and the Disorders of the Mind depending on the $ody; in three parts. Part I. General reflections on the œconomy of nature in animal Life. Part II. The means and methods for preserving life and faculties; and also concerning the nature* and cure of acute, contagious, and cephalic disorders. Part III. Heflections on the nature and cure of particular chronical distempers.”

One of his, first publications in these sciences appeared in 1721, and was entitled, “Inscriptio Sigæa antiquissima Βουστροφηδον exarata. Commentario earn HistoricoGrammatico-Critico illustravit Edmundus Chishull, S.T.B. regiae majestati à sacris,” folio. This was followed by “Notarum ad inscriptionem Sigaeam appendicula; addita a Sigaeo altera Antiochi Soteris inscriptione,” folio, in fifteen pages, without a date. Both these pieces were afterwards incorporated in his “Antiquitates Asiaticae.” When Dr. Mead, in 1724, published his Harveian oration, delivered in the preceding year at the royal college of physicians, Mr. Chishull added to it, by way of appendix, “Dissertatio de Nummis quibusdam a Smyrnseis in Medicorum honorem percussis,” which gave rise to a controversy very interesting to the professors of the medical art, and amusing to the learned world in general. The question was, whether the physicians of ancient Rome were not usually vile and despicable slaves, or whether there were not some, at least, among them, who enjoyed the privileges of a free condition, and the respect due to their services. The history of this controversy will be found in the articles of Mead and Middleton; but Mr. Chishull has not been deemed happy in all his explanations of the Smyrnsean inscriptions. In 1728 appeared in folio, his great work, “Antiquitates Asiaticoe Christianam Æram antecedentes ex primariis Monumentis Graecis descriptae, Latine versae, Notisque et Commentariis illustratae. Accedit Monumentum Latinum Ancyranum.” Dr. Mead contributed fifty-one guineas, Dr. William Sherard twenty, and Dr. Lisle five guineas towards this book, which was published by subscription, at one guinea the common copy, and two o-uineas the royal paper. The work contains a collection of inscriptions made by consul Sherard, Dr. Picenini, and Dr. Lisle, afterwards bishop of St. Asaph, which was deposited in the earl of Oxford’s library, and is now in the British Museum. Mr. Chislmll added to the “Antiquitates Asiatics;” two small pieces which he had before published, viz. “Conjectaneade Nummo Ckhiii inscripto,” and “her Asite Poeticum,” addressed to the rev. John Horn. Our author not having succeeded in his explication of an inscription to Jupiter Ourios, afterwards cancelled it, and substituted a different interpretation by Dr. Ashton, which was more satisfactory; but our author did not submit in, this case with so good a grace as might have been wished, and was reasonably to be expected. He added also, at the same time, another half sheet, with the head of Homer, of which only fifty copies 'were printed. He had formed the design of publishing a second volume, under the title of “Antiquitates Asiatics? pars altera diversa, diversarum Urbium inscripta Marmora complectens,” and the printing was begun; but the author’s death put a stop to the progress of it, and the manuscript was purchased at Dr. Askew’s sale in 1785 for the British Museum, for about 60l. It is to be regretted that the learned Thomas Tyrwhitt declined being the editor of this second volume. Mr. ChishulPs printed books were sold by a marked catalogue by Whiston in 1735. In 1731, Mr. Chishull was presented to the rectory of South-church in Essex. This preferment he did not long live to enjoy; for he departed the present life at Walthamstow, on the 18th of May, 1733. Mr. Clarke, of Chichester, writing to Mr. Bowyer, says, “I was very sorry for Mr. Chishull' s death as a public loss.” That our author sustained an excellent character, as a clergyman and a divine, cannot be doubted. Two letters, written by him to his friend Mr. Bowyer, and which Mr. Nichols has preserved, are evident proofs both of the piety and benevolence “of his disposition. With respect to his literary abilities, Dr. Taylor styles him” Vir celeberrimus ingenii acumine et literarum peritia, quibus excellebat maxime;“and Dr. Mead has bestowed a high encomium upon him, in the preface which introduces Mr. ChishulPs Dissertation on the Smyrnxan Coins. The same eminent physician testified his regard to the memory of his learned friend, by publishing in 1747 our author’s” Travels in Turkey, and back to England," fol. They were originally published at a guinea, in sheets, and in 1759, the remaining copies, which were numerous, were advertised by the proprietors at fourteen shillings bound.

In June, being then lieutenant-general of his majesty’s forces, he was ordered into the west to suppress Monmouth’s rebellion; which he did in a month’s time, with an inconsiderable body of horse, and took the duke himself prisoner. He was extremely well received by the king at his return from this victory; but soon discerned that it only served to confirm the king in an opinion that, by virtue of a standing army, the religion and government of England might easily be changed. How far lord Churchill concurred with or opposed the king, while he was forming this project, has been disputed by historians. According to bishop Burnet, “he very prudently declined meddling much in business, spoke little except when his advice was asked, and then always recommended moderate measures.” It is said he declared very early to lord Galway, that if his master attempted to overturn the established religion, he would leave him; and that he signed the memorial transmitted to the prince and princess of Orange, by which they were invited to fill the throne. Be this as it will, it is certain that he remained with the king, and was entrusted by him, after the prince of Orange was landed in 1688. He attended king James when he marched with his forces to oppose the prince, and had the command of 5000 men; yet the earl of Feversham, suspecting his inclinations, advised the king to seize him. The king’s affection to him was so great, that he could not be prevailed upon to do it; and this left him at liberty -to go over to the prince, which accordingly he did, but without betraying any post, or carrying off any troops. Whoever considers the great obligations lord Churchill lay under to king James, must naturally conclude, that he could not take the resolution of leaving him, and withdrawing to the prince of Orange, but with infinite concern and regret; and that this was really the case, appears from a letter, which he left for the king, to shew the reasons of his conduct, and to express his grief for the step he was obliged to take.

Lord Churchill was graciously received by the prince of Orange; and it is supposed to have been in consequence of his lordship’s solicitation, that prince George of Denmark took the same step, as his consort the princess Anne did also soon after, by the advice of lady Churchill. He was entrusted in that critical conjuncture by the prince of Orange, first to re-assemble his troop of guards at London, and afterwards to reduce some lately-raised regiments, and to new model the army, for which purpose he was invested with the rank and title of lieutenant-general. The prince and princess of Orange being declared king and queen of England, Feb. 6, 1689, lord Churchill was on the 14th sworn of their privy council, and one of the gentlemen of the bed-chamber to the king; and on the 9th of April following, raised to the dignity of earl of Marlborough in the county of Wilts. He assisted at the coronation of their majesties, and was soon after made commander in chief of the English forces sent over to Holland. He presided at the battle of Walconrt, April 15, 1689, and gave such extraordinary proofs of his skill, that prince Waldeck, speaking in his commendation to king William, declared, that “he saw more into the art of war in a day, than some generals in many years.” It is to be observed, that king William commanded this year in Ireland, which was the reason of the earl of Marlborough’s being at the head of the English troops in Holland, where he laid the foundation of that fame among foreigners, which he afterwards extended all over Europe. He next did great services for king William in Ireland, by reducing Cork and some other places of much importance; in all which he shewed such uncommon abilities, that, on his first appearance at court after his return, the king was pleased to say, that “he knew no man so fit for a general, who had seen so few campaigns.” All these services notwithstanding did not hinder his being disgraced in a very sudden manner: for, being in waiting at court as lord of the bed-chamber, and having introduced to his majesty lord George Hamilton, he was soon followed to his own house by the same lord, with this short and surprising message, “That the king had no farther occasion for his services;” the more surprising, as his majesty just before had not discovered the least coldness or displeasure towards him. The cause of this disgrace is not even at present known; but only suspected to have proceeded from his too close attachment to the interest of the princess Anne. This strange and unexpected blow was followed by one much stranger, for soon after he was committed to the Tower for high treason; but was released, and acquitted, upon the principal accuser being convicted of perjury and punished; yet it is now believed that a correspondence had been carried on between the earl of Marlborough and the exiled king; and during queen Mary’s life, he kept at a distance from court, attending principally, with his lady, on the princess Anne. After queen Mary’s death, when the interests of the two courts were brought to a better agreement, king William thought fit to recall the earl of Marlborough to his privy council; and in June 1698, appointed him governor to the duke of Gloucester, with this extraordinary compliment, “My lord, make him but what you are, and my nephew will be all I wish to see him.” He continued in favour to the king’s death, as appears from his having been three times appointed one of the lords justices during his absence namely, July 16, 1698; May 31, 1699; and June 27, 1700. As soon as it was discerned that the death of Charles II. of Spain would become the occasion of another general war, the king sent a body of troops over to Holland, and made lord Marlborough commander in chief of them. He appointed him also ambassador extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to their high mightinesses. The king following, and taking a view of the forces, dined with him at his quarters in Sept. 1700; and this was one of the last favours he received from king William, who died the 8th of March following, unless we reckon his recommendation of him to the princess of Denmark, a little before his death, as the fittest person to be trusted with the command of the army which was to protect the liberty of Europe. About a week after, he was elected knight of the most noble order of the garter, and soon declared captaingeneral of all her majesty’s forces in England and abroad; upon which he was immediately sent over to the Hague with the same character that he had the year before. His stay in Holland was very short, but enough to give the States General the necessary assurances of his mistress’s sincere intention to pursue the plan that had formerly been settled. The States concurred with him in all that he proposed, and made him captain-general of all their forces, appointing him 100,000 florins per annum.

On his return to England, he found the queen’s council already divided; some being for carrying on the war as auxiliaries only, others for declaring against France and Spain immediately, and so becoming principals at once. The earl of Marlborough joined with the latter; and these carrying their point, war was declared May 4, 1702, and approved afterwards by parliament, though the Dutch at that time had not declared. The earl took the command June 20; and discerning that the States were made uneasy by the places which the enemy held on their frontiers, he began with attacking and reducing them. Accordingly, in this single campaign, he made himself master of the castles of Gravenbroeck and Waerts, the towns of Venlo, Ruremond, and Stevenswaert, together with the city and citadel of Liege; which last was taken sword in hand. These advantages were considerable, and acknowledged as such by the States; but they had like to have been of a very short date: for, the army separating in the neighbourhood of Liege, Nov. 3, the earl was taken the next day in his passage by water, by a small party of thirty men from the garrison at Gueldres; but it being towards night, and the earl insisting upon an old pass given to his brother, and now out of date, was suffered to proceed, and arrived at the Hague, when they were in the utmost consternation at the accident which had befallen him. The winter approaching, he embarked for England, and arrived in London Nov. 28. The queen had been complimented some time before by both houses of parliament, on the success of her arms in Flanders; in consequence of which there had been a public thanksgiving Nov. 4, when her majesty went in great state to St. Paul’s. Soon after a committee of the house of commons waited upon him with the thanks of the house; and Dec. 2, her majesty declared her intention in council of creating him a duke: which she soon did, by the title of marquis of Blandford, and duke of Marlborough. She likewise added a pension of 5000l. per annum out of the post-office, during her own life, and sent a message to the house of commons, signifying her desire that it might attend the honour she had lately conferred; but with this the house would not Comply, contenting themselves, in their address to the queen, with applauding fyer manner of rewarding public service, but declaring their inability to make such a precedent for alienating the revenue of the crown.

In the beginning of 1710 the French set on foot a new negotiation for a peace, which was commonly called the treaty of Gertruydenburg. The States upon this having shewn an inclination to enter into conferences with the French plenipotentiaries, the house of commons immediately framed an address to the queen, that she would be pleased to send the duke of Marlborough over to the Hague. Accordingly, towards the latter end of February he went to the Hague, where he met with prince Eugene, and soon after set out with him for the army, which was assembled in the neighbourhood of Tournay. This campaign was very successful, many towns being taken and fortresses reduced: notwithstanding which, when the duke came over to England, as he did about the middle of December, he found his interest declining, and his services undervalued. The negotiations for peace were carried on during a great part of the summer, but ended at last in nothing. In the midst of the summer, the queen began the great change in her ministry, by removing the earl of Sunderland from being secretary of state; and on Aug. 8, the lord treasurer Godolphin was likewise removed. Upon the meeting of parliament no notice was taken in the addresses of the duke of Marlborough’s success: an attempt indeed was made to procure him the thanks of the house of peers, but it was eagerly opposed by the duke of Argyle. His grace was kindly received by the queen, who seemed desirous to have him live upon good terms with her new ministry; but this was thought impracticable, and it was every day expected that he would lay down his commission. He did not do this; but he carried the golden key, the ensign of the duchess of Marl borough’s office, January 19, 1711, to the queen, and resigned all her employments with great duty and submission. With the same firmness and composure he consulted the necessary measures for the next campaign, with those whom he knew to be no friends of his; and treated all parties with candour and respect. There is no doubt that the duke felt some inward disquiet, though he shewed no outward concern, at least for himself: but when the earl of Galway was very indecently treated in the house of lords, the duke of Marlborough could not help saying, “it was somewhat strange, that generals, who had acted according to the best of their understandings, and had lost their limbs in their service, should be examined like offenders about insignificant things.” An exterior civility, in court language styled a good understanding, being established between the duke and the new ministry, the duke went over to the Hague, to prepare for the next campaign, which at the same time he knew would be his last. He exerted himself in an uncommon manner, and was attended with the same success as usual. There was in this campaign a continued trial of skill between the duke of Marlborough and marshal Villars; and brave and judicious as the latter was, he was obliged at length to submit to the former. The duke embarked for England when the campaign was over, and came to London Nov. 8; and happening to land the very night of queen Elizabeth’s inauguration, when great rejoicings were intended by the populace, he continued very prudently at Greenwich, and the next day waited on the queen at Hampton-court, who received him graciously. He was visited by the ministers, and visited them; but he did not go to council, because a negotiation of peace was then on the carpet, upon a basis which he did by no means approve. He acquainted her majesty in the audience he had at his arrival, that as he could not concur in the measures of those who directed her councils, so he would not distract them by a fruitless opposition. Yet finding himself attacked in the house of lords, and loaded with the imputation 5 of having protracted the war, he vindicated his conduct and character with great dignity and spirit; and in a most pathetic speech appealed to the queen his mistress, who was there incognito, for the falsehood of thut imputation; declaring, that he was as much for peace as any man, provided it was such a peace as might be expected from a war undertaken on such just motives, and carried on with uninterrupted success. This had a great effect on that august assembly, and perhaps made some impression on the queen; but at the same time it gave such an edge to the resentment of his enemies, who were then in power, that they resolved at all adventures to remove him. Those who were thus resolved to divest him of his commission, found themselves under a necessity to engage the queen to take it from him. This necessity arose chiefly from prince Eugene’s being expected to come over with a commission from the emperor; and to give some kind of colour to it, an inquiry was promoted in the house of commons, to fix a very high imputation upon the duke, as if he had put very large sums of public money into his own pocket. When a question to this purpose had been carried, the queen, by a letter, conceived in very obscure terms, acquainted him with her having no farther occasion for his service, and dismissed him from all his employments.

He was from this time exposed to a most painful persecution. On the one hand, he was attacked by the clamours of the populace, and by those hirelings of the press who are always ready to espouse the quarrels of a ministry, and to insult without mercy whoever they know may be insulted with impunity: on the other hand, a prosecution was commenced against him by the attorney-general, for applying public money to his private use; and the workmen employed in building Blenheim-house, though set at work by the crown, were encouraged to sue him for the money that was due to them. All his actions were also shamefully misrepresented. These uneasinesses, joined to his grief for the death of the earl of Godolphin, induced him* to gratify his enemies, by going into a voluntary exile. Accordingly he embarked at Dover, November 14, 1712; and landing at Ostend, went to Antwerp, and so to Aix la Chapelle, being every where received with the honours due to his high rank and merit. The duchess also attended her lord in all his journeys, and particularlyin his visit to the principality of Mindelheim, which was given him by the emperor, and exchanged for another at the peace, which was made while the duke was abroad. The conclusion of that peace was so. far from restoring harmony among the several parties of Great- Britain, that it widened their differences exceedingly insomuch that the chiefs, despairing of safety in the way they were in, are said to have secretly invited the duke back to England. Be that as it will, it is very certain that he took a resolution of returning, a little before the queen’s death; and landing at Dover, came to London, Aug. 4, 1714. He was received with all demonstrations of joy, by those who, upon the demise of the queen, which had happened upon the 1st, were entrusted with the government; and upon the arrival of George I. was particularly distinguished by acts of royal favour: for he was again declared captain-general and commander in chief of all his majesty’s Jand forces, colonel of the first regiment of foot guards, and master of the ordnance.

