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

, a French ecclesiastic of the eighteenth century, was a priest of the diocese of Rouen, and vicar of St. Lawrence in that city, where his talents and religious conduct being conspicuous, notwithstanding his modesty, he was appointed to the curacy of Trouville in Caux, which he would have declined, had not the lord of that parish, and the curate of St. Lawrence, represented to him the great need there was of a diligent and well-informed ecclesiastic in that situation, not only to recover the inhabitants from their extreme ignorance of religion, but to inspire the neighbouring curates with a disposition for employing their time to the advantage of their flocks. M. le Due succeeded in these respects beyond expectation; but, after having done all the good he could in his cure, which he called his mission, left it to the great regret of his parishioners, and went to Paris, where he was obliged to accept the vicarship of St. Paul, out of respect to M. Gueret, who succeeded M. Bourret, and had drawn him to that parish. In this situation he laboured with good success during fifteen years, but being interdicted by M. de Vintimelle, 1731, on account of his opposition to some of the decrees of the church, he retired to the parish of St. Severin, and there died, May 3, 1744. An abridgment of his life appeared in 1745, at Paris, 12mo, in which the following works are attributed to him: “L‘Anne’e Ecclesiastique,” 15 vols. 12mo; an “Imitation, with Reflexions, Exercises, and Prayers,” 12mo; a translation of cardinal Bona’s “Way to Heaven, and shortest Way to go to God,” 12mo; the translation of several hymns in the Paris Breviary and part of the translation of M. de Thou, 16 vols. 4to.

, an eminent English civilian and antiquary, was born in 1713 in Normandy; whence his father, who was descended from an ancient family at Caen in that province, came to England, soon after the birth of his second son James, and resided at Greenwich. The early rudiments of instruction he probably received in his own country. In 1729, being at that time a scholar at Eton, he was three months under the care of sir Hans Sloane, on account of an accident which deprived him of the sight of one eye. In 1731, he was admitted a gentleman-commoner of St. John’s college, Oxford; proceeded LL. B. June 1, 1738, and LL. D. Oct. 21, 1742; became a member of the college of Doctors Commons in November, 1743; and married, in 1749, Susanna a worthy woman, who had been his servant; and who survived him till Oct. 6, 1791, when she died in an advanced age.

The doctor’s first publication, though without his name, was “A Tour through Normandy, described in a letter to a friend,” 1754, 4to. This tour through part of his native country was undertaken, in company with Dr. Bever, in the summer of 1752; and his account of it, considerably enlarged, was re-published under the title of “Anglo-Norman Antiquities considered, in a Tour through part of Normandy, by Dr. Ducarel, illustrated with 27 copperplates, 1767,” fol. inscribed to Dr. Lyttelton, bishop of Carlisle, then president of the Society of Antiquaries. His lordship had first remarked, 1742, the difference between the mode of architecture used by the Normans in their buildings, and that practised by the contemporary Saxons in England; and the doctor’s observations, actually made on the spot ten years afterward, confirmed the rules then laid down. This ancient dependance of the English crown, with the many memorials in it by the English, was a favourite object of his contemplation. Its coinage was his next research; and he published “A series of above 200 Anglo-Gallic or Norman and Aquitaine Coins of the ancient kings of England, exhibited in sixteen copper-plates, and illustrated in twelve letters, addressed to the Society of Antiquaries of London, and several of its members; to which is added, a map of the ancient dominions of the Icings of England and France, with some adjacent countries, 1757,” 4to. His portrait, engraved by Perry, from a painting by A. Soldi, 1746, was first prefixed to this work, which was the result of his acquaintance with i\l. de Boze, keeper of the French king’s medals, and secretary of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres. (See Boze). In this undertaking- the doctor found himself seconded by sir Charles Frederick, who engraved all the Aquitaine coins in his possession, in 36 quarto plates, but without any description or letter-press, and intended only for private use, being little known before their circulation on his decease.

Dr. Ducarel had some view to forming a series of English medals, which, by admitting such as have been struck abroad relative to the history of this kingdom, he thought could be carried beyond the conquest, provided the medals proved genuine. But when he engaged Francis Perry to engrave a series, of which the late Mr. Hollis gave the outline, he began no earlier than Henry VIII. and closed it with James I. in ten plates. Three supplemental ones were afterwards published of the same period. Mr. Hollis intended it should be more extensive, by taking in the Roman medals: he, however, assisted Perry in his own. way. It was taken up by Mr. Snelling, who did not publish it in Mr. Hollis’s life-time. Mr. Snelling’s being a posthumous publication, there is no letter-press to accompany his 33 plates, which reach from the conquest to 1742. It will be easily seen that the medals of the first five kings are by Dassier. Another work which the doctor patronized was the “Series of ancient Windows,” engraved by Francis Perry, from the rude sketches of Aubrey in his ms collections, from a transcript made by Mr. Ames of an abstract of Aubrey’s four volumes of collections, taken by Mr. Hutchins for his private use, from the larger work in, the hands of Mr. Awnsham Churchill, of Henbury. In 1760 he printed, for private use, in 4to, an account of his friend Browne Willis, read at the Society of Antiquaries that year. A thick quarto volume of Dr. Willis’s letters to Dr. Ducarel is in the possession of Mr. Nichols.

A question being started by the hon. Daines Barrington, concerning trees indigenous to Great Britain, in the “Philosophical Transactions,” and the chesnut, elm, Him 1 and sycamore, box, abele, and yew, accounted non-indigenous; the doctor undertook the defence of the first of these trees, and to prove it a native here in which he was supported by his antiquarian friends Thorpe and Hasted, who, as Kentishinen, seern to have thought themselves more particularly interested in the dispute. His and their letters on the subject were printed in the “Philosophical Transactions,” vol. LXI.; and Mr. Harrington, in the next article, gave up the controversy, and Dr. Ducarel received great congratulations on his victory. His account of the early cultivation of botany in England, and more particularly of John Tradescant, a great promoter of that science, and of his monument and garden at Lambeth, appeared originally in the “Philosophical Transactions;” whence it is copied, in the “History of Lambeth,” with several improvements, communicated by the doctor to Mr. Nichols. Dr. DucarePs letter to Gerard Meerman, grand pensioner at the Hague, on the dispute concerning Corsellis, as the first printer in England, read at the Society of Antiquaries, 1760, and translated into Latin by Dr. Musgrave, with Mr. Meerman’s answer, were published in the second volume of Meerman’s “Origines Typographies, 1765,” and, with a second letter from Mr. Meerman, were given to the public by Mr. Nichols in a Supplement to his learned partner’s “Two Essays on the Origin of Printing, 1776.” Upon printing the new edition of bishop Gibson’s “Codex,” at the Clarendon press, 1761, the doctor collated the ms collections of precedents annexed to it with the originals at Lambeth, and elsewhere; in return for which, at his own desire, the delegates of the press presented him with two copies of the new edition handsomely bound. From the time of Dr. Ducarel’s appointment to be keeper of the library at Lambeth, his pursuits took a different turn to the ecclesiastical antiquities of this kingdom, and more particularly to those of the province of Canterbury, for which he was so well supplied with materials from that library. In 1761 he circulated printed proposals for publishing a general repertory of the endowments of vicarages, for the service both of vicars and their parishioners, as nothing conduces so much to ascertain their mutual rights as ancient original endowments, which are to be found in the registries of the bishop or dean and chapter of the diocese, or in the chartularies and register books of religious houses. He had proceeded so far as to set down, in alphabetical order, the name and date of every endowment in the registers of the see of Canterbury; and all such as he could discover in the public libraries, or in printed books. He therefore next solicited the like communications from the other diocesans, or from possessors of ancient records; and subjoined a specimen of his method, and a list of the endowments already discovered, in this inquiry the assistance he received was very considerable, and it was at one time in contemplation to print an account of all these several registers, in a volume of his epistolary correspondence with some of the first characters in literature, accompanied with several valuable antiquarian tracts collected by Dr. Ducarei. The proposal for publishing the general repertory of endowments of vicarages, originally circulated, with a specimen annexed, in a single sheet, 4to, dated Dec. 3, 1761, was prefixed (with a new date, Dec. 23, 1762) to “A Repertory of the Endowments of Vicarages in the Diocese of Canterbury, 1763,” 4to, printed for the benefit of the charity-school at Canterbury; of which Mr. Gough had the doctor’s copy, with considerable additions in ms. by him, which were all incorporated into a second edition in 8vo, 1782; to which were added, endowments of vicarages in the diocese of Rochester. In a letter to the rev, Mr. Cole, of Milton, 1757, he says, “I hope, within this year, to have about twelve dioceses ready for the press;” and in another, to the rev. Dr. Cox Macro, 1763, he tells him he had eleven other dioceses then ready. In 1768 he appears to have entertained thoughts of going to press with these collections. In 1763 he drew up an account of the Mss. in the Norfolk library belonging to the royal society, amounting to 563, including 45 then first catalogued. On this occasion he was of a committee with lord Charles Cavendish and the late Dr. Birch. Jn the same year he was appointed by the lords commissioners of the Treasury, at the head of whom Mr. Grenville then was, in conjunction with sir Joseph Ayloffe, bart. and Mr. Astle, to digest and methodize the records of the state paper office at Whitehall; and afterwards those in the augmentationofh'ce. A calendar of the records of the latter, in two volumes, folio, was purchased at his sale for the Bodleian library. In 1766, he communicated to the society of antiquaries a paper on Bezants; which bishop Lyttleton, in a letter to him, styled “curious and elaborate.”

The share he took in the Rowleian discovery and controversy, of which he entertained what is now the general opinion, may be seen in the Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. LVI. pp. 361, 362, 461 464, 544—547, 530, 859 where is printed, his correspondence with Mr. Chapman, rector of Weston near Bath, bishop Percy, Mr. Barrett, the historian of Bristol, whose credulity in these matters was notorious, and Mr. Whitaker. In 1776 was printed, for private use, “A list of various editions of the Bible and parts thereof, in English, from 1526 to 1776,” in a single sheet, 8vo; and an improved edition, 1778, at the expence of archbishop Cornwallis. This little tract owed its rise to a list of English Bibles copied from one compiled Ly Mr. Ames, from 1526 to 1757, presented by Dr. Gifford to the Lambeth library. It was completed by Dr. Ducarel from his own observations, and the later discoveries of his learned friends, Dr. Percy, bishop of Droniore, and Mr. Tutet. Mr. Nichols also, and Mr. Herbert, editor of the new edition of Ames’s “Typographical Antiquities,” contributed not a few articles from their own collections. The account of Dr. Stukeley and his writings prefixed to the second volume of his Itinerary, published 1776, was drawn up by Dr. Ducarel, who also prepared an epitaph for him.

The doctor gave a ms abstract of the large history of the Benedictine abbey of Bee in Normandy, drawn up by Dom John Bourget (see Bourget), monk of that house, and F. A. S. of London, to Mr. Nichols, who printed it in 1771', 8vo, with an appendix of original deeds; and who likewise printed, in the same year, in two volumes, 8vo. “Some account of the Alien Priories, and of such lands as they are known to have possessed in England and Wales,” collected by John Warburton, esq. Somerset herald, and Dr. Ducarel (who did not, however, at the time, permit his name to be mentioned); and considerably augmented by Mr. Gough and some other learned friends of the publisher; to which was prefixed, a general description of the seven Norman cathedrals, with very neat prints of them, The very useful and excellent “Collection of Royal and Noble Wills,” from the conqueror to Henry VII. printed by Mr. Nichols in 1780, was given to the world in consequence of the suggestions of Dr. Ducarel; from whose stores the far greater part of the materials was purchased by the printer at a very considerable price.

His memoirs of archbishop Hutton and his family, fairly written, were purchased at his sale, by the rev. Dr. Lort, for the Hutton family. In May 1757 he was appointed to the place of librarian at Lambeth (to which a salary of 30l. per annum is annexed) under archbishop Hutton; and the catalogues of that valuable collection are not a little benefited by his diligence and abilities. The catalogue begun by bishop Gibson, while librarian here, and continued by Dr. Wilkins with the greatest minuteness, was perfected by him to his own time; a distinct catalogue made of the books of archbishop Seeker, who expended above 300l. in arranging and improving the ms library and printed books here; and another, in three volumes folio, of the pamphlets and tracts bound up by the direction of archbishop CornwaLlis; and of the library of Mss. the catalogue begun by Dr. Wilkins, 720, and continued by succeeding librarians to No. 888, he extended to No. 1147, in two volumes. In 1757, he addressed to archbishop Seeker a letter concerning the first edition of archbishop Parker’s valuable book, “De Antiquitate Britannicae Ecclesiae,” now in the ms library at Lambeth, No. 959, giving an account of a great many ancient deeds, ms notes, &c. &c. contained therein. This letter is printed at large in the appendix to his “History of Lambeth Palace.”

He was engaged also in arranging and indexing above 30 folio volumes of leases, papers, &c. and such was his assiduity in whatever he undertook, that, besides the fair copy of the index by him taken of all the Lambeth registers, and the general index which he made to them, he reserved for himself another, which at his sale became the property of Mr. Gough, and at the sale of the latter was bought for the British Museum. It contains in 48 volumes folio, neatly bound, an account of every instrument relative to the see, province, and diocese of Canterbury, from Pecham to Herring; and, with a great variety of other materials amassed by the doctor, may be justly styled a fund of ecclesiastical antiquities for that province in particular, and for the kingdom at large. In this laborious undertaking he was materially assisted by the industry of his friend Mr. Howe-Mores; by Mr. Hall, his predecessor in the office of librarian; and by Mr. Pouncey, who for many years was his assistant, as clerk and deputy librarian. Dr. Ducarel had an intention of publishing his abstract of archbishop Pecham’s register; and the rough draught of a Latin title, with a preface or dedication to archbishop Herring, together with a copy of the abstract, and various notes by Mr. Mores, came to Mr. Gough by purchase, at Mr. Mores’ s sale.

Dr. Ducarel’s great researches into antiquities occasioned his assistance to be courted on many publications, particularly that of Dr. Burton’s “Monasticon Eboracense.” He also was a candidate for the employment of arranging Mr. Bridges’s Northamptonshire papers, with the late rev. Peter Whalley, and with the late rev. Mr. Buckler, of All-souls college. A catalogue of the Mss. was sent him; and the general sense of the committee was in favour of Mr. Buckler; but at the meeting, on the ballot, Mr. Whalley had live votes, Mr. Buckler four, and Dr. Ducarel three, out of the thirteen who attended. He had drawn up also, an account of Doctors-commons, and, as an appendix to it, complete lists of the different chancellors of the several dioceses of this kingdom, as high as the registers go, in folio, which were so nearly ready for publication, that he repeatedly promised them with that express intention to Mr. Nichols, who, at the doctor’s request, caused complete indexes to be made to both. The materials for both these were among his collections in Mr. Cough’s library. Another work which he intended for Mr. Nichols’s press, and for which an index was in like manner made, was “Testamenta Lambethana; being a complete list of all the wills and testaments recorded in the archiepiscopal register at Lambeth, from A. D. 1312, to A. D. 163G, extracted by Dr. Ducarel, F. R. and A. Ss. Lambeth librarian, &c. with a complete index, A. D. 1779.”

For many years it was his custom to travel incognito in August, with his friend Samuel Gale, esq. attended only by his own coachman and Mr. Gale’s footman, George Monk. Twenty miles was their usual stage on the first day, and every other day about fifteen. It was a rule not to go out of their road to see any of their acquaintance. The coachman was directed to say, “it was a job; and that he did not know their names, but that they were civil gentlemen;” and the footman, “that he was a friend of the coachman’s, who gave him a cast.” They usually took up their quarters at an inn, and penetrated into the country for three or four miles round. After dinner, Mr. Gale smoked his pipe, whilst Dr. Ducarel took notes, which he regularly transcribed, and which after his death were purchased by Mr. Gough. They constantly took with them Camden’s Britannia, and a set of maps. In Vertue’s plate of London-bridge chapel, the figure measuring is Dr. Ducarel; that standing is Mr. Samuel Gale.

, was a Greek historian, concerning the life of whom it is only known that he was employed inseveral negotiations. He wrote a history, which is still extant, of the Grecian empire, from the reign of the elder Andronicus, to the fall of that empire. Ducas is preferred to Chalcondylas, though he writes in a barbarous style, because he relates facts not to be found elsewhere, and was an attentive witness of what passed. His work was printed at the Louvre, in 1649, folio, under the care of Ismael Bouillaud, who accompanied it with a Latin version and learned notes. The president Cousin translated it afterwards into French, and it concludes the 8th volume of his History of Constantinople, printed at Paris, in 1672 and 1674, 4to; and reprinted in Holland, 16S5, 12mo.

, was an artist who flourished in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, but in what school he was educated is uncertain. Sigismondo Tizio, of Castiglione, who lived at Siena from 1482 to 1528, in his histories, speaks of him as the first artist of his time, (1311), and makes him a pupil of Segna, a name as celebrated once as now obscure. The works of Duccio are from 1275, the year in which he received a commission for S. Maria Novella at Florence, to 1311, the period at which he was employed in the cathedral of Siena, to paint the principal altar-piece, a work that still exists, which marks probably an epoch of art, at which he laboured three years, and for which he was paid upward of 3000 scudi d'oro, the expence of gilding and ultramarine included. That part of it which faced the audience, represented in large figures the Madonna and various saints; that which fronted the choir, divided into many compartments, exhibited numerous compositions of gospel subjects in figures of small proportions: it cannot be denied, that with all its copiousness, the whole savours strongly of the Greek manner. Duccio is celebrated as the restorer of that inlaid kind of Mosaic, called “lavoro di commesso,” which composes the floor of the dome of Siena.

, a very extraordinary person, who from a thresher became a poet, and was afterwards advanced to the cure of a parish, was born about the beginning of the last century, and had originally no other teaching than what enabled him to read and write English: and, as arithmetic is generally joined with this degree of learning, he had a little share of that too. About his fourteenth year he was taken from school, and was afterwards successively engaged in the several lowest employments of a country life, which lasted so long, that he had almost forgot all the arithmetic he had learned at school. However, he read sometimes, and thought oftener: he had a certain longing after knowledge; and, when he reflected within himself on his want of education, he began to be particularly uneasy, that he should have forgot any thing of what he had learned, even at his little school. He thought of this so often, that, at last, he resolved to try his own strength; and, if possible, to recover his arithmetic again.

He was then about 24 years of age; was married, and at service: he had little time to spare: he had no books, and no money to get any; but used to work more than other day-labourers, by which means he got some little matter added to his pay. This overplus was at his own disposal; and with this he bought first a book of vulgar arithmetic, then one of decimal, and a third of measuring land; of all which, by degrees, he made himself a tolerable master, in those hours he could steal from sleep after the labours of the day. He had, it seems, one dear friend, who joined with him in this literary pursuit; and with whom he used to talk and read, when they could steal a little time for it. This friend had been in a service at London for two or three years, and had an inclination to books, as well as Stephen Duck. He had purchased some, and brought them down with him into the country; and Stephen had always the use of his little library, which in time was increased to two or three dozen of books. “Perhaps,” says his historian, Mr. Spence, “you would be willing to know, what books their little library consisted of. I need not mention those of arithmetic again, nor his Bible. Milton, the Spectators, and Seneca, were his first favourites; Telemachus, with another piece by the same hand, and Addisou’s Defence of Christianity, his next. They had an English dictionary, and a sort of English grammar, an Ovid of long standing with them, and a Bysshe’s Art of Poetry of later acquisition. Seneca’s Morals made the name of L'Estrange dear to them; and, as I imagine, might occasion their getting his Joseph us in folio, which was the largest purchase in their whole collection. They had one volume of Shaksneare, with seven of his plays in it. Besides these, Stephen had read three or four other plays; some of Epictetus. Waller, Dryden’s Virgil, Prior, Hudibras, Tom Browne, and the London Spy.”

With these helps Stephen grew something of a poet, and something of a philosopher. He had from his infancy a cast in his mind towards poetry, as appeared from several little circumstances; but what gave him a higher taste of it than he had been used to, was Milton’s Paradise Lost. This he read over twice or thrice with a dictionary before he could understand the language of it thoroughly; and this, with a sort of English grammar he had, is said to have been of the greatest use to him. It was his friend that helped him to the Spectators; which, as he himself owned, improved his understanding more than any thing. The pieces of poetry scattered in those papers helped on his natural bent that way; and made him willing to try whether he could not do something like them. He sometimes turned his own thoughts into verse, while he was at wo;k and at la>-t bo;,an to venture those thoughts a little upon paper. The thing took air; and Stephen, who had before the name of a scholar among the country people, was said now to be able to write verses too. This was mentioned accidentally, about 1729, before a gentleman of Oxford, who sent for Stephen and, after some talk with him, desired him to write him a letter in verse. He did so; and that letter is the epistle which stands the last in his poems, though the first whole copy of verses that ever he wrote.