, a voluminous poet of the sixteenth century, w,as born in Shrewsbury about the year 1520. Wood, who has given a long account of him, says he was of a genteel family, and well educated; and that at the age of seventeen, his father gave him a sum of money, and sent him to court, where he lived in gaiety while his finances lasted. He does not seem, however, to have gained any thing by his attendance at court, except his introduction to the celebrated earl of Surrey, with whom he lived some time as domestic, and by whose encouragement he produced some of his poems. He certainly had no public employment either now or in queen Elizabeth’s reign, although some have denominated him poet laureat, merely, as Mr. Malone thinks, “because he had addressed many of the noblemen of Elizabeth’s court for near forty years, and is called by one of his contemporaries, the old court poet.” He appears, however, to have continued with the earl of Surrey, until this virtuous and amiable nobleman was sacrificed to the tyrannical caprice of Henry VIII. Churchyard now became a soldier, and made several campaigns on the continent, in Ireland, and in Scotland. Tanner is inclined to think that he served the emperor in Flanders against the French in the reign of Henry VIII.; but the differences of dates between his biographers are not now so reconcileable as to enable us to decide upon this part of his history. Wood next informs us that he spent some time at Oxford, and was afterwards patronized by the earl of Leicester. He then became enamoured of a rich widow; but his passion not meeting with success, he once more returned to the profession of arms, engaged in foreign service, in which he suffered great hardships, and met with many adventures of the romantic kind; and in the course of them appears to have been always a favourite among the ladies. At one time, in Flanders, he was taken prisoner, but escaped by the “endeavours of a lady of considerable quality;” and at another time, when condemned to death as a spy, he was reprieved and sent away by the “endeavours of a noble dame.” On his return he published a great variety of poems on all subjects; but there is reason to think that by these he gained more applause than profit, as it is very certain that he lived and died poor. The time of his death, until lately was not ascertained; Winstanley and Cibber place that event in 1570, Fuller in 1602, and Oldys in 1604, which last is correct. Mr. George Chalmers, in. his “Apology for the believers in the Shakspeare Mss.” gives us an extract from the parish register, proving that he was buried April 4, of that year, in St. Margaret’s church, Westminster, near the grave of Skelton. Mr. D'Israeli, who has introduced him in his “Calamities of Authors,” very aptly characterises him as “one of those unfortunate men, who have written poetry all their days, and lived a long life, to complete the misfortune.” His works are minutely enumerated by Ritson in his “Bibliographia Poetica,” and some well- selected specimens have lately appeared in the Censura Literaria. The best of his poems, in point of genius, is his “Legende of Jane Shore,” and the most popular, his “Worthiness of Wales,” 1580, 8vo, of which an edition was published in 1776. It may be added, as it has escaped his biographers, that he is mentioned by Strype, in his life of Grind*!, as “an excellent soldier, and a man of honest principles,” who in 1569 gave the secretary of state notice of an intended rising at Bath (where Churchyard then was) among the Roman catholics.

, poet-laureat to George II. and a dramatic writer of considerable genius, was born in Southampton-street, London, November 6, 1671. His father, Caius Gabriel Cibber, was an eminent statuary, and his mother was the daughter of William Colley, esq. of an ancient family of Glaiston, in Rutland. He took his Christian name from her brother, Edward Colley, esq. In 1681—2 he was sent to the free-school of Grantham, in Lincolnshire and such learning he tells us, as that school could give him, is the most he ever pretended to, neither utterly forgetting, nor much improving it afterwards by study. In 1687 he stood at the election of Winchester scholars, upon the credit of being descended by his mother’s side from William of Wykeham, the founder; but not succeeding, he prevailed with his father, who intended him for the church, to send him to the university. The revolution of 1688, however, gave a turn to Cibber’s fortune; and instead of going to an university, he supplied his father’s place in the army, under the earl of Devonshire, at Nottingham, who was on his road to Chatsworth, in Derbyshire. There his father was then employed, with other artists of all kinds, changing the architecture and decorations of that seat. The revolution having been accomplished without bloodshed, Cibber had no opportunity of proving his valour, and immediately determined to gratify a very early inclination he had somehow formed for the stage. Here, however, he did not meet with much encouragement at first, being full three quarters of a year before he was taken into a salary of 105. per week; yet this, with the assistance of food and raiment at his father’s house, he tells us he then thought a most plentiful accession, and himself the happiest of mortals. The first part in which he appeared with any success, was the chaplain in the “Orphan,” which he performed so well, that Goodman, an old celebrated actor, affirmed with an oath, that he would one day make a good actor. This commendation from an acknowledged judge, filled his bosom, as he tells us, with such transports, that he questioned whether Alexander himself, or Charles XII. of Sweden, felt greater at the head of their victorious armies. The next part he played, was that of Lord Touchwood, in Congreve’s “Double Dealer,” acted before queen Mary which he prepared upon only one day’s notice, by the recommendation of the author, and so well, that Congreve declared he had not only answered, but exceeded his expectations; and from the character he gave of him, his salary was raised from 15s. a week, as it then stood, to 20s. The part of Fondlewife, in the “Old Batchelor,” was the next in which he distinguished himself.

, a very industrious and useful writer of the seventeenth century, less known than his services deserved, and particularly entitled to notice in a work of this kind, was born Oct. 10, 1599, at Woolston, in the county of Warwick, of which place his father had been minister for upwards of forty years. Under his tuition he remained until he was thirteen years old, when he was sent to school under one Crauford, an eminent teacher at that time. Here he informs us that he fell into loose practices from keeping bud company, but occasionally felt the reluctance which a pious education usually leaves. At the end of four years he was sent to Cambridge, and entered of Emanuel, which was then, according to his account, the Puritan college. After taking his bachelor’s degree, his father recalled him home, and he was for some time employed as a family-tutor in Warwickshire, after which, being now in orders, he was invited into Cheshire, as assistant to Mr. Byrom, who had the living of Thornton, and with whom he continued almost two years, preaching twice every Sunday during that time. Some scruples respecting the ceremonies occasioned him much trouble, and. he had an intention of removing to London; but happening to receive a pressing invitation from the inhabitants of Wirrall, a peninsula beyond West Chester, he consented to settle among them at Shotwick, where no regular service had been performed, and became here very useful as a preacher, and very popular through an extensive district. After, however, five years’ quiet residence here, a prosecution was instituted against him for the omission of ceremonies (what they were he does not inform us) in the Chancellor’s court; and while about to leave Shotwick in consequence of this, the mayor, aldermen, and many of the inhabitants of Coventry, invited him to preach a lecture in that city, which he accepted, and carried on for some time; but here likewise he excited the displeasure of Dr. Buggs, who held the two principal livings in Coventry, and who prosecuted him before the bishop, Dr. Morton. After this, by the influence of Robert earl of Warwick, he was enabled to preach at Warwick, and although complained of, was not molested in any great degree. Soon after, lord Brook presented him to the rectory of Alcester, where he officiated for nine years, and, as he informs us, “the town, which before was called * drunken Alcester,' was now exemplary and eminent for religion.” When the et c<etcra oath was enjoined, the clergy of the diocese met and drew up a petition against it, which Mr. Clarke and Mr. Arthur Salway presented to his majesty at York, who returned for answer, that they should not be molested for refusing the oath, until the consideration of their petition in parliament. This business afterwards requiring Mr. Clarke to go to London, he was chosen preacher of the parish of St. Bennet Fink, a curacy which is said to have been then, as it is now, in the gift of the canons of Windsor. Walker, from having included this among the livings sequestered by the parliamentary reformers, would seem to intimate that Mr. Clarke must have succeeded to it at the expence of the incumfyent; but the fact is, there was no incumbent at the time. We learn from Clarke’s dedication of his “Mirror” to Philip Holman, esq. of Warkworth in. Northamptonshire, a native of St. Bennet Fink, and a great benefactor to it, that for many years before this time (probably before 1646) the parish had little maintenance for a minister; theif tithes, being impropriated, went another way. They had no stock, no land, no house for the minister, no lecture, nor any one gift sermon in the year. This Mr. Holman, however, had furnished a house for the curate and settled it upon feoffees in trust, and had promised to add something towards his further maintenance. Such was the situation of the parish when Mr. Clarke was elected, and he remained their preacher until the restoration. During the whole of this period, he appears to have disapproved of the practices of the numerous sectaries which arose, and retained his attachment to the constitution and doctrines of the church, although he objected to some of those points respecting ceremonies and discipline, which ranks him among the ejected non-conformists. Most of his works appear to have been compiled, as indeed they are generally dated there, at his house in Threadneedle- street, and it was the sole business of his future life, to enlarge and republish them. In 1660, when Charles II. published a declaration concerning ecclesiastical affairs, the London clergy drew up a congratulatory address, with a request for the removal of re-ordination and surplices in colleges, &,c, Vol. IX. D D which Mr. Clarke was appointed to present. In the following year he was appointed one of the commissioners for revising the book of Common Prayer, but what particular share he took we are not informed; nor are we told more of his history, while in the church, than that he was seven or eight years a governor, and two years president of Sion college. When ejected for non-conformity, such was his idea of schism and separation, that he quietly submitted to a retired and studious life. From the church, which he constantly attended as a hearer, he says, he dared not to separate, or gather a private church out of a true church, which he judged the church of England to be. In this retirement he continued twenty years, partly at Hammersmith, and partly at Isleworth, revising what he had published, and compiling other works, all of which appear to have been frequently reprinted, notwithstand­*ig their size and price. He died Dec. 25, 1682, universally respected for his piety, and especially for his moderation in the contests which prevailed in his time.

, or rather Cleiveland (for so he and his family spelt their name) (John), a noted loyalist and popular poet in the reign of Charles I. was the eldest son of the rev. Thomas Cleiveland, M. A. some time vicar of Hinckley, and rector of Stoke, in the county of Leicester. He was born in 1613, at Loughborough, where his father was then assistant to the rector; but educated at Hinckley, under the rev. Richard Vynes, a man of genius and learning, who was afterwards as much distinguished among the presbyterian party as his scholar was among the cavaliers. In his fifteenth year our poet was removed to Cambridge, and admitted of Christ’s college, Sept. 4, 1627, where he took the degree of B. A. in 163 1 He was thence transplanted to the sister foundation of St. John’s college in the same university, of which he was elected fellow March 27, 1634, and proceeded to the degree of M. A. in 1635. Of this society he continued many years a principal ornament, being one of the tutors, and highly respected by his pupils, some of -whom afterwards attained to eminence. By the statutes of that college, he should have taken orders within six years after his being elected fellow: but he uas admitted on the law line (as the phrase there is) November 2, 1640, and afterwards on that of physic, January 31, 1642, which excused him from complying with this obligation; though it does not appear that he made either law or physic his profession: for, remaining at college, he became the rhetoric reader there, and was usually employed by the society in composing their speeches and epistles to eminent persons (of which specimens may be seen in his works), being in high repute at that time for the purity and terseness of his Latin style. He also became celebrated for his occasional poems in English, and, at the breaking out of the civil wars, is said to have been the first champion that appeared in verse for the royal cause; which he also supported by all his personal influence: particularly by exerting his interest in the town of Cambridge, to prevent Oliver Cromwell (then an obscure candidate, but strongly supported by the puritan partv) from being elected one of its members. Cromwell’s stronger genius in this, as hi every other pursuit, prevailing, Cleveland is said to have shown great discernment, by predicting at so early a period, the fatal consequences that long after ensued to the cause of royalty. Cromwell got his election by a single vote, which Cleveland declared “had ruined both church and kingdom.” The parliament party carrying all before them in the eastern counties, Cleveland retired to the royal army, and with it to the king’s head quarters at Oxford, where he was much admired and caressed for his satirical poems on the opposite faction, especially for his satire on the Scottish covenanters, entitled “The Rebel Scot.” In his absence he was deprived of his fellowship, Feb. 13, 1644, by the earl of Manchester, who, under the authority of an ordinance of parliament, for regulating and reforming the university of Cambridge, ejected such fellows of colleges, &c. as refused to take the solemn league and covenant. From Oxford Cleveland was appointed to be judge-advocate in the garrison at Newark, under sir Richard Willis the governor, and has been commended for his skilful and upright conduct in this difficult office, where he also distinguished his pen occasionally, by returning smart answers to the summons, and other addresses to the garrison. Newark, after holding out the last of all the royal fortresses, was at length, in 1646, by the express command of the king (then a prisoner in the Scots army), surrendered upon terms, which left Cleveland in possession of his liberty, but destitute of all means of support, except what he derived from the hospitality and generosity of his brother loyalists, among whom he lived some years, obscure and unnoticed by the ruling party, till, in November 1655, he was seized at Norwich, as “a person of great abilities,” adverse and dangerous to the reigning government; and being sent to Yarmouth, he was there imprisoned for some time, till he sent a petition to the lord-protector, wherein the address of the writer has been much admired, who, while he honestly avows his principles, has recourse to such moving topics, as might sooth his oppressor, and procure his enlargement: in which he was not disappointed, for the protector generously set him at liberty, disdaining to remember on the throne the opposition he had received in his canvass for parliament as a private burgess. Cleveland thence retired to London, where he is said to have found a generous Maecenas; and, being much admired among all persons of his own party, became member of a club of wits and loyalists, which Butler, the author of Hiir dibras, also frequented. Cleveland then lived in chambers at Gray’s-inn (of which Butler is said to have been a member), and, being seized with an epidemic intermitting fever, died there on Thursday morning, April 29, 1659. His friends paid the last honours to his remains by a splendid funeral: for his body was removed to Hunsdon -house, and thence carried for interment, on Saturday May 1, to the parish church of St. Michael Royal, on College-hill, London, followed by a numerous attendance of persons eminent for their loyalty or learning: to whom his funeral sermon was preached by his intimate friend Dr. John Pearson, afterwards bishop of Chester, author of the Exposition of the Creed.

, sole daughter and heir to George earl of Cumberland, was born at Skipton castle in Craven, Jan. 30, 1589, and married first, to Richard lord Buckhurst, afterwards earl of Dorset, by whom she had three sons, who died young, and two daughters, Margaret who married John, earl of Thanet, and Isabel, who married James, earl of Northampton. She married, secondly, to Philip Herbert, earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, by whom she had no issue. This lady, who by the failure of the male line, possessed the great hereditary estates of the Clifford Cumberland family, has lately become celebrated, particularly from a letter of hers published in the “World,” No. 14, by lord Orford, addressed to sir Joseph Williamson, who, when secretary of state to king Charles the second, had written to name a candidate to her for the Borough of Appleby. The brave countess, with all the spirit of her ancestors, and with all the eloquence of independent Greece, returned the following laconic answer:

Mr. Walpole, who, besides introducing her in the “World,” has given a place to this celebrated lady in his “Catalogue of noble Authors,” represents her as having written “Memoirs of her husband Richard earl of Dorset;” and “Sundry memorials of herself and her progenitors.” With regard to the first of these articles, we apprehend there never has appeared in the countess’s manuscripts any account of him, except what is occasionally to be met with in the History of her own life, a curious manuscript in the Harleian collection (6177), the title of which is, “A Summary of the Records, and a true Memorial of the Life of me the lady Anne Clifford, who by birth being sole daughter and heir to my illustrious father George Clifford the third earl of Cumberland, by his virtuous wife Margaret Russel my mother, in right descent from him, and his long continued noble ancestors the Veteriponts, Cliffords, and Veseys, baroness Clifford, Westmoreland, and Vesey, high sheriffess of Westmoreland, and ladye of the honor of Skypton in Craven, was by my lirst marriage countess dowager of Dorset, and by my second marriage countess dowager of Pembroke and Montgomery.” It is written in a manner extremely tedious, abounding with repetitions of matters, for the most part, equally minute and uninteresting, and may perhaps incline some to doubt Mr. Pennant’s character of her, as the most eminent person of her age for intellectual accomplishments. Some circumstances, however, respecting her being brought into the world, are related with an accuracy which biographers will never, perhaps, in any other instance be able to attain. She informs us, that, through the merciful providence of God, she was begotten by her valiant father, and conceived with child by her worthy mother, the first day of May in 1589, in the lord Wharton’s house in Channel-row, in Westminster, hard by the river of Thames, as Psalm 139; yet that she was not born till the 30th day of January following, when her blessed mother brought her forth in one of her father’s chief nouses, called Skypton castle, in Craven.

, third earl of Cumberland, and father to the preceding, was very eminent for his skill in navigation. He was born at Brougham castle, We*stmoreland, Aug. 8, 1558, and educated at Peterhouse, Cajnbridge, where his tutor was the celebrated John Whitgift^ afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. In this place he applied himself chiefly to the study of the mathematics, to which his genius led him, and by which he became qualified for the several great expeditions he afterwards undertook. His first public employment, of a melancholy kind indeed, was in 1586, when he was one of the peers who sat in judgment upon Mary queen of Scots. But having a greater inclination to act by sea than by land, and, according to the fashion of the times, being bent on making foreign discoveries, and defeating the ambitious designs of the court of Spain, then preparing the armada that was to conquer England, he fitted out, at his own charge, a little fleet, consisting of three ships and a pinnace, with a view to send them into the South Sea, to annoy the Spanish settlements there. They sailed from Gravesend, June 26, 1586, and from Plymouth Aug. J7; but were forced back hy contrary winds into Dartmouth, from whence putting out again on the 29th, they fell in with the coast of Barbary the 17th September, and the next day sailed into the road of Santa Cruz. On the 25th they came to the river Oro, just under the northern tropic, where they anchored. Searching upwards the next day, they found that river to be as broad all the way for fourteen or fifteen leagues, as at the mouth, which was two leagues over; but met with no town nor house. On the last of September they departed for Sierra Leone; where they arrived the 2 1st of October, and going on shore, they burned a town of the negroes, and brought away to their ships about fifteen tons of rice; and having furnished themselves with wood and water, they sailed the 2 1st of November from Sierra Leone, making the straights of Magellan. The 2d of January 1587 they discovered land; and on the 4th of that month fell in with the American shore, in 30 deg. 40 min. south lat. Continuing their course southward, they took, January 10, not far from the river of Plata, a small Portuguese ship; and the next day another; out of which they furnished themselves with what necessaries they wanted. The 12th of January they came to Seal Island, and two days after to the Green Island, near which they took in water. Returning to Seal Island, a consultation was held on the 7th of February, whether they should continue their course for the South Sea, and winter in the straights of Magellan, or spend three or four months upon the coast of Brazil, and proceed on their voyage in the spring. The majority being for the former, they went as far as 44 degrees of southern latitude. But meeting with storms and contrary winds, they took a final resolution, on the 21st of February, to return to the coast of Brazil. Accordingly they fell in with it the 5th of April, and, after taking in water and provisions in the bay of Camana, came into the port of Baya the llth. Eight Portuguese ships being there, they found means to carry off four of them, the least of which were of a hundred and thirty tons, notwithstanding all the resistance made by the enemy; and also brought a supply of fresh provision from the shore. In this spirited manner, the earl undertook no less than eleven expeditions, fitted out at his own expence, in which he made captures to a prodigious amount 5 and, on his return, was graciously received by his royal mistress, who created him knight of the garter in 1591. In 1601 he was one of the lords that were sent with forces to reduce the earl of Essex to obedience. He departed this life at the Savoy in London, Oct. 30, 1605, and was buried at Skipton, in Yorkshire, the 30th of March following; where a fine toinb was afterwards erected to his memory.