By these attempts, one after another, he became known to the clergymen in the neighbourhood; who, upon examining him, found that he had a great deal of merit, made him some presents, and encouraged him to go on. At length some of his essays falling into the hands of a lady of quality who attended on queen Caroline, he became known to her majesty, who took him under her protection, and settled on him a yearly pension, supposed to be of 30l.; it was such a one at least as was sufficient to maintain him independently of labour. This Duck very gratefully acknowledges in the dedication of his poems to the queen “Your majesty,” says he, “has indeed the same right to them, as you have to the fruits of a tree, which you have transplanted out of a barren soil into a fertile and beautiful garden. It was your generosity which brought me out of obscurity, and still condescends to protect me; like the Supreme Being, who continual‘.;,’ supports the meanest creature which his goodness has produced.” Swift, who might, one would think, easily have overlooked such an object as Duck, but whose spleen prompted him to be satirical on any occasion or none, was so piqued at this generosity in the queen, while we suppose he thought himself and his own friends neglected, that he wrote the following quibbling epigram, as he calls it, “on Stephen Duck, the thresher and favourite poet:”

Though 'tis confess’d, that those who ever saw

In 1733 the queen made him one of the yeomen of the guards, from which situation, by a singular, and, we think, absurd transition, he was admitted into orders, and preferred to the living of Byfleet in Surrey. The only qualification for this office which his biographers mention, is a small knowledge of Latin, not enough surely to justify such an abuse of church patronage. Before this he was appointed keeper of the queen’s select library at Richmond, called Merlin’s Cave, where he had apartments, which were continued to his daughter after his decease. Here and at Byfleet he continued for many years to make poems and sermons, and was much followed by the people as a preacher; till, falling at length into a low-spirited melancholy way, he flung himself into the Thames from a bridge near Reading, or, as some say, into a trout stream, which is near Reading, and was drowned. This unhappy accident, for he was perfectly lunatic, befell him some time in March or April, 1756. In the preface to his poems he makes his acknowledgments to some gentleman who “first took notice of him in the midst of poverty and labour.” What those gentlemen did was highly generous and praise-worthy, and it was but gratitude in Stephen to acknowledge it yet it is more than probable, that if he had been suffered to pass the remainder of his lite, after he had spent so much of it, in poverty and labour, he had lived and died more happily. It was thought that his melancholy proceeded from a notion that he had not been sufficiently provided for, and if so, his injudicious patrons must have flattered him into a very false estimate of his merit. Warton says that Spence, who wrote Duck’s life and published his poems, was the means of his obtaining the living of Byfleet; and such was the taste of the courtiers of queen Caroline, that they actually wished to set up this poor versifier as a rival to Pope. But although, to use Warburton’s sarcastic language, “queen Caroline, who moderated, as a sovereign, between the two great philosophers, Clarke and Leibnitz, in the most sublime points in metaphysics and natural philosophy, chose this man for her favourite poet,” it was beneath such a man as Spence to persuade poor Duck that he merited the higher rewards of genius. Few men, if we may judge from his works, had ever less pretensions.

, born at Dinant in Bretagne, about the close of 1705, the son of a hatter, received a distinguished education at Paris. His taste for literature obtained him admission to the most celebrated academies of the metropolis, of the provinces, and of foreign countries. Being chosen to succeed Mirabaud, as perpetual secretary of the French academy, he filled that post as a man who was fond of literature, and had the talent of procuring it respect. Though domesticated at Paris, he was appointed in 1744 mayor of Dinant; and in 1755 had a patent of nobility granted him by the king, in reward for the zeal which the states of Bretagne had shewn for the service of the country. That province having received orders to point out such subjects as were most deserving of the favours of the monarch, Duclos was unanimously named by the tiers-6tat. He died at Paris, March 26, 1772, with the title of historiographer of France. His conversation was at once agreeable, instructive and lively. He reflected deeply, and expressed his thoughts with, energy, and illustrated them by well selected anecdotes. Lively and impetuous by nature, he was frequently the severe censor of pretensions that had no foundation. But age, experience, intercourse with society, a great fund of good sense, at length taught him to restrict to mankind in general those hard truths which never fail to displease individuals. His austere probity, from whence proceeded that bluntness for which he was blamed in company, his beneficence, and his other virtues, gave him a right to the public esteem. “Few persons,” says M. le prince de Beauvau, “better knew the duties and the value of friendship. He would boldly serve his friends and neglected merit on such occasions he displayed an art which excited no distrust, and which would not have been expected in a man who his whole life long chose rather to shew the truth with force, than to insinuate it with address.” At first he was of the party which went under the name of the philosophers; but the excesses of its leader, and of some of his subalterns, rendered him somewhat more circumspect. Both in his conversation and in his writings he censured those presumptuous writers, who, under pretence of attacking superstition, undermine the foundations of morality, and weaken the bands of society. Once, speaking on this subjert, “these enthusiastic philosophers,” said he, “will proceed such lengths, as at last to make me devout.” Besides, he was too fond of his own peace and happiness to follow them in their extravagancies, and placed no great value on their friendship or good will. “Duclos est a la fois droit et adroit,” said one of his philosophical friends, and it was in consequence of this prudence, that he never would publish any tiling of what he wrote as historiographer of France. “Whenever I have been importuned,” said he, “to bring out some of my writings on the present reign, I have uniformly answered, that I was resolved neither to ruin myself by speaking truth, nor debase myself by flattery. However, I do not the less discharge my duty. If I cannot speak to my contemporaries, I will shew the rising generation what their fathers were.” Indeed, we are told that he did compose the history of the reign of Lewis XV. and that after his death it was lodged in the hands of the minister. The preface to this work may be seen in the first vol. of the “Pieces inte>essantes” of M. de la Place. Duclos’s works consist of some romances, which have been much admired in. France; 1. “The Confessions of count ***.” 2. “The baroness de Luz.” 3. “Memoirs concerning the Manners of the eighteenth Century;” each in 1 vol. 12mo. 4. <l Acajou;“in 4to and 12mo, with plates. In the Confessions he has given animation and action to what appeared rather dry and desultory in his” Considerations on the Manners.“Excepting two or three imaginary characters, more fantastical than real, the remainder seems to be the work of a master. The situations, indeed, are not so well unfolded as they might have been; the author has neglected the gradations, the shades; and the romance is not sufficiently dramatical. But the interesting story of madame de Selve proves that M. Duclos knew how to finish as well as to sketch. His other romances are inferior to the” Confessions.“The memoirs relating to the manners of the eighteenth century abound in just observations on a variety of subjects. Acajou is no more than a tale, rather of the grotesque species, but well written. 5.” The History of Lewis XI.“1745, 3 vols. 12mo; and the authorities, an additional volume, 1746, contain curious matter. The style is concise and elegant, but too abrupt and too epigrammatical. Taking Tacitus for his model, whom, by the way, he approaches at a veryhumble distance, he has been less solicitous about the exact and circumstantial particularization of facts, than their aggregate compass, and their influence on the manners, laws, customs, and revolutions of the state. Though his diction has been criticised, it must be confessed that his lively and accurate narration, perhaps at the same time rather dry, is yet more supportable than that ridiculous pomp of words which almost all the French authors have employed in a department where declamation and exaggeration are the greatest defects. 6.” Considerations on the Manners of the present Century,“12mo; a book replete with just maxims, accurate definitions, ingenious discussions, novel thoughts, and well-drawn characters, although the style is sometimes obscure, and there is here and there an affectation of novelty, in which a writer of consummate taste would not have indulged; but these defects are amply compensated by a zeal for truth, honour, probity, beneficence, and all the moral and social virtues. Lewis XV. said of this book,” It is the work of a worthy man.“7.” Remarks on the general Grammar of PortRoyal.“In these he shews himself a philosophical grammarian. 7.” Voyage en Italie,“1791, 8vo. This trip he took in 1767 and 1768. 8.” Memoirs secrets sur les regnes de Louis XIV et Louis XV. 1791," 2 vols. 8vo, in which are many curious anecdotes and bold facts. He wrote also several dissertations in the Memoirs of the academy of belles-lettres, which contain much eruuiti Hi, qualified by the charms of wit, and ornamented by a diction clear, easy, correct, and always adapted to the subject. Duclos had a greater share than any other in the edition of 1762 of the Dictionary of the French Academy; in which his usual accuracy and judgment are everywhere apparent and he had begun a continuation of the history of that society. His whole works were collected for the first time, and printed at Paris in 1806, 10 vols. 8vo, with a life by M. Auger, and many pieces left by him in manuscript. This edition appears to have revived his fame in France, and made him be enrolled among her standard authors.

, an eminent prelate, was born Feb. 6, 1533, at Buda, and educated by his uncle, who was bishop of Vaccia, or Veitzen, and out of respect to him he took the name of Shardellet. In 1560 the emperor Ferdinand II. admitted Dudith into his council, and appointed him bishop of Tina. He was sent soon after to the council of Trent, in the name of the emperor, and all the Hungarian clergy; and there made a very eloquent speech, April 9, 1568, which was heard with great pleasure. But this was not the case with another speech which he delivered in that place on July 6; for, though he shewed great zeal for the pope, and exclaimed strongly against Luther, yet he expressed himself so freely, both there and in his common conversation, on the necessity of episcopal residence, and in favour of marriage among the clergy, and administering the cup in the sacrament, that the legates, apprehensive of his drawing many prelates to his opinion, wrote to the pope, informing him, that Dudith was a dangerous man, and that it was necessary he should leave Trent. Upon tnis the pope solicited the emperor to recall him, which he accordingly did: but Ferdinand, far from blaming his conduct, rewarded it with the bishopric of Chonat, and soon after gave him that of five churches. This prince dying 1564, Dudith was sent by Maximilian II. into Poland, whither he nad been sent before by Ferdinand, and privately married lleyna Strazzi, maid of honour to the queen, resigning his bishopric. Rome cited him, excommunicated him, and even condemned him to the flames as an heretic, yet he despised her threats, and remained in security. After the death of his first wife, by whomhehadthreechildren, he married in 1579, a lady descended from an illustrious Polish family, widow of count John Zarnow, and sister of the famous Sborowits, by whom also he had children. Dudith, at length, openly professed the reformed religion, and even became a Socinian, according to most authors, particularly of the modern school^ who seem proud of their convert; but the fact is denied by the writer of his life, who, on the contrary, asserts, he disputed strongly against Socinus. He then settled at Breslaw in Silesia, where he died February 23, 1589, aged 56. Dudith, according to the representations both of his friends and enemies, was a handsome well-made man, of a peaceable disposition; civil, affable, regular in his conduct, very charitable to the poor, and benevolent towards all mankind. He had a taste for the classics, and so great a veneration for Cicero, that he wrote all that orator’s works, three times over, with his own hand. He likewise understood several languages, and was well acquainted with history, philosophy, mathematics, physic, law, and divinity. He left a great number of works: the principal are, “Dissertationes de Cometis,” Utrecht, 1665, 4to; two discourses, delivered at the council of Trent; an apology for the emperor Maximilian II. &c. published with other tracts, and his Life by Reuter, 1610, 4to. He published also, the Life of cardinal Pole, translated from the Italian of Beccatelli. Several of Dudith’s letters and poems occur in the collections.

, a celebrated lawyer and statesman, in the reign of Henry VII. was born in 1462. Some have said, that he was the son of a mechanic: but this notion probably took its rise from prejudices conceived against him for his mal-administrations in power; for he was of the ancient family of the Dudleys, and his father was sir John Dudley, second son of John Dudley, baron of Dudley, and knight of the garter. About the age of sixteen he was sent to Oxford, where he spent some time and afterwards removed to Gray’s-inn in London, in order to prosecute the study of the law. This he did with great diligence, and came at length to be considered as so able a person in his profession, as to induce Henry VII. to take him very early into his service. It is said that fur his singular prudence and fidelity he was sworn of the king’s privy-council in his 23d year, which some think too early a period: it is, however, asserted by Polydore Vergil, who was then in England. In 1492 we find him one of those great men in the king’s army near Boiogne, who were chiefly instrumental in making a peace with France; and that two years after he obtained the wardship and marriage of Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Grey, viscount L‘lsle, sister and coheiress of John viscount L’lsle, her brother. In 1499 he was one of those who signed the ratification of the peace just mentioned, by the authority of parliament; which shows that he was, if not in great credit with his country, at least in high favour with his prince, whom he particularly served in helping to fill his coffers, under the colour of law, though with very little regard to equity and justice. All our general histories have handled this matter so in the gross, that it is very difficult to learn from them wherein the crimes of Empson and Dudley consisted: but Bacon, who understood it well, relates every circumstance freely and fully in the following manner: “As kings do more easily find instruments for their will and humour, than for their service and honour, he had gotten for his purpose, or beyond his purpose, two instruments, Empson and Dudley, bold men, and careless of fame, and that took toll for their master’s grist. Dudley was of a good family, eloquent, and one that could put hateful business into good language; but Empson, that was the son of a sievemaker, triumphed always in the deed done, putting off all other respects whatsoever. These two persons, being lawyers in science, and privy-counsellors in authority, turned law and justice into wormwood and rapine. For, first, their manner was to cause divers subjects to be indicted for sundry crimes, and so far forth to proceed in form of law; but, when the bills were found, then presently to commit them: and, nevertheless, not to produce them in any reasonable time to their answer, but to suffer them to languish long in prison, and, by sundry artificial devices and terrors, to extort from them great fines and ransoms, which they termed compositions and mitigations. Neither did they, towards the end, observe so much as the half face of justice in proceeding by indictment, but sent forth their precepts to attach men, and convent them before themselves and some others, at their private houses, in a court of commission; and there used to shuffle up a summary proceeding by examination, without trial of jury, assuming to themselves there, to deal both in pleas of the crown and controversies civil. Then did they also use to enthral and charge the subjects’ lands with tenures in capite, by finding false offices, and thereby to work upon them by wardships, liveries, premier seisins, and alienations, being the fruits of those tenures, refusing, upon divers pretexts and delays, to admit men to traverse those false offices according to the law. Nay, the king’s wards, after they had accomplished their full age, could not be suffered to have livery of their lands, without paying excessive fines, far exceeding all reasonable rates. They did also vex men with informations of intrusion, upon scarce colourable titles. When men were outlawed in personal actions, they would not permit them to purchase their charters of pardon, except they paid great and intolerable sums, standing upon the strict point of law, which, upon outlawries, giveth forfeiture of goods: nay, contrary to all law and colour, they maintained the king ought to have the half of men’s lands and rents, during the space of full two years, for a pain, in case of outlawry. They would also ruffle with jurors, and enforce them to find as they would direct and, if they did not, convent them, imprison them, and fine them.”

In the parliament held in 1504, Dudley was speaker of the house of commons; and in consideration, as it may be presumed, of his great services to his master in this high station, we find that two years after he obtained a grant of the stewardship of the rape of Hastings, in the county of Sussex. This was one of the last favours he received from his master who, at the close of his life, is said to have been so much troubled at the oppressions and extortions of these ministers, that he was desirous to make restitution to such as had been injured, and directed the same by his will. Some writers have taken occasion from hence to free that monarch from blame, throwing it all upon Empson and Dudley: but others, and Bacon among them, have very plainly proved, that they did not lead or deceive him in this affair, but only acted under him as instruments. The king died at Richmond the 2 1st of April, 1509, and was scarcely in his grave, when Dudley was sent to the Tower; the clamour of the people being so great, that this step was absolutely necessary to quiet them though Stow seems to think that both he and Empson were decoyed into the Tower, or they had not been so easily taken. At the same time, numbers of their subordinate instruments were seized, imprisoned, tried, and punished. J-;ly the same year, Dudley was arraigned, and found guilty of high treason before commissioners assembled in Guildhall. The king, taking a journey afterwards into the country, found himself so much incommoded by the general outcry of his people, that he caused Empson to be carried into Northamptonshire where, October following, he was also tried and convicted, and then remanded back to the Tower. In the parliament of January 1510, Dudley and Empson were both attainted of high treason; but the king was unwilling to execute them; and Stow informs us, that a rumour prevailed, that queen Catharine had interposed, and procured Dudley’s pardon. The clamours of the people continually increasing, being rather heightened than softened by seeing numbers of mean fellows, whom they had employed as informers and witnesses, convicted and punished, while themselves were spared, the king was at last obliged k> order them for execution and accordingly they both lost their heads upon Tower-hill, Aug. 18, 1510.

, son of the preceding, baron of Maipas, viscount L‘Isle, earl of Warwick, and duke of Northumberland, was born in 1502, and afterwards became one of the most powerful subjects this kingdom ever saw. At the time his father was beheaded, he was about eight years old; and it being known that the severity exercised in that act was rather to satisfy popular clamour than justice, his friends found no great difficulty in obtaining from the parliament, that his father’s attainder might be reversed, and himself restored in blood; for which purpose a special act was passed in 1511. After an education suitable to his quality, he was introduced at court in 15-23, where, having a line person, and great accomplishments, he soon became admired. He attended the king’s favourite, Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, in his expedition to France; and distinguished himself so much by his gallant behaviour, that he obtained the honour of knighthood. He attached himself to cardinal Wolsey, whom he accompanied in his embassy to France; and he was also in great confidence with the next prime minister, lord Cromwell. The fall of these eminent statesmen one after another, did not at all affect the favour or fortune of sir John Dudley, who had great dexterity in preserving their good graces, without embarking too far in their designs; preserving always a proper regard for the sentiments of his sovereign, which kept him in full credit at court, in the midst of many changes, as well of men as measures. In 1542, he was raised to the dignity of viscount L’Isle, and at the next festival of St. George, was elected knight of the garter. This was soon after followed by a much higher instance both of kindness and trust; for the king, considering his uncommon abilities and courage, and the occasion he had then for them, made him lord high admiral of England for life; and in this important post he did many singular services. He owed all his honours and fortune to Henry VII L and received from him, towards the close of his reign, very large grants of church lands, which, however, created him many enemies. He was also named by king Henry in his will, to be one of his sixteen executors; and received from him a legacy of 500l. which was the highest he bestowed on any of them.

After the death of Henry, which happened January 31, 1547, the earl of Hertford, afterwards duke of Somerset, who was the young king’s uncle, without having any regard to Henry’s will, procured himself to be declared protector of the kingdom, and set on foot many projects. Among the first, one was to get his brother, sir Thomas Seymour, made high-admiral, in whose favour the lord viscount L'Isle was obliged to resign; but in lieu thereof, was created earl of Warwick, and made great chamberlain of England; favours which he undoubtedly did not think a recompense for the loss he sustained; and his aversion to the protector probably may be dated from this period. Afterwards troubles came on, and insurrections broke out in several parts of the kingdom. In Devonshire the insurgents were so strong that they besieged the city of Exeter; and before they could be reduced by the lord Russel, a new rebellion broke out in Norfolk, under the command of one Robert Ket, a tanner, who was very soon at the head of ten thousand men. The earl of Warwick, whose reputation was very high in military matters, was ordered to march against the latter. He defeated them, and killed about a thousand of them: but they, collecting their scattered parties, offered him battle a second time. The earl marched directly towards them; but when he was on the point of engaging, he sent them a message, that “he was sorry to see so much courage expressed in so bad a cause; but that, notwithstanding what was past, they might depend on the king-'s pardon, on delivering up their leaders.” To which they answered, that “he was a nobleman of so much worth and generosity, that if they might have this assurance from his own mouth, they were willing to submit.” The earl accordingly went among them; upon which they threw down their arms, delivered up Robert Ket, and his brother William, with the rest of their chiefs, who were hanged, and the other rebels were dispersed.

This great politician had now raised himself as high as it was possible in point of dignity and power: the ascendancy he had gained over the young king was so great, that he directed him entirely at his pleasure; and he had with such dexterity wrought most of the great nobility into his interests, and had so humbled and depressed all who shewed any dislike to him, that he seemed to have every thing to hope, and little to fear. And such indeed was the case, while that king lived; but when he discerned his majesty’s health to decline apace, it was very natural for him to consider how he might secure himself and his family. This appears plainly from the hurry with which the marriage was concluded with the lady Jane Grey, eldest daughter nf the duke of Suffolk, and his fourth son, lord Guildford Dudley; which was celebrated in May, 1553, not above two months before the kin^ died. He had been some time contriving that plan for the disposal of the kingdom, which. he carried afterwards into execution, in the parliament held a little before the king’s death, he procured a considerable supply to be granted; and, in the preamble of that act, caused to be inserted a direct censure of the duke of Somerset’s administration. Then, dissolving thai parliament, he applied himself to the king, and shewed him the necessity of setting the lady Mary aside, from the danger the protestant religion would be in, if she should succeed him; in which, from the piety of that young prince, he found no great difficulty. Burnet says, he did not well understand how the king was prevailed on to pass by his sister Elizabeth, who had been always much in his favour; yet, when this was done, there was another difficulty in the way. The duchess of Suffolk was next heir, who might have sons; and therefore, to bar these in favour of lady Jane Dudley seemed to be unnatural, as well as illegal. But the duchess herself contributed, as far as in her lay, to remove this obstacle, by devolving her right upon her daughter, even if she had male issue; and this satisfied the king. The king’s consent being obtained, the next point was to procure a proper instrument to be drawn by the judges; in doing which, the duke of Northumberland made use of threats as well as promises; and, when done at last, it was in such a manner as plainly shewed it to be illegal in their own opinions.

Such was the end of this potent nobleman, who, with the title of a duke, exercised for some time a power little inferior to that of a king; of whom it may be said, that though he had many great and good qualities, yet they were much overbalanced by his vices. He had a numerousissue, eight sons and five daughters; of whom some went before him to the grave; others survived, and lived to see a great change in their fortunes. John earl of Warwick was condemned with his father, but reprieved and released out of the Tower; and, going to his brother’s house at Penshurst, in Kent, died there two days after. Ambrose and Robert were both very remarkable men, of whom we shall give some account; Guiklford, who married lady Jane Grey in May, 1553, lost his life, as well as his unfortunate lady, upon the scaffold, the 12th of Feb. following. (See Grey). The others, Henry and Charles, died unmarried, as did the daughters Margaret, Temperance, and Cathesine but Mary was married to sir Henry Sidney, K. G. and another Catherine to Henry Hastings, earl of Huntingdon. The duke’s widow, after being turned out of doors, and encountering many hardships, obtained some relief from the court, on which she subsisted until her death, at Chelsea, Jan. 22, 1555.

, son of John duke of Northumberland, afterwards baron L‘Isle, and earl of Warwick, was born about 1530, and carefully educated in his father’s family. He attended his father into Norfolk against the rebels in 1549, and, for his distinguished courage, obtained, as is probable, the honour of knighthood. He was always very high in king Edward’s favour: afterwards, being concerned in the cause of lady Jane, he was attainted, received sentence of death, and remained a prisoner till Oct. the 18th, 1554; when he was discharged, and pardoned for life. In 1557, in company with both his brothers, Robert and Henry, he engaged in an expedition to the Low Countries, and joined the Spanish army that lay then before St. Q.uintin’s. He had his share in the famous victory over the French, who came to the relief of that place; but had the misfortune to lose there his youngest brother Henry, who was a person of great hopes, and had been a singular favourite with king Edward. This matter was so represented to queen Mary, that, in consideration oftheir faithful services, she restored the whole family in blood and accordingly an act passed this year for that purpose. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, he became immediately one of the most distinguished persons at her court; and was called, as in the days of her brother, lord Ambrose Dudley. He was afterwards created first baron L’Isle, and then earl of Warwick. He was advanced to several high places, and distinguished by numerous honours; and we find him in all the great and public services during this active and busy reign; but, what is greatly to his credit, never in any of the intrigues with which it was blemished: for he was a man of great sweetness of temper, and of an unexceptionable character; so that he was beloved by all parties, and hated by none. In the last years of his life he endured great pain and misery from a wound received in his leg, when he defended New Haven against the French in 1562; and this bringing him very low, he at last submitted to an amputation, of which he died in Feb. 1589. He was thrice married, but had no issue. He was generally called “The good earl of Warwick.”

, baron of Denbigh, and earl of Leicester, son to John duke of Northumberland, and brother to Ambrose earl of Warwick, before mentioned, was born about 1532, and coming early into the service and favour of king Edward, was knighted in his youth. June 1550 he espoused Amy, daughter of sir John Robsart, at Sheen in Surrey, the king honouring their nuptials with his presence; and was immediately advanced to considerable offices at court. In the first year of Mary he fell into the same misfortunes with the rest of his family; was imprisoned, tried, and condemned; but pardoned for life, and set at liberty in October 1554. He was afterwards restored in blood, as we have observed in the former article. On the accession of Elizabeth, he was immediately entertained at court as a principal favourite: he was made master of the horse, installed knight of the garter, and sworn of the privy-council in a very short time. He obtained moreover prodigious grants, one after another, from the crown: and all things gave way to his ambition, influence, and policy. In his attendance upon the queen to Cambridge, the highest reverence was paid him: he was lodged in Trinity college, consulted in all things, requests made to the queen through him; and, on August 10, 1564, he on his knees entreated the queen to speak to the iruversity in Latin, which she accordingly did, and was probably prepared to grant the request. At court, however, Thomas earl of Sussex shewed himself averse to his counsels, and strongly promoted the overture of a marriage between the queen and the archduke Charles of Austria; as much more worthy of such a princess than any subject of her own, let his qualities be what they would. This was resented by Dudley, who insinuated that foreign alliances were always fatal; that her sister Mary never knew an easy minute after her marriage with Philip; that her majesty ought to consider, she was herself descended of such a marriage as by those lofty notions was decried: so that she could not contemn an alliance with the nobility of England, but must at the same time reflect on her father’s choice, and her mother’s family. This dispute occasioned a violent rupture between the two lords, which the queen took into her hands, and composed; but without the least diminution of Dudley’s ascendancy, who still continued to solicit and obtain new grants and offices for himself and his dependants, who were so numerous, and made so great a figure, that he was styled by the common people “The Heart of the Court.”

To give some colour to these marks of royal indulgence, the queen proposed him as a suitor to Mary queen of Scots; promising to that princess all the advantages she could expect or desire, either for herself or her subjects, in case she consented to the match. The sincerity of this was suspected at the time, when the deepest politicians believed that, if the queen of Scotland had complied, it would have served only to countenance the preferring him to his sovereign’s bed. The queen of Scots rejected the proposal in a manner that, some have thought, proved as fatal to her as it had done to his own lady, who was supposed to be sacrificed to his ambition of marrying a queen. The death of this unfortunate person happened September 8, 1560, at a very unlucky juncture for his reputation; because the world at that time conceived it might be much for his conveniency to be without a wife, this island having then two queens, young, and without husbands. The manner too of this poor lady’s death, which, Camden says, was by a fall from a high place, filled the world with the rumour of a lamentable tragedy . In Sept. 1564, the queen created him baron of Denbigh,­and, the day after, earl of Leicester, with great pomp and ceremony; and, before the close of the year, he was made chancellor of Oxford, as he had been some time before high-steward of Cambridge. His great influence in the court of England was not only known at home, but abroad, which induced the French king, Charles IX. to send him the order of St. Michael, then the most honourable in France; and he was installed with great solemnity in 1565. About 1572 it is supposed that the earl married Douglas, baroness dowager of Sheffield: which, however, was managed with such privacy, that it did not come to the queen’s ears, though a great deal of secret history was published, even in those days, concerning the adventures of this unfortunate lady, whom, though the earl had actually married her, and there were legal proofs of it, yet he never would own as his wife. The earl, in order to stifle this affair, proposed every thing he could think of to lady Douglas Sheffield, to make her desist from her pretensions but, finding her obstinate, and resolved not to comply with his proposals, he attempted to take her off by poison “For it is certain,” says Dugdale, “that she had some ill potions given her, so that, with the loss of her hair and nails, she hardly escaped death.” It is, however, beyond all doubt, that the earl had by her a son (sir Robert Dudley, of whom we shall speak hereafter, and to whom, by the name of his Base Son, he left the bulk of his fortune), and also a daughter.

In July 1575, as the queen was upon her progress, she made the earl a visit at his castle of Kenilworth in Warwickshire. This manor and castle had formerly belonged to the crown; but lord Leicester having obtained it from the queen, spared no expence in enlarging and adorning it: and Dugdale says, that he laid out no less than 60,000l. upon it. Here, due preparation being made, he entertained the queen and her court for seventeen days with a magnificence, of which, being characteristic of the times, the following account from Dugdale may be not unamusing. That historian tells us (Antiquities of Warwickshire, p. 249), that the queen at her entrance was surprised with the sight of a floating island on the large pool there, bright blazing with torches; on which were clad in silks the lady of the lake, and two nymphs waiting on her, who made a speech to the queen in metre, of the antiquity and owners of that castle, which was closed with cornets and other music. Within the base-court was erected a stately bridge, twenty feet wide, and seventy feet long, over which the queen was to pass: and on each side stood columns, with presents upon them to her majesty from the gods. Sylvanus offered a cage of wild fowl, and Pomona divers sorts of fruits Ceres gave corn, and Bacchus wine Neptune presented sea- fish Mars the hahiliments of war; and Phcebus all kinds of musical instruments. During her stay, variety of shows and sports were daily exhibited. In the chace, there was a savage man with satyrs; there were bear-baiting and fire-works, Italian tumblers, and a country bride-ale, running at the quintin, and morrice-dancing. And, that nothing might be wanting which those parts could afford, the Coventry men came and acted the ancient play, called Hock’s Thursday, representing the destruction of the Danes in the reign of king Ethelred; which pleased the queen so much, that she gave them a brace of bucks, and five marks in money, to bear the charges of a feast. There were, besides, on the pool, a triton riding on a mermaid eighteen feet long, as also Anon on a dolphin, with excellent music. The expences and costs of these entertainments may be guessed at by the quantity of beer then drunk, which amounted to 320 hogsheads of the ordinary sort: and, for the greater honour and grace thereof, sir Thomas Cecil, son to the treasurer Burleigh, and three more gentlemen, were then knighted; and, the next ensuing year, the earl obtained a grant of the queen fora weekly market at Kenihvorth, with a fair yearly on Midsummer-day. So far Dugdale. There is also in. Strype’s Annals, p. 341, a long and circumstantial narrative of all that passed at this royal visit, by one who was present; which strongly illustrates the temper of the queen, and the manners of those times.

In 1576 happened the death of Walter, earl of Essex, which drew upon lord Leicester many suspicions, after his marriage with the countess of Essex took place, which, however, was not until two years after. In 1578, when the duke of Anjou pressed the match that had been proposed between himself and the queen, his agent, believing lord Leicester to be the greatest bar to the duke’s pretensions, informed the queen of his marriage with lady Essex; upon which her majesty was so enraged, that, as Camden relates, she commanded him not to stir from the castle of Greenwich, and would have committed him to the Tower, if she had not been dissuaded from it by the earl of Sussex. Lord Leicester being now in the very height of power and influence, many attempts were made upon his character, in order to take him down: and in 1584 came out a most virulent book against him, commonly called “Leicester’s Commonwealth,” the purpose of which was to shew, that the English constitution was subverted, and a new form imperceptibly introduced, to which no name could be so properly given, as that of a “Leicestrian Commonwealth.” In proof of this, the earl was represented as an atheist in point of religion, a secret traitor to the queen, an oppressor of her people 1 an inveterate enemy to the nobility, a complete monster with regard to ambition, cruelty, and Just; and not only so, but as having thrown all offices of trust into the hands of his creatures, and usurped all the power of the kingdom. The queen, however, did not fail to countenance and protect her favourite; and to remove as much as possible the impression this performance made upon the vulgar, caused letters to be issued from the privycouncil, in which all the facts contained therein were declared to he absolutely false, not only to the knowledge of those who signed them, but also of the queen herself. Nevertheless, this book was universally read, and the contents of it generally received for true: and the great secrecy with which it was written, printed, and published, induced a suspicion, that some very able heads were concerned either in drawing it up, or at least in furnishing the materials. It is not well known what the original title of it was, but supposed to be “A Dialogue between a scholar, a gentleman, and a lawyer;” though it was afterwards called “Leicester’s Commonwealth.” It has been several times reprinted, particularly in 1600, 8vo; in 1631, 8vo, the running-title being “A letter of state to a scholar of Cambridge;” in 1641, 4to, and 8vo, with the addition of “Leicester’s Ghost;” and again in 1706, 8vo, under the title of “Secret Memoirs of Robert Dudley earl of Leicester,” with a preface by Dr. Drake, (see Drake) who pretended it to be printed from an old manuscript. The design of reprinting it in 1641, was, to give a bad impression of the government of Charles I.; and the same was supposed to be the design of Dr. Drake in his publication. In Dec. 1585, lord Leicester embarked for the protestant Low Countries, whither he arrived in quality of governor. At this time the affairs of those countries were in a perplexed situation; and the States thought that nothing could contribute so much to their recovery, as prevailing upon queen Elizabeth to send over some person of great distinction, whom they might set at the head of their concerns civil and military: which proposition, says Camden, so much flattered the ambition of this potent earl, that he willingly consented to pass the seas upon this occasion, as being well assured of most ample powers. Before his departure, the queen admonished him to have a special regard to her honour, and to attempt nothing inconsistent with the great employment to which he was advanced: yet, she was so displeased with some proceedings of his and the States, that the year after she sent over very severe letters to them, which drew explanations from the former, and deep submissions from the latter. The purport of the queen’s letter was, to reprimand the States “for having conferred the absolute government of the confederate provinces upon Leicester, her subject, though she had refused it herself;” and Leicester, for having presumed to take it upon him. He returned to England Nov. 1585; and, notwithstanding what was past, was well received by the queen. What contributed to make her majesty forget his offence in the Low Countries, was the pleasure of having him near her, at a time when she very much wanted his counsel: for now the affair of Mary queen of Scots was upon the carpet, and the point was, how to have her taken off with the least discredit to the queen. The earl according to report, which we could wish to be able to contradict, thought it best to have her poisoned; but that scheme was not found practicable, so that they were obliged to have recourse to violence. The earl set out for the Low Countries in June 1587; but, great discontents arising on all sides, he was recalled in November. Camden relates, that on his return, finding an accusation preparing against him for mal-administration there, and that he w^as summoned to appear before the council, he privately implored the queen’s protection, and besought her “not to receive him with disgrace upon his return, whom at his first departure she had sent out with honour; nor bring down alive to the grave, whom her former goodness had raised from the dust.” Which expressions of humility and sorrow wrought so far upon her, that he was admitted into her former grace and favour.

In 1588, when the nation was alarmed with the apprehensions of the Spanish armada, lord Leicester was made lieutenant-general, under the queen, of the army assembled at Tilbury. This army the queen went to review in person, and there made this short and memorable speech “I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns: and we do assure you, on the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time my lieutenant-general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but, by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.” In such high favour did this noble personage stand to the last: for he died this year, Sept. 4, at his house at Cornbury in Oxfordshire, while he was upon the road to Kenilworth. His corpse was removed to Warwick, and buried there in a magnificent manner. He is said to have inherited the parts of his father. His ambition was great, but his abilities seem to have been greater. He was a finished courtier in every respect; and managed his affairs so nicely, that his influence and power became almost incredible. He differed with archbishop Grindal, who, though much in confidence of the queen, was by him brought first into discredit with her, and then into disgrace; nay, to such a degree was this persecution carried, that the poor prelate desired to lay down his archiepiscopal dignity, and actually caused the instrument of his resignation to be drawn: but his enemies, believing he was near his end, did not press the perfecting of it, and so he died, with his mitre on his head, of a broken heart. This shews the power the earl had in the church, and how little able the first subject of the queen was to bear up against his displeasure, though conceived upon none of the justest motives .

Sir Robert Dudley was not only admired by princes, but also by the learned; among whom he held a very high rank, as well on account of his skill in philosophy, chemistry, and physic, as his perfect acquaintance with all the branches of the mathematics, and the means of applying them for the service and benefit of mankind. He wrote several things. We have mentioned the account of his voyage. His principal work is, “Del arcano del mare,” &c. Fiorenze, 1630, 1646, fol. There is a copy in the British Museum, dated 1661, and called the second edition. This work has been always so scarce, as seldom to have found a place even in the catalogues that have been published of rare books. It is full of schemes, charts, plans, and other marks of its author’s mathematical learning; but is chiefly valuable for the projects contained therein, for the improvement of navigation and the extending of commerce. Wood tells us, that he wrote also a medical treatise, entitled “Catholicon,” which was well esteemed by the faculty. There is still another piece, the title of which, as it stands in Rushworth’s Collections, runs thus: “A proposition for his majesty’s service, to bridle the impertinency of parliaments. Afterwards questioned in the Star-chamber.” After he had lived some time in exile, he still cherished hopes of returning to England: to facilitate which, and to ingratiate himself with king James, he drew up “a proposition, as he calls it, in two parts: the one to secure the state, and to bridle the impertinency of parliaments; the other, to increase his majesty’s revenue much more than it is.” This scheme, falling into the hands of some persons of great distinction, and being some years after by them made public, was considered as of so pernicious a nature, as to occasion their imprisonment: but they were released upon the discovery of the true author. (See Cotton, Sir Robert). It was written about 1613, and sent to king James, to teach him how most effectually to enslave his subjects: for, in that light, it is certainly as singular and as dangerous a paper as ever fell from the pen of man. It was turned to the prejudice of James I. and Charles I.; for though neither they, nor their ministers, made use of it, or intended to make use of it, yet occasion was taken from thence to excite the people to a hatred of statesmen who were capable of contriving such destructive projects. Lastly, he was the author of a famous powder, called “Pulvis comitis Warwicensis,” or the earl of Warwick’s powder, which is thus made: “Take of scammony, prepared with the fumes of sulphur, two ounces; of diaphoretic antimony, an ounce; of the crystals of tartar, half an ounce; mix them all together into a powder.”

When he went abroad, he left his wife and four daughters at home, and prevailed upon a young lady, at that time esteemed one of the finest women in England, to bear him company in the habit of a page. This lady was Mrs. Elizabeth Southwell, the daughter of sir Robert Southwell, of Woodrising in Norfolk whom he afterwards married bv virtue of a dispensation from the pope. In excuse for this gross immorality, we are told that the lady’s conduct was afterwards without exception; that she lived in honour and esteem, and had all the respect paid her that her title of a duchess could demand, and that sir Robert loved her most tenderly to the last, and caused a noble monument to be erected to her memory in the church of St. Pancrace at Florence, where her body lies buried, and he by her. He had by this lady a son Charles, who assumed the title of earl of Warwick, and four daughters, all honourably married in that country. It is very probable, that this marriage might prove a great bar to his return to England; and might be also a motive to the passing so extraordinary a law as that was, by which lady Alice Dudley was enabled to dispose of her jointure during his life.

, an eminent school-master and learned man, was the son of Henry Dugard, a clergyman, and born at Bromsgrove in Worcestershire, Jan. 9, 1605. He was instructed in classical learning at a school in Worcester; and from thence sent, in 162'J, to Sidney college, Cambridge. In 1626 he took the degree of B. A. and that of M. A. in 1630. Soon after he was appointed master of Stamford school in Lincolnshire; from whence, in 1637, he was elected master of the free-school in Colchester. He resigned the care of this school Jan. 1642-3, in consequence of the ill-treatment he received at the hands of a party in that town, to which, us well as to the school, he had been of great service; and May 1644 was chosen head master of Merchant Taylors’ school in London. This school flourished exceedingly under his influence and management but for shewing, as was thought, too great an affection to the royal cause, and especially for printing Salmasius’s defence of Charles I. at a press in his own house, he was deprived of it February 1650, and imprisoned in Newgate his wife and six children turned out of doors and a printing-office, which he valued at a thousand pounds, seized . Being soon released from this confinement, he opened, April 1650, a private school on Peter’s Hill, London; but, in September was restored to his former station, by means of the same council of state who had caused him to be removed, and who, with Milton, took advantage of his distresses to force him into their service, and among other things to print Milton’s answer to Sahaasius. There, however, he continued with great success and credit, till about 1662, when he was dismissed for breaking some orders of the merchant tailors, though he had been publicly warned and admonished of it before. He presented a remonstrance to them upon that occasion, but to no purpose: on. which he opened a private school in Coleman-street, July 1661, and, by March following, had gathered a hundred and ninety-three scholars: so great was his reputation, and the fame of his abilities. He lived a very little while after, dying in 1662. He gave by will several books to Sion college library. He published some few pieces for the use of his schools as, 1. “Lexicon Grajci Testament! alphabetieum; una cum explicaiione gramimitica vocum singularum, in usum tironum. Necnon Concordantiil singulis dictionibus apposita, in usurn theologian candidatorum,” 1660. 2. “Rhetorices compendium,” Hvo. 3. “Luciani SamosatenMS dialogorum seiectorum libri duo, cum interpretatione Latina, multis in locis emendata, et ad calcem adjecta,” 8vo. 4. “A Greek grammar.”

, an eminent English antiquary and historian, was the only son of John Dngdale, of Shustoke, near Coleshill, in Warwickshire, gent, and born there Sept. 12, 1605. He was placed at the freeschool in Coventry, where he continued till he was fifteen; and then returning home to his father, who had been edueatrd in St. John’s college, Oxford, and had applied himself particularly to civil law and history, was instructed by him in those branches of literature. At the desire of his father, he married, March 1623, a daughter of Mr. Huntbach, of Seawall, in Staffordshire, and boarded with his wife’s father till the death of his own, which happened July 1624 but soon after went and kept house at Fillongley, in Warwickshire, where he had an estate formerly purchased by his father. In 1625 he bought the manor of Blythe, in Shvstoke, above-mentioned; and the year following, selling his estate at Fillongley, he came and resided at Blythehall. His natimil inclination leading him to the study of antiquities, he soon became acquainted with all the noted antiquaries with Burton particularly, whose “Description of Leicestershire” he had read, and who lived but eight miles from him, at Lindley, in that county. In 1638 he went to London, and was introduced to sir Christopher Hatton, and to sir Henry Spelman by whose interest he was created a pursuivant at arms extraordinary, by the name of Blanch Lyon, having obtained the king’s warrant for that purpose. Afterwards he was made RougeCroix-pursuivant in ordinary, by virtue of the king’s letters patent, dated March 18, 1640; by which means having a lodging in the Heralds’ office, and convenient opportunities, he spent that and part of the year following, in augmenting his collections out of the records in the Tower and other places. In 1641, through sir Christopher Hatton’s encouragement, he employed himself in raking exact draughts of all the monuments in Westminster-abbey, St. Paul’s cathedral, and in many other cathedral and parochial churches of England particularly those at Peterborough, Ely, Norwich, Lincoln, Newarkupon-Trent, Beverley, Southwell, York, Chester, Lichfield, Tamworth, Warwick, &c. The draughts were taken by Mr. Sedgwick, a skilful arms-painter, then servant to sir Christopher Hatton; but the inscriptions were probably copied by Dugdale. They were deposited in sir Christopher’s library, to the end that the memory of them might be preserved from the destruction that then appeared imminent, for future and better times. June 1642 he was ordered by the king to repair to York; and in July was commanded to attend the earl of Northampton, who was marching into Worcestershire, and the places adjacent, in order to oppose the forces raised by lord Brook for the service of the parliament He waited upon the king at the battle of Edge-hill, and afterwards at Oxford, where he continued with his majesty till the surrender of that garrison to the parliament June 22, 1646. He was created M. A. October 25, 1642, and April 16, 1644, Chester-heraid. During his long residence at Oxford, he applied himself to the search of such antiquities, in the Bodleian and other libraries, as he thought might conduce towards the furtherance of the “Monp.sticon,” then designed by Roger Dodsworth and himself; as also whatever might relate to the history of the ancient nobility of this realm, of which he made much use in his Baronage.

Upon the restoration of Charles II. Dugdale was, through chancellor Hyde’s recommendation, advanced to the office of Norroy king at arms; and in 1662 he published “The History of Imbanking and Draining of divers Fens and Marshes, both in foreign parts and in this kingdom, and of the improvement thereby. Extracted from records, manuscripts, and other authentic testimonies. Adorned with sundry maps, &c.” This work was written at the request of the lord Gorges, sir John Marsham, and others, who were adventurers in draining the Great Level, which extends itself into a considerable part of the counties of Cambridge, Huntingdon, Northampton, Norfolk, and Suffolk. About the same time he completed the second volume of sir Henry Spelman’s Councils, and published it in If64, under this title “Concilia, decreta, leges, constitutiones in re ecclesiarum orbis Britannici, &c. ah introitu Normannorum, A.D. 1066, ad exutum papam A. D. 1531. Accesserunt etiam alia ad rem ecclesiasricam spectantia,” &c. Archbishop Sheldon and lord Clarendon had been the chief promoters of this work, and employed Dugdale upon it; and what share he had in it will appear from hence, that out of 2 “4 articles, of which that volume consists, 191 are of his collecting; being those marked (*) in the list of the contents at the beginning of the volume. The same great personages employed him also to publish the second part of that learned knight’s” Glossary.“The first part was published in 1626, folio, and afterwards considerably augmented and corrected by sir Henry. He did not live to finish the second, but left much of it loosely written; with observations, and sundry bits of paper pinned thereto. These Dugdale took the pains to dispose into proper order, transcribing many of those papers;, and, having revised the first part, caused both to be printed together in 1664, under the title of” Glossariuin archaiologicum, continens Latino-barbara, peregrina, obsoleta, & novse significationis vocabula.“The second part, digested by Dugdale, began at the letter M; but Wood observes, that” it comes far short of the first." There was another edition of this work in 1687.