Pennant informs us that at an audience which the earl had after one of his expeditions, queen Elizabeth, perhaps designedly, dropped one of her gloves. His lordship took it up, and presented it to her; upon which she graciously desired him to keep it, as a mark of her esteem. In this manner, Pennant adds, his ambition was gratified with a reward that suited her majesty’s avarice. With the romantic gallantry of the times, he adorned this glove with diamonds, and wore it in the front of his high-crowned hat on days of tournament, as is expressed in the fine print of him, by Robert White. Another instance of the queen’s favour to the earl of Cumberland, was her appointing him her champion in all her tilting matches, from the thirtythird year of her reign. In this office he succeeded the gallant old knight sir Henry Lea, who resigned it with much ceremony in 1590. Mr. Wai pole, in his Miscellaneous Antiquities, has obliged the public with an entertaining account of his lordship’s investiture. He excelled 'all the nobility of his time in the exercises of tiltings, turnings, and courses of the field. His magnificent armour worn on such occasions, adorned with roses and fleurs de lis, is actually preserved at Appleby castle. In Skipton castle is a picture of the earl of Cumberland and his family, which is deemed a curious performance. It is tripartite, in form of a screen. The earl, who occupies the centre, is dressed in armour, spotted with stars of gold; but much of it is concealed by a vest and skirts reaching to his knees: his helmet and gauntlet, lying on the floor, are studded in like manner. His lady stands by him in a purple gown, and white petticoat, -embroidered with gold. She pathetically extends one hand to two beautiful boys, as if in the action of dissuading her lord from the dangerous voyages in which he engaged, when more interesting and tender claims urged the presence of a parent. “How must he have been affected,” says Mr. Pennant, “by his refusal, when he found that he had lost both on his return from two expeditions, if the heart of a hero does not too often divest itself of the tender sensations!” The letters of Margaret, the earl of Cumberland’s lady, are extant in manuscript, and also her Diary; from which it appears that she unfortunately married without liking, and met with the same return. She complains greatly of the coolness of her lord, and of his neglecting their daughter, Anne Clifford. The countess of Cumberland even endured great poverty, of which she writes in a most moving strain to king James I. to several great persons, and to the earl himself. Mr. Pennant observes, that all her letters are humble, suppliant, and pathetic, though the earl was said to have parted with her on account of her high spirit. But although this lady might sometimes be obliged, from peculiar circumstances, to write in a strain of humiliation, it is certain that she was a woman who possessed great fortitude and magnanimity of mind. This is apparent from the account her daughter has given of her; nor do we perceive, in that account, any traces of the poverty which the letters seen by Mr. Pennant represent her to have endured. Her conduct, after the death of her lord, in the contest between her and Francis, earl of Cumberland, her brother-in-law, for the family estate, was truly spirited, as she would never submit to give up her daughter’s right. With regard to her quarrel with her husband, the blame was principally on his side, as he was irregular in his manners, and appears, particularly, to have engaged in an amour with a lady of quality. A reconciliation, however, seems to have been effected between the earl and the countess; for she was present with him at the time of his decease, and he then expressed much affection towards her. We learn, from the inscription on the picture before mentioned, that, during the latter part of his life he felt the good effects of his early education for he died penitently, willingly, and christianly.

, an eminent surgeon, of whom little is known, except what can be collected from his works, flourished in the time of queen Elizabeth, and was for some time a navy surgeon, serving on board one of the queen’s ships, called the Aid, when the emperor’s daughter married Philip II. king of Spain, in 1570. He returned home, and resided several years at London, where he acquired great reputation, as may be inferred from his having been several years surgeon of St. Bartholomew’s and Christ’s hospitals, before he was sent for by letters from the earl of Leicester, general of the English forces in the Low Countries, to take upon him the care of the sick and wounded in 1586. He was surgeon to her majesty, and mentions his having served with Banister under the earl of Warwick; and also speaks in another place of having been a retainer to lord Abergavenny. He seems to have been in full practice about 1596, the date of his last publication, a treatise on the venereal disease, reprinted in 1637; and he laments the frequency of this disorder in England; of which he gives this proof, that in the space of five years he had cured upwards of a thousand venereal patients in vSt. Bartholomew’s hospital. His most capital performance is his approved Practice for all young chirurgeons, 1591, re-printed in 1596 and 1637. He is a strong advocate for writing medical chirurgical books in the vernacular language, and his practice was always ingenious, and often successful.

Cocchi, the father, was invited to England by the earl of Huntingdon, and passed three years in London, during which he published an edition of “Xenophont. Ephesii Ephesiacorum Libri V. de Amoribus Anthite et Abrocomse,” printed by Bowyer, 1726, 4to. The earl of Corke, in one of his letters to Mr. Duncombe, represents Cocchi as a man of most extensive learning, studious, polite, modest, humane, and instructive. A very long account of him is given in our authority.

, a lady much distinguished by her literary accomplishments, was born in London, August 16, 1679, the daughter of captain David Trotter, who was a native of Scotland, and a commander in the royal navy, in the reign of king Charles the Second. Her mother was Mrs. Sarah Ballenden, nearly related to the noble lord of that name, and to the illustrious families of Maitland, duke of Lauderdale, and Drumrnond, earl of Perth. She had the misfortune to lose her father when very young; an event which also reduced her mother to narrow circumstances. In her childhood, she surprised a company of her relations and friends with some extemporary verses, on an incident which had happened in the street, and which excited her attention. By her own application and diligence, without any instructor, she learned to write, and also made herself mistress of the French language; but had some assistance in the study of the Latin grammar and logic; and of the latter she drew up an abstract for her own use. She was educated in the protestant religion, but having an early intimacy with several Roman catholic families of distinction, she was led, when very young, to embrace the Romish communion, and continued in it for some years.

, a miscellaneous writer and translator of the seventeenth century, and probably an ancestor of the preceding, was born of an ancient family in Gloucestershire, in 1602, and educated at Oxford, where he was elected demy of Magdalen college, in July 1619, and completed his degree of M. A. in 1626. He then travelled, and on his return settled as a private gentleman in Norfolk, where he married. Wood says he was always accounted a puritan. He died of the plague in London, in 1665. His publications are: 1. “The Life and Death of Robert earl of Essex,” Loud. 1646, 4to, in which, according to Wood, he shewed himself a “rank parliamentarian.” 2. “A Collection of Proverbs.” 3. “The Life of Æsop,” prefixed to Barlow’s edition of the Fables, 1666, fol. 3. A translation of Du Moulin “On the Knowledge of God,” Lond. 1634. 4. “Heptameron, or the History of the Fortunate Lovers,” ibid. 1654, 8vo. The original of this was written by Margaret de Valois, queen of Navarre. He published also translations of Justin, Quiutus Curtius, the comedy of Ignoramus, and the prophecies of the German Prophets, &c.

After this marriage, by which he became allied to some of the noblest houses in the kingdom, preferments flowed in upon him apace. The cities of Coventry and Norwich chose him their recorder; the county of Norfolk, one of their knights in parliament; and the house of commons, their speaker, in the thirty-fifth year of queen Elizabeth. The queen likewise appointed him solicitor-general, in 1592, and attorney-general the year following. Some time after, he lost his wife, by whom he had ten children; and in 1598 he married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Jord.Burleigh, afterwards earl of Exeter, and relipt of sir William Hatto.n. As this marriage was the source of many troubles to both parties, so the very celebration of it occasioned no small noise and disquiet, by an unfortunate circumstance that attended it. There had been the same year so much notice taken of irregular marriages, that archbishop Whitgift had signified to the bishops of his province to prosecute strictly all that should either offend in point of time, place, or form. Whether Coke looked upon his own or the lady’s quality, and their being married with the consent of the family, as placing them above such restrictions, or whether he did not advert to them, it is certain that they were married in a private house, without either banns or license; upon which he and his new married lady, the minister who officiated, Thomas lord Burleigh, and several other persons, were prosecuted in the archbishop’s court; but upon their submission by their proxies, were absolved from excommunication, and the penalties consequent upon it, because, says the record, they had offended, not out of contumacy, but through ignorance of the law in that point. The affair of greatest moment, in which, as attorney-general, he had a share in this reign, was the prosecution of the earls of Essex and Southampton, who were brought to the bar in Westminster-hall, before the lords commissioned for their trial, Feb. 19, 1600. After he had laid open the nature of the treason, and the many obligations the earl of Essex was under to the queen, he is said to have closed with these words, that, “by the just judgment of God, he of his earldom should be Robert the last, that of a kingdom thought to be Robert the first.”

In May 1603, he was knighted by king James; and the same year managed the trial of sir W. Raleigh, at Winchester, whither the term was adjourned, on account of the plague being at London; but he lessened himself greatly in the opinion of the world, by his treatment of that unfortunate gentleman; as he employed a coarse and scurrilous language against him hardly to be paralleled. The resentment of the public was so great upon this occasion, that as has been generally believed, Shakspeare, in his comedy of the “Twelfth Night,' 7 hints at this strange behaviour of sir Edward Coke at Raleigh’s trial. He was likewise reproached with this indecent behaviour in a letter which sir Francis Bacon wrote to him after his own fall; wherein we have the following passage:” As your pleadings were wont to insult our misery, and inveigh literally against the person, so are you still careless in this point to praise and disgrace upon slight grounds, and that suddenly; so that your reproofs or commendations are for the most part neglected and contemned, when the censure of a judge, coming slow, but sure, should be a brand to the guilty, and a crown to the virtuous. You will jest at any man in public, without any respect to the person’s dignity, or your own. This disgraces your gravity more than it can advance the opinion of your wit; and so do all your actions, which we see you do directly with a touch of vainglory. You make the laws too much lean to your opinion; whereby you shew yourself to be a legal tyrant, &c.“January 27, 1606, at the trial of the gun-powder conspirators, and March 28 following, at the trial of the Jesuit Garnet, he made two very elaborate speeches, which were soon after published in a book entitled” A true and perfect relation of the whole Proceedings against the late most barbarous traitors, Garnet, a Jesuit, and his confederates, &c.“1606, 4to. Cecil earl of Salisbury, observed in his speech upon the latter trial,” that the evidence had been so well distributed and opened by the attorney-general, that he had never heard such a mass of matter better contracted, nor made more intelligible to the jury.“This appears to have been really true; so true, that many to this day esteem this last speech, especially, his masterpiece. It was probably in reward for this service, that he was appointee! lord chief justice of the common-pleas the same year. The motto he gave upon his rings, when he was called to the degree of serjeant, in order to qualify him for this promotion, was,” Lex est tutissima cassis;“that is,” The law is the safest helmet.“Oct. 25, 1613, he was made lord chief justice of the kingVbench; and in Nov. was sworn of his majesty’s privy-council. In 1615 the king deliberating upon the choice of a lord- chancellor, when that r-ost should become vacant, by the death or resignation of Egerton lord Ellesmere, sir Francis Bacon wrote to his majesty a letter upon that subject, wherein he lias the following passage, relating to the lord chiefjustice:”If you take my lord Coke, this will follow: First, your majesty shall put an over-ruling nature into an overruling place, which may breed an extreme. Next, you shall blunt his industries in matter of finances, which seemeth to aim at another place. And lastly, popular men are no sure mounters for your majesty’s saddle." The disputes and animosities between these two great men are well known. They seem to have been personal; and they lasted to the end of their lives. Coke was jealous of Bacon’s reputation in many parts of knowledge; by whom, again, he was envied for the high reputation he had acquired in one; each aiming to be admired particularly in that in which the other excelled. Coke was the greatest lawyer of his time, but could be nothing more. If Bacon was not so, we can ascribe, it only to his aiming at a more exalted character; not being able, or at least not willing, to confine the universality of his genius within one inferior province of learning.

Low as sir Edward was fallen, he was afterwards restored to credit and favour; the first step to which was, his proposing a match between the earl of Buckingham’s elder brother, sir John Villiers, and his younger daughter by the lady Hatton: for he knew no other way of gaining that favourite. This, however, occasioned a violent dispute and quarrel between sir Edward and his wife; who, resenting her husband’s attempt to dispose of her daughter without asking her leave, carried away the young lady, and lodged her at sir Edmund Withipole’s house near Oatlands. Upon this, sir Edward wrote immediately to the earl of Buckingham, to procure a warrant from the privy-council to restore his daughter to him; but before he received an answer, discovering where she was, he went with his sons and took her, by force, which occasioned lady Hatton to complain in her turn to the privy council. Much confusion followed; and this private match became at length an affair of state. The differences were at length made up, in appearance at least, Sept. 1617; sir Edward was restored to favour, and reinstated in his place as privy-councillor; and sir John Villiers was married to Mrs. Frances Coke at Hampton-court, with all the splendour imaginable. This wedding, however, cost sir Edward dear. For besides 10,000l. paid in money at two payments, he and his son sir Robert did, pursuant to articles and directions of the lords of the council, assure to sir John Villiers a rent-charge of 2000 marks per annum during sir Edward’s life, and of 900l. a year during the lady Hatton’s life, if she survived her husband; and after both their deaths, the manor of Stoke in Buckinghamshire, of the value of 900l. per annum, to sir John Villiers and his lady, and to the heirs of her body. The same were settled by good conveyances carefully drawn the January following, and certified to his majesty under the hands of two Serjeants and the attorneygeneral. All this time the quarrel subsisted between him and his wife: and many letters are still extant, which shew a great deal of heat and resentment in both parties. At the time of the marriage lady Hatton was confined at the complaint of her husband: for, since her marriage, she had purchased the island and castle of Purbeck, and several other estates in different counties; which made her greatly independent of her husband. However, their reconciliation was afterwards effected, but not till July 1621, and then by no less a mediator than the king.

A parliament was summoned, and met January 1621; and in February there was a great debate in the house of commons upon several points of importance, such as liberty of speech, the increase of popery, and other grievances. Sir Edward Coke was a member, and his age, experience, and dignity gave him great weight there: but it very soon appeared that he resolved to act a different part from what the court, and more especially the great favourite Buckingham, expected. He spoke very warmly; and also took occasion to shew, that proclamations against the tenor of acts of parliament were V9id: for which he is highly commended by Camden. The houses, being adjourned by the king’s command in June, met again in November; and fell into great heats about the commitment of sir Edwin Sands, soon after their adjournment, which had such unfortunate consequences, that the commons protested, Dec. 18, against the invasion of their privileges. The king prorogued the parliament upon the 21st; and on the 27th, sir Edward Coke was committed to the Tower, his chambers in the Temple broke open, and his papers delivered to sir Robert Cotton and Mr. Wilson to examine. January 6, 1622, the parliament was dissolved: and the same day sir Edward was charged before the council with having concealed some true examinations in the great cause of the earl of Somerset, and obtruding false ones: nevertheless, he was soon after released, but not without receiving high marks of the king’s resentment: for he was a second time turned out of the king’s privy-council, the king giving him this character, that “he was the fittest instrument for a tyrant that ever was in England.” And yet, says Wilson, in the house he called the king’s prerogative an overgrown monster. Towards the close of 1623 he was nominated, with several others, to whom large powers were given, to go gver to Ireland; which nomination, though accompanied with high expressions of kindness and confidence, was made with no other view but to get him out of the way for fear he should be troublesome, but he remained firm in his opinions, nor does it appear that he ever sought to be reconciled to the court; so that he was absolutely out of favour at the death of king James. In the beginning of the next reign, when it was found necessary to call a second parliament, he was pricked for sheriff of Bucks in 1625, to prevent his being chosen. He laboured all he could to avoid it, but in vain; so that he was obliged to serve the office, and to attend the judges at the. assizes, where he had often presided as lord chief justice. This did not hinder his being elected knight of the shire for Bucks in the parliament of 1628, in which he distinguished himself more than any man in the house of commons, spoke warmly for the redress of grievances, argued boldly in defence of the liberty of the subject, and strenuously supported the privilege of the house. It was he that proposed and framed the petition of rights; and, June 1628, he made a speech, in which he named the duke of Buckingham as the cause of all our miseries, though, lord Clarendon tells us, he had before blasphemously styled him the saviour of the nation; but although there is no great reason to conclude that all this opposition to the arbitrary measures of the court flowed from any principles of patriotism, he became for a time the idol of the party in opposition to the court, and his conduct at this time is still mentioned with veneration by their historians and advocates. Our own opinion is, that although lord Coke was occasionally under the influence of temper or interest, he was, upon the whole, a more independent character than his enemies will admit. After the dissolution of this parliament, which happened the March following, he retired to his house at Stoke Fogeys in Buckinghamshire^ where he spent the remainder of his days; and there, Sept. 3, 1634, breathed his last in his eighty-sixth year, expiring with these words in his mouth, as his monument informs us, “Thy kingdom come! thy will be done!” While he lay upon his death-bed, sir Francis Windebank, by an order of council, came to search for seditious and dangerous papers by virtue whereof he took his “Commentary upon Littleton,” and the “History of his Life” before it, written with his own hand, his “Commentary upon Magna Charta, &c.” the “Pleas of the Crown,” and the “Jurisdiction of Courts,” his eleventh and* twelfth “Reports” in ms. and 51 other Mss. with the last will of sir Edward, wherein he had been making provision for his younger grand-children. The books and papers were kept till seven years after, when one of his sons in 1641 moved the house of commons, that the books and papers taken by sir Francis Windebank might be delivered to sir Robert Coke, heir of sir Edward; which the king was pleased to grant. Such of them as could be found were accordingly delivered up, but the will was never heard of more.