His wife died Dec. 18, 1681, aged seventy-five, after they had been married fifty-nine years. He had several children by her, sons and daughters. One of his daughters was married to Elias Ashmole, esq. All his sons died young, except John, who was created M. A. at Oxford, in 1661, and was at that time chief gentleman of the chamber to Edward earl of Clarendon, lord chancellor of England. In Oct. 1675, he was appointed Windsor-herald, upon the resignation of his brother-in-law, Elias Ashmole, esq and Norroy king of arms in March 1686, about which time he was also knighted by James II. He published “A Catalogue of the Nobility of England, &c.” printed at London, a large broadside, in 1685, and again, with additions, in 1690. This sir John Dugdale died in 1700, leaving two sons, William and John, who both died single, the latter in 1749; and four daughters, the third of whom, Jane, married Richard Geast, esq. by whom she had a son named Richard, who took the name and arms of Dugdale only. This gentleman died in 1806, leaving a son, Dugdale Stratford Dugdale, esq. the present member of parliament for the county of Warwick.

, was a divine and a poet, the effusions of whose muse have been honoured with a place in Dr. Johnson’s collection, but of whose early history little is known, nor do we know who his parents were, or where he was born. His grammatical education he received under the famous Dr. Busby, at Westminster-school, into wnich he was admitted in 1670, and from which he was elected in 1675, to Trinity- college, Cambridge. In 1673 he took the degree of B. A. and that of M. A. in 1682. He became likewise a fellow of the college, and it is related that he was for some time tutor to the duke of Richmond. Having entered into holy orders, he was presented to the rectory of Blaby, in Leicestershire, in 1687-8, made a prebendary of Gloucester, and in 1688 chosen a procior in convocation for that church, and was chaplain to queen Anne. In 1710 he was presented by sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Winchester, to the wealthy living of Witney, in Oxfordshire, which, however, he enjoyed but a few months; for, on the 10th of February, 1710-11, having returned from an entertainment, he was found dead the next morning. When Mr. Duke left the university, being conscious of his powers, he enlisted himself among the wits of the age. He was in particular the familiar friend of Otway, and was engaged, among other popular names, in the translations of Ovid and Juvenal. From his writings he appears not to have been ill-qualified for poetical composition. “In his Review,” says Dr. Johnson, “though unfinished, are some vigorous lines. His poems are not below mediocrity; nor have I found in them much to be praised.” With the wit, Mr. Duke seems to have shared the dissoluteness of the times for some of his compositions are such as he must have reviewed with detestation in his later days. This was especially the case with regard to two of his poems; the translation of one of the elegies of Ovid, and the first of the three songs. “Perhaps,” observes Dr. Johnson, “like >ome other foolish young men, he rather talked than lived viciously, in an age when he that would be thought a wit was afraid to say his prayers; and whatever might have been bad in the first part of his life was surely condemned and reformed by his better judgment;” and this, it is hoped, was the case.

Mr. Duke, in his character as a divine, published three sermons in his life-time. The first was on the imitation of Christ, preached before the queen in 1703, from 1 John, ii. 6. The second was from Psalm xxv. 14, and was likewise preached before the queen in 1704. The third was an assize sermon, on Christ’s kingdom, from John xviii. 36, and published in the same year. In 1714, fifteen of his sermons on several occasions, were printed in one vol. 8vo, which were held in good reputation, and are spoken of in strong terms of commendation by Dr. Henry Felton, who, in his Dissertation on reading the Classics, says, “Mr. Duke may be mentioned under the double capacity of a poet and a divine. He is a bright example in the several parts of writing, whether we consider the originals, his translations, paraphrases, or imitations. But here I can only mention him as a divine, with this peculiar commendation, that in his sermons, besides liveliness of wit, purity and correctness of style, and justness of argument, we see many fine allusions to the ancients, several beautiful passages handsomely incorporated in the train of his own thoughts; and, to say all in a word, classic learning and a Christian spirit.”

, a leader of a religious sect, was a native of Novara, in the duchy of Milan. The sect sometimes denominated Dulcinists, and sometimes the “sect of the apostles,” was founded by Gerard Sagarelli, who was burnt alive for his opinions, at Parma, in 1300. According to Mosheim, the Dulcinists aimed at introducing among Christians the simplicity of the primitive time:-;, especially the manner of life that was observed by the apostles, as nearly as could be collected from their writings. On the death of the founder, Dulcinus boldly headed the st:t, and avowed his faith in the predictions of Sagarelli, viz. that the church of Rome would speedily be destroyed, and that a pure system of religion would be built on its ruins, and that these predictions might be fulfilled, the Dulcinists for two years, by force of arms, maintained their ground against the supporters of the papal interests; which terminated, however, in the capture and death of their leader.

, baron of Carlscroon, historiographer to the emperor, who was forced to fly to Holland on account of religion, after having served without much benefit in France, is known by several writings, although we know little of his personal history. The chief of them are 1. “Des Memoires Politiques, pour servir a Pintelhgence de la paix de Ilyswic,” Hague, 1699, 4 vols. 12mo, the authorities of which are comprised also in 4 vols. 1705, 12mo. This instructive and interesting performance contains an abstract of every thing of moment that passed from the peace of Minister to the end of the year 1676. 2. “Voyages en France, en Italie, en Aiiemagne, aMalte, et en Turkic,” 1699, 4 vols. 12mo. 3. “Corps univers^lle diplomatique du droit des gens;” containing the treaties of alliance, of peace, and of commerce, from the peace of Munster to 1709, Amsterdam, 1726, 8 vols. folio. This work is not exempt from fanlts, but neither is it without utility. With the addition of the treaties made before the Christian n>ra, published by Barbeyrac, Rousset, and Saint-Priest, and those of Munster and Osnaburg, they together form a collection of 19 volumes in folio. 4. “Hist, militaire du prince Eugene de Savoie, du prince et due de Marlborough, &c.” Hague, 1729 1747, 3 vols, folio. 5. “Lettres Historiques,” from January 1652 to 1710. Another person, of less ability than Dumont, has continued them. 6. Other collections, tolerably numerous. This author wrote in a languid and incorrect manner; but there is a great deal of industrious inquiry in all he has left us. He died about the year 1726, in an advanced age.

, an eminent Scotch poet, was born about the year 1465, and, as it is generally supposed, although without much foundation, at Salton, a village on the delightful coast of the Forth in East Lothian. This is collected from what Kennedy, a contemporary poet, says in one of his satires; who mentions likewise his own wealth, and Dunbar’s poverty. If we are to credit the same author, Dunbar was related to the earls of March; but of this there is no satisfactory evidence. In his youth he seems to have been a travelling noviciate of the Franciscan order; but this mode of life not being agreeable to his inclination, he resigned it, and returned to Scotland, as is supposed, about 1490, when he might be 25 years of age. In his “Thistle and Rose,” which was certainly written in 1503, he speaks of himself as a poet that had already made many songs: and that poem is the composition rather of an experienced writer, than of a novice in the art. It is indeed probable that his tales, “The twa marrit wemen and the wedo;” and, “The freirs of Bervvik,” (if the last be his) were written before his “Thistle and Rose.” However tin’s may have been, Dunbar, after being the author of “The gold in Terge,” a poem rich in description, and of many small pieces of the highest merit, died in old age about 1530. In his younger years, our poet seems to have had great expectations that his abilities would have recommended him to an ecclesiastical benetice; and in his smaller poems he frequently addresses the king lor that purpose: but there is no reason to believe that he was successful, although it may be thought that the “Thistle and Rose,” which was occasioned by the marriage of James IV. king of Scotland, with Margaret Tudor, eldest daughter of Henry VII. king of England, deserved better treatment at the hands of the young royal pair. Mr. Pinkerton, in his list of Scottish poets, tells us, he has looked in vain over many calendars of the characters, &c. of this period, to find Dunbar’s name; but suspects that it was never written by a lawyer. Mr. Warton, in characterising the Scottish poets of this time, observes that the writers of that nation have adorned the period with a degree of sentiment and spirit, a command of phraseology, and a fertility of imagination, not to be found in any English poet since Chaucer and Lydgate. “He might safely have added,” says Mr. Pinkerton, “not even in Chaucer or Lydgate.” Concerning Dunbar, Mr. Warton says, that the natural complexion of his genius is of the moral and didactic cast. This remark, however, Mr. Pinkerton thinks, must not be taken too strictly. “The goldin Terge,” he adds, “is moral; and so are many of his small pieces: but humour, description, allegory, great poetical genius, and a vast wealth of words, all unite to form the complexion of Dunbar’s poetry. He unites, in himself, and generally surpasses the qualities of the chief old English poets; the morals and satire of Langland; Chaucer’s humour, poetry, and knowledge of life; the allegory of Gower; the description of Lydgate.” This is a very high character, but surely the morality of his poems may be questioned. Several of his compositions contain expressions which appear to us grossly profane and indecent; and one of his addresses to the queen would not now be addressed to a modern courtezan. Even the most sacred observances of the church are converted into topics of ridicule; and its litanies are burlesqued in a parody, the profaneness of which is almost unparalleled. The notes added to the collection published by sir David Daly rm pie in 1770 are peculiarly valuable; for they not only explain and illustrate the particular expressions and phrases of the pieces in question, but contain several curious anecdotes, and throw considerable light on the manners of the times.

, an illustrious naval officer, the second son of Alexander Duncan, esq. of Lundie, in the county of Angus, in Scotland, by Helen Haldone, daughter of Mr. Haldone, of Gleneagles in Perthshire, was born in the month of July 1731, and received the first rudiments of education at Dundee, and, appears to have been early intended for the naval service, as his elder brother Alexander was for that of the army, of which he died lieutenant-colonel in 1771. About 1746, Adam was put under the command of capt. Robert Haldane, who was then commander of the Shoreham frigate, with whom he continued two or three years. In 174y he was entered as a midshipman on board the Centurion of 50 guns, which then bore the broad pendant of commodore Keppel, who was appointed commander in chief on the Mediterranean station, for the customary period of three years. In Jan. 1755, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant, by the recommendation of commodore Keppel, who knew his merits; and was appointed to the Norwich, a fourth rate, commanded by captain Barrington, and intended as one of the squadron which was to accompany Mr. Keppel to America, with transports and land forces under the command of general Braddock. After the arrival of this armament in Virginia, Mr. Duncan was removed into the Centurion, in which he continued until that ship returned to England, and captain Keppel, after having for a short time commanded the Swiftsure, being appointed to the Torbay of 74 guns, procured his much esteemed eleve to be appointed second lieutenant of that ship. After remaining on the home station for the space of three years, he proceeded on the expedition sent against the French settlement of Goree, on the coast of Africa. He was slightly wounded here at the attack of the fort; and soon afterwards rose to the rank of the first lieutenant of the Torbay, in which capacity he returned to England.

On the 21st of September, subsequent to his arrival, 1759, he was advanced to the rank of commander, and in February 1761 was advanced to that of post captain, and being appointed to the Valiant of 74 guns, he became again materially connected, in respect to service, with his original friend and patron Mr. Keppel, who was appointed to command the naval part of an expedition against the French island of Belleisle, and on this occasion hoisted his broad pendant on board the Valiant. Thence captain Duncan repaired with Mr. Keppel, and in the same ship, to the attack of the Havannah. Keppel, who was appointed to command a division of the fleet, was ordered to cover the disembarkation of the troops; and, as the post of honour belongs on such occasions, as of right, to the captain of the admiral, or commodore, captain Duncan was accordingly invested with the command of the boats; he was afterwards very actively employed, and highly distinguished himself during the siege. When the town itself surrendered, he was dispatched with a proper force to take possession of the Spanish ships which had fallen on that occasion into the hands of the victors, consisting of five ships of 70 guns, and four of 60. After the surrender of the Havannah, he accompanied Mr. Keppel, who was appointed to the command on the Jamaica station, in the same capacity he had before held, and continued with him there till the conclusion of the war, when he returned to England.

On the re-commencement of the war with France in 1778, he was appointed to the Suffolk of 74 guns, but before the end of that year removed into the Monarch of the same rate, which, during the summer of 1779, was uninterruptedly employed in the main or channel fleet, commanded by sir Charles Hardy, who was obliged to continue all this time on the defensive, as the French and Spanish fleets, now united, were double in number of ships to what he commanded. At the conclusion of the same year, the Monarch was one of the ships put under the command of sir George Bridges Rodney, who was instructed to force his way to Gibraltar through all impediments, and relieve that fortress, which was then closely blockaded by a Spanish army on the land side, and a flotilla by sea, sufficiently strong to oppose the entrance of any trivial succour. On Jan. 16, 1780, the British fleet being then off Cape St. Vincent, fell in with a Spanish squadron, commanded by don Juan de Langara, who was purposely stationed there to intercept sir George, who, according to mis-information received by the court of Spain, was supposed to have only a squadron of four ships of the line. On this memorable occasion, although the Monarch had not the advantage which many other ships in the same armament enjoyed, of being sheathed with copper, and was rather foul, and at best by no means a swift sailer, capt. Duncan was fortunate enough to get into action before any other ship of the fleet; and the St. Augustine of 70 guns struck to him, but was so much disabled, that the conqueror was obliged to abandon her, after taking out the few British officers and seamen who had been put on board. In this action, of eleven Spanish ships of the line and two frigates, four were taken and remained in possession of the English; one was blown up; three surrendered, but afterwards got away much damaged; one was reduced almost to a wreck; and two others, together with the frigates, fled at the first outset, almost without attempting to make any resistance. Such a victory obtained by nineteen British ships of the line over eleven Spanish, is scarcely a matter of exultation, although an advantage, from the loss sustained by the enemy.

At this most alarming and unprecedented crisis, the conduct of admiral Duncan must not be forgotten, although we have no inclination to revive the memory of that unnatural rebellion by a particular narrative. When the mutiny raged in his squadron in a most awful manner, and when left only with three ships, he still remained firm in his station off the Texel, and succeeded in keeping the Dutch navy from proceeding to sea; a circumstance, in all probability, of as high consequence to the nation as his subsequent victory. His behaviour at the time of the mutiny will be best seen from the speech which he made to the crew of his own ship, on the 3d of June, 1797, and which, as a piece of artless and affecting oratory, cannot but be admired by the most fastidious taste. His men being assembled, the admiral thus addressed them from the quarter-deck: “My lads I once more call you together with a sorrowful heart, from what I have lately seen of the disaffection of the fleets; I call it disaffection, for the crews have no grievances. To be deserted by my fleet, in the face of an enemy, is a disgrace which I believe never before happened to a British admiral; nor could I have supposed it. My greatest comfort, under God, is, that I have been supported by the officers, seamen, and marines of this ship; for which, with a heart overflowing with gratitude, I request you to accept my sincere thanks. I flatter myself much good may result from your example, by bringing those deluded people to a sense of the duty which they owe, not only to their king and country, but to themselves. The British navy has ever been the support of that liberty which has been handed down to us by our ancestors, and which, I trust, we shall maintain to the latest posterity and that can only be done by unanimity and obedience. The ship’s company, and others who have distinguished themselves by their loyalty and good order, deserve to be, and doubtless:,v'// be, the favourites of a grateful country; they will also have, from their individual feelings, a comfort which must be lasting, and not like the fleeting and false confidence of those who have swerved from their duty. It has often been my pride with you to look into the Texel, and see a foe which dreaded coming out to meet us. My pride is now humble indeed! My feelings are not easily to be expressed! Our cup has overflowed, and made us wanton. The all-wise Providence has given us this check as a warning, and I hope we shall improve by it. On Him, then, let us trust, where our only security can be found. I find there are many good men among us; for my own part, I have had full confidence of all in this ship; and once more beg to express my approbation of your conduct. May God, who has thus so far conducted you, continue to do so! and may the British navy, the glory and support of our country, be restored to its wonted splendour, and be not only the bulwark of Britain, but the terror of the world But this can only be effected by a strict adherence to our duty and obedience and let us pray that the Almighty God may keep us in the right way of thinking. God bless you all!” The crew of the Venerable were so affected by this impressive address, that, on retiring, there was not a dry eye among them. On the suppression of the mutiny, the admiral resumed his station with his whole fleet off the coast of Holland, either to keep the Dutch squadron in the Texel, or to attack them if they should attempt to come out. It has since been discovered, that the object of the Batavian republic, in conjunction with France, was to invade Ireland, where, doubtless, they would have been cordially welcomed by numerous bodies of the disaffected. Hence it will be seen that the object of watching and checking the motions of the Dutch admiral was of the Utmost consequence. After a long and very vigilant attention to the important trust reposed in him, the English admiral was necessitated to repair to Yarmouth Roads to refit. The Batavian commander seized this favourable interval, and proceeded to sea. That active officer, captain sir H. Trollope, however, was upon the look-out, and, having discovered the enemy, dispatched a vessel with the glad intelligence to admiral Duncan, who lost not an instant of time, but pushed out at once, and in the morning of the 11th of October fell in with captain Trollope’s squadron of observation, with a signal flying for an enemy to the leeward. By a masterly manoeuvre the admiral placed himself between them and the Texel, so as to prevent them from re-entering without risking an engagement. An action accordingly took place between Camperdown and Egmont, in nine fathoms water, and within five miles of the coast. The admiral’s own ship, in pursuance of a plan of naval evolution which he had long before determined to carry into effect, broke the enemy’s line, and closely engaged the Dutch admiral De Winter, who, after a most gallant defence, was obliged to strike. Eight ships were taken, two of which carried flags! All circumstances considered the time of the year, the force of the enemy, and the nearness to a dangerous shore this action will be pronounced, by every judge of nautical affairs, to be one of the most brilliant that graces our annals. The nation was fully sensible of the merit and consequence of this glorious victory; politicians beheld in it the annihilation of the designs of our combined enemies; naval men admired the address and skill which were displayed by the English commander in his approaches to the attack; and the people at large were transported with admiration, joy, and gratitude. The honours which were instantly conferred upon the venerable admiral received the approbation of all parties. October 21, 1797, he was created lord viscount Duncan, of Camperdown, and baron Duncan, of Lnndie, in the shire of Perth. On his being introduced into the house of peers, on Nov. 8, the lord chancellor communicated to him the thanks of the house, and in his speech said, “He congratulated his lordship upon his accession to the honour of a distinguished seat in that place, to which his very meritorious and unparalleled professional conduct had deservedly raised him that conduct (the chancellor added) was such as not only merited the thanks of their lordships’ house, but the gratitude and applause of the oountry at large; it had been instrumental, under the auspices of Providence, in establishing the security of his majesty’s dominions, and frustrating the ambitious and destructive designs of the enemy.” A pension of 2000l. per annum was also granted his lordship, for himself and the two next heirs of the peerage.

In person, lord Duncan was of a manly, athletic form, six feet four inches high, erect and graceful, with a countenance that indicated great intelligence and benevolence. It would, perhaps, be difficult to find in modern history another man, in whom, with so much meekness, modesty, and unaffected dignity of mind, were united so much genuine spirit, so much of the skill and fire of professional genius; such vigorous, active wisdom such alacrity and ability for great achievements, with such entire indifference for their success, except so far as it might contribute to the good of his country. His private character was that of a most affectionate relative, and a steady friend; and, what crowns the whole with a lustre superior to all other qualities or distinctions, a man of great and unaffected piety. The latter virtue may excite, in some persons, a smile of contempt: but the liberal-minded will be pleased to read that lord Duncan felt it an honour to be a Christian. He encouraged religion by his own practice; and the public observance of it has always been kept up wherever he held the command. When the victory was decided, which has immortalized his name, his lordship ordered the crew of his ship to be called together; and, at their head, upon his bended knees, in the presence of the Dutch admiral (who was greatly affected with the scene), he solemnly and pathetically offered up praise to the God of battles. Let it be added here, that his demeanour, when all eyes were upon him, in the cathedral of St. Paul’s on the day of general thanksgiving, in December following, was so humble, modest, and devout, as greatly to increase that admiration which his services had gained him. In short, lord Duncan was one more instance of the truth of the assertion, that piety and courage ought to be inseparably allied; and that the latter, without the former, loses its principal virtue.

, an eminent physician, born at Montauban in Lano-uedoc in 1649, was the son of Dr. Peter Duncan, professor of physic in that city, and grandson to William Duncan, an English gentleman, of Scottish original, who removed from London to the south of France about the beginning of the last century. Having lost both his parents while yet in his cradle, he was indebted, for the care of his infancy and education, to the guardianship of his mother’s brother, Mr. Daniel Paul, a leading counsellor of the parliament of Toulouse, though a firm and professed protestant. Mr. Duncan received the first elements of grammar, polite literature, and philosophy, at Puy Laurens, whither the magistracy of Montauban had transferred their university for a time, to put an end to some disputes between the students and the citizens. The masters newly established there, finding their credit much raised by his uncommon proficiency, redoubled their attention to him; so that he went from that academy with a distinguished character to Montpellier, when removed thither by his guardian, with a view to qualify him for a profession which had been for three generations hereditary in his family . His ingenuity and application recommended him to the esteem and friendship of his principal instructor there, the celebrated Dr. Charles Barbeyrac (uncle to John Barbeyrac the famous civilian), whose medical lectures and practice were in high reputation. Having taken his favourite pupil into his own house, the professor impressed and turned to use his public and private instruction by an efficacious method, admitting him, at every visit he paid to his patients, to consult and reason with him, upon ocular inspection, concerning the effect of his prescriptions. When he had studied eight years under the friendly care of so excellent a master, and had just attained the age of twenty-four, he was admitted to the degree of M. D. in that university. From Montpellier he went to Paris, where he resided nearly seven years. Here he published his first work, upon the principle of motion in the constituent parts of animal bodies, entitled: “Explication nouvelle & mechanique des actions an i males, Paris, 1678.” It was in the year following that he went for the first time to London, to dispose of some houses there, which had descended to him from his ancestors. He had, besides, some other motives to the journey; and among the rest, to get information relative to the effects of the plague in London in 1665. Having dispatched his other business, he printed in London a Latin edition of his “Theory of the principle of motion in animal bodies.” His stay in London, at this time, was little more than two years; and he was much disposed to settle there entirely. But in 1681 he was recalled to Paris to attend a consultation on the health of his patron Colbert, which was then beginning to decline. Soon after his return he produced the first part of a new work, entitled, “La chymie naturelle, ou explication chymique & mechanique de la Tiourriture de Tanimal,” which was much read, but rather raised than satisfied the curiosity of the learned; to answer which he added afterwards two other parts, which were received with a general applause. A second edition of the whole was published at Paris in 1687. In that year likewise came out his “Histoire de l'animal, ou la connoissance du corps animé par la méchanique & par la chymie.” He left Paris in 1683, upon the much-lamented death of Colbert, the kind effect of whose esteem he gratefully acknowledged, though in a much smaller degree than he might have enjoyed, if he had been less bold in avowing his zeal for protestantism, and his abhorrence of popery. He had some property in land adjoining to the city of Montauban, with a handsome house upon it, pleasantly situated near the skirts of the town. It was with the purpose of selling these, and settling finally in England, that he went thither from Paris. But the honourable and friendly reception he met with there determined his stay some years in his native city. In 1690, the persecution which began to rage with great fury against protestants made him suddenly relinquish all thoughts of a longer abode in France. Having disposed of his house and land for less than half their value, he retired first to Geneva, intending to return to England through Germany; an intention generally kept in petto, but for many years unexpectedly thwarted by a variety of events. Great numbers of his persuasion, encouraged by his liberality in defraying their expences on the road to Geneva, had followed him thither. Unwilling to abandon them in distress, he spent several months in that city and Berne, whither great numbers had likewise taken refuge, in doing them all the service in his power. The harsh and gloomy aspect which reformation at that time wore in Geneva, ill agreeing with a temper naturally mild and cheerful, and the sullen treatment he met with from those of his profession, whose ignorance and selfishness his conduct and method of practice tended to bring into disrepute, occasioned his stay there to be very short. He listened therefore with pleasure to the persuasion of a chief magistrate of Berne, who invited him to a residence more suited to his mind. He passed about 8 or 9 years at Berne, where to his constant practice of physic was added the charge of a professorship of anatomy and chemistry. In 1699, Philip landgave of Hesse sent for him to Cassel. The princess, who lay dangerously ill, was restored to life, but recovered strength very slowly. Dr. Duncan was entertained for three years with great respect, in the palace of the landgrave, as his domestic physician. During his stay at that court, he wrote his treatise upon the abuse of hot liquors. The use of tea, which had not long been introduced into Germany, and in the houses of only the most opulent, was already at the landgrave’s become improper and immoderate, as well as that of coffee and chocolate. The princess of Hesse, with a weak habit of body inclining to a consumption, had been accustomed to drink these liquors to excess, and extremely hot. He thought fit, therefore, to write something against the abuse of them, especially the most common one last mentioned. Their prudent use, to persons chiefly of a phlegmatic constitution, he allowed. He even recommended them, in that case, by his own example, to be taken moderately warm early in the morning, and soon after dinner; but never late in the evening, their natural tendency not agreeing with the posture of a body at rest. He wrote this treatise in a popular style, as intended for the benefit of all ranks of people; the abuse he condemned growing daily more and more epidemical. Though he deemed it too superficial for publication, he permitted it to be much circulated in manuscript. It was not till five years after that he was persuaded by his friend Dr. Boerhaave to print it, first in French, under the title of “Avis salutaire a tout le monde, contre Tabus cles liqueurs chaudes, & particulierement du caffe, du chocolat, & du the.” Rotterdam, J 705. He printed it the year following in English.

The persecution of protestants in France continuing to drive great numbers of them from all its provinces into Germany, he defrayed occasionally the expences of some small bodies of these poor emigrants, who passed through Cassel in 1702, in their way to Brandenburg, where encouraging offers of a comfortable maintenance were held out by Frederic, the newly created king of Prussia, to industrious manufacturers of every sort. The praises these people spread of Dr. Duncan’s liberality, when they arrived at Berlin, procured him a flattering invitation to that court. Here he was well received by the reigning prince; who appointed him distributor of his prudent munificence to some thousands of these poor artificers, and superintendant of the execution of a plan formed for their establishment. This office he discharged with great credit and internal satisfaction; but with no other advantage to himself. Though appointed professor of physic with a decent salary, and physician to the royal household, he found his abode at Berlin likely to prove injurious to his health and fortune. His expences there were excessive, and increasing without bounds by the daily applications made to him as distributor of the royal bounty, which fell short of their wants. Besides, the intemperate mode of living at that court was not according to his taste, and this last reason induced him. in 1703, to remove to the Hague. In this most agreeable residence he settled about twelve years, a short excursion to London excepted in 1706, for the purpose of investing all his monied property in the English funds. He kept at this time a frequent correspondence with Dr. Boerhaave, at whose persuasion he published a Latin edition of uis Natural Chemistn with some improvements and additional illustrations. He commenced about the same time a correspondence upon similar subjects with Dr. Richard Mead, From the time of his leavijig London in 1681. it appears that Dr. Duncan constantly entertained thoughts of fixing there his final abode. He however did not effect this purpose till about the end of 1714. He expressed an intention to quit the Hague some months sooner; but unhappilv just then he was suddenly seized with a stroke of the palsy, which greatly alarmed his friends. Yet, when he had overcome the first shock, he found no other inconvenience from it himself till his death twenty-one years after, except a slight convulsive motion of the head, which seized him commonly in speaking, but never interrupted the constant cheerfulness of his address. To a patient likely to do well he would say, “It is not for your case that I shake my head, but my own. You will soon shake me off, I warrant you.” He dedicated the last sixteen years of his life to the gratuitous service of those who sought his advice. To the rich who consulted him, from whom he as peremptorily refused to take a fee, he was wont to say, with a smile, ' The poor are my only paymasters now; they are the best I ever had; their payments are placed in a government-fund that can never fail; my security is the only King who can do no wrong.“This alluded to the loss he had sustained, in 1721, of a third part of his property by the South Sea scheme, which, however, produced not the least alteration in his purpose, nor any retrenchment of his general beneficence to the poor. He left behind him a great number of manuscripts, chiefly on physical subjects. The writers of the” Bibliotheque Britannique“for June 1735, whence the substance of this account is taken, close the article relating to him with this short sketch of his character” His conversation was easy, cheerful, and interesting, pure from all taint of partyscandal or idle raillery. This made his company desired by all who had a capacity to know its value; and he afforded a striking instance that religion must naturally gain strength from the successful study of nature.“He died at London, April 30, 1735, aged 86. He left behind him an only son, the reverend doctor Daniel Duncan, author of some religious tracts; among the rest,” Collects upon the principal Articles of the Christian Faith, according to the order of the Catechism of the Church of England.“Printed lor S. Birt, 1754. This was originally intended for an appendix to a larger work, completed for the press, but never published, entitled,” The Family Catechism, being a free and comprehensive Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England.“He corresponded with the writers of the” Candid Disquisitions,“c. in which work he was from that circumstance supposed to have had some share. He died in June, 1761, leaving behind him two sons, both clergymen, the younger of whom, John Duncan, D. D. rector of South Warmborough, Hants, died at Bath Dec. 28, 1808. He was born in 1720, and educated at St. John’s college, Oxford, where he took his degrees of M. A. in 1746, B. D. 1752, and D. D. by decree of convocation in 1757. Jn 1745 and 1746 he was chaplain to the king’s own regiment, and was present at every battle in Scotland in which that regiment was engaged. He afterwards accompanied the regiment to Minorca, and was present at the memorable siege of St. Philip’s, which was followed by the execution of admiral Byng. In 1763 he was presented to the college living of South Warmborough, which he held for forty-five years. Besides many fugitive pieces in the periodical journals, Dr. Duncan published an” Essay on Happiness,“a poem, in four- books; an” Address to the rational advocates of the Church of England;“the” Religious View of the present crisis“” The Evidence of Reason, in proof of the Immortality of the Soul,“collected from Mr. Baxter’s Mss. with an introductory letter by the editor, addressed to Dr. Priestley; and some other tracts and occasional sermons. He contributed to the” Biographia Britannica,“the life of his grandfather, and an account of the family of Duncans and what the editor of that work said of him in his life-time may be justly repeated now,” that he sustained the honour of his family, in the respectability of his character, in the liberality of his mind, and in his ingenious and valuable publications."

, an ancestor of the preceding Dr. Daniel Duncan, and also a physician, was of Scotch origin, but born in London. He appears to have gone early in life to Franct and during a residence at Saumur, acquired the patronage of the celebrated Du Plessis Mornay, then governor of that city, who procured him the professorship of philosophy in the university. This situation he filled with great reputation, and published several learned works, among the rest, a Latin system of Logic, much commended by Burgersdicius, in the preface to his “Jnstitutiones Logicæ,” which he frankly confesses to have formed entirely upon that model. By the interest of the governor, his generous protector, to whom his Logic is dedicated, he became afterwards regent [principal] of the university of Saumur. Among his works is a book against the possession of the Ursuline nuns of Loudun. This piece made so much noise, that Li ubardemont, commissary for the examination of the demoniacal possession of these young women, would have made it a serious affair for him, but for the interposition of the marshal de Breze, to whom he was physician. At Saumur he married a gentlewoman of a good family, and gained so much reputation in his art, that James I. king of Britain sent for him, with an offer of making him his physician in ordinary and for this purpose he sent him the patent of it (as a security of what he was promised) before he crossed the sea but, as his wife was extremely desirous not to leave her native country, her relations, and acquaintance, he refused to accept of an employment that was so honourable and advantageous to his family, and spent the rest of his life at iSanmur, where he died in 1640, to the universal regret of every one, whether high or low, papist or protestant. He was admirably well skilled in philosophy, divinity, and mathematics, besides physic, which he practised with great honour; and was a man of the greatest probity, and of a most exemplary life.

He had a son, Mark Duncan, who is mentioned by biographers under the name of Cerisantes. Bayle gives a long desultory account of him. His life appears to have been strangely checquered, through a spirit impatient of rest, with a variety of literary, civil, and military pursuits. Moreri has inserted in his dictionary, from the fictitious memoirs said to be written by the duke of Guise, some calumnies against Cerisantes, which are refuted in a satisfactory manner by Bayle. Several detached pieces of Cerisantes’s poetry are to be seen in printed miscellaneous collections. Among these is a remarkable one, inscribed, “Carmen gratulatorinm in nuptias Caroli It. Aug. cum Henrietta Maria rilia Henrici IV. R. Fr.” The visionary blessings that were to arise from this union to all the world, particularly to his native country, and that of his progenitor, (by their becoming the joint arbiters of that perpetual peace in Europe, which it was the project of Henry to establish, and which he has beautifully painted in the most lively colouring), only shew that a good poet may be a bad prophet. He is said to have died in 1648.

In 1748, Mr. Robert Dodsley published that work so well adapted to the education of youth, entitled “The Preceptor;” and that it might be executed in the best manner, called in the assistance of some of the ablest men of the age, among whom may be reckoned the names of David Fordyce, Dr. John Campbell, and Dr. Samuel Johnson. The part of logic was assigned to Mr. Duncan, and he discharged the task with an ability that excited general approbation. He has treated logic like one who was a thorough master of it. Disdaining to copy servilely after those who had gone before him, he struck out a plan of his own, and managed it with so much perspicuity and judgment, gave so clear and distinct a view of the furniture of our minds for the discovery of truth, and laid down such excellent rules for the attainment of it, that his work was reckoned one of the best introductions to the study of philosophy and the mathematics in our own, or perhaps any other language. Mr. Duncan’s last production was a translation of Ciesar’s Coaimentaries, which appeared in the latter end of 1752, in one vol. folio. This work had a double title to a favourable reception from the public, being recommended both by its external and internal merit. It is beautifully printed, and richly adorned with a variety of fine cuts; and as to the translation, it is acknowledged to be the best that has been given in our tongue of the Commentaries of Caesar. Mr. Duncan has in a great measure caught the spirit of the original author, and has preserved his turn of phrase and expression as far as the nature of our language would permit. Previously to our author’s publication of this work, he had been appointed professor of philosophy in the Alarischal college, Aberdeen. The royal presentation, which conferred this office upon him, was signed by the king at Hanover, May 18, 1752. Mr. Duncan, however, remained in London till the summer of 1753, and was not admitted to his professorship of natural and experimental philosophy till Aug. 21, of the same year. While Mr. Duncan resided in the metropolis, he was in the habits of intimacy with several of the learned men who flourished at that time; and among others, George Lewis Scot, and Dr. Armstrong, were his particular friends. Indeed he was held in general esteem on account of his private, as well as his literary character. The sedentary life he had led before he came into the college at Aberdeen, had a good deal affected his constitution, and particularly his nerves; in consequence of which he was subject to an occasional depression of spirits. By this he was unfitted for great exertions, but not for his ordinary employment, or for enjoying the company of his friends. He died a bachelor. May 1, 1760, in the fortythird year of his age. Mr. Duncan cannot so much be said to have possessed genius, as good sense and taste; and his parts were rather solid than shining. His temper was social, his manners easy and agreeable, and his conversation entertaining and often lively. In his instructions as a professor he was diligent and very accurate. His conduct was irreproachable, and he was regular in his attendance on the various institutions of public worship. Soon after his settlement in the Marischal college, he was admitted an elder of the consistory or church session of Aberdeen, and continued to officiate as such till his death.

, an ingenious poetical and miscellaneous writer, youngest son of John Buncombe, esq. of Stocks, in the parish of Ahibury, Hertfordshire, and Hannah his wife, was born at his father’s house in Hatton-garden, London, Jan. 9, 1689-90, and owed his Christian name to the revolution principles of his father and family. On the same principles, his father in 1693 put his life into the tontine, or annuities increasing by survivorship, subscribing 100l. on it, for which \Ql. per annum was paid immediately, and from which, in the course of his long life, our author received some thousands. He was educated in two private seminaries, viz. at Cheney, in Bucks, and afterwards at Pinner, near Harrow-on-the- Hill, Middlesex, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Goodwin. In December 1706, Mr. Buncombe was entered as a clerk in the navy-office, and was advanced to a higher salary in January 1707-8. So early as 1715, we find a translation by him of the twenty-ninth ode of the first book of Horace, in the collection commonly known by the name of “The Wit’s Horace.” About this time, being acquainted with Mr. Jabefc Hughes, Mr. Buncombe was introduced to his brother John, author of the “Siege of Damascus,” and also to his sister (afterwards Mrs. Buncombe), who was a woman of excellent sense and temper. Our author’s translation of the Carmen Seculare of Horace was printed in folio in 1721, and was collected in 1731, in Concanen’s Miscellany, entitled “The Flower-piece.” This was followed in 1722, by a translation of the tragedy of “Athaliah” by Racine, which was published by subscription, and has gone through three editions. Having contracted an intimacy at the Navy-office with Mr. Henry Needier, a gentleman endued with a like taste, our author, by supplying him with proper books, enabled him to gratify his ardent thirst for knowledge; and, on his early death in 1718, hastened by his intense application, discharged the debt of friendship by collecting and publishing his “Original Poems, Translations, Essays, and Letters,” in 1724, one vol. 8vo, of which there have been also three editions. On Becember 3, 1725, Mr. Buncombe quitted his place at the Navy-office, and spent the remainder of a long and happy life, among his friends and his books, in literary 7 leisure;­Having a share in the “Whitehall Evening Post,” several of his fugitive pieces appeared occasionally in that paper; in particular, a translation of Buchanan’s “Verses on Valentine’s Day;” “Verses to Euryalus (Mr. John Carleton) on his coming of age;” “The Choice of Hercules,” fr.,;u Xenophon, (for which there was such a demand, that the paper was in a few days ont of print); and a “Defence of some passages in Paradise Lost,” from the hyper-criticism of M. de Voltaire. About the same time, numberless errors in a new edition of Chillingworth were pointed out by him, and translations of the “Letters between Archbishop Fenelon and M. de la Motte,” since republished in the appendix to archbishop Herring’s Letters, and of the “Adventures of Melesickton,” and other fables from Fenelon, were published in the London Journal. In the lottery of 1725, a ticket which Mr. Duncombe had in partnership with miss Elizabeth Hughes, sister of John Hughes, esq. author of “The Siege of Damascus,” was drawn a pnze of 1000l. a circumstance which probably hastened his m image with that amiable lady, which took place Sept 1, 1726, on which he removed to her mother’s house in Red-lion-street, Holborn.

In the summer of 1732, Mr. Buncombe’s tragedy of “Lucius Junius Brutus” was read and approved by“the author’s friend, Mr. Mills senior, and by him introduced to the theatrical triumvirate, Booth, Gibber, and Wilks, who also approved it, and promised it should be performed. Booth regretted he could not act in it; and Wilks undertook the part of Titus; unfortunately he died in September following; and the revolt of the players, with the confusion that ensued, prevented its being brought on the stage till two years after, when Mr. Duncombe, unadvisedly, consented to Mr. Fleetwood’s proposal of bringing it on at Drury-lane in November, when the town was empty, the parliament not sitting, and Farinelli, the singer, highly popular at the Hay-market. The consequence was natural and obvious.” The quavering Italian eunuch (to use our author’s own words) proved too powerful for the rigid Roman consul.“Yet it was acted six nights with applause, and repeated in February following, and at the same time was printed in 8vo, with a dedication to lord chief justice Hardwicke. A second edition, in 12mo, with a translation of M. de Voltaire’s” Essay on Tragedy“prefixed, was published in 1747. In April 1735, Mr. Duncombe published, by subscription, in two volumes 12rno, the” Poems,“&c. of his deceased brother-in-law, John Hughes, esq. which were received by his friends and the public with the esteem due to Hughes’s merit. In January, 1735-6, our author’s domestic happiness received a severe shock by the death of his wife, which happened at Spring Grove, in Middlesex, the seat of his first cousin, Mrs. Ofley. In 1737 he collected and published, in one volume 8vo, the” Miscellanies in verse and prose“of Mr. Jabez Hughes, for the benefit of his widow, but the dedication (in her name) to the duchess of Bedford, was drawn up by the rev. Mr. Copping, dean of Clogher. In 1743, on the death of his learned friend, Mr. Samuel Say, a dissenting minister in Westminster, Mr. Duncombe undertook, for the benefit of his widow and daughter, to revise and prepare for the press some of his poems, and two prose essays, which were accordingly published in one volume 4to, in 1745. In 1744, the” Siege of Damascus,“and some other moral plays, having been acted by several persons of distinction for their amusement, Mr. Duncombe was induced to publish” An Oration on the usefulness of Dramatic Interludes in the education of youth,“translated from the Latin of M. Werenfels, by whom it was spoken before the masters and scholars of the university of Basil. On the breaking-out of the rebellion in 1745, our author endeavoured to second his honoured friend, the archbishop of York, by reprinting” A Sermon“(now known to have been written by Dr. Arbuthnot), supposed to be” preached to the people at the Mercat- cross of Edinburgh, on the subject of the union in 1706,“and to the sermon prefixed a preface, without his name, setting forth the advantages which have accrued to the kingdom of Scotland by its union with England. About the same time he also printed, with a preface, a tract, entitled,” The complicated Guilt of the Rebellion,“which had been written by Mr. Hughes in 1716, but was then suppressed, as the insurrection it related to was soon after quelled: this tract was judged by Mr. Duncombe to be equally applicable to the transactions of 1740. In the summer of 1749, being with his relation, Mr. Brooke, at York, Mr. Duncombe was accidentally instrumental to the detection of Archibald Bower, by transmitting to archbishop Herring an account of that adventurer’s escape from the inquisition, taken by memory from his own mouth, which being published the year following by Mr. Barron, a dissenting minister, was disavowed by Bower; though, when called upon, the mistakes which he was able to specify, were found to be few and trifling. This was the first impeachment of his integrity, and exposed him to the attacks of Dr. Douglas, who had before detected Lauder. To the periodical publication called” The World,“Mr. Duncombe contributed one paper, No. 84,” Prosperity and Adversity, an allegory." la

1754, Mr. Duncombe drew up “Remarks on lord Bolingbroke’s Notion of a God,” with some occasional notes; to which he annexed a translation, from Cicero, “De Natura Deorum,” of the arguments of Q Lucilius Balbus, the stoic, in proof of the being, and of the wisdom, power, and goodness, of God. These were read and approved by the archbishop, and others of the author’s friends, but were not published till 1763, when he allowed the late Dr. Dodd to insert them in the “Christian’s Magazine.” They have since been collected in the Appendix to archbishop Herring’s letters. Horace having always been Mr. Duncombe’s favourite author, he had amused himself for more than thirty years, at different times, with translating several of his odes, but without any intention of publishing them, or of giving a version of the whole to the world, till his son offered his assistance for completing the work; and undertook some of the odes and satires, all the epodes, and the first book of epistles, and added several imitations from Sanadon, Dacier, &c. Mr. Duncombe compiled notes to the whole, and published one volume 8vo, in 1757, and the second in 1759. Another edition, in four volumes, 12mo, with several additional imitations, appeared in 1764. On the death of his excellent friend, archbishop Herring, our author, as a token of his gratitude and affection, collected, in one volume 8vo, the “Seven Sermons on public occasions,” which his grace had separately printed in his life-time, and prefixed to them some memoirs of his life. This was his last publication. With a constitution naturally weak and tender, by constant regularity, and an habitual sweetness and evenness of temper, his life was prolonged to the advanced age of seventy-nine; when, without any previous painful illness, he died February 13, 1769, esteemed, beloved, and regretted, by all who knew him. He was interred near the remains of his wife, in, the burying-place of his family, in Aldbury church, Hertfordshire, and left one son, the subject of the next article.

, was born 1730, and when a child, was of an amiable disposition, had an uncommon capacity for learning, and discovered, very early, a genius for poetry. After some years passed at a school at Romford, in Essex, under the care of his relation, the rev. Philip Fletcher, afterwards dean of Kildare, and younger brother to the bishop of that see, he was removed to a more eminent one at Felsted, in the same county. At this school he was stimulated by emulation to an exertion of his talents; and, by a close application, he became the first scholar, as well as captain of the school, and gained the highest reputation; and by the sweetness of his temper and manners, and by a disposition to friendship, he acquired and preserved the love of all his companions, and the esteem of his master and family. He has, on some particular occasions, been heard modestly to declare, that he was never punished, during hib whole residence at either school, for negligence in his lessons or exercise, or for any other misdemeanor. He was very early qualified for the university, and constantly improved himself, when at home, by his private studies, and the assistance or his father, happy in the companionship of such a son, who was always dutiful and affectionate to him; and the first literary characters of that time associated with a father and son, whose polished taste and amiable manners rendered them universally acceptable. He was entered, at the age of sixteen, at Bene‘t-college, Cambridge, where Mr. Castle, afterwards dean of Hereford, was then master: and he was recommended to that college by archbishop Herring, whom we have mentioned as his father’s particular friend. The archbishop baptised his son, and promised to patronize him, if educated for the church, and therefore sent him to the college where he had completed his own education. At the university he continued to rise in reputation as a scholar and a poet, and was always irreproachable in his moral character: he had the happiness of forming some connections there with men of genius an ’< virtue, which lasted through life; but the first and strongest attachment, in which he most delighted, end which reflected honour on his own merit, was the uninterrupted friendship, and constant correspondence, which com.uued to the last, with Mr. Greene, a very respectable clergyman of the diocese of Norwich, a man whose character for learning and abilities, goodness and virtue, justly gained him the esteem and love of all who had the happiness of his acquaintance, whose testimony is real praise, who acknowledged the worth of his valuable friend, “and loved his amiable and benevolent spirit.”