, an eminent antiquary and benefactor to the history and antiquities of England, was the son of William Cole, a gentleman of landed property, at Baberham in Cambridgeshire, by his third wife, Catharine, daughter of Theophilus Tuer, of Cambridge, merchant, but at the time she married Mr. Cole, the widow of Charles Apthorp . He was born at Little Abington, a village near Baberham, Aug. 3, 1714, and received the early part of “his education under the Rev. Mr. Butts at Saffron-Walden, and at other small schools. From these he was removed to Eton, where he was placed under Dr. Cooke, afterwards provost, but to whom he seems to have contracted an implacable aversion. After remaining five years on the foundation at this seminary, he was admitted a pensioner of Cla/e hall, Cambridge, Jan. 25, 1733; and irt April 1734, was admitted to one of Freeman’s scholarships, although not exactly qualified according to that benefactor’s intention: but in 1735, on the death of his father, from whom he inherited a handsome estate, he entered himself a fellow-commoner of Clare Hall, and next year removed to King’s college, where he had a younger brother, then a fellow, and was accommodated with better apartments. This last circumstance, and the society of his old companions of Eton, appear to have been his principal motives for changing his college. In April 1736, he travelled for a short time in French Flanders with his halfbrother, the late Dr. Stephen Apthorp, and in October of the same year he took the degree of B. A. In 1737, in consequence of bad health, he went to Lisbon, where he remained six months, and returned to college May 1738. The following year he was put into the commission of the peace for the county of Cambridge, in which capacity he acted for many years. In 1740 his friend lord Montfort, then lord lieutenant of the county, appointed him one of his deputy lieutenants and in the same year he proceeded M. A. In 1743, his health beting again impaired, he took another trip through Flanders for five or six weeks, visiting St. Omer’s, Lisle, Tournay, &c. and other principal places, of which he has given an account in his ms collections. In Dec. 1744 he was ordained deacon in the collegiate church of Westminster, by Dr. Wilcocks, bishop of Rochester, and was in consequence for some time curate to Dr. Abraham Oakes, rector of Wethersfield in Suffolk. In 1745, after being admitted to priest’s orders, he was made chaplain to Thomas earl of Kinnoul, in which office he was continued by the succeeding earl, George. He was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries in 1747; and appears to have resided at Haddenham in the Isle of Ely in 1749, when he was collated by bishop Sherlock to the rectory of Hornsey in Middlesex, which he retained only a very short time. Speaking of that prelate, he says,” He gave me the rectory of Hornsey, yet his manner was such that I soon resigned it again to him. I have not been educated in episcopal trammels, and liked a more liberal behaviour; yet he was a great man, and I believe an honest man." The fact, however, was, as Mr. Cole elsewhere informs us, that he was inducted Nov. 25; but finding the house in so ruinous a condition as to require rebuilding, and in a situation so near the metropolis, which was always his aversion, and understanding that the bishop insisted on his residing, he resigned within a month. This the bishop refused t accept, because Mr. Cole had made himself liable to dilapidations and other expences by accepting of it. Cole continued therefore as rector until Jan. 9, 1751, when he resigned it into the hands of the bishop in favour of Mr. Territ. During this time he had never resided, but employed a curate, the rev. Matthew Mapletoft. In 1753 he quitted the university on being presented by his early friend and patron, Browne Willis, esq. to the rectory of Bletchley, in Buckinghamshire, which he resigned March 20, 1767, in favour of his patron’s grandson, the rev. Thomas Willis, and this very honourably, and merely because he knew it was his patron’s intention to have bestowed it on his grandson had he lived to effect an exchange.

Having been an early and intimate acquaintance of Mr. Horace Walpole, the late earl of Orford, they went to France together in 1765, Mr. Walpole to enjoy the gaieties of that country, but Mr. Cole to seek a cheap residence, to which he might retire altogether. From the whole tenour of Mr. Cole’s sentiments, and a partiality, which in his Mss. he takes little pains to disguise, in favour of the Roman catholic religion and ceremonies, we suspect that cheapness was not the only motive for thi* intended removal. He had at this time his personal estate, which he tells us was a “handsome one,” and he held the living of Bletchley, both together surely adequate to the wants of a retired scholar, a man of little personal expence, and who had determined never to marry. He was, however, diverted from residing in France by the laws of that country, particularly the Droit d'Aubaine, by which the property of a stranger dying in France becomes the king’s, and which had not at that time been revoked. Mr. Cole at first supposed this could be no obstacle to his settling in Normandy; but his friend Mr. Walpole represented to him that his Mss. on which he set a high value, would infallibly become the property of the king of France, and probably be destroyed. This had a persuasive effect; and in addition to it, we have his own authority that this visit impressed his mind so strongly with the certainty of an impending revolution, that upon that account he preferred remaining in England. His expressions on this subject are remarkable, but not uncharacteristic “I did not like the plan of settling in France at that time, when the Jesuits were expelled, and the philosophic deists were so powerful as to threaten the destruction, not only of all the religious orders, but of Christianity itself.” There is a journal of this tour in vol. XXXIV. of his collections.

, countess de la Suze, a French poetess, whose works have been printed with those of Pellison and others in 1695, and 1725 in 2 volumes 12mo, was the daughter of Gaspar de Coligni, the third of that name, marshal of France, and colonel-general of infantry. She was very early married, in 1643, when she could not be more than seventeen, to Thomas Hamilton, earl of Haddington, according to Moreri, but we find no mention of this in the Scotch peerage. After his death she espoused the count de la Suze, of an illustrious house in Champaigne. But this second match proved unfortunate, owing to the furious jealousy of the count her husband, whose severities towards her made her abjure protestantism, and profess the catholic faith, which occasioned queen Christina of Sweden to say, “that she had changed her religion, that she might not see her husband, neither in this world nor the next.” Their antipathy became so great that the countess at last disannulled the marriage; and to induce the count to accede to it, she offered 25,000 crowns, which he accepted. She then gave herself up to the study of poetry, and became much admired by the geniuses of her time, who made her the subject of their eulogiums. Her fort lay in the elegiac strain, and those works of hers which have come down to us have at least a delicate turn of sentiment. Her other poems are songs, madrigals, and odes. The wits of her time gave her the majesty of Juno with Minerva’s wit and Venus’s beauty in some verses, attributed to Bouhours: but her character in other respects appears not to have been of the most correct kind. She died at Paris, March 10, 1673.

Thus did Collier, by such ways and means as were in his power, continue to oppose with great vigour and spirit the revolution and all its abettors: and thus he became obnoxious to the men in power, who only waited for an occasion to seize him. That occasion at length came; for information being given to the earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state, that Collier, with one Newton, another nonjuring clergyman, was gone to Romney marsh, with a view of sending to, or receiving intelligence from the other side of the water, messengers were sent to apprehend them. They were brought to London, and, after a short examination by the earl, committed to the Gate-house. This was in the latter end of 1692, but as no evidence of their being concerned in any such design could be found, they were admitted to bail, and released. Newton, as far as appears, availed himself of this but Collier refused to remain upon bail, because he conceived that an acknowledgment of the jurisdiction of the court in which the bail was taken, and consequently of the power from whence the authority of the court was derived, and therefore surrendered in discharge of his bail before chief justice Holt, and was committed to “the king’s-bench prison. He v/as released again at the intercession of friends, in a very few days; but still attempted to support his principles and justify his conduct by the following pieces, of which, it is said, there were only five copies printed: 8.” The case of giving Bail to a pretended authority examined, dated from the King’s-bench, Nov. 23, 1692,“with a preface, dated Dec. 1692; and, 9,” A Letter to sir John Holt,“dated Nov. 30, 1692; and also, 10.” A Reply to some Remarks upon the case of giving bail, &c. dated April, 1693.“He wrote soon after this, 11.” A Persuasive to consideration, tendered to the Royalists, particularly those of the Church of England,“1693, 4to. It was afterwards reprinted in 8vo, together with his vindication of it, against a piece entitled” The Layman’s Apology.“He wrote also, 12.” Remarks upon the London Gazette, relating to the Streights’ Fleet, and the Battle of Landen in Flanders," 1693, 4to.

While Anthony earl of Shaftesbury was lord chancellor, he nominated Collins, in divers references concerning suits depending in chancery about intricate accounts, to assist in the stating thereof. From this time his talents were in request in other places, and by other persons; by which he acquired, says Wood, some wealth and much fame, and became accounted, in matters of that nature, the most useful and necessary person of his time; and in the latter part of his life, he was made accomptant to the royal fishery company. In 1682, after the act at Oxford was finished, he rode from thence to Malmesbury in Wiltshire, in order to view the ground to be cut for a river between the Isis and the Avon; but drinking too freely of cyder, when over-heated, he fell into a consumption, of which he died Nov. 10, 1683. About twenty-five years after his death, all his papers and most of his books came into the hands of the learned and ingenious William Jones, esq. fellow of the Royal Society, and father to the more celebrated sir Wm. Jones; among which were found manuscripts upon mathematical subjects of Briggs, Oughtred, Pell, Scarborough, Barrow, and Newton, with a multitude of letters received from, and copies of letters sent to, many learned persons, particularly Pell, Wallis, Barrow, Newton, James Gregory, Flamstead, Towniey, Baker, Barker, Branker, Bernard, Slusius, Leibnitz, Ischirphaus, father Bertet, and others. From these papers it is evident, that Collins held a constant correspondence for many years with all the eminent mathematicians of his time, and spared neither pains nor cost to procure what was requisite to promote real science. Many of the late discoveries in physical knowledge, if not actually made, were yet brought about by his endeavours. Thus, in 1666, he had under consideration the manner of dividing the meridian line on the true nautical chart; a problem of the utmost consequence in navigation: and some time after he engaged Mercator, Gregory, Barrow, Newton, and Wallis, severally, to explain and find an easy practical method of doing it; which excited Leibnitz, Halley, Bernoulli, and all who had capacity to think upon, such a subject, to give their solutions of it: and by this means the practice of that most useful proposition is reduced to the greatest simplicity imaginable. He employed some of the same persons upon the shortening and facilitating the method of computations by logarithms, till at last that whole affair was completed by Halley. It was Collins who engaged all that were able to make any advances in the sciences, in a strict inquiry into the several parts of learning, for which each had a peculiar talent; and assisted them by shewing where the defect was in any useful branch of knowledge; by pointing out the difficulties attending such an inquiry; by setting forth the advantages of completing that subject; and lastly, by keeping up the spirit of research and improvement.

Some time about the year 1790 Mr. Colman had a stroke of the palsy, which nearly deprived him of the use of one side of his body; and in a short time afterwards he gave evident signs of mental derangement; in consequence of which, he was placed under proper management at Paddington, and the conduct of the theatre was vested in his son. He died the 14th of August 1794. Mr. Colman, as a scholar, holds a very respectable rank, as may be seen by his translations of Horace’s Art of Poetry, and of the comedies of Terence; and his manners were as pleasing as his talents were respectable. His various dramatic pieces have been published in 4 vols. 8vo. The year after his death appeared a pamphlet, entitled “Some Particulars of the Life of the late George Colman, esq. written by himself, and delivered by him to Richard Jackson, esq. one of his executors, for publication after his decease.” The object of this pamphlet was to contradict two reports which had long been current. The one, that by his literary pursuits and dramatic compositions, he lost the favour and affection of the earl of Bath; the other, that by his purchase of a fourth of the patent of Coventgarden theatre, he knowingly and voluntarily forfeited the intended bequest of a certain estate under the will of general Pulteney. In opposition to these reports, he proves very clearly that he did not lose the favour of the earl of Bath, and that general Pulteney, while he did not openly resist his becoming a manager of the theatre, but rather consented to it, changed his intentions towards him, and left him, in lieu of the estate, an annuity of four hundred pounds. The general appears, however, to have considered the family as disgraced by Mr. Colman’s becoming a manager, for the latter is obliged to remind him of gentlemen who had been managers, of sir William Davenant, sir Richard Steele, sir John Vanburgh, and Mr. Congreve.

, only son of William, first earl of Northampton, by Elizabeth, sole daughter and heiress of sir John Spencer, alderman of London, was born in 1601. He was made knight of the bath in 1616, when Charles, duke of York (afterwards Charles I.) was created prince of Wales; with whom he became a great favourite. In 1622 he accompanied him into Spain, in quality of master of his robes and wardrobe; and had the honour to deliver all his presents, which amounted, according to computation, to 64,000l. At the coronation of that prince he attended as master of the robes; and in 1639, waited on his majesty in his expedition against the Scots. He was likewise one of those noblemen, who, in May 1641, resolved to defend the protestant religion, expressed in the doctrine of the church of England, and his majesty’s royal person, honour, and estate as also the power and privilege of parliaments, and the lawful rights and liberties of the subject. In 1642 he waited upon his majesty at York, and after the king set up his standard at Nottingham, was one of the first who appeared in arms for him. He did him signal services, supporting his cause with great zeal in the counties of Warwick, Stafford, and Northamptom. He was killed, March 19, 1643, in a battle fought on Hopton-heath, near Stafford; in which, though the enemy was routed, and much of their artillery taken, yet his lordship’s horse being unfortunately shot under him, he was somehow left en­“compassed by them. When he was on his feet, he killed with his own hand the colonel of foot, who first came up to him; notwithstanding which, after his head-piece was struck off with the butt-end of a musquet, they offered him quarter, which he refused, saying,” that he scorned to accept quarter from such base rogues and rebels as they were:“on this he was killed by a blow with an halbert on the hinder part of his head, receiving at the same time another deep wound in his face. The enemy refused to deliver up his body to the young earl of Northampton, unless he would return, in exchange for it, all the ammunition, prisoners, and cannon he had taken in the late battle: but at last it was delivered, and buried in Allhallows church in Derby, in the same vault with his relation the old countess of Shrewsbury. His lordship married Mary, daughter of sir Francis Beaumont, knt. by whom he had six sons and two daughters. The sons are all said to have inherited their father’s courage, loyalty, and virtue particularly sir William, the third son, who had the command of a regiment, and performed considerable service at the taking of Banbury, leading his men on to three attacks, during which he had two horses shot under him. Upon the surrender of the town and castle, he was made lieutenantgovernor under his father; and on the 19th of July, 1644, when the parliament’s forces came before the town, he returned answer to their summons;” That he kept the castle for his majesty, and as long as one man was left alive in it, willed them not to expect to have it delivered:“also on the 16th of September, they sending him another summons, he made answer,” That he had formerly answered them, and wondered they should send again." He was so vigilant in his station, that he countermined the enemy eleven times, and during the siege, which held thirteen weeks, never went into bed, but by his example so animated the garrison, that though they had but two horses left uneaten, they would never suffer a summons to be sent to them, after the preceding answer was delivered. At length, his brother the earl of Northampton raised the siege on the 26th of October, the very day of the month, on which both town and castle had been surrendered to the king two years before. Sir William continued governor of Banbury, and performed many signal services for the king, till his majesty left Oxford, and the whole kingdom was submitting to the parliament; and then, on the 8th of May, 1646, surrendered upon honourable terms. In 1648, he was major-general of the king’s forces at Colchester, where he was so ni'ich taken notice of for his admirable behaviour, that Oliver Cromwell called him the sober young man, and the godly cavalier. At the restoration of king Charles II. he was made one of the privy-council, and master-general of the ordnance; and died October 19, 16h3, in the 39th year of his age. There is an epitaph to his memory in the church of Compton- Winyate. Henry, the sixth and youngest, who was afterwards bishop of London, is the subject of the next article.

, an eminent prelate of the church of England, was the youngest son of the preceding Spencer second earl of Northampton, and born at Compton in 1632. Though he was but ten years old when his father was killed, yet he received an education suitable to his quality; and when he had gone through the grammarschools, was entered a nobleman of Queen’s college, Oxford, in 1649. He continued there till about 1652; and after having lived some little time with his mother, travelled into foreign countries. Upon the restoration of Charles II. he returned to England; and became a cornet in a regiment of horse, raised about that time for the king’s guard: but soon quitting that post, he dedicated himself to the service of the church; and accordingly went to Cambridge, where he was created M, A. Then entering into orders, when about thirty years of age, and obtaining a grant of the next vacant canonry of Christ church in Oxford, he was admitted canon-commoner of that college, in the beginning of 1666, by the advice of Dr. John Fell, then dean of the same. In April of the same year, he was incorporated M. A. at Oxford, and possessed at that time the rectory of Cottenham in Cambridgeshire, worth about 500l. per annum. In 1667, he was made master of St. Crosse’s hospital near Winchester. On May 24, 1669, he was installed canon of Christ church, in the room of Dr. Heylin deceased; and two days after took the degree of B. D. to which, June 28 following, he added that of doctor. He was preferred to the bishopric of Oxford in December 1674; and about a year after was made dean of the chapel royal, and was also translated to the see of London.

While this matter was in dependence, the princess of Orange thought it became her to interpose in the bishop’s favour; and wrote to the king, earnestly begging him to be gentle tp the bishop, who she could not think would offend willingly. She also wrote to the bishop, expressing the great share she took in the trouble he was fallen into; as did also the prince. The king wrote an answer to the princess, reflecting severely on the bishop, not without some sharpness on her for meddling in such matters. The bishop in the mean time acquiesced in his sentence; but being suspended only as a bishop, and remaining still whole in his other capacities, he made another stand against the king, as one of the governors of the Charter-house, in refusing to admit one Andrew Popham, a papist, into the first pensioner’s place in that hospital. While he was thus sequestered from his episcopal office, he applied himself to the improvement of his garden at Fulham; and having a great genius -for botany, enriched it with a variety of curious plants, domestic and exotic*. His suspension, however, was so flagrant a piece of arbitrary power, that the prince of Orange, in his declaration, could not omit taking notice of it; and when there was an alarm of his highness’s coming over, the court was willing to make the bishop reparation, by restoring him, as they did on Sept. 23, 1688, to his episcopal function. But he made no haste to resume his charge, and to thank the king for his restoration; which made some conjecture, and, as appeared afterwards with good reason, that he had no mind to be restored in that manner, and that he knew well enough what had been doing in Holland. On Oct. 3, 1688, however, he waited upon king James, with the archbishop of Canterbury, and seven other bishops, when they suggested to his majesty such advice as they thought conducive to his interest, but this had no effect. The first part the bishop acted in the revolution, which immediately ensued, was the conveying, jointly with the earl of Dorset, the princess Anne of Denmark safe from London to Nottingham; lest she, in the present confusion of affairs, might have been sent away into France, or put under restraint, because the prince, heir consort, had left king James, and was gone over to the prince of Orange.