He was, in 1750, with full reputation, chosen fellow of Bene't-college; was, in 1753, ordained at Kew chapel, by Dr. Thomas, bishop of Peterborough, and appointed, by the recommendation of archbishop Herring, to the curacy of Sundridge in Kent; after which he became assistant preacher at St. Anne’s, Soho, where his father resided, and Dr. Squire, afterwards bishop of St. David’s, was rector, with whom he lived in particular intimacy, and who gave him a chaplainship, and intended to patronize him; but in that instance, and several others, he experienced the loss of friends and patrons before they had been able to gratify their own intention, or bestow on him any thing considerable. His elegant discourses acquired him, as a preacher, great reputation; his language was always correct, his expression forcible, and his doctrine so pathetically delivered, as to impress his hearers with reverence and awaken their attention. His voice was harmonious; and rather by the distinct articulation, than from strength, he was better heard, in many large churches, and particularly in the choir of Canterbury cathedral, than some louder tones, having cultivated the art of speaking in the pulpit; and his sermons always recommended that moderation, truly Christian temper, and universal charity and philanthropy, which formed the distinguished mark of his character in every part of life; and he was totally free from all affectation, as well in the pulpit as in common conversation. He was a popular and admired preacher; but he had no vanity on that account, and was equally satisfied to fulfil his duty in a country parish, and an obscure village, as in a crowded cathedral, or populous church in the metropolis. But his merit was not much regarded by the attention of the great. He was, however, esteemed, honoured, and beloved, in the very respectable neighbourhood where he constantly resided; and the dignities and affluence he might reasonably have expected from his family connections, and early patronage, could only have displayed, in a wider sphere, that benevolence, and those viriues, which are equally beneficial to the possessor, in whatever station he may be placed, when exercised to the utmost of his ability.

After the death of bishop Squire, he was nominated chaplain to lord Corke, with whom he and his father had the honour of a particular friendship, as appears by that nobleman’s “Letters from Italy.” He was presented, in 1757, by archbishop Herring, to the united livings of St. Andrew and St. Mary Bredman, in Canterbury. This benefice was bestowed in the most friendly manner by his patron, who called it only something to begin with: but the archbishop lived not above two months afterwards; and with his life the prospect of future advancement seemed to disappear. However, no complaint against the slow preferment from his respected friend and patron, no murmur against the daily dispositions of benefices, to which he must be conscious his merit often gave him equal claim, ever was suffered to escape in conversation.

This living enabled him to fulfil a long engagement, or rather to obey the impulse of a long attachment, to miss Highmore, daughter of Mr. Highmore, who was known to the world, not only by his pencil, but by his other extensive knowledge, and literary pursuits. He was married at St. Anne’s church, 20th April 1763, by Dr. Squire, bishop of St. David’s. A similarity of taste and love of literature had early endeared their companionship; and a mutual affection was the natural consequence, which ensured to them twenty years happiness, rather increased than diminished by the hand of time! He settled at Canterbury; and, in 1766, archbishop Seeker appointed him one of the six preachers in that cathedral. In 1773, archbishop Cornwall is gave him the living of Herne, about six miles from Canterbury, which afforded him a pleasant recess in the summer months. His grace also granted him a chaplainship; and he had, previous to the last living, been entrusted with the mastership of Harbledown and St. John’s hospitals, places of trust only, not emolument: so that he had, in fact, three favours, though not any of them considerable, in succession, from three archbishops.

He was suddenly taken ill in the night, June 2!, 1785. A suffocation was rapidly coming on; but a surgeon being called, he was almost instantly relieved by bleeding a good sleep ensued, but he waked in the morning almost speechless; a paralytic stroke on the organs of articulation only, seemed to have taken place; medical assistance was applied; he partly recovered articulation; but great debility was perceivable, and he could no longer write as usual: however, by slow degrees he regained strength, beyond the expectation of iiis distressed friends; and appeared after the summer passed at Herne, to be quite restored to health and spirits, and pursued every avocation as before the stroke, and with the same power of mind; but those who were most constantly with him, and watched with the tender eye of affection, never lost the alarm, never rested without apprehension, and perceived, by some suaden starts, and nervous complaints, that all was not sound within. In January following he coughed much, two or three days, but without any dangerous symptom, till, on the night of the 18th, a suffocation as before came on; assistance was immediately procured, but not with the former success; the disorder increased, and loss of life ensued. His gentle spirit, as he had lived, departed, easy to himself in his exit; distressful alone to all that knew him, to those most who knew him best. His family, his friends, the servants, and the poor, all by their affliction spoke his real worth. He left one daughter. His temper never changed by any deprivation of the world’s enjoyments, nor by any bodily suffering; no peevishness, no complaints escaped; though it is observed that a great alteration often attends such disorders, and warps the temper naturally good. But he silently used his piety to the laudable purpose of regulating not only his actions, but his words; yet this was discovered rather from observation than from his own profession, as he was remarkably modest and humble on religious topics; and, for fear of ostentation on that subject, might rather err on the opposite side, from an awful timidity, which might not always give a just idea of his unaffected zeal and real faith. His friendship, where professed, was ardent; and he had a spirit in a friend’s cause that rarely appeared on other occasions. He was amiable, affectionate, and tender, as a husband and father; kind and indulgent as a master; and a protector and advocate of the poor; benevolent to all, as far as his fortune could afford.

While a barrister, he shone equally as a powerful pleader and an ingenious reasoner. To the quickest apprehension he joined an uncommon solidity of judgment; and embracing in his mind all the possible arguments which were applicable to his cause, he could even in his unpremeditated pleadings discover at once and instantly attach himself to some strong principle of law on which he built the whole of his reasoning. His eloquence, though as various as the nature of the case required, was constantly subservient to his judgment; and though master of all the powers of expression, he rarely indulged himself in what is properly termed declamation. A fine specimen of his argumentative powers is to be found in his defence of Carnegie of Finhaven. This gentleman was in 1728, tried before the court of justiciary in Scotland, for the murder of Charles earl of Strathmore. At a meeting in the country, where the company had drank to intoxication, Carnegie, having received the most abusive language from Lyon of Bridgeton, drew his sword, and staggering forward to make a pass at this Lyon, killed the earl of Strathmore, a person for whom he had the highest regard and esteem, and who unfortunately came between him and his antagonist, apparently in the view of separating them. In this memorable trial, Mr. Dundas had not only the merit of saving the life of the prisoner, but of establishing a point of the utmost consequence to the security of life and liberty, the power of a jury, which at that time was questioned in Scotland, of returning a general verdict on the guilt or innocence of the person accused.

In Scotland, though general verdicts appear to have been authorised by the most ancient practice of the criminal court, it had long been customary to consider jurymen as tied down to determine simply, whether the facts in the indictment were proved or not proved. This change from the ancient practice is supposed, with much reason, to have been introduced in the latter part of the reign of Charles II. at a time when we find the king’s advocate (Mackenzie) strenuously contending in his “System of Criminal Law,” for the entire abolition of juries. The latter was too strong a measure, and would have been found of difficult accomplishment; the former was of easier attainment, and answered nearly the same end. The accused person, to satisfy appearances, and for the show of justice, was still to be tried by his peers; but his guilt or innocence was rarely within their cognizance; that was decided by the laws, or by their interpreters, the judges; and the jury, tied down to determine solely on the proof of facts, was compelled to surrender into the hands of these judges, and thus often to sacrifice the life of a fellow citizen, though convinced of his innocence, and earnestly desirous of his acquittal. Thus matters stood till the trial of Carnegie, who, had the powers of a Scotch jury remained thus circumscribed, must have suffered the punishment due to the foulest malefactor; the court had found the facts in the indictment “relevant to infer the pains of law” and the proof of these facts was as clear as noon-day. There remained no hope for the prisoner, unless the jury should be roused to assert a right which they had long relinquished, and vindicate the privilege of deciding on the guilt or innocence of the accused; and this great point was gained by the powerful eloquence of the prisoner’s counsel. The jury found the prisoner not guilty; and from that time, the right of a Scotch jury to return a general verdict, is acknowledged to be of the very essence of that institution.

In the beginning of 1754, Mr. Dundas was elected member of parliament for the county of Edinburgh; and in the following snmmer he was appointed his majesty’s advocate for Scotland. In parliament, the share which Mr. Dundas took in public business, and his appearances on many interesting subjects of discussion, which occurred in that important period during which he sat in the house of commons, were such as fully to justify the character he had already attained for talents and ability. Such was the complexion of the times, and so high the tide of party, that it was perhaps impossible for human wisdom to have pointed out a line of political conduct which could entirely exempt from censure. The lord advocate shared with the rest of his party in the censure of those who followed an pposite plan of politics but of him it may certainly with truth be affirmed, that in no instance was he ever known to swerve from his principles, or to act a part in which he had not the countenance of many of the firmest friends to the interest of their country. He was chiefly censured for the opposition which he gave to the establishment of a militia in Scotland, by a great party in that country, who warmly supported that measure. But when the question is dispassionately viewed, it will appear to be one of those doubtful points, on which the wisest men and the best patriots may entertain opposite opinions.

There were indeed other occasions, on which his feelings were most keenly awakened, and on which he gave vent to a becoming spirit of indignation. He treated with the greatest severity every instance, either of malversation in the officers of the law, or of chicanery in the inferior practitioners of the court. No calumnious or iniquitous prosecution, no attempt to pervert the forms of law to the purposes of oppression, ever eluded his penetration, or escaped his just resentment. Thus, perpetually watchful, and earnestly solicitous to maintain both the dignity and the rectitude of that sup'reme tribunal over which he presided, the influence of these endeavours extended itself to every inferior court of judicature as the motion of the heart is felt in the remotest artery. In reviewing the sentences ui inferior judges, he constantly expressed his desire of supporting the just authority of every rank and order of magistrates; but these were taught at the same time to walk with circumspection, to guard their conduct with the most scrupulous exactness, and to dread the slightest deviation from the narrow path of their duty. With these endowments of mind, and high sense of the duties of his office, it is not surprising, that amidst all the differences of sentiment which the jarring interests of individuals, or the more powerful influence of political faction, give rise to, thete should be but one opinion of the character of this eminent man, which is, that from the period of the institution of that court over which he presided, however conspicuous in particular departments might have been the merit of some of his predecessors, no man ever occupied the president’s chair, who combined in himself so many of the essential requisites for the discharge of that important office. But while we allow the merits of this great man in possessing, in their utmost extent, the most essential requisites for the station which he filled, it is but a small derogation from the confessed eminence of his character when we acknowledge a deficiency in some subordinate qualities. Of these, what was chiefly to be regretted, and was alone wanting to the perfection of his mental accomplishments, was, that he appeared to give too little weight or value to those studies which are properly termed literary. This was the more remarkable in him, that, in the early period of his life, he had prosecuted himself those studies with advantage and success. In his youth he had made great proficiency in classical learning; and his memory retaining faithfully whatever he had once acquired, it was not unusual with him, even in his speeches on the bench, to cite, and to apply with much propriety, the most striking passages of the ancient authors. But for these studies, though qualified to succeed in them, it does not appear that he ever possessed a strong bent or inclination. If he ever felt it, the weightier duties of active life, which he was early called to exercise, precluded the opportunity of frequently indulging it; and perhaps even a knowledge of the fascinating power of those pursuits, in alienating the mind from the severer but more necessary occupations, might have inclined him at last to disrelish from habit, what it had taught him at first to resist from principle. That this principle was erroneous, it is unnecessary to consume time in proving. It is sufficient to say, that as jurisprudence can never hope for any material advancement as a science, if separated from the spirit of philosophy, so that spirit cannot exist, independent of the cultivation of literature. That the studies of polite literature, and an acquaintance with the principles of general erudition, while they improve the science, add lustre and dignity to the profession of the law, cannot be denied. So thought all the greatest lawyers of antiquity. So thought, among the moderns, that able judge and most accomplished man, of whose character we have traced some imperfect features, lord Arniston, the father of the late lord president; of which his inaugural oration, as it stands upon the records of the faculty of advocates, bears ample testimony. His son, it is true, afforded a strong proof, that the force of natural talents alone may conduct to eminence and celebrity. He was rich in native genius, and therefore felt not the want of acquired endowments. But in this he left an example to be admired, not imitated. Few inherit from nature equal powers with his; and even of himself it must be allowed, that if he was a great man without the aids of general literature, or of cultivated taste, be must have been still a greater, had he availed himself of those lights which they furnish, and that improvement which they bestow. His useful and valuable life was terminated on the 13th of December 1787. His last illness, which, though of short continuance, was violent in its nature, he bore with the greatest magnanimity. He died in the seventy-fifth year of his age, in the perfect enjoyment of all his faculties; at a time when his long services might have justly entitled him to ease and repose, but which the strong sense of his duty would not permit him to seek while his power of usefulness continued; at that period, in short, when a wise man would wish to finish his course; too soon indeed for the public good, but not too late for his own reputation.

In 1791, Mr. Dundas became a member of the cabinet, as secretary of state for the home department, an office which he filled with peculiar energy and vigour, when it became necessary to adopt measures for the internal defence of the country against a portion of revolutionary spirit derived from the temporary successes of the French in what they called reforming the vices of their government. To Mr. Dundas has also been ascribed the origin of the volunteer system, which has unquestionably served to display the loyalty and energies of the nation in a manner which its greatest enemy has felt severely. In 1794, when the duke of Portland, with a large proportion of the whig party, joined the administration, Mr. Dundas resigned his office of secretary for the home department to his grace, and was made secretary of the war department. The whole of his transactions in this, as well, indeed, as in his former office, belong so strictly to history, that we know not how to separate them, and even if our limits permitted, the leading events of that most eventful period are too recent to admit of any detail superior in authority to the annals of the day. A man so long in possession of uncommon power must necessarily have excited much envy and malice; and few had more of it than Mr. Dundas. They who disapprove of the political system pursued by Mr. Pitt, will of course be equally unfriendly to his coadjutor, and, in many measures, certainly his adviser; but, on the other hand, a large number of comprehensive minds will consider him a powerful and efficient statesman, who, if he was sometimes excessive in his profusion, and too careless in his means and instruments, lost nothing by a cold, narrow, and unwise œconomy, which, for the sake of small savings, sacrifices mighty and productive ends; which is entangled by the minute formalities of office; and wrapping itself up in forbidding ceremonies, and hanging fearfully over the precedents of the file, is unable to look abroad, when the storm is out, and the banks and mounds are thrown down. The candid biographer from whom we have borrowed these remarks adds, with great justice, that until it shall he proved, that the evils, which even this country has suffered from the French revolution, would not have been a thousand times worse by Battering and yielding to it, surely nothing is proved against the wisdom of Mr. Pitt’s administration.

Lord Melville possessed all the natural talents of his relatives and ancestors, but like them was deficient in literary taste or acquirements. He was completely a man of business; in office regular and systematic, and to applicants affable and attentive; he made no parade of professions, and those who sought admittance on business, or courted his patronage, were never deluded by false hopes. With many brilliant examples before him of men who had become great by popularity, or were admired for the refinements of courtesy, he had no ambition to emulate them. His acquisitions from keeping the best company were so few, that he knew little of the language, and nothing of the eloquence of the country in which he was destined to flourish; and although he acquired an unprecedented share of power and patronage, it would be difficult to say whom he courted or pleased. The arts of what is termed popularity, he neither practised, nor understood. He never was at any period of his life, a popular minister, yet few men had more friends, for he could rank among that number many of his public opponents, who, amidst all the bitterness of party spirit, paid homage to the friendly, liberal, and we may add, convivial tenor of his private life; and to his open and undisguised avowal of sentiments and principles to which he adhered without a single breach of consistency. The extent of his patronage was perhaps his misfortune, for while it brought upon him the envy of those who would have had no scruple to share it, it also rendered him liable to more serious censure. A minister who is pestered by solicitations from those whom, he wishes not to refuse, soon loses the power of discrimination; and lord Melville was peculiarly unfortunate in some of the objects of his bounty, whose faults were placed to his account, and whom his friendship led him to screen after they had forfeited their character with the public. Upon the whole, whatever may be thought of his character during the present generation of parties, it cannot, even now, be denied that his great talents for business, both in parliament and in council, his indefatigable industry, and his benevolent and social temper, justly rank him among the most eminent of our political leaders, and will secure for him a large portion of the approbation of future historians.

, a writer of the ninth century, better known by his works than his personal history, is supposed to have been a native of Ireland, who emigrated to France, and there probably died. Cave and Dupin call him deacon, but Dungal himself assumes no other title than that of subject to the French kings, and their orator. In his youth he studied sacred and profane literature with success, and taught the former, and had many scholars, but at last determined to retire from the world. The influence which Valclon or Valton, the abbot of St. Denis near Paris, had over him, with some other circumstances, afford reason to think that if he was not a monk of that abbey, he had retired somewhere in its neighbourhood, or perhaps resided in the house itself. During this seclusion he did not forsake his studies, but cultivated the knowledge of philosophy, and particularly of astronomy, which was much the taste of that age. The fame he acquired as an astronomer induced Charlemagne to consult him in the year 811, on the subject of two eclipses of the sun, which took place the year before, and Dungal answered his queries in a long letter which is printed in D'Acheri’s Spicilegium, vol. III. of the folio, and vol. X. of the 4to edition, with the opinion of Ismael Bouillaud upon it. Sixteen years after, in the year 827, Dungal took up his pen in defence of images against Claude, bishop of Turin, and composed a treatise which had merit enough to be printed, first separately, in 1608, 8vo, and was afterwards inserted in the “Bibliotheca Patrum.” It would appear also that he wrote some poetical pieces, one of which is in a collection published in 1729 by Martene and Durand. The time of his death is unknown, but it is supposed he was living in the year 834.

In 1759, the authority of the French in the East Indies was entirely overthrown by the English victories in that part of the globe. The great accession of power which was thus thrown into the successful scale, excited the jealousy of the Dutch, who, after some disputes in the country, transmitted their complaints home in form against the servants of the English East India company, as violators of the neutrality, and interrupters of the Dutch commerce. These complaints were delivered to sir Joseph Yorke, the English ambassador at the Hague, in 1761, and soon afterwards were communicated to the public in a pamphlet entitled “An authentic Account of the Proceedings of their High Mightinesses the States of Holland and West Friezeland, on the Complaint laid before them by his excellency sir Joseph Yorke, his Britannic Majesty’s Ambassador at the Hague, concerning hostilities committed in the river of Bengal, &c.” 4to. As the defence of the English company against these charges was absolutely necessary, it became requisite to select some person to whom the task of their vindication might be committed. One account says that Mr. Dunning was at that time known to the late Laurence Sullivan, esq. (long a Director, and many times chairman and deputychairman of the East India Company), as a barrister of rising talents in his profession, and of a very acute and logical understanding. Another account says, that he was introduced to Mr. Sullivan, in this character, by Mr. Hussey, one of the king’s counsel; but in either way, it was by Mr. Sullivan’s means that he was employed in drawing. up the defence, which was published under the title of “A Defence of the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, and their Servants (particularly those at Bengal), against the Complaints of the Dutch East India Company; being a Memorial from the English Company to his Majesty on that subject,” 1762, 4to. This memorial, which produced a conciliating answer and proper redress from the Dutch government, was esteemed a master-piece of language and reasoning, and was so perfectly satisfactory both to government and the East India Company, that it is said the latter presented him with a bank-note of 500l.: but he derived his highest reward from the fame it procured him; and as he now became known to the public for high talents, his profession afforded him a constant security for having those talents well employed.

On the change of administration in 1782, which he had laboured to promote, he was appointed through the interest of his friend lord Shelburne, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, one of the places against which he and his friends had often objected as useless and burthensome to the public; and was about the same time advanced to the peerage by the title of lord Ashburton, of Ashburton, co. Devon. This honour, however, he did not long survive. His constitution, not perhaps originally good, was now worn down by indefatigable labour in his profession, and he died on a visit to Exmouth, August 18, 1783. His lordship married in 17SO, Elizabeth, daughter of John Baring, of Larkbear, co. Devon, esq. sister to John Baring, esq. M. P. for the city of Exeter at that time, and to the late sir Francis Baring, bart. By this lady he had two sons, John, who died in infancy, and Richard Barre, the present lord Ashburton.

Though in the meridian of this celebrated lawyer’s fame he was far from being deficient in confident boldness, he originally had a very considerable degree of diffidence. Practice, however, and intimacy with the manner of the bar, enabled him to overcome this, as far as it was a hindrance, and perhaps a little farther, for often, in the latitude of cross-examination, he indulged himself in sarcasms on the names and professions of individuals, on provincial characters, &c. together with those of whole nations; all of which were much below his learning, his taste, and general manners: nor can we any other way account for it, than from that contagion which is sometimes caught from mixing with narrow men in the profession, who have no other way of shewing their own importance, than by endeavouring to raise it on the diffidence, the weakness, or modesty, of others. He did not, however, always escape unhurt in these sallies; and one of the poets of that day rallied him on this unmanly practice. He got another rub from his friend counsellor Lee (better known by the name of honest Jack Lee) on this account: he was telling Lee that he had that morning purchased some manors in Devonshire. “I wish,” said the other, “you could bring them to Westminster-hall.”

He preserved the dignity of a barrister very much in court, and frequently kept even the judges in check. When lord Mansfield, who had great quickness in discovering the jut of a cause, used to take up a newspaper by way of amusing himself, whilst Dunning was speaking, the latter would make a dead stop. This would rouse his lordship to say, “Pray go on, Mr. Dunning.” “No, my lord, not till your lordship has finished.” His reputation was as high with his fellow-barristers as with the public; he lived very much with the former, and had their affection and esteem. When lord Thurlow gave his first dinner as lord chancellor, he called Dunning to his right hand at table, in preference to all the great law otBcers; and when he hesitated to take the place, the other called out in his blunt way, “Why will you keep the dinner cooling in this manner?” He had that integrity in his practice, that on the opening of any cause, which he found by the evidence partook of any notorious fraud or chicanery, he would throw his brief over the bar with great contempt, and resort to his bag for a fresh paper. Whilst he was in the height of his practice, his father came to the treasurer’s office in the Middle Temple, to be one of the joint securities for a student performing his terms, <kc. Wh<-n he signed the bond, the clerk, seeing the name, asked him with some eagerness, whether he was any relation to the great Dunning? The old man felt the praise of his son with great sensibility, and modestly replied, “I am John Dunning’s father, Sir.” Few lawyers, without any considerable paternal estate at starting, and dying so young as lord Ashburton did, ever left such a fortune behind him; the whole amounting to no less than one hundred and eighty thousand pounds! Nor was this the hoard of a miser, for he always lived like a gentleman in the most liberal sense of the word, though, from his immense practice, he had no time to indulge in the arrangements of a regular establishment. During his illness, as a last resource he was advised to try his native air, and in going down to Devonshire accidentally met, at the same inn, his old colleague Wallace, lately attorneygeneral, coming to town on the same melancholy errand, to be near the best medical assistance. It was the lot of both to be either legal or political antagonists through the whole course of their lives, in which much keenness, and much dexterity of argument, were used on both sides: here, however, they met as friends, hastening to that goal, where the race of toil, contention, and ambition, was soon to have a final close. They supped together with as much conviviality as the nature of their conditions would admit, and in the morning parted wiih mutual promises of visiting each other early in the winter. These promises, however, were never performed: Dunning died in August, and Wallace in November.

, a brave French officer, count of Orleans and of Longueville, and the natural son of Louis duke of Orleans, who was assassinated by the duke of Burgundy, was born Nov. 23, 1407, and began his career, during the war which the English carried on in France, by the defeat of the earls of Warwick and Suffolk, whom he pursued to the gates of Paris. Orleans being besieged by the English, he bravely defended that town, until Joan of Arc was enabled to bring him succours. The raising of the siege was followed by a train of successes, and Dunois had almost the whole honour of driving the enemy out of Normandy and la Guienne. He gave them the fatal blow at Castillon, in 1451, after having taken from them Blaie, Fronsac, Bourdeaux,and Bayonne. Charles VII. owed his throne to the sword of Dunois; nor was he ungrateful, for he bestowed on him the title of restorer of his country, made him a present of the comté of Longueville, and honoured him with the office of grand chamberlain of France. He was held in equal esteem by Louis XI. Count cle Dunois, under the reign of that prince, entered into the league of what was called the Public-good, of which, by his conduct and experience, he became the principal supporter. The hero died Nov. 24, 1468, aged 61, regarded as a second du Guesclin, and not less dreaded by the enemies of his country, than respected by his fellowcitizens, for his valour, which was always guided by prudence, for his magnanimity, his beneficence, and every rirtue that enters into the character of a truly great man.

, surnamed Sgotus, an eminent scholastic divine, who flourished in the latter end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century, was born at Dunstance, in the parish of Emildun or Embleton, near Alnwick in Northumberland. Some writers have contended that he was a Scotsman, and that the place of his birth was Duns, a village eight miles from England, and others have asserted that he was an Irishman. He is, however, treated as an Englishman by all the early authors who speak of him; and the conclusion of the ms copy of his works in Merton college, gives his name, country, and the place where he was born, as stated above. When a youth, he joined himself to the minorite friars of Newcastle; and, being sent by them to Oxford, he was admitted into Merton college, of which, in due time, he became fellow. Here, besides the character he attained in scholastic theology, he is said to have been very eminent for his knowledge in the civil and canon law, in logic, natural philosophy, metaphysics, mathematics, and astronomy. Upon the removal of William Varron from Oxford to Paris, in 1301, Duns Scotus was chosen to supply his place in the theological chair; which office he sustained with such reputation, that more than thirty-thousand scholars came to the university to be his hearers, a number which, though confidently asserted by several writers, we admit with great hesitation. After John Duns had lectured three years at Oxford, he was called, in 1304, to Paris, where he was honoured with the degrees, first of bachelor, and then of doctor in divinity. At a meeting of the monks of his order at Tholouse, in 1307, he was created regent; and about the same time he was placed at the head of the theological schools at Paris. Here he is affirmed to have first broached the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, and to have supported his position by two hundred arguments, which appeared so conclusive, that the members of the university of Paris embraced the opinion; instituted the feast of the immaculate conception; and issued an edict, that no one, who did not embrace the same opinion, should be admitted to academical degrees. In 1308, Duns Scotus was ordered by Gonsalvo, the general of the Minorites, to remove to Cologn, on the road to which he was met in solemn pomp, and conducted thither by the whole body of the citizens. Not long after his arrival in this city, he was seized with an apoplexy, which carried him off, on the eighth of November, 1308, in the forty-third, or, as others say, in the thirty-fourth, year of his age. Paul Jovius’s account of the mode of his death is, that when he fell down of his apoplexy he was immediately interred as dead; but that, afterwards coming to his senses, he languished in a most miserable manner in his coffin, beating his head and hands against its sides, till he died. This story, though generally treated as a fable, is hinted at by Mr. Whavton, who says, “Apoplexia correptus, et festinato nimis, ut volunt, funere elatus,” and whether true or not, gave occasion to the following epitaph:

John Duns was at first a follower of Thomas Aquinas; but, differing from his master on the question concerning the efficacy of divine grace, he formed a distinct sect, and hence the denominations of the Thomists and Scotists, who were engaged for centuries in eager and trifling disputes, and the nances of the two sects still subsist in some of the Roman Catholic schools. On account of Scotus’s acuteness in disputation, he was called “the most subtile Doctor;” but his ingenuity was wholly employed in embarrassing, with new fictions of abstraction, and with other scholastic chimeras, subjects already sufficiently perplexed. He was the author of a. vast number of works, several of which have been separately published, and in 1474, the English Franciscans printed a collection of the larger part. At length, the whole of them (some few still remaining in manuscript excepted) were collected together by Luke Wadding, illustrated with notes, and published at Lyons in 1639, in 12 vols. folio. Absurd as many of the questions were which called forth the exertions of his talents, it is probable that in a more enlightened age, genius and abilities like his might have been of lasting benefit to posterity.

was born of noble parents at Glastonbury, in Somersetshire, in the year 925. Under the patronage of his uncle Aldhelm, archbishop of Canterbury, he was instructed in the literature and accomplishments of those times, and in consequence of his recommendation invited by king Athelstan to court, who bestowed on him lands near Glastonbury, where he is said to have spent some years in retirement. Edmund, the successor of Athelstan, appointed him abbot of the celebrated monastery which he began to rebuild in that place in the year 042, and by the munificence of the king, who gave him a new charter in the year 944, he was enabled to restore it to its former lustre. Among other legendary stories reported of St. Dunstan we are told that he had been represented to the king as a man of licentious manners; and dreading the ruin of his fortune by suspicions of this nature, he determined to repair past indiscretions by exchanging the extreme of superstition for that of licentiousness. Accordingly he secluded himself altogether from the world; and he framed a cell so small that he could neither stand erect in it, nor stretch out his limbs during his repose; and here he employed himself perpetually in devotion or manual labour. In this retreat his mind was probably somewhat deranged; and he indulged chimeras which, believed by himself and announced to the credulous multitude, established a character of sanctity among the people. He is said to have fancied that the devil, among the frequent visits which he paid him, was one day more earnest than usual in his temptations; till Dunstan, provoked hy his importunity, seized him by the nose with a pair of red-hot pincers as he put his head into the cell, and he held him there till the malignant spirit made the whole neighbourhood resound with his bellowings. The people credited and extolled this notable exploit, and it ensured to Dunstan such a degree of reputation, that he appeared again in the world, and Edred, who had succeeded to the crown, made him not only the director of that prince’s conscience, but his counsellor in the most important affairs of government. He was also placed at the head of the treasury; and being possessed of power at court, and of credit with the populace, he was enabled to attempt with success the most arduous enterprizes. Taking advantage of the implicit confidence reposed in him by the king, Dunstan imported into England a new order of monks, the Benedictines, who, by changing the state of ecclesiastical affairs, excited, on their first establishment, the most violent commotions. Finding also that his advancement had been owing to the opinion of his austerity, he professed himself a parti zan of the rigid monastic rules; and after introducing that reformation into the convents of Glastonbury and Abingdon, he endeavoured to render it universal in the kingdom. This conduct, however, incurred the resentment of the secular clergy; and these exasperated the indignation of many courtiers, which had been already excited by the haughty and over-bearing demeanour which Dunstan assumed. Upon the death of Edred, who had supported his prime-minister and favourite in all his measures, and the subsequent succession of Edwy, Dunstan was accused of malversation in his office, and banished the kingdom. But, on the death of Edwy, and the succession of Edgar, Dunstan was recalled and promoted first to the see of Worcester, then to that of London and about the year 959, to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury. For this last advancement it was requisite to obtain the sanction of the pope; and for this purpose Dunstan was sent to Rome, where he soon obtained the object of his wishes, and the appointment of legate in England, with very extensive authority. Upon his return to England, so absolute was his influence over the king, he was enabled to give to the Romish see an authority and jurisdiction, of which the English clergy had been before in a considerable degree independent. In order the more effectually and completely to accomplish this object, the secular clergy were excluded from their livings, and disgraced; and the monks were appointed to supply their places. The scandalous lives of the secular clergy furnished one plea for this measure, and it was not altogether groundless; but the principal motive was that of rendering the papal power absolute in the English church; for, at this period, the English clergy had not yielded implicit submission to the pretended successors of St. Peter, as they refused to comply with the decrees of the popes, which enjoined celibacy on the clergy. Dunstan was active and persevering, and supported by the authority of the crown, he conquered the struggles which the country had long maintained against papal dominion, and gave to the monks an influence, the baneful effects of which were experienced in England until the era of the reformation. Hence Dunstan has been highly extolled by the monks and partizans of the Romish church; and his character has been celebrated in a variety of ways, and particularly by the miracles which have been wrought either by himself or by others in his favour. During the whole reign of Edgar, Dunstan maintained his interest at court; and upon his death, in the year 975, his influence served to raise his son Edward to the throne, in opposition to Ethelred. Whilst Edward was in his minority, Dunstan ruled with absolute sway, both in the church and state, but on the murder of the king, in the year 979, and after the accession of Ethelred, his credit and influence declined; and the contempt with which his threatenings of divine vengeance were regarded by the king, are said to have mortified him to such a degree, that on his return to his archbishopric, he died of grief and vexation, May 19, 988. A volume of his works was published at Doway, in 1626. His ambition has given him a considerable place in ecclesiastical and civil history; and he appears to have been a man of extraordinary talents. Dr. Burney, in his history, notices his skill in music, and his biographers also inform us that he was a master of drawing, engraved and took impressions from gold, silver, brass, and iron, and that he even practised something like printing. Gervase’s words are, “literas formare,” which however, we think, means no more than that he cut letters on metal.

, a political writer of much note in France and England, and a citizen of Geneva, was born in 1749, of an ancient family in Switzerland, who had been distinguished as magistrates and scholars. At the age of twenty-two he was appointed, through the interest of Voltaire, professor of belles-lettres at Cassel, and about that time he published two or three historical tracts. He was afterwards concerned with Linguet in the publication of the “Annales Politiques,” at Lausanne. In 1783 he went to Paris, where, during the three years’ sitting of the first French assembly, he published an analysis of their debates, which was read throughout all Europe, and considered as a model of discussion no less luminous than impartial. While he intrepidly attacked the various factions, he neither dissembled the faults nor the exaggerations of their adversaries. In the month of April, 1792, he left Paris on a confidential mission from the king to his brothers, and the emperor of Germany. In consequence of his quitting Paris, his estate in France, and his personal property, were confiscated; and among other losses, he had to regret that of a valuable library, and a collection of Mss. including a work of his own, nearly ready for the press, on the political state of Europe before the French revolution. Whilst resident at Brussels with the archduke Charles, in 1793, he published a work on the French revolution, which was warmly admired by Mr. Burke, as congenial with his own sentiments, and indeed by every other person not influenced by the delusions which brought about that great event. In 1794 he returned to Switzerland, which he was obliged to leave in 1798, the French, to whom he had rendered himself obnoxious by his writings, having demanded his expulsion. The same year he came to England, where he published a well-known periodical journal called the “Mercure Britannique,” which came out once a fortnight, nearly to the time of his death. This event took place at the house of his friend count Lally Tollendal, at Richmond, May 10, 1800. His “Mercure,” and other works, although of a temporary nature, contain facts, and profound views of the leading events of his time, which will be of great importance to future historians, and during publication contributed much to enlighten the public mind.

, at first advocate-general, and afterwards president à mortier in the parliament of Bourdeaux, was born at Rochelle, and died at Paris in 1788, at no very advanced age, with the character of an upright, enlightened, and eloquent magistrate. He acquired considerable honour, by his inflexible constancy in the revolution of the magistracy in 1771, and still more, by delivering from punishment three poor wretches of Chaumont, condemned to be broke alive upon the wheel. The statement he published in his defence does credit to his talents and humanity, which may likewise be said of his “Historical reflections on Penal Laws.” The president Du Paty employed himself for a length of time in endeavouring to reform these laws; and displayed no less sagacity than zeal in combating the obstacles he met with from inveterate prejudices. As a literary man, we have by him, “Academical Discourses,” and “Letters on Italy,” 1788, 2 vols. 8vo, of which last, two rival translations were published in this country in the same year. Yet, although he shows himself a man of considerable taste, and possessed of descriptive talents, his travels are frequently disfigured by emphatical phrases, and by attempts at wit, savouring of conceit and affectation. It was his misfortune to aim at imitating Diderot and Thomas, who furnished him with many of his phrases. His adversaries have spread abroad an anecdote, that Voltaire, being asked his opinion of his abilities as a magistrate, answered, “He is a good scholar.” And, when he was urged to give his sentiments on his talents for literature and the arts, he said, “He is a good magistrate.”

, an eminent ecclesiastical historian of the last century, was the son of a father of the same names, descended of a noble family in Normandy, by Mary Vitart, of a family in Champagne. He was born at Paris, June 17, 1657, and after being instructed in the rudiments of grammar by his father, and private tutors, was entered, at the age of ten, of the college of Harcourt, where, under professor Lair, he imbibed that thirst for general knowledge which he indulged during the whole of his studious life. In 1672 he was admitted to the degree of master of arts. Having made choice of the church as a profession, he went through the usual course of studies at the Soi bonne, and employed much of his time in perusing the fathers and ecclesiastical historians, but had no other view in this than to gratify his curiosity, while preparing himself for his licentiateship in divinity, which he was then too young to obtain. In 1680, he took the degree of bachelor of divinity, and in July 16S4, that of doctor. He soon after undertook to publish the work which has made him most known, his Universal Library of Ecclesiastical Writers, containing their lives, and a catalogue, critical account, and analysis of their works: a design of vast extent, which might have done credit to the labours of a society, yet was successfully accomplished by an individual, who was not only interrupted by professional duties, but wrote and published a great many other works. The first volume of his “Bibliotheque” was printed at Paris, 1686, 8vo, and the others in succession as far as live volumes, which contained an account of the first eight centuries. The freedom, however, which he had used in criticising the style, character, and doctrines of some of the ecclesiastical writers, roused the prejudices of the celebrated Bossuet, who exhibited a complaint against Dupin to Harlay, archbishop of Paris. The archbishop accordingly, in 1693, published a decree against the work, yet with more deliberation than might have been expected. His grace first ordered the work to be read by four doctors of divinity of the faculty of Paris, who perused it separately, and then combining their remarks, drew up a report which they presented to the archbishop, who, in his decree, says that he also examined the work, and found that it would be very prejudicial to the church, if it were suffered to be dispersed. Dupin was then summoned before the archbishop andthe doctors, and after several meetings, gave in a paper, in which he delivered his opinion on the objections made to his hook in such a manner as to satisfy them that, however liberal his expressions, he was himself sound; but the work itself they nevertheless thought must be condemned, as “containing several propositions that are false, rash, scandalous, capable of offending pious ears, tending to weaken the arguments, xvhich are brought from tradition to prove the authority of the canonical books of holy scripture, and of several other articles of faith, injurious to general councils, to the holy apostolic see, and to the fathers of the church; erroneous, and leading to heresy.” This sentence upon the work, however, will prove its highest recommendation to the protestant reader, who will probably, as he may very justly infer, that it means no more than that Dupin was too impartial and candid for his judges. With the above decree was published Dupin’s retractation, both of which were translated and printed at London in 1703, folio, by William Wotton, B. D. who observes that in Dupin’s retractation, “dread of farther mischief seems to be far more visible, in almost every article, than real conviction arising from an inward sense of the author’s having been in an error; at least, that it is so written, as to have that appearance.” Dupin, however, went on with his work, and by some means obtained a permission to print, with some small alteration in the title, from “Bibliotheque universelle” to “Bibliotheque nouvelle,” and the addition of the ecclesiastical history to the ecclesiastical biography. He thus went on, concluding with the beginning of the eighteenth century, the whole making 47 vols. 8vo, which were reprinted at Amsterdam, in 19 vols. 4to; but as most of these volumes were printed from the first editions, this edition is imperfect. It was also begun to be translated into Lathy, and the first three volumes printed at Amsterdam; but no farther progress was made. Monsieur Dupin was engaged at his death in a Latin translation, to which he intended to make considerable additions. This Bibliotheque was likewise translated into English, and printed at London in several volumes in folio, usually bound in seven. A much finer edition was printed in 3 vols. folio, by Grierson of Dublin. The translation appears to have been executed partly by Digby Cotes, and revised by Wotton. Dupin’s Bibliotheque was attacked by M.Simon in a book printed at Paris in 1730, in four volumes 8vo, under the following title “Critique cle la Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques & de Prolegomenes de la Bible publiez par M. Elies Dupin. Avec des eclaircissemens & des supplemens aux endroits, ou on les a juge necessaires, par feu M. Richard Simon, avec des remarques.” Simon has pointed out a considerable number of errors in Dupin, but when all deductions of this kind are made, it must be allowed that we have no book more generally valuable as a repository of ecclesiastical history and biography, making allowance for the author’s attachment to the principles of his church.

In addition to Dupin’s other literary labours, he was commissary in most of the affairs of the faculty of theology, was professor of divinity in the royal college, and for many years editor of the “Journal des Scavans,” carried on an extensive correspondence with learned men, and was often requested to prepare editions of works for the press, and to write prefaces. Yet notwithstanding all this, and his more urgent labours in preparing his own works, we are told that he divided his time judiciously, and had leisure to visit and receive the visits of his friends or strangers, whom he entertained with as much apparent ease as if his time was wholly unoccupied. His openness of temper, however, and the general impartiality of his works, procured him many enemies, whom the celebrated “Case of Conscience” afforded an opportunity of bringing him into fresh trouble. This “Case of Conscience” was a paper signed by forty doctors of the Sorbonne, in 1702, the purport of which allows some latitude of opinion with respect to the sentiments of the Jansenists. It occasioned a controversy of some length in France, and most of those who signed it were censured or punished. Dupin, in particular, was not only deprived of his professorship, but banished to Chatellerault, which last gave him most uneasiness, as it removed him from the seat of learning, and the company of learned men, always so delightful to him, and so necessary to the pursuit of his studies. At length he was induced to withdraw his subscription, and by the interest of some friends, was permitted to return; but his professorship was not restored to him. After he resumed his studies at Paris, he published many of those works of which we are about to give a catalogue, all of which had a. quick and extensive sale, although many of them prove that his accuracy was not equal to his diligence, and that by confining himself to fewer subjects, he would have better consuited his reputation. It must, however, be acknowledged that he possessed considerable taste, great freedom from common prejudices, a clear and methodical head, and most extensive reading. He corresponded with eminent men of different communions, and was much censured and threatened for a correspondence he carried on with archbishop Wake, respecting the union of the churches of Rome and England. Dupin and some other doctors of the Sorbonne were the first movers of this plan, although Mosheim, in his first edition, has represented Dr. Wake as offering the first proposals. This matter, however, is placed in a more clear light in the last edition of Mosheim, edited by Dr. Coote (1811) in the Appendix to which (No. IV.) the reader will find the whole correspondence, and probably be of opinion that while we admire the archbishop’s firmness and caution in stipulating for an emancipation from the papal yoke as a sine qua non, we have equal reason to admire the candour of Dupin in his review of the XXXIX Articles, and in the advances he endeavours to make to protestant sentiments. The czar of Muscovy, we are also told, consulted Dupin on an union with the Greek church. Dupin was an eager opponent of the constitution styled Unigenitus, and was the great leader of the opposition to it in the Sorbonne, the deputations, commissions, and memorials, all passing through his hands. At length, exhausted by his uninterrupted labours, and by a regimen too strict for health, he died June 6, 1719, in his sixtysecond year. It is said that, while he was in his last sickness, father Courayer of St. Genevieve came to see him with another of his brethren. Dupin began the conversation at first with mentioning the criticism, which had been published in the “Europe Savante,” upon the first volume of his “Bibliotheque des Auteurs separez de la Communion Romaine,” and spoke of it with great severity, not knowing that Courayer was the author of it. These fathers then went up to the chamber of Le Cointe, who had written in conjunction with Dupin, and was author of the answer to that criticism, which had been erroneously ascribed to Dupin himself. Le Cointe, who likewise knew not that Courayer was their antagonist, began upon the same subject, and told them, that if he lived, he would never desist from writing against those who had attacked Dupin, whom he styled his dear master; and though he had but a very small estate, would at his death leave money for a foundation to support those who should defend his memory; but Le Cointe died about fifteen days after, without performing his promise.