At length, after eight years 1 serious deliberation upon the nature and lawfulness of conformity, his conscience was satisfied, and he resolved to comply in all parts; and in particular with that about which he had probably most scruple, the being re-ordained. To this, however, he consented, and the ceremony was performed Sept. 28, 1670, by Reynolds bishop of Norwich; whose daughter he had married in August 1651, and by whom he had six sons and as many daughters. Preferments were offered him immediately, and the same year he was elected minister of St. Mary Aldermanbury, in London; but, having spent some years in the town of Northampton, where he was much beloved, he chose rather to accept the invitation of his neighbours to remain among them; and Dr. Simon Ford, who was then minister of All-saints in Northampton, going to St. Mary’s Aldermanbury, he was nominated to succeed him. On Sept. 20, 1675, he had the mortification to see the greatest part of his parish, together with his church, burnt to the ground, though providentially his own house escaped. In 1676, the archdeaconry of Norwich becoming vacant, the bishop offered him that preferment, with this singular compliment, “I do not expect thanks from you, but I will be very thankful to you, if yon will accept of it.” He accepted it after some deliberation, and discharged the office worthily, as long as health permitted him. Dec. 3, 1681, he was installed a prebendary in the church of Worcester. The earl of Radnor, an old friend and contemporary of his at Exeter college, asked it for him from Charles 11. in these terms: “Sir, I come to beg a preferment of you for a very deserving person, who never sought any thing for himself:” and upon naming him, the king very kindly consented. In 1686, after his eyes had been for some time weak, he lost his sight entirely: but he did not die till March 12, 1693, when he was in his 86th year. He was buried in his own parish church of All-saints in Northampton, where a monument was erected over him by his widow, with a suitable inscription.

The greater part of the last twenty years of his life was spent in ease and retirement; but towards the end of it, he was much afflicted with gout, which brought on a gradual decay. It was for this, that in the summer of 1728, he went to Bath for the benefit of the waters, where he had the misfortune to be overturned in his chariot; from which time he complained of a pain in his side, which was supposed to arise from some inward bruise. Upon his return to London, his health declined more and more; and he died at his house in Surry-street in the Strand, Jan. 19, 1729. On the 26th, his corpse lay in state in the Jerusalem chamber; whence the same evening it was carried with great solemnity into Henry Vllth’s chapel at Westminster, and afterwards interred in the abbey. The pall was supported by the duke of Bridgewater, earl of Godolphin, lord Cobham, lord Wilmington, the hon. George Berkeley, esq. and brigadier-general Churchill; and colonel Congreve followed as chief mourner. Some time after, a neat and elegant monument was erected to his memory*, 'y^ Henrietta duchess of Marlborough, to whom he be­* It is remarkable that on this mo- thinking that he was one of his counritmient he is s>ai<] to he only fifty-six trymen (an Irishman). Jacob only,

, a physician and learned writer, was descended of an ancient family in Ireland, and born in the county of Kerry about 1666. His family being of the popish religion, he was not educated regularly in the grammar-schools or university, but was assisted by private tutors, and when he grew up, applied himself to the study of physic. About 1686 he went to France, and resided for some time in the university of Montpelier; and from thence to Paris, where he distinguished himself in his profession, particularly in the branches of anatomy and chemistry. He professed himself desirous of travelling; and as there were two sons of the high chancellor of Poland then on the point of returning to their own country, it was thought expedient that they should take that long journey under the care and inspection of Connor. He accordingly conducted them very safely to Venice, where, having an opportunity of curing the honourable William Legge, afterwards earl of Dartmouth, of a fever, he accompanied him to Padua; whence he went through Tyrol, Bavaria, and Austria, down the Danube, to Vienna; and after having made some stay at the court of the emperor Leopold, passed through Moravia and Silesia to Cracow, and thence in eight days to Warsaw. He was well received at the court of king John Sobieski, and was afterwards made his physician, a, very extraordinary preferment for a young man of only twenty-eight. But his reputation in the court of Poland was raised by the judgment he made of the duchess of Radzevil’s distemper, which the physicians of the court pronounced to be an ague, from which she might easily be recovered by the bark; and Connor insisted, that she had an abscess in her liver, and that her case was desperate. As this lady was the king’s only sister, his prediction made a great noise, more especially when it was justified by the event; for she not only died within a month, but, upon the opening of her body, the doctor’s opinion of her malady was fully verified. Great as Connor’s fame was in Poland, he did not propose to remain longer there than was requisite to finish his inquiries into the natural history, and other curiosities of that kingdom; and foreseeing the king’s decease, and that he had no prospects of advantage afterwards, he resolved to quit that country, and to return to England, for which a very advantageous opportunity occurred. The king had an only daughter, the princess Teresa Cunigunda, who hud espoused the Elector of Bavaria by proxy in August 1694. As she was to make a journey from Warsaw to Brussels, of near 1000 miles, and in the midst of winter, it was thought necessary that she should be attended by a physician. Connor procured himself to be nominated to that employment; and, after reaching Brussels, took leave of the princess, set out for Holland^ and thence to England, where he arrived in Feb. 1695.

, third daughter of sir Anthony Cooke, was born about the year 1529, and having enjoyed the same liberal education which was bestowed upon her sisters, was equally happy in improving it, and gained the applause of the most eminent scholars of the age. It was observed by sir John Harrington, that if Madam Vittoria, an Italian lady, deserved to have her name celebrated and transmitted to posterity by Ariosto, for writing some verses, in the manner of an epitaph, upon her husband, after his decease; no less commendation was due to the lady before us, who did as much and more, not only for two husbands, but for her son, daughter, brother, sister, and venerable old friend Mr. Noke of Shottesbrooke, in the Greek, Latin, and English tongues. She was married, first, to sir Thomas Hobby, and accompanied him to France, when he went there as ambassador from queen Elizabeth, and died there July 13, 1566. His disconsolate lady having erected a chapel in the chancel of the church at Bisham, in Berkshire, carefully deposited the remains of her husband, and of his brother, air Philip Hobby, in one tomb together, which she adorned with large inscriptions, in Latin and English verse, of her own composition. She had by sir Thomas Hobby four children, Edward, Elizabeth, Anne, and Thomas Posthumus. It does not appear that she had great comfort in either of her sons; and the youngest in particular, as is manifest from a letter written by her to lord treasurer Burleigh, was guilty of such extravagancies and undutifulness, as gave her much uneasiness. It is evident, from the letter, that she was a woman of uncommon spirit and sense, and an excellent economist. Some years after the decease of sir Thomas Hobby, she married John, lord Russel, son and heir to Francis Russel, earl of Bedford. Her husband dying before his father, in the year 1584, was buried in the abbey church of Westminster, where there is a noble monument erected to his memory, and embellished with inscriptions in Greek, Latin, and English, by this his surviving lady. Her children, by John lord Russel, were one son, who died young in 1580, and two daughters, Anne and Elizabeth. The last of them survived her father but a little time, and is said to have bled to death by the prick of a needle in the forefinger of her left hand. This story has been supported by the figure placed on her monument, which is in the same grate with that of her father; where, on a pedestal of black and white marble made column-wise, in imitation of a Roman altar, may be seen the statue of a young lady seated in a most curiously-wrought osier chair, of the finest polished alabaster, in a very melancholy posture, inclining her head to the right hand, and with the forefinger of her left only extended downwards, to direct us to behold the death’s head underneath her feet, and, as the tradition goes, to signify the disaster that brought her to her end. Mr. Ballard thinks, that if the fact be true, it must be attributed to some gangrene, or other dangerous symptom, occasioned perhaps at first by the pricking of an artery or nerve, which at last brought her to the grave. The matter, however, does not deserve to be reasoned upon; being, in truth, no other than an idle and groundless tale, which very well answers the purpose of amusing the crowd who go to visit the tombs in the Abbey.

Lady Russel translated out of French into English a tract entitled, “A way of reconciliation of a good and learned man, touching the true nature and substance of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament.” This work was printed in 1605, and is dedicated to her only daughter, Anne Herbert, wife to Henry lord Herbert, son and heir to Edward earl of Worcester.

The time of lady Russel' s death has not been ascertained. In a letter written by her ta sir Robert Cecil, without date, she complains of her bad health and infirmities, and mentions her having compleated sixty-eight years. She seems to have been buried at Bisham, in Berks, near the remains of her first husband, and in the chapel which she herself had founded. From Birch’s Memoirs of the reign of queen Elizabeth, it appears that lady Russel interested herself in the concerns of her nephew Anthony Bacon, and endeavoured to do him service with the lord treasurer Burleigh. In that work there are some extracts from two of her letters upon this occasion, and a long account of a curious conversation which she had with her nephew, relative to the disputes between him and the treasurer. The fact was, that lord Burleigh was dissatisfied with the connections both of Mr, Anthony and Mr. Francis Bacon, and especially with their attachment to the Earl of Essex, and on these accounts was not favourable to their promotion.

, earl of Shaftesbury, an eminent statesman of very dubious character, was son of sir John Cooper, of llockborn in the county of Southampton, bart. by Anne, daughter of sir Anthony Ashley of Winborne St. Giles in the county of Dorset, bart. where he was born July 22, 1621. Being a boy of uncommon parts, he was sent to Oxford at the age of fifteen, and admitted a gentleman commoner of Exeter college, under Dr. John Prideaux, the rector of it. He is said to have studied hard there for about two years; and then removed to Lincoln’s inn, where he applied himself with great vigour to the law, and especially that part of it which related to the constitution of the kingdom. He was elected for Tewksbury in Gloucestershire, in the parliament which met at Westminster, April 13, 1640, but was soon dissolved. He seems to have been well affected to the king’s service at the beginning of the civil war: for he repaired to the king at Oxford, offered his assistance, and projected a scheme, not for subduing or conquering his country, but for reducing such as had either deserted or mistaken their duty to his majesty’s obedience. He was afterwards invited to Oxford by a letter from his majesty; but, perceiving that he was not in confidence, that ins behaviour was disliked, and his person in danger, he retired into the parliament quarters, and soon after went up to London, where he was well received by that party “to which,” says Clarendon, “he gave himself up body and soul.” He accepted a commission from the parliament and, raising forces, took Wareham by storm, October 1644, and soon after reduced all the adjacent parts of Dorsetshire. This, and some other actions of the same nature, induced the above-mentioned historian to say that he “became an implacable enemy to the royal family.” The next year he was sheriff of Wiltshire, in 1651 he was of the committee of twenty, appointed to consider of ways and means for reforming the law. He was also one of the members of the convention that met after Cromwell had turned out the long parliament. He was again a member of parliament in 1654, and one of the principal persons who signed that famous protestation, charging the protector with tyranny and arbitrary government; and he always opposed the illegal measures of that usurper to the utmost. When the protector Richard was deposed, and the Rump came again into power, they nominated sir Anthony one of their council of state, and a commissioner for managing the army. He was at that very time engaged in a secret correspondence with the friends of Charles II. and greatiy instrumental in promoting his restoration; which brought him into peril of his life with the powers then in being. He was returned a member for Dorsetshire, in that which was called the healing parliament, which sat in April 1660; and a resolution being taken to restore the constitution, he was named one of the twelve members of the house of commons to carry their invitation to the king. It was in performing this service that he had the misfortune to be overturned in a carriage upon a Dutch road, by which he received a dangerous wound between the ribs, which ulcerated many years after, and was opened when he was chancellor.

Upon the king’s coming over he was sworn of his majesty’s most honourable privy-council. He was also one of the commissioners for the trial of the regicides; and though the Oxford historian is very severe on him on this occasion, yet his advocates are very desirous of proving that he was not any way concerned in betraying or shedding the blood of his sovereign. By letters patent, dated April 20, 1661, he was created barou Ashley of Winborne St. Giles; soon after made chancellor and nnder-treasurer of the exchequer, and then one of the lords commissioners for executing the office of high-treasurer. He was afterwards made lord lieutenant of the county of Dorset; and, April 23, 1672, created baron Cooper of Pawlet in the county of Somerset, and earl of Shaftesbury. November 4 following, he was raised to the post of lord high chancellor of England. He shone particularly in his speeches in parliament; and, if we judge only from those which he made upon swearing in the treasurer Clifford, his successor sir Thomas Osborne, and baron Thurland, we must conclude him to have been a very accomplished orator. The short time he was at the helm was a season of storms and tempests; and it is but doing him justice to say that they could not either affright or distract him. November 9, 1673, he resigned the great seal under very singular circumstances. Soon after the breaking up of the parliament, as Echard relates, the earl was sent for on Sunday morning to court; as was also sir Heneage Finch, attorney-general, to whom the seals were promised. As soon as the earl came he retired with the king into the closet, while the prevailing party waited in triumph to see him return without the purse. His lordship being alone with the king, said, “Sir, I know you intend to give the seals to the attorney-general, but 1 am sure your majesty never intended to dismiss me with contempt.” The king, who could not do an ill-natured thing, replied, “Gods fish, my lord, I will not do it with any circumstance that may look like an affront.” “Then, sir,” said the earl, “I desire your majesty will permit me to carry the seals before you to chapel, and send for them afterwards from my house.” To this his majesty readily consented; and the earl entertained the king with news and diverting stories till the very minute he was to go to chapel, purposely to amuse the courtiers and his successor, who he believed was upon the rack for fear he should prevail upon the king to change his mind. The king and the earl came out of the closet talking together and smiling, and went together to chapel, which greatly surprised, them all: and some ran immediately to tell the duke of York, that all his measures were broken. After sermon the earl went home with the seals, and that evening the king gave them to the attorneygeneral.

After he had thus quitted the court, he continued to make a great figure in parliament: his abilities enabled him to shine, and he was not of a nature to rest. In 1675, the treasurer, Danby, introduced the test-bill into the house of lords, which was vigorously opposed by the earl of Shaftesbury; who, if we may believe Burnet, distinguished himself more in this session than ever he had done before. This dispute occasioned a prorogation; and there ensued a recess of fifteen months. When the parliament met again, Feb. 16, 1677, the duke of Buckingham argued, that it ought to be considered as dissolved: the earl of Shaftesbury was of the same opinion, and maintained it with so much warmth, that, together with the duke before mentioned, the earl of Salisbury, and the lord Wharton, he was sent to the Tower, where he continued thirteen, mouths, though the other lords, upon their submission, were immediately discharged. When he was set at liberty he conducted the opposition to the earl of Danby' s administration with such vigour and dexterity, that it was found impossible to do any thing effectually in parliament, without changing the system which then prevailed. The king, who desired nothing so much as to be easy, resolved to make a change; dismissed all the privy-council at once, and formed a new one. This was declared April 21, 1679; and at the same time the earl of Shaftesbury was appointed lord president. He did not hold this employment longer than October the fifth following. He had drawn upon himself the implacable hatred of the duke of York, by steadily promoting, if not originally inventing, the project of an exclusion bill: and therefore the duke’s party was constantly at work against him. Upon the king’s summoning a parliament to meet at Oxford, March 21, 1681, he joined with several lords in a petition to prevent its meeting there, which, however, failed of success. He was present at that parliament, and strenuously supported the exclusion bill: but the duke soon contrived to make him feel the weight of his resentment. For his lordship was apprehended for high treason, July 2, 1681; and, after being examined by his majesty in council, was committed to the Tower, where he remained upwards of four months. He was at length tried, acquitted, and discharged; yet did not think himself safe, as his enemies were now in the zenith of their power. He thought it high time therefore to seek for some place of retirement, where, being out of their reach, he might wear out the small remainder of his life in peace. It was with this view, November 1682, he embarked for Holland; and arriving safely at Amsterdam, after a dangerous voyage, he took a house there, proposing to live in a manner suitable to his quality. He was visited by persons of the first distinction, and treated with all the deference and respect he could desire. But being soon seized by his old distemper, the gout, it immediately flew into his stomach, and became mortal, so that he expired Jan. 22, 1683, in his 62d year. His body was transported to England, and interred with his ancestors at Winbprne; and in 1732, a noble monument, with a large inscription, was erected by Anthony earl of Shaftesbury, his great grandson.

For the loss which was occasioned by Mr. Locke’s timidity or prudence, he was solicitous to make some degree of reparation. Accordingly, he formed an intention of writing, at large, the history of his noble friend; and if he had accomplished his intention, his work would undoubtedly have been a very valuable present to the public. But there was another biographer, who wrote a life of the earl, soon after his decease. This was Thomas Stringer, esq. of Ivy church, near Salisbury, a gentleman of great integrity and excellent character; who had held, we believe, under his lordship, when high-chancellor of England, the office of clerk of the presentations; and who was much esteemed by some of the principal persons of the age. With Mr. Locke in particular, he maintained an intimate friendship to the time of his death, which happened in 1702. Mr. Stringer’s account has been the ground-work on which the narrative intended for the public eye, by the noble family, has been built. It contained a valuable history of the earl’s life; but was probably much inferior in composition to what Mr. Locke’s would have been; and indeed, in its original form, it was too imperfect for publication. Sometime about the year 1732, this manuscript, together with the rest of the Shaftesbury papers, was put into the hands of Mr. Benjamin Marty n, a gentleman who was then known in the literary world, in consequence of having written a tragedy, entitled “Timoleoh,” which had been acted with success at the theatre royal in Drury-lane. Mr. Martyn made Mr. Stringer’s manuscript the basis of his own work, which he enriched with such speeches of the earl as are yet remaining, and with several particulars drawn from some loose papers left by his lordship. He availed himself, likewise, of other means of information, which more recent publications had afforded; and prefixed to the whole an introduction of considerable length, wherein he passed very high encomiums on our great statesman, and strengthened them by the testimonies of Mr. Locke and Mons. Le Clerc. He added, also, strictures on L' Estrange, sir William Temple, bishop Burnet, and others, who had written to his lordship’s disadvantage. One anecdote, which we well remember, it cannot but be agreeable to the public and to the noble family to see related. It is well known with what severity the earl of Shaftesbury’s character is treated by Dryden, in his Absalom and Achitophel. Nevertheless, soon after that fine satire appeared, his lordship having the nomination of a scholar, as governor of the Charter-house, gave it to one of the poet’s sons, without any solicitation on the part of the father, or of any other person. This act of generosity had such an effect upon IXryden, that, to testify his gratitude, he added, in the second edition of the poem, the four following lines, in celebration of the earl’s conduct as lord chancellor.

Notwithstanding the pains that had been taken by Mr. Marty n, the late earl of Shaftesbury did not think the work sufficiently finished for publication; and, therefore, somewhat more than twenty years ago, he put it into the hands of his friend Dr. Gregory Sharpe, master of the temple. All, however, that Dr. Sharpe performed, was to recommend it to the care of a gentleman, who examined Mr. Martyn’s manuscript with attention, pointed out its errors, made references, and suggested a number of instances in which it might be improved, but did not proceed much farther in the undertaking. At length, the work was consigned to another person, who spent considerable labour upon it, enlarged it by a variety of additions, and had it in contemplation to avail himself of every degree of information which might render it a correct history of the time, as well as a narrative of the life of lord Shaftesbury. The reasons (not unfriendly on either side) which prevented the person now mentioned from completing his design, and occasioned him to return the papers to the noble family, are not of sufficient consequence to be here, related. Whether the work is likely soon to appear, it is not in our power to ascertain.

, earl of Shaftesbury, the celebrated author of the Characteristics, was born Feb. 26, 1671, at Exeter-house in London. His father was Anthony earl of Shaftesbury; his mother lady Dorothy Manners, daughter of John earl of Rutland. He was born in the house of his grandfather Anthony first earl of Shaftesbury, and chancellor of England, of whom we have spoken in the preceding article; who was fond of him from his birth, and undertook the care of his education. He pursued almost the same method in teaching him the learned languages, as Montaigne’s father did in teaching his son Latin: that is, he placed a person about him, who was so thoroughly versed in the Greek and Latin tongues, as to speak either of them with the greatest fluency. This person was a female, a Mrs. Birch, the daughter of a schoolmaster in Oxfordshire or Berkshire; and a woman who could execute so extraordinary a task, deserves to have her name recorded with honour among the learned ladies of England. By this means lord Shaftesbury made so great a progress, that he could read both these languages with ease when but eleven years old. At that age he was sent by his grandfather to a private school; and in 1683 was removed to Winchester school, but such was the influence of party-spirit at the time, that he was insulted for his grandfather’s sake, by his companions, which made his situation so disagreeable, that he begged his father to consent to his going abroad. Accordingly he began his travels in 1686, and spent a considerable time in Italy, where he acquired great knowledge in the polite arts. This knowledge is very visible through all his writings; that of the art of painting is more particularly so, from the treatise he composed upon “The Judgement of Hercules.” He made it his endeavour, while he was abroad, to improve himself as much as possible in every accomplishment; for which reason he did not greatly affect the company of other English gentlemen upon their travels; and he was remarkable for speaking French so readily, and with so good an accent, that in France he was often taken for a native.

Soon after he returned to England, he became earl of Shaftesbury; but did not attend the house of lords, till his friend lord Somers sent a messenger to acquaint him with the business of the partition treaty, February 1701. On this he immediately went post to London; and though, when lord Somers’s letter was brought to him, he was beyond Briclgwater in Somersetshire, and his constitution was ill calculated for any extraordinary fatigue, he travelled with such speed, that he was in the house of peers on the following day, exhibiting an instance of dispatch, which at that time was less easy to be performed than it is at present. During the remainder of the session, he attended his parliamentary duty as much as his health would permit, being earnest to support the measures of king William, who was then engaged in forming the grand alliance. Nothing, in the earl of Shaftesbury’s judgment, could more effectually assist that glorious undertaking, than the choice of a good parliament. He used, therefore, his utmost efforts to facilitate the design; and such was his success, upon the election of a new house of commons (parties at that crisis being nearly on an equality), that his majesty told him he had turned the scale. So high was the opinion which the king had formed of the earl’s abilities and character, that an offer was made him of being appointed secretary of state. This, however, his declining constitution would not permit him to accept; but, although he was disabled from engaging in the course of official business, he was capable of giving advice to his majesty, who frequently consulted him on affairs of the highest importance. Nay, it is understood that he had a great share in composing that celebrated last speech of king William, which was delivered on the 31st of December, 1701.

In the beginning of the year after, viz. 1703, he made a second journey to Holland, and returned to England in the end of the year following. The French prophets soon after having by their enthusiastic extravagances created much disturbance throughout the nation, among the different opinions as to the methods of suppressing them, some advised a prosecution. But lord Shaftesbury, who abhorred any step which looked like persecution, apprehended that such measures tended rather to inflame than to cure the disease: and this occasioned his “Letter concerning Enthusiasm,” which he published in 1708, and sent it to lord Somers, to whom he addressed it, though without the mention either of his own or lord Somers’s name. Jan. 1709, he published his “Moralists, a philosophical rhapsody:” and, in May following, his “Sensus communis, or an essay upon the freedom of wit and humour.” The same year he married Mrs. Jane Ewer, youngest daughter of Thomas Ewer, esq. of Lee in Hertfordshire; to whom he was related, and by whom he had an only son, Anthony the fourth earl of Shaftesbury. From his correspondence, it does not appear that he had any very extraordinary attachment to this lady, or that the match added much to his happiness, which some have attributed to a disappointment in a previous attachment. In 1710, his “Soliloquy, or advice to an author,” was printed. In 1711, finding his health still declining, he was advised to leave England, and seek assistance from a warmer climate. He set out therefore for Italy in July 1711, and lived above a year after his arrival; dying at Naples, Feb. 4, 1713.

The only pieces which he finished, after he came to Naples, were, “The Judgement of Hercules,” and the “Letter concerning Design;” which last was first published in the edition of the Characteristics, 1732. The rest of his time he employed in arranging his writings for a more elegant edition. The several prints, then first interspersed through the work, were all invented by himself, and designed under his immediate inspection: and he was at the pains of drawing up a most accurate set of instructions for this purpose, which are still extant in manuscript. In the three volumes of the Characteristics, he completed the whole of his writings which he intended should be made public. The first edition was published in 1711; but the more complete and elegant edition, which has been the standard of all editions since, was not published till 1713, immediately after his death. But though lord Shaftesbury intended nothing more for the public, yet, in 1716, some of his letters were printed under the title of “Several Letters written by a noble lord to a young man at the university:” and, in 1721, Toland published “Letters from the late earl of Shaftesbury to Robert Molesworth, esq.” Lord Shaftesbury is said to have had an esteem for such of our divines (though he treated the order very severely in general) as explained Christianity most conformably to his own principles; and it was under his particular inspection, and with a preface of his own writing, that a volume of Whichcot’s sermons was published in 1698, from copies taken in short hand, as they were delivered from the pulpit. This curious fact was some years ago ascertained on the authority of Dr. Huntingford, the present bishop of Gloucester, who had his information from James Harris, esq. of Salisbury, son to a sister of the earl of Shaftesbury. Her brother dictated the preface to this lady, and it is certainly a proof that he had at least a general belief in Christianity, and a high respect for many of the divines of his time, and particularly for Whichcot. Dr. Huntingford’s account was communicated to the last edition of the Biographia Britannica; and in a copy of this volume of sermons now before us, the same is written on the fly leaf, as communicated by Dr. Huntingford to the then owner of the volume, the late Dr. Chelsum.

It remains now to notice more particularly the writings of lord Shaftesbury, which by one class of critics, have received the most extravagant applause, and, by another, have been the subjects of indiscriminate condemnation. They have been examined with a critical eye, and in rather an elaborate manner, by Dr. Kippis, to whose article, in the Biographia Britannica, we refer the reader, contenting ourselves with a brief outline. Lord Shaftesbury’s “Letter on Enthusiasm” was written from excellent motives it contains many admirable remarks, delivered in a neat and lively strain but it wants precision conveys but little information and contains some exceptionable passages. The same character may be given, with truth and justice, of “The Essay on the Freedom of Wit and Huphour,” designed to defend the application of ridicule to subjects of speculative inquiry, and among others to religious opinions. His “Soliloquy, or Advice to an Author,” met with more general approbation. It contains a variety of excellent matter; and what the noble lord has advanced in recommendation of self-examination, and in defence of critics and criticism, is particularly valuable: it is evidently the result of the author’s knowledge and refined taste in books, in life, and manners. Lord Shaftesbury’s “Enquiry concerning Virtue” obtained more general applause, although in some points it is liable to objection. It is ably and finely written, and maintains with great force the important truth, that virtue -is the greatest happiness, and vice the greatest misery of men. In this “Enquiry,” the noble author appeared in the close, the logical, and the didactic form. But in the “Moralists,” he is the emulator of Plato, in the boldest poetic manner of that eminent philosopher. Bishop Hurd ranks it among the best compositions of the kind in our language. Its matter is highly valuable and important, and presents us with a truly argumentative and eloquent defence of the doctrines of a Deity and a Providence. The “Miscellaneous Reflections on the preceding treatises, and other critical subjects,” are intended as a sort of defence and explanation of his former works; but, although they contain a variety of just and ingenious remarks, they abound with many exceptionable passages concerning revelation. With respect to the style of lord Shaftesbury, we may quote the opinion of Dr. Blair, which is at once accurate and judicious. “His language has many beauties; it is firm and supported in an uncommon degree; it is rich and musical. No English author has attended so much to the regular construction of his sentences, both with respect to propriety and with respect to cadence. All this gives so much elegance and pomp to his language, that there is no wonder it should sometimes be highly admired. It is greatly hurt, however, by perpetual stiffness and affectation. This is its capital fault. His lordship can express nothing with simplicity. He seems to have considered it as vulgar, and beneath the dignity of a man of quality, to speak like other men. Hence he is ever in buskins, full of circumlocutions and artificial elegance. In every sentence we see the marks of labour and art; nothing of that ease which expresses a sentiment coming natural and warm from the heart. Of figures and ornaments o/ every kind he is exceedingly fond; sometimes happy in them; but his fondness for them is too visible, and having once laid hold of some metaphor or allusion that pleased, he knows not how to part with it. What is most wonderful, he was a professed admirer of simplicity; is always extolling it in the ancients, and censuring the moderns for want of it, though he departs from it himself as far as any one modern whatever. Lord Shaftesbury possessed delicacy and refinement of taste to a degree that we may call excessive and sickly; but he had little warmth of passion; few strong or vigorous feelings; and the coldness of his character led him to that artificial and stately manner which appears in his writings. He is fonder of nothing than of wit and raillery; but he is far from being happy in it. He attempts it often, but always awkwardly: he is stiff even in his pleasantry, and laughs in form like an author, and not like a man.” Lord Shaftesbury sometimes professed himself a Christian; but his writings, in many parts, render his faith in the divine mission of Christ very questionable. The noble lord left one son, Anthony Ashley Cooper, the fourth earl, of whom the learned Bp. Huntingford says, “there never existed a man of more benevolence, moral worth, and true piety.” He was the author of the life of his father, in the great General Dictionary, including Bayle. It may not be improper to add in this place, that the translator of Xenophon’s Cyropedia was the honourable Maurice Ashley Cooper, brother to the third earl.

, a distinguished military officer in the 17th century, was the eldest son of Sir Charles Coote, who was created baronet in April 1621. He was a gentleman of great consideration in Ireland. Upon the breaking out of the rebellion, in 1641, he had a commission for a regiment of foot, and was made governor of Dublin. From this period to the year 1652, he was engaged in a great number of important services for his country. In almost all the contests of which he took a part, he was successful. After Ireland was reduced to the obedience of the parliament, sir Charles was one of the court of justice in the province of Connaught, of which he was made president by act of parliament. Being in England at the time of the deposing of Richard Cromwell, he went post to Ireland, to carry the news to his brother Henry Cromwell, that they might secure themselves; but when he perceived that king Charles the Second’s interest was likely to prevail, he sent to the king sir Arthur Forbes, “to assure his Majesty of sir Charles’s affection and duty, and that if his Majesty would vouchsafe to come to Ireland, he was confident the whole kingdom would declare for him; that though the present power in England had removed all the sober men from the government of the state in Ireland, under the character of presbyterians, and had put Ludlow, Corbet, and others of the king’s judges in their places, yet they were generally so odious to the army as well as to the people, that they could seize on their persons and the castle of Dublin when they should judge it convenient.” The king did not think it prudent to accept the invitation. In a short time after, sir Charles Coote, and some others, so influenced the whole council of officers, that they prevailed upon them to vote not to receive colonel Ludlow as commander in chief, and made themselves masters of Athlone, Drogheda, Limerick, Dublin, and other important places, for the service of the king. He immediately caused colonel Monk to be made acquainted with the progress of the king’s interest in Ireland, who urged them by every means not to restore the suspended commissioners to the exercise of their authority. Soon after, sir Charles Coote and others sent to the parliament a charge of high treason against colonel Ludlow, Corbet, Jones, and Thomlinson. He likewise made himself master of Dublin castle; and apprehended John Coke, chief justice of Ireland, who had been solicitor-general at the trial of king Charles I. Notwithstanding this, parliament thought themselves so sure of him in their interest, that he received their vote of thanks on the 5th of Jan. 1659-60. On the 19th of the same month he was appointed one of the commissioners for the management of the affairs of Ireland. Before those commissioners declared for king Charles, they insisted upon certain things relating to their interest as members of that nation. On the 6th of September 1660, sir Charles Coote, on account of his many and very valuable services for the royal cause, was created baron and viscount Coote, and earl of Montrath in the Queen’s county. He was also appointed one of the lords justices of Ireland, but he did not long enjoy these marks of his sovereign’s favour, for he died in December 1661, and was succeeded in his estate and titles by his son Charles, the second earl. Dr. Leland asserts that Coote and his father had engaged in the parliamentary service not from principle, but interest. Dr. Kippis, however, doubts the assertion, upon the ground that the Cootes were zealous presbyterians; and therefore he thinks it highly probable that they were influenced, at least in part, by their real sentiments, civil and religious, and especially by their aversion from popery.

This important war being now ended, so highly to the honour of the British arms, lord Cornwallis returned to England, to receive the rewards justly due to his merit. He had before been invested with the insignia of the garter; and he was, in August 1792, advanced to the dignity of marquis Cornwailis, admitted a member of the privy-council, and, in addition to his other appointments, was nominated to the office of master-general of the ordnance. In 1798, the rebellion in Ireland appearing both to the viceroy, lord Camden, and to his majesty, to require a lordlieutenant who could act in a military as well as a civil capacity, the king appointed lord Cornwallis to that important service, which he executed with skill, promptitude, and humanity; and after quelling the open insurrection, he adopted a plan of mingled firmness and conciliation, which, executed with discriminating judgment, tended to quiet that distracted country, and prepare matters for a permanent plan, that should both prevent the recurrence of such an evil, and promote industry and prosperity. He retained this high appointment till May 1801, when he was succeeded by the earl of Hardwicke. The same year he was appointed plenipotentiary to France, and signed the peace of Amiens.

, the son of Ant. Corranus, LL.D. was born at Seville, in Spain, in 1527, and educated for the Roman Catholic church; but being afterwards desirous of embracing the reformed religion, became to England in 1570, and being admitted into the English church, became a frequent preacher. In 1571 he was made reader of divinity in the Temple, by the interest of Dr. Edwin Sandys, bishop of London, and continued in that office about three years. In the beginning of March 1575, he was recommended to the university of Oxford for a doctor’s degree, by their chancellor, the earl of Leicester; but doubts being raised as to the soundness of his principles on certain contested points, his degree was refused until he should give full satisfaction, which he probably did, although the matter is not upon record. At Oxford he became reader of divinity to the students in Gloucester, St. Mary’s, and Hart-hail, and resided as a student of Christchurch, holding at the same time the prebend of Harleston in St. Paul’s. He died at London in March 1591, and was buried either at St. Andrew’s, Hoiborn, or St. Andrew Wardrobe. His works are, 1. “An Epistle to the pastors of the Flemish church at Antwerp,” originally written in Latin, Lond. 1570, 8vo. 2. “Tabulae Divinorum operum, de humani generis creatione,” 1574, 8vo; and afterwards published in English. 3. “Dialogus Theologicus,” an explanation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, collected from his lectures, 1574, 8vo; also translated, 1579. 4. “Supplication to the king of Spain,” respecting the protestants in the Low Countries, 1577, 8vo, published in Latin, French, and English. 5. “Notsc in concionem Solomonis” i. e. Ecclesiastes, 1579 and 1581, 8vo and again, by Scultetus, in 1618. 6. “Sermons on Ecclesiastes,” abridged by Thomas Pitt, Oxon. 1585, 8vo, probably an abridgement of the preceding. 7. “A Spanish grammar, with certain rules for teaching both the Spanish and French tongues,” translated into English by Thorius. Lond. 1590, 4to.