, a famous French merchant, the rival of La Bourdonnaye in the Indies, equally active and more reflective, was sent into those far distant countries, in 1730, as director of the colony of Chandernagore, which was verging to decay for want of capital. Dupleix restored it to life and vigour, and extended the commerce of that colony through all the provinces of the mogul, and quite to Thibet. He fitted out ships for the Red Sea, for the Persian Gulf, for Goa, for the Maldives, and for Manilla. He built a town and formed a vast establishment. His zeal and his intelligence were recompensed, in 1742, by the government of Pondicherry. In 1746 La Bourdonnaye made himself master of Madras, the place having capitulated, when Dupleix, secretly jealous of his success, broke the capitulation, took the command of his vessels, was even disposed to put him under an arrest, and sent such representations to the court of France as occasioned La Bourdonnaye to be committed to the Bastille on his arrival at Paris. In 1748, when the English attacked Pondicherry, Dupleix defended it for forty-two days of bombardment against two English admirals, supported by two nabobs of the country. He acted in the several capacities of general, of engineer, and commissary, and was rewarded with the red ribbon and the title of marquis, as the recompense of this gallant defence, which for a time restored the French name in India. This was followed, two years after, by a patent of the title of nabob from the grand mogul, on his acquiring possession of the Decan for Salabetingue; and the Indians, on many occasions, treated him as king, and his wife as queen; but this prosperity was not of long duration. In 1751 two pretenders arose to the nabobship of Arcot, and the English favoured the rival of the nabob that was supported by the French, and the two companies, English and French, engaged in actual war; the success of which was by no means in favour of the latter, who were; dispossessed of their territories by generals Lawrence and Clive. Remonstrances were sent over against Dupleix, as he had before preferred complaints against La Bourdonnaye: an instance of the equal balance held by Providence over the affairs of mortals. Dupleix was accordingly recalled in 1753, and arrived at Paris in a desponding state, He commenced a suit at law against the company for the reimbursement of millions of livres that were due to him, which the company contested, and could not have paid if the debt bad been established. He published a long statement of the c;ise, which was read with avidity at the time and died soon after, a victim to mortified pri4e and ambition.

, a French historian, was born at Condom in 1569, of a noble family originally from Languedoc. His father had served with distinction under marshal de Montluc. Scipio having attracted notice at the court of queen Margaret, then at Nerac, came to Paris in 1605 with that princess, who afterwards made him her master of requests. His next appointment was to the post of historiographer of France, and he employed himself for a long time on the history of that kingdom. In his old age he compiled a work on the liberties of the Gallican. church; but the chancellor Seguier having caused the manuscript, for which he came to apply for a privilege, to be burnt before his face, he died of vexation not long after, at Condom, in 1661, at the age of ninety-two, the greater part of which time he had passed without sicknesses or infirmities. The principal of his works are, 1. “Memoirs of the Gauls,” 1650, folio, forming the first part of his History of France, a work much valued for its information, but ill written. 2. “History of France,” in 5, afterwards in 6 vols. fol. The narration of Dupleix is unpleasant, as well from the language having become obsolete, as from his frequent antitheses and puerile attempts at wit. Cardinal Richelieu is much flattered by the author, because he was living at the time; and queen Margaret, though his benefactress, is described like a Messalina, because she was dead, and the author had nothing farther to expect from her. Matthew de Morgues, and marshal Bassompierre both convicted him of ignorance and insincerity. Dupleix endeavoured to answer them, and after the death of the cardinal he wished to recompose a part of his history, but was presented by declining age. 3. “Roman History,” 3 vols. fol. an enormous mass, without spirit or life. 4. “A course of Philosophy,” 3 vols. 12mo. 5. “Natural Curiosity reduced to questions,” Lyons, 1620, 8vo, publications of which very little can be said in their praise. His “Liberte de la Langue Francaise,” against Vaugelas, does him still less credit; and upon the whole he appears to be one of those authors whose fame it would be impossible to revive, or perhaps to account for.

In 1712, when Theophrastus’s Characters were published by Needham, there were printed along with them some lectures of professor Duport upon the first sixteen characters, excepting the fifth. These lectures had lain in the celebrated library of Moore bishop of Ely for many years, and were at first supposed to have been written by Stanley, who wrote the lives of the Greek philosophers; but, upon their being communicated, they were recognized as part of what professor Duport* had read to his pupils at Cambridge during the rebellion.

By his will he bequeathed several sums of money to charitable uses; particularly lands in Pembridge, in Herefordshire, which cost 250l. settled upon an alms-house there begun by his father; 500l. to be paid to the bishop of Sarum, to be bestowed upon an organ in that church, or such other use as the bishop shall think fittest; 500l. to the dean and chapter of Christ-church, in Oxford, towards the new buildings; 200l. to be bestowed on the cathedral church of Chichester, as the bishop and dean and chapter shall think fit; 200l. to the cathedral church at Winchester; 40l. to the poor of Lewisham, in Kent, where he was born; 40l. to the poor of Greenwich; 20l. to the poor of Westham, in Sussex, and 20l. more to provide communion-plate in that parish, if they want it, otherwise that 20l. also to the poor; 20l. to the poor of Witham, in Sussex; 10l. per annum for ten years to William Watts, to encourage him to continue in his studies; 50l. a-piece to ten widows of clergyman; 50l. a-piece to ten loyal officers not yet provided for; 200l. to All-souls’ college, in Oxford; 300l. to the repair of St. Paul’s cathedral; and above 3000l. in several sums to private friends and servants! so that the character given of him by Burnet, who represents him as not having made that use of his wealth that was expected, is not just. He wrote and published a few pieces: as, 1. “The soul’s soliloquies, and conference with conscience;” a sermon before Charles I. at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, on Oct. 25, being the monthly fast, 1648, 4to. 2. “Angels rejoicing for Sinners repenting;” a sermon on Luke xv. 10, 1648, 4to. 3. “A guide for the penitent, or, a model drawn up for the help of a devout soul wounded with sin,” 1660, 8vo. 4. “Holy rules and helps to devotion, both in prayer and practice, in two parts,” 1674, 12mo, with the author’s picture in the beginning. This was published by Benjamin Parry, of Corpus Christi college, in Oxford. The life of archbishop Spotsvvood is likewise said by some to have been written by bishop Duppa but, as Wood justly observes, that could not be, because it was written by a native of Scotland.

, a celebrated French cardinal, sprung of a noble family of Issoire, in Auvergne, appeared first at the bar of Paris. he was afterwards made lieutenant-general of the bailiwic of JMontferrant, then attoiv ney-general at the parliament of Toulouse. Rising from one post to another, he came to be first president of the parliament of Paris in 1507, and chancellor of France in 1515. He set out, it is said, by being solicitor at Cognac for the countess of Angouleme, mother of Francis I. This princess entrusted to him the education of her son, whose confidence he happily gained. Some historians pretend that Duprat owed his fortune and his fame to a bold and singular stroke. Perceiving that the count d'Angouleme, his pupil, was smitten with the charms of Mary, sister of Henry VIII. king of England, the young and beautiful wife of Louis XII. an infirm husband, who was childless; and finding that the queen had made an appointment with the young prince, who stole to her apartment during the night, by a back staircase; just as he was entering the chamber of Mary, he was seized all at once by a stout man, who carried him off confounded and dumb. The man immediately made himself known it was Duprat. “What!” said he sharply to the count, “you want to give yourself a master! and you are going to sacrifice a throne to the pleasure of a moment!” The count d'Angouleme, far from taking this lesson amiss, presently recollected himself; and, on coming to the crown, gave him marks of his gratitude. To settle himself in the good graces of this prince, who was continually in quest of money, and did not always find it, he suggested to him many illegal and tyrannical expedients, such as selling the offices of the judicature, and of creating a new chamber to the parliament of Paris, which, composed of twenty counsellors, formed what was called la Tournelle. By his influence also the taxes were augmented, and new imposts established, contrary to the ancient constitution of the kingdom, all which measures he pursued without fear or restraint Having attended Francis I. into Italy, he persuaded that prince to abolish the Pragmatic Sanction, and to make the Concordat, by which the pope bestowed on the king the right of nominating to the benefices of France, and the king granted to the pope the annates of the grand benefices on the footing of current revenue. While this concordat, which was signed Dec. 16, 1515, rendered him odious to the magistrates and ecclesiastics, he soon reaped the fruits of his devotion to the court of Rome; for, having embraced the ecclesiastical profession, he was successively raised to the bishoprics of Meaux, of Albi, of Valence, of Die, of Gap, to the archbishopric of Sens, and at last to the purple, in 1527. Being appointed legate a latere in France, he performed the coronation of queen Eleonora of Austria. He is said to have aspired to the papacy in 1534, upon the death of Clement VII.; but his biographers are inclined to doubt this fact, as he was now in years and very infirm. He retired, as the end of his days approached, to the chateau de Nantouillet, where he died July 9, 1535, corroded by remorse, and consumed by diseases. His own interests were almost always his only law. He sacrificed every thing to them; he separated the interests of the king from the good of the public, and sowed discord between the council and the parliament; while he did nothing for the dioceses committed to his charge. He was a long time archbishop of Sens, without ever appearing there once. Accordingly his death excited no regret, not even among his servile dependents. However, he built, at the HotelDieu of Paris, the hall still called the legate’s-hall. “It would have been much larger,” said the king, “if it could contain all the poor he has made.”

, master of the accounts at Paris, was born there in 1696, and died in that capital Dec. 1, 1774. He was admitted of the French academy in 1733, and was much esteemed as a man of general knowledge and taste. He attempted to give his countrymen an idea of English poetry, by a translation into French of Milton’s Paradise Lost, in 4 vols. 12mo, containing also the Paradise Regained, translated by a Jesuit, with Addison’s remarks on the former. This version, in which great liberties are taken with the original, is written in an animated and florid style. The last edition of the Diet. Hist, however, robs him of the whole merit of this translation, and ascribes it to Boismorand, whose name was not so good a passport to fame as that of Dupre. He wrote also, an “Essay on the Coins of France,” 1746, 4to, a work abounding in curious disquisition, and justly esteemed “Inquiries concerning the value of Monies, and the price of Grain,” 1761, 12mo and “The Table of the duration of Human Life,” in the Natural History of M. de Buffon. The author, who had cultivated in his youth the flowers of imagination, devoted his old age to studies relative to rural oeconomy, to agriculture, and other sciences of importance to mankind.

, D. D. a very eloquent French protcstant preacher at the Savoy in London, and a fellow of the royal society, was born about 1679 at St. Pargoire in Lower Languedoc, and was the son and brother of two distinguished protestant clergymen. Of his history, however, our memoirs are very scanty. It appears that he had a congregation first at Amsterdam, whence he was invited to that of the Savoy in London, where he died Jan. 16, 1763. His character was that of an universal scholar, a deep divine, a devotee to truth, and a most benevolent and disinterested man. Among: his works are, 1. “La Vie et les Sentimens de Lucilio Vanini,” Rotterdam, 1717, 12mo, and afterwards published in English. 2. “Histoire de la Peinture ancienne,” from Pliny’s Natural History, with the Latin text, and notes, Lond. 1725, fol. without his name. [3. “A volume of Sermons in French,” Lond. 1726.] 4. “Hist, naturelle del‘Oretde l’Argent,” edited in the same manner, 1729, fol. and both marked by French bibliographers among their rare books. 5. “C. Plinii historiae naturalis ad Titum imperatorem pra?fatio,” collated with ancient Mss. &c. Lond. 1728, 8vo. 6. An edition of Telemachus, with notes and illustrations, and a life of Fenelon, Hamburgh, 1731, 2 vols. 12mo, and revised by Dr. Durand for Watts of London, 1745. 7. “Histoire du XVI Siecle,” Lond. 1725 29, 6 vols. 8vo, on the plan of Perizonius. 8. “Onzieme et douzieme volumes de l‘Hist. d’Angleterre par Rapin,” Hague, 1734, and Paris, 1749, 2 vols. 4to. 9. “Academica, sive de judicio erga verum, in ipsis primis fontibus, opera P. Valentiae Zafrensis, editio jiova emendatior,” Lond. 1740, 8vo, printed by Bowyer, in French and Latin. This work is so scarce in France, that when M. Capperonnier, one of the keepers of the national library, wanted to add it to the other editions published by Barbou, he was obliged to transcribe the whole from a copy lent to him by M. Chardin, who had one of the finest libraries in Paris. 10. “Exercices Francais et Anglais,” Lond. 1745, 8vo. 11. “Dissertation en forme cTentretien sur la Prosodie Francaise,” prefixed to Boyer’s Dictionary. 12. “Eclaircissemens sur le toi et sur le vous,” ibid. 1753, 12mo. His sentiments on the thce and thoit have been adopted by La Harpe in his late lectures. In 1777, a posthumous work by Dr. Durand, a life of Ostervald, was published, with a preface by the late rev. Samuel Beuzeville of Bethnal-green, a French clergyman, who died in 1782.

, one of the most learned lawyers of the thirteenth century, was born at Puimoisson in Provence; and was Henry of Suza’s pupil, and taught canon law at Modena. He afterwards was made chaplain and auditor of the sacred palace, legate to Gregory X. at the council of Lyons, and bishop of Mende, 1286. He died at Rome, November J, 1296. His works are, “Speculum Juris,” Rome, 1474, fol. a work which gained him the jiame of Speculator. “Rationale divinorum officiorum;” the first edition is Mentz, 1459, fol. very scarce. “Repertorium Juris,” Venice, 1496, fol. &c. He is to be distinguished from his nephew, William Durand, who succeeded him as bishop of Mende, and died 1328. There is an excellent treatise by this last; “De la maniere de celebrer le Concile general,” Paris, 154-5, 8vo. He wrote it on occasion of the council of Vienne, to which he was summoned by Clement V. 1310. This treatise may also be found in a collection of several works of the same kind, published by M. Fourte, doctor of the Sorbonne.

, not Durand (GiLLEs), Sieur de la Bergerie, an eminent advocate to the parliament of Paris, is supposed, according to Pasquier, book xix. letter 15, to be the same who was one of the nine advocates commissioned by the court to reform the custom of Paris. He was also among the best poets before Malherbe, wrote odes, sonnets, elegies, &c. and translated, or imitated part of the Latin pieces written by his friend John Bounefons the father; under the title of, “Imitations tirees du Latin de Jean Bonnefons, avec autres amours et melanges poetiques,” 1727, 12mo. This work has gone through several editions. “The verses to his godmother on the decease of her ass, who died in the flower of his age during the siege of Paris, Tuesday, Aug. 28, 1590,” are esteemed a masterpiece in the ironical and sportive style. They may be found in the ingenious work, entitled, " Satyre MenipeeY* and in the works of Durant, 1594, 12mo. He was broken on the wheel, July 16, 1618, with two Florentine brothers of the house des patrices, for a libel against the king. Some, however, doubt if this is the same.

, a learned divine in the seventeenth century, who wrote several pieces in vindication of the Church of England, was born at St. Helier’s in the Isle of Jersey, in 1625. About the end of 1640, he was entered of Merton-college in Oxford; but when that city came to be garrisoned for king Charles I. he retired into France: and, having studied for some time at Caen in Normandy, took the degree of master of arts, in the Sylvanian college of that place, on the 8th of July 1664. Then he applied himself to the study of divinity, for above two years, at Saumur, under the celebrated Amyrault, divinity reader in that Protestant university. In 1647 he returned to Jersey, and continued for some time until the reduction of that island by the parliament-forces in 1651, when on account of his being in the defence of it for the king, he was forced to withdraw, or rather was expelled thence. He then went to Paris, and received episcopal ordination in the chapel of sir Richard Browne, knt. his majesty’s resident in France, from the hands of Thomas, bishop of Galloway. From Paris, he removed to St. Malo’s, whence the reformed church of Caen invited him to be one of their ministers, in the absence of the learned Samuel Bochart, who was going into Sweden. Not long after, the landgrave of Hesse having written to the ministers of Paris, to send him a minister to preach in French at his highness’s court, he was by them recommended to that prince, but preferred being chaplain to the duke de la Force, father to the princess of Turenne; in which station he continued above eight years. Upon the restoration he came over to England, and was very instrumental in setting up the new episcopal French church at the Savoy in London, in which he officiated first on Sunday, 14 July, 1661, and continued there for some years after, much to the satisfaction of his hearers. In April 1663, he was made prebendary of North Auiton, in the cathedral of Salisbury, being then chaplain in ordinary to his majesty; and, the llth of February following, succeeded to a canonry of Windsor. On the 1st of July, 1668, he was installed into the fourth prebend of Durham, and had a rich donative conferred on him. The 28th of February, 1669-70, he was actually created doctor of divinity, by virtue of the chancellor’s letters. In 1677, king Charles II. gave him the deanery of Windsor, vacant by the death of Dr. Bruno Ryves, into which he was installed July 27. He had also the great living of Witney in Oxfordshire conferred on him, all which preferments he obtained, partly through his own qualifications, being not only a good scholar, but also “a perfect courtier, skilful in the arts of getting into the favour of great men;” and partly through his great interest with king Charles II., to whom he was personally known both in Jersey and France. Mr. Wood thinks, that, had he lived some years longer, he would undoubtedly have been promoted to a bishopric. He published several things; and, among the rest, 1. “The Liturgy of the Church of England asserted, in a Sermon, preached [in French] at the chapel of the Savov, before the French Congregation, which usually assembles in that place, upon the first day that divine service was there celebrated according to the Liturgy of the Church of England.” Translated into English by G. B. doctor in physic, Lond. 1662, 4to. 2. “A View of the Government and public Worship of God in the reformed churches of England, as it is established by the act of uniformity,” Lond. 1662, 4to. Exceptions having been made to this book by the nonconformists, partly m a book called “Apologia pro ministris trt Anglia (vulgo) noneonformistis,” by an anonymous author, supposed to be Henry Hickman, he published, 3. “Sanctae Ecclesise Anglicanao ad versus iniquas atque inverecundas Schismaticorum Criminationes, Vindiciae.” The presbyterians, taking great offence at it, published these answers: 1. “Bonasus Vapulans or some castigations given to Mr. John Durel for fouling himself and others in his English and Latin book,” Loud. 1672, 8vo, reprinted in 1676 under this title, “The Nonconformists vindicated from the Abuses put upon them by Mr. Durel and Mr. Scrivner.” 2. Dr. Lewis Du Moulin published also this answer thereto: “Patronus bonre fidei, in causa Puritanorum,” &c Lond. 1672, 8vo. Besides these, Dr. Durel published his “Theoremata philosophise,” consisting of some theses maintained at the university of Caen; a French and Latin edition of the Common Prayer Book; and a French translation of the Whole Duty of Man, partly written by his wife.

, a learned divine, and biblical critic, of the church of England, was a native of the island of Jersey, and probably a descendant of the preceding Dr. John Durel. That the Durells were a very respectable family in Jersey is evident from there being several persons of the name who received considerable promotions both in that island and in England during the reign of king George the Second. He was born in 1728, and after going through a proper course of grammatical education, was matriculated at the university of Oxford, and became a member of Pembroke college, where, on the 20th of June, 1753, he took the degree of master of arts. After this, he was chosen a fellow of Hertford college, and was admitted principal of the same, in 1757, in the room of Dr. William Sharp, who resigned that office, and was afterwards regius professor of Greek in the university, and rector of East-Hampstead in Berks. On the 23d of April, 1760, Mr. Durell took the degree of bachelor in divinity, and that of Doctor on the 14th of January, 1764. Previously to the taking his last degree, he published, in 1763, his first learned work, entitled, “The Hebrew text of the parallel prophecies of Jacob and Moses, relating to the Twelve Tribes; with a translation and notes: and the various lections of near forty Mss. To which are added, 1. The Samaritan Arabic version of those passages, and part of another Arabic version made from the Samaritan text, neither of which have been before printed. 2. A map of the Land of Promise. 3. An Appendix, containing four dissertations on points connected with the subject of these prophecies,” Oxford, 4to. In this work our author exhibited a valuable and decisive proof of his skill in Oriental literature, and of his capacity and judgment in elucidating the sacred Scriptures. In 1767, he was made a prebendary of Canterbury, in the room of Dr. Potter, who had resigned. The only remaining preferment, which Dr. Durell appears to have been possessed of, was the vicarage of Tysehurst in Sussex. In 1772, he gave a farther evidence of his great proficiency in biblical learning, by publishing “Critical remarks on the books of Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles,” Oxford, 4to, printed at the Clarendon press. In the preface to this performance, the author pleads for a new translation of the Bible. He intended to publish some remarks on the prophetic writings; but this design he was prevented from accomplishing, by his comparatively premature death, which happened when he was only forty-seven years of age. He died at his college, on the 19th of October, 1775, and was buried at St. Peter’s in the East, Oxford, where there is an inscription on his grave-stone, with his arms. By his last will, he bequeathed twenty pounds a-year, arising from money by him lent for the building of Oxford-market; one half of which sum is given to the principal of Hertford college; the other, to the two senior fellows. From all that we have heard concerning Dr. DurelPs character, we understand him to have been a gentleman of eminent piety and goodness.

, an eminent engraver and painter, descended from an Hongarian family, was born at Nuremberg May 20, 1471. Having made a slight beginning with a pencil in the shop of his father, who was a goldsmith, one Martin Hupse taught him a little of colouring and engraving. He was also instructed in arithmetic, perspective, and geometry and then undertook, at twenty-six years of age, to exhibit some of his works to the public. His first work was the three Graces, represented by three naked women, having over their heads a globe, in which was engraved the date of the year 1497. He engraved on wood the whole life and passion of Christ in thirty-six pieces, which were so highly esteemed, that Marc Antonio Franci copied them on copper, and so exactly, that they were thought to be Albert’s, and sold as such. Albert hearing of this, and receiving at the same time one of the counterfeit cuts, was so enraged, that he immediately went to Venice, and complained of Marc Antonio to the government; but obtained no other satisfaction, than that Marc Antonio should not for the future put Albert’s name and mark to his works.

As Durer did not make so much use of the pencil as the graver, few of his pictures are to be met with, except in the palaces of princes. His picture of Adam and Eve, in the palace at Prague, is one of the most considerable of his paintings, and Bullart, who relates this, adds, that there is still to be seen in the palace a picture of Christ bearing