Dr. Cosin wrote a great number of books, from all which he has sufficiently confuted the calumny of his being a papist, or popishly affected. Besides his “Collection of Private Devotions,” mentioned above, he published “A Scholastical History of the Canon of the Holy Scripture; or, the certain and indubitable books thereof, as they are received in the Church of England,” Condon, 1657, 4to, reprinted in 1672. This history, which is still in esteem, is deduced from the time of the Jewish church, to the year 1546, that is, the time when the council of Trent corrupted, and made unwarrantable additions to, the ancient Canon of the Holy Scriptures, and was written by the author during his exile at Paris. He dedicated it to Dr. M. Wren, bishop of Ely, then a prisoner in the Tower. Dr. P. Gunning had the care of the edition. Since the bishop’s decease the following books and tracts of his have been published: 1. “A Letter to Dr. Collins, concerning the Sabbath,” dated from Peterhouse, Jan. 24, 1635, printed in the “Bibliotheca Literaria,” 1723, 4to; in which he proves, that the keeping of our Sunday is immutable, as being grounded upon divine institution and apostolical tradition, which he confirms by several instances. 2. “A Letter from our author to Mr. Cordel, dated Paris, Feb. 7, 165O,” printed at the end of a pamphlet entitled “The Judgment of the Church of England, in the case of Laybaptism, and of Dissenters baptism,' 1 a second edition of which was published in 1712, 8vo. 3.” Regni Anglise Religio Catholica, prisca, casta, defoecata: omnibus Christianis monarchis, principibus, ordinibus, ostensa, anno MDCLII.“i. e. A short scheme of the ancient and pure doctrine and discipline of the Church of England. Written at the request of sir Edward Hyde, afterwards earl of Clarendon, and printed at the end of Smith’s Life of bishop Cosin. 4.” The History of Popish Transubstantiation,“&c. written in Latin by the author at Paris, for the use of some of his countrymen, who were frequently attacked upon that point by the papists. It was published by Dr. Durrell, at London, 1675, 8vo, and translated into English in 1676, by Luke de Beaulieu, 8vo. There is a second part still in manuscript. 5.” The differences in the chief points of religion between the Roman Catholics and us of the Church of England; together with the agreements which we, for our parts, profess, and are ready to embrace, if they, for theirs, were as ready to accord with us in the same. Written to the countess of Peterborough, “printed at the end of bishop Bull’s” Corruptions of the Church of Rome.“6.” Notes on the Book of CommonPrayer.“Published by Dr. William Nicholls, at the end of his Comment on the Book of Common-Prayer, Lond. 171O, fol. 7.” Account of a Conference in Paris, between Cyril, archbishop of Trapezond, and Dr. John Cosin;“printed in the same book. 8.” A Letter from Dr. Cosin to bishop Moreton his predecessor, giving an account of his studies and employment when an exile abroad;“and,” A Memorial of his, against what the Romanists call the Great General Council of Lateran under Innocent III. in 1215,“both published by Des Maizeaux in vol. VI. of” The Present State of the Republic of Letters,“1730. 9.” An Apology of Dr. John Cosin,“in answer to Fuller’s misrepresentations of him in that author’s Church History, printed at the end of the first part of Heylin’s” Examen Historicum.“The following pieces were also written by bishop Cosin, but never primed: I.” An Answer to a Popish pamphlet pretending that St. Cyprian was a Papist.“2.” An Answer to four queries of a Roman Catholic, about the Protestant Religion.“3. ti An Answer to a paper delivered by a Popish BifUop to the lord Inchiquin. ' 4.” Annales Ecclesiastic!,“imperfect. 5.” An Answer to Father Robinson’s Papers concerning the validity of the Ordinations of the Church of England.“6.” Historia Conciliorum,“imperfect. 7.” Against the foraakers of the Church of England, and their seducers in this time of her tryal.“8.” Chronologia Sacra,“imperfect. 9.” A Treatise concerning the abuse of auricular confession in the Church of Rome." Some few of Dr. Cosin’s letters are extant among Dr. Birch’s collections in the British Museum.

In 1752, he published, in 8vo, at Oxford, “Dissertationes II. Critico^Sacrae, qnarum prima explicatur Ezek. xiii. 18. Altera vero, 2 Reg. x. 22.” The same year a translation was published of the latter of these dissertations, under the following title “A Dissertation on 2 Kings x. 22, translated from the Latin of Rabbi C———d (i. e. Costard), with a dedication, preface, and postscript, critical and explanatory, by the translator.” In the preface and dedication to this publication, the satirical author has placed Mr. Costard in a very ludicrous light. On the 25th of January, in the year following, a letter written by Mr. Costard to Dr. JBevis, concerning the year of the eclipse foretold by Thales, was read at the Royal Society, and was afterwards published in the Philosophical Transactions, as was also another letter written by him to the-same gentleman, concerning an eclipse mentioned by Xenophon. At the close of the same year, another letter written by Mr. Costard, and addressed to the earl of Macclesfield, concerning the age of Homer and Hesiod, was likewise read at the Royal Society, and afterwards published in the Philosophical Transactions for the year 1754, in which he fixes the ages of Homer and Hesiod much lower than the ordinary computations. He endeavours to make it appear, from astronomical arguments, that Homer and Hesiod both probably lived about the year before Christ 589; which is three centuries later than the computation of sir Isaac Newton, and more than four later than that of Petavius. In 1755, he wrote a letter to Dr. Birch, which is preserved in the British Museum, respecting the meaning of the phrase Sphacra Barbarica. Some time after this, he undertook to publish a second edition of Dr. Hyde’s “Historia religionis veterutn Persarum eorumque Magorum;” and which was accordingly printed, under his inspection, and with his corrections, at the Clarendon press at Oxford, in 4to, in 1760. Mr. Costard’s extensive learning having now recommended him to the notice of lord Chancellor Northington, he obtained, by the favour of that nobleman, in June 1764, the vicarage of Twickenham, in Middlesex, in which situation he continued till his death. The same year he published, in 4to, “The use of Astronomy in history and chronology, exemplified in an inquiry into the fall of the stone into the Ægospotamos, said to be foretold by Anaxagoras in which is attempted to be shewn, that Anaxagoras did not foretell the fall of that stone, but the solar eclipse in the first year of the Peloponnesian war. That what he saw was a comet, at the time of the battle of Salamis: and that this battle was probably fought the year before Christ 478; or two years later than it is commonly fixed by chronologers.”

, a celebrated mathematician, philosopher, and astronomer, was born July 10, 1682, at Burbach in Leicestershire, where his father Robert was rector. He was first placed at Leicester school; where, at only twelve years of age, he discovered a strong inclination to the mathematics. This being observed by his uncle, the rev. Mr. John Smith, he gave him all imaginable encouragement; and prevailed with his father to send him for some time to his house in Lincolnshire, that he might assist him in those studies. Here he laid the foundation of that deep and extensive knowledge, for which he was afterwards so deservedly famous. He removed from thence to London, and was sent to St. Paul’s school; where also he made a great progress in classical learning; yet found so much leisure as to keep a constant correspondence with his uncle, not only in mathematics, but also in metaphysics, philosophy, and divinity. This fact is said to have been often mentioned by professor Saunderson. His next remove was to Cambridge; where, April 6, 1699, he was admitted of Trinity college; and at Michaelmas 1705, after taking his first degree in arts, chosen fellow of it. He was at the same time tutor to Anthony earl of Harold, and the lord Henry de Grey, sons of the then marquis (afterwards duke of) Kent, to which noble family Mr. Cotes was related.

At what time his first wife died, is not recorded. His second was Mary, countess dowager of Ardglass, widow of Wingfield lord Cromwell, second earl of Ardglass, who died in 1649. She must therefore have been considerably older than our poet, but she had a jointure of 1500l. a year, which, although it probably afforded him many comforts, was secured from his imprudent management. He died in the parish of St. James’s, Westminster, in 1687, and, it would appear, in a state of insolvency, as Elizabeth Bludworth, his principal creditor, administered to his effects, his widow and children having previously renounced the administration. These children were by the first wife, One of them, Mr. Beresford Cotton, published in 1694- the “Memoirs of the Sieur de Pontis,” translated by his father; and perhaps assisted in the collection of his poems which appeared in 1689. This gentleman had a company given him in a regiment of foot raised by the earl of Derby, for the service of king William; and one of his sisters was married to the celebrated Dr. George Stanhope, dean of Canterbury,

“Amongst other books,” says he, “which Mr. Richard James lent out, one Mr. St. John, of Lincoln’s-inn, a young studious gentleman, borrowed of him, for money, a dangerous pamphlet that was in a written hand, by which a course was laid down, how the kings of England might oppress the liberties of their subjects, and for ever enslave them and their posterities. Mr. St. John shewed the book to the earl of Bedford, o.r a copy of it; and so it passed from hand to hand, in the year 1629, till at last it was lent to sir Robert Cotton himself, who set a young fellow he then kept in his house to transcribe it; which plainly proves, that sir Robert knew not himself that the written tract itself had originally come out of his own library. This untrusty fellow, imitating, it seems, the said James, took one copy secretly for himself, when he wrote another for sir Robert; and out of his own transcript sold away several copies, till at last one of them came into Wentworth’s hands, of the North, now lord deputy, of Ireland. He acquainted the lords and others of the privy-council with it. They sent for the said young fellow, and examining him where he had the written book, he confessed sir Robert Cotton delivered it to him. Whereupon in the beginning of November, in the same year 1629, sir Robert was examined, and so were divers others, one after the other as it had been delivered from hand to hand, till at last Mr. St. John himself was apprehended, and, being conceived to be the author of the book, was committed close prisoner to the Tower. Being in danger to have been questioned for his life about it, upon examination upon oath, he made a clear, full, and punctual declaration that he had received the same manuscript pamphlet of that wretched mercenary fellow James*, who by this means proveed the wretched instrument of shortening the life of sir Robert Cotton; for he was presently thereupon sued in the star-chamber, his library locked up from his use, and two or more of the guards set to watch his house continually. When I went several times to visit and comfort him in the year 1630, he would tell me, ‘ they had broken his heart, that had locked up his library from him.’ I easily guessed the reason, because his honour and esteem were much impaired by this fatal accident; and his house, that was formerly frequented by great and honourable personages, as by learned men of all sorts, remained now upon the matter desolate and empty. I understood from himself and others, that Dr. Neile and Dr. Laud, two prelates that had been stigmatized in the first session of parliament in 1628, were his sore enemies. He was so outworn, within a few months, with anguish and grief, as his face, which had been formerly ruddy and well coloured, (such as the picture I have of him shews), was wholly changed into a grim blackish paleness, near to the resemblance and hue of a dead visage. I, at one time, advised him to look into himself, and seriously consider, why God had sent this chastisement upon him; which, it is possible, he did; for I heard from Mr. Richard Holdesworth, a great and learned divine, that was with him in his last sickness, a little before he died, that he was exceedingly penitent, and was much confirmed in the faithful expectation of a better life.”

It has been objected that he ought to have published his report on his return, when public curiosity was eager for information; but he delayed it, for whatever reason, until the decline of life, and when public curiosity had much abated. It is thought also that he put many things into it, transcribed from his memoranda on the spot, which he would have suppressed had he undertaken to write his work sooner. Of his general accuracy, however, there can be no doubt; and as he had made use of several curious, and before unknown, Mss. he took care, for the reader’s satisfaction, to deposit them in the late earl of Oxford’s library at Wimple, near Cambridge; and some are now in the Harleian collection, in the British Museum, particularly five Mss. of different parts of the New Testament, which were collated by Mill. The 1st contains the four Gospels; the second is a manuscript of the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation, written in i-he year 1087: from several of its very extraordinary readings, it appears to be of no great value: the 3d has the Acts of the Apostles, beginning with chap. i. 11. with all the Epistles, and was supposed by Mill to be 500 years old the 4th contains the Acts and Epistles, written in a modern hand the 5th, called likewise Sinaiticus, because Covel brought it from mount Sinai, contains the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation; but it has been injured, and rendered illegible in many places, by the damp, which has had access to it. It begins with Acts i. 20. and the last lines of the book of Revelation are wanting. The first, second, and fourth, have been examined by Griesbach.

, the eldest son of Thomas Coventry, esq. by Anna Maria Brown, was born in Cambridgeshire, and educated at Magdalen college, Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1748, and his master’s in 1752. He was a young man of very considerable talents, and would probably have been more distinguished for polite literature, had he not been cut off in the prime of life by the small pox, in 1759, soon after he bad been presented by his relation, the earl of Coventry, to the donative or perpetual curacy of Edgware. He published “Penshurst,” an elegant poem, 1750, reprinted in Dodsley’s collection, with a poetical epistle to “The hon. Wilmot Vaughari in Wales.” He was also the author of a paper in the “World,” on the absurdities of modern gardening and of the well-known satirical romance of “Pompey the Little,” 1751. Mr. Gray told Mr. Waipole, in a letter of that date, “Pompey is the hasty production of Mr. Coventry (cousin to him you know), a young clergyman. I found it out by three characters, which made part of a comedy that he shewed me, of his own writing.” This cousin was Henry Coventry, author of the “Letters of Philemon to Hydaspes,” and who was one of the writers of the “Athenian Letters.” He was a fellow of Magdalen college; once, we are told, a religious enthusiast, and afterwards an infidel. He died Dec. 29, 1752.

Sir William Courten, after the death of his Dutch lady, married a second wife of the name of Tryon, by whom he had one son, named William, and three daughters. Sir William seems to have been possessed of a comprehensive mind, an enterprising spirit, abundance of wealth, and credit sufficient to enable him to launch out into any promising branch of trade and merchandize whatsoever. It is stated, with apparent fairness, that he actually lent to king James I. and his son Charles I. at different times, of his own money, or from the company trade, 27,000l. and in another partnership wherein he was likewise concerned with sir Paul Pyndar, their joint claims on the crown amounted, it seerns, to 200,000l. Sir William employed, one way or other, for many years, between four and five thousand seamen; he built above twenty ships of burthen; was a great insurer, and besides that, a very considerable goldsmith, or banker, for so a banker was then called. It appears likewise, that he was very deeply engaged in a herring fishery, which was carried on at one time with great spirit and at great expence: but shortly after, much to his cost, it came to nothing, in consequence of the supervening dissensions, confusion, and misery, that accompanied the rebellion. Previous to this, however, about the year 1624, two of sir William Courten’s ships, in their return from Fernambuc, happened to discover an uninhabited island, now of considerable importance to Great Britain, to which sir William first gave the name of Barbadoes. On the 25th of February 1627, he obtained the king’s letters patent for the colonization of this island, sheltering himself, for whatever reasons, under the earl of Pembroke. On the faith of this grant, afterwards superseded by the influence of James then earl of Carlisle, though its validity was acknowledged by the first, and indeed by all the lawjers, sir William sent two ships with men, arms, ammunition, &c. which soon stored the island with inhabitants, English, Indians, &c. to the number of one thousand eight hundred and fifty; and one captain Powel received from sir William a commission to remain in the island as governor, in behalf of him and the earl of Pembroke. After sir William had expended 44,000l. on this business, and been in peaceable possession of the island about three years, James earl of Carlisle claiming on grants said to be prior, though dated July 2, 1627, and April 7, 1628; affirming too that he was lord of all the Caribbee islands lying between 10 and 20 degrees of latitude, under the name of Carliola, gave his commission to colonel Royden, Henry Hawley, and others, to act in his behalf. The commissioners of lord Carlisle arrived at Barbadoes with two ships in 1629, and having invited the governor captain Powel on board, they kept him prisoner, and proceeded to invade and plunder the island. They carried off the factors and servants of sir William Courten and the earl of Pembroke, and established the earl of Carlisle’s authority in Barbadoes; which continued there under several governors, till 1646, when the government of it was vested by lease and contract in lord Willoughby of Parham. Sir William Courten, it is said, had likewise sustained a considerable loss several years before this blow in the West Indies, by the seizure of his merchandize, after the cruel massacre of his factors at Amboyna in the East Indies. But after all the losses above mentioned, he was still possessed, in the year 1633, of lands in various parts of this kingdom to the value of 6 500l. per annum, besides personal estates rated at 128,Ogo/. and very extensive credit. Such were his circumstances when he opened a trade to China, and, as if he had grown* young again, embarked still more deeply in mercantile expeditions to the East Indies, where he established sundry new forts and factories. In the course of this new trade he lost unfortunately two of his ships richly laden, the Dragon and the Katharine, which were never heard of more: and he himself did not long survive this loss, which involved him in great debt; for he died in the end of May or beginning of June 1636, in the 64th year of his age, and was buried in the church or church-yard of St. Andrew Hubbard, the ground of both which was after the fire of 1666 disposed of by the city for public uses, and partly laid into the street, the parish being annexed to St. Mary Hill. There is an abstract of sir William Courten’s will in the British Museum.

1643, became insolvent, and quitted this kingdom, to which it does not appear that he ever returned. When he died at Florence, in 1655, the subject of this article was about thirteen years of age; and it is most likely that his mother did not survive her husband above four or five years: for as no mention is made of lady Katharine in 1660, when Mr. Carew obtained letters of administration to the estates of the Courten family, it is probable she was then dead. In a petition to parliament, a rough draught of which is in the British Museum, there is a like ground for the same supposition, no mention being made of his mother; for it is only said there, that he the petitioner, and his only sister, had been left for many years destitute of a livelihood. It is not said at what time this gentleman’s father sold the great bulk of sir William Courten’s lands. Even the wrecks of a fortune, once so ample, must have been very considerable, and more than sufficient for the proper education and decent maintenance of William Courten and his sister. She could very well live in those days on no more income, as appears, than 30l. per annum. That this moderate annual sum was her principal support, we are led to believe from a slight attention to two papers still in being. If he and his sister had even been more reduced in point of income than we can well suppose, they still had infallible resources in the number, rank, and riches of their relations. Their grandfather the earl of Bridgewater, two uncles, with eleven aunts on the side of their mother, and three aunts on their father’s side, were people of fortune and distinction; many of them married into honourable and wealthy families, and all of them apparently in affluent or easy circumstances. It may therefore be reasonably concluded that William Courten was well educated, though the fact were not ascertained by other testimony. Having previously received a good education in this country, forwarded probably with peculiar care, and earlier certainly than is now usual, William Courten began his travels; or was sent, while yet a minor, to prosecute his studies abroad. The genius of a naturalist, which he discovered, it seems, from his infancy, led him to cultivate it at Montpellier, distinguished then, as Upsal since, for its botanical garden, its peculiar attention to natural history, and the abilities and celebrity of masters in various branches of this science. Here he met, as might be probably expected, with students of a congenial taste, and persons then and afterwards eminent in various walks of literature, with several of whom he appears to have lived in great familiarity, and to have cultivated long correspondence. Tournefort, the celebrated French botanist, was of this number. William Courten, who was the senior by several years, had no doubt made a very considerable proficiency in botany before his acquaintance with this illustrious foreigner commenced; but it must have been much improved by the intimacy that appears to have subsisted between them. It was at Montpellier probably, but many years after his primary settlement there, that William Courten contracted his first acquaintance with sir Hans Sloane, a zealous naturalist, who spared no pains or expence in the acquisition and promotion of knowledge in natural history, and who was yet more honourably distinguished by his skill in his own profession, his general patronage of scholars, his public spirit, and extensive phiJanthropy. Sir Hans Sloane unquestionably spent a considerable time at Montpellier, probably to improve his knowledge and to establish his health; and here too it is said he got his degree of M. D. But at what place and at what time soever their acquaintance began, being forwarded'by a similarity of studies, in which William Courten had undoubtedly the pre-eminence, it ripened into a friendship that continued without interruption to the end of his life.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of king Richard II. was the fourth son of Hugh Courtney, earl of Devonshire, by Margaret, daughter of Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford and Essex, by his wife Elizabeth, daughter of king Edward I. and was born in the year 1341. He had his education at Oxford, where he applied himself to the study of the civil and canon law. Afterwards, entering into holy orders, he obtained three prebends in three cathedral churches, viz. those of Bath, Exeter, and York. The nobility of his birth, and his eminent learning, recommending him to public notice, in the reign of Edward III. he was promoted in 1369 to the see of Hereford, and thence translated to the see of London, September 12, 1375, being then in the 34th year of his age. In a synod, held at London in 1376, bishop Courtney distinguished himself by his opposition to the king’s demand of a subsidy; and presently after he fell under the displeasure of the high court of chancery, for publishing a bull of pope Gregory II. without the king’s consent, which he was compelled to recall. The next year, in obedience to the pope’s mandate, he cited Wickliff to appear befofe his tribunal in St. Paul’s church: but that reformer being accompanied by John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, and other nobles, who favoured his opinions, and appeared openly in the bishop’s court for him, and treated the bishop with very little ceremony, the populace took his part, went to the duke of Lancaster’s house in the Savoy, plundered it, and would have burnt it to the ground, had not the bishop hastened to the place, and drawn them off by his persuasions. The consequences of this difference with so powerful a nobleman as John of Gaunt, were probably dreaded even by Courtney; for, with respect to Wickliff, he at this time proceeded no farther than to enjoin him and his followers silence. In 1378, it is said by Godwin, but without proper authority, that Courtney was made a cardinal. In 1381, he was appointed lord high chancellor of England. The same year, he was translated to the see of Canterbury, in the room of Simon Sudbury; and on the 6th of May, 1382, he received the pall from the hands of the bishop of London in the archiepiscopal palace at Croydon. This year also he performed the ceremony of crowning queen Anne, consort of king Richard II. at Westminster. Soon after his inauguration, he restrained, by ecclesiastical censures, the bailiffs, and other officers, of the see of Canterbury, from taking cognizance of adultery and the like crimes, which then belonged to the ecclesiastical court. About the same time, he held a synod at London, in which several of Wickliff’s tenets were condemned as heretical and erroneous. In 1383, he held a synod at Oxford, in which a subsidy was granted to the king, some of WicklifT's followers obliged to recant, and the students of the university to swear renunciation of his tenets. The same year, in pursuance of the pope’s bull directed to him for that purpose, he issued his mandate to the bishop of London for celebrating the festival of St. Anne, mother of the blessed virgin. In 1386, the king, by the advice of his parliament, put the administration of the government into the hands of eleven commissioners, of whom archbishop Courtney was the first; but this lasted only one year. In 1387, he held a synod at London, in which a tenth was granted to the king. The same year, it being moved in a parliament held at London on occasion of the dissension between the king and his nobles, to inflict capital punishment on some of the ringleaders, and it being prohibited by the canons for bishops to be present and vote in cases of blood, the archbishop and his suffragans withdrew from the house of lords, having first entered a protest in relation to their peerage and privilege to sit upon all other matters. In 1399, he held a synod in St. Mary’s church in Cambridge, in which a tenth was granted to the king, on condition that he should pass over into France with an army before the 1st of October following. This year, archbishop Courtney set out upon his metropolitical visitation, in which he was at first strongly opposed by the bishops of Exeter and Salisbury; but those prelates being at last reduced to terms of submission, he proceeded in his visitation without farther opposition: only, at the intercession of the abbot of St. Alban’s, he refrained from visiting certain monasteries at Oxford. The same year, the king directed his royal mandate to the archbishop, not to countenance or contribute any thing towards a subsidy for the pope. In a parliament held at Winchester in 1392, archbishop Courtney, being probably suspected of abetting the papal encroachments upon the church and state, delivered in an answer to certain articles exhibited by the commons in relation to those encroachments, which is thought to have led the way to the statute of pr&munire. The same year, he visited the diocese of Lincoln, in which he endeavoured to check the growth of Wickliff’s doctrines. In 1395, he obtained from the pope a grant of four-pence in the pound on all ecclesiastical benefices; in which he was opposed by the bishop of Lincoln, who would not suffer it to be collected in his diocese, and appealed to the pope. But before the matter could be decided, archbishop Courtney died, July 31, 1396, at Maidstone in Kent, where he was buried, but has a monument in the cathedral church of Canterbury, on the south side, near the tomb of Thomas Becket, and at the feet of the Black Prince. His remains at Maidstone, only a few bones, were seen some years ago. This prelate founded a college of secular priests at Maidstone. He left a thousand marks for the repair of the cathedral church of Canterbury also to the same church a silver- gilt image of the Trinity, with six apostles standing round it weighing 160 pounds some books, and some ecclesiastical vestments. He obtained from king Richard a grant of four fairs to be kept at Canterbury yearly within the site of the priory. The character of archbishop Courtney, weighed in the balance of modern opinions, is that of a persecuting adherent to the church of Rome, to which, however, he was not so much attached as to forget what was due to his king and country. He appears to have exhibited in critical emergencies, a bold and resolute spirit, and occasionally a happy presence of mind. One circumstance, which displays the strength and firmness of Courtney’s mind in the exercise of his religious bigotry, deserves to be noticed. When the archbishop, on a certain day, with a number of bishops and divines, had assembled to condemn the tenets of Wickliff, just as they were going to enter upon business, a violent earthquake shook the monastery. Upon this, the terrified bishops threw down their papers, and crying out, that the business was displeasing to God, came to a hasty resolution to proceed no farther. “The archbishop alone,” says Mr. Gil pin in his Life of Wickliff, “remained unmoved. With equal spirit and address he chid their superstitious fears, and told them, that if the earthquake portended any thing, it portended the downfall of heresy; that as noxious vapours are lodged in the bowels of the earth, and are expelled by these violent concussions, so by their strenuous endeavours, the kingdom should be purified from the pestilential taint of heresy, which had infected it in every part. This speech, together with the news that the earthquake was general through the city, &s it was afterwards indeed found to have been through the island, dispelled their fears Wickliff would often merrily speak of this accident; and would call this assembly the council of the herydene; herydene being the old English word for earthquake.”

, a medical and metaphysical writer, was the son of Mr. William Coward of Winchester, where he was born in the year 1656 or 1657. It is not certain where young Coward received his grammatical education; but it was probably at Winchester-school. In his eighteenth year he was removed to Oxford, and in May 1674 became a commoner of Hart-hall; the inducement to which might probably be, that his uncle was at the head of that seminary. However, he did not long continue there; for in the year following he was admitted a scholar of Wadham college. On the 27th of June, 1677, betook the degree of B. A. and in January 1680 he was chosen probationer fellow of Merton college. In the year 1681, was published Mr. Dvyden’s Absalom and Achitophel, a production on the celebrity of which we need not expatiate. At Oxford it could not fail to be greatly admired for its poetical merit; besjde which, it might be the better received on account of its containing a severe satire on the duke of Monmouth and the earl of Sbftftesboryj two men who were certainly no favourites with tnat loyal university. Accordingly, the admiration of the poem produced two Latin versions of it, both of which were written and printed at Oxford; one by Mr. Francis Atterbury (afterwards the celebrated bishop of Rochester), who was assisted in it by Mr. Francis Hickman, a student of Christchurch; and the other by Mr. Coward. These translations were published in quarto, in 1682. Whatever proof Mr. Coward’s version of the Absalom and Achitophel might afford oi“his progress in classical literature, he was not very fortunate in this first publication. It was compared with Mr. Atterbury’s production, not a little to its disadvantage. According to Anthony Wood, he was schooled for it in the college; it was not well received in the university; and Atterbury’s poem was extolled as greatly superior. To conceal, in some degree, Mr. Coward’s mortification, a friend of his, in a public paper, advertised the translation, as written by a Walter Curie, of Hertford, gentleman; yet Coward’s version was generally mistaken for Atterbury’s, and a specimen given of it in Stackhouse’s life of that prelate. On the 13th of December, 1683, Mr. Coward was admitted to the degree of M.A. Having determined to apply himself to the practice of medicine, he prosecuted his studies in that science, and took the degree of bachelor of physic on the 23d of June 1685, and of doctor on the 2,d of July 1687. After his quitting Oxford he exercised his profession at Northampton, from which place he removed to London in 1693 or 1694, and settled in Lombard-street. In 1695 he published a tract in 8vo, entitled” De fermento volatili nutritio conjectura rationis, qua ostenditur spiritum volatilemoleosum, e sanguine suffusurn, esse verum ac genuinum concoctionis ac nutritionis instrumentum.“For this work he^iad an honourable approbation from the president and censors of the college of physicians. But it was not to medical studies only that Dr. Coward confined his attention. Besides being fond of polite learning, he entered deeply into metaphysical speculations, especially with regard to the nature of the soul, and the natural immortality of man. The result of his inquiries was his publication, in 1702, under the fictitious name of Estibius Psycalethes, entitled” Second Thoughts concerning Human Soul, demonstrating the notion of human soul, as believed to be a spiritual immortal substance united to a human body, to be a plain heathenish invention, and not consonant to the principles of philosophy, reason, or religion; but the ground only of many absurd and superstitious opinions, abominable to the reformed church, and derogatory in general to true Christianity.“This work was dedicated by the doctor to the clergy of the church of England; and he professes at his setting out,” that the main stress of arguments, either to confound or support his opinion, must be drawn from those only credentials of true and orthodox divinity, the lively oracles of God, the Holy Scriptures.“In another part, in answer to the question, Does man die like a brute beast? he says,” Yes, in respect to their end in this life; both their deaths consist in a privation of life.“” But then,“he adds,” man has this prerogative or pre-eminence above a brute, that he will be raised to life again, and be made partaker of eternal happiness in the world to come.“Notwithstanding these professions to the authority of the Christian Scriptures, Dr. Coward has commonly been ranked with those who have been reputed to be the most rancorous and determined adversaries of Christianity. Swift has ranked him with Toland, Tindal, and Gildon; and passages to the like purpose are not unfrequent among controversial writers, especially during the former part of the last century. His denial of the immateriality and natural immortality of the soul, and of a separate state of existence between the time of death and the general resurrection, was so contrary to universal opinion, that it is not very surprising that he should be considered as an enemy to revelation. It might be expected that he would immediately meet with opponents; and accordingly he was attacked by various writers of different complexions and abilities; among whom were Dr. Nichols, Mr. John Broughton, and. Mr. John Turner. Dr. Nichols took up the argument in his” Conference with a Theist.“Mr. Broughton wrote a treatise entitled” Psychologia, or, an Account of the nature of the rational Soul, in two parts;“and Mr. Turner published a” Vindication of the separate existence of the Soul from a late author’s Second Thoughts.“Both these pieces appeared in 1703. Mr. Turner’s publication was answered by Dr. Coward, in a pamphlet called” Farther Thoughts upon Second Thoughts,“in which he acknowledges, that in Mr. Turner he had a rational and candid adversary. He had not the same opinion of Mr. Broughton who therefore was treated by him with severity, in” An Epistolary Reply to Mr. Broughton’s Psychologia;“which reply was not separately printed, but annexed to a work of the doctor’s, published in the beginning of the year 1704, and entitled,” The Grand Essay or, a Vindication of Reason and Religion against the impostures of Philosophy." In this last production, the idea of the human soul’s being an immaterial substance was again vigorously attacked.

The first occasion of his entering into business, was an elegy he wrote on the death of Mr. William Hervey. This brought him into the acquaintance of John Hervey, the brother of his deceased friend, from whom he received many offices of kindness, and principally this, that by his means he came into the service of the lord St. Alban’s. la 1643, being then M. A. he was, among many others, ejected his college and the university, by the prevalence f parliament; upon which, he retired to Oxford, settled in St. John’s college there, and that same year, under the name of an Oxford Scholar, published a satire entitled “The Puritan and the Papist.” His affection to the royal cause engaged him in the service of the king and he attended in several of his majesty’s journies and expeditions. Here he became intimately acquainted with lord Falkland, and other great men, whom the fortune of the war had drawn together. During the heat of the civil war, he was settled in the family of the earl of St. Alban’s, and attended the queen mother when she was forced to retire into France. He was absent from England about ten years, says Wood; about twelve, says Sprat; which, be they more or less, were wholly spent, either in bearing a share in the distresses of the royal family, or in labouring in their affairs. To this purpose he performed several dangerous journies into Jersey, Scotland, Flanders, Holland, and elsewhere; and was the principal instrument in maintaining a correspondence between the king and his royal consort, whose letters he cyphered and decyphered with his own hand, an employment of the highest confidence and honour.

, an ingenious and popular dramatic writer, the daughter of Mr. Philip Parkhouse, of Tiverton, in Devonshire, was born at that place in 1743. Her father was educated for holy orders, but a family loss depriving him of a certainty of provision in the church, he desisted from his first intention, and became a bookseller, as the nearest approach he could then prudently make to a life of some degree of literary enjoyment. He afterwards rose to be a member of the corporation of Tiverton, and was very highly respected as a man of talents and probity, and a good scholar. He was not very distantly related to the poet Gay, who recordshis visit to his relations in Devonshire in his “Journey to Exeter,” inscribed to the earl of Burlington. It was Mr. Parkhouse’s favourite aim to cultivate the promising talents of his daughter, and he lived to witness the reputation she acquired almost to the last period of her literary career. In her twenty -fifth year she was married to Mr. Cowley, a man of very considerable talents, who died in 1797, a captain in the East India company’s service. It was when he was with his regiment in India that she dedicated her comedy of “More Ways than One” to him, in the affectionate lines prefixed to it; and it was to this gentleman’s brother, an eminent merchant of London, now living, that “The Fate of Sparta” is dedicated with so much feeling.

1619, 4to. Fuller’s Abel Redivivus. Clarke’s Ecclesiastical History, p. 445. Hayley’s life of Cowper, To!. I. p. '2. 8vo edit. Mr. Hayley thinks it not improbable that he may have been an ancestor of the poet. waited upon the queen at St. James’s with the articles agreed upon between the commissioners, as the terms upon which the union was to take place, and made a speech to her majesty on the occasion. The articles of union, agreed upon by the commissioners, with some few alterations, were afterwards ratified by the parliaments both of England and Scotland. The lord-keeper had a very considera^le hand in this measure, and in consideration of that, and his general merit and services, he was advanced, Nov^ 9, 1706, to the dignity of a peer, by the style and title of lord Cowper, baron Cowper of Wingham in Kent; and on May 4, 1707, her majesty in council declared him lord high chancellor of Great Britain. In 1709, in consequence of the intrigues of Harley and Mrs. Masham, the earl of Sunderland, son-in-law to the duke of Marlborough, was removed from the office of secretary of state; and it being apprehended that this event would give disgust to that great general, and perhaps induce him to quit the command of the army, a joint letter was sent to his grace by lord Cowper, the dukes of Newcastle and Devonshire, and other noblemen, in which they conjured him in the strongest terms, not to quit his command. But soon after, on the 8th of August, 1710, the earl of Godolphin being removed from the post of lord-treasurer, the other whig ministers resigned with spirit and dignity. Lord Cowper, in particular, behaved with unexampled firmness and honour, rejecting with scorn the overtures which Harley, the new favourite, made to induce him to continue. When he waited on the queen to resign, she strongly opposed his resolution, and returned the seals three times after he had laid them down. At last, when she could not prevail, she commanded him to take them ' adding, “I beg it as a favour of you, if I may use that expression.” Cowper could not refuse to obey her commands: but, after a short pause, and taking up the seals, he said that he would not carry them out of the palace except on the promise, that the surrender of them would be accepted on the morrow: and on the following day his resignation was accepted. This singular contest between her majesty and him lasted three quarters of an hour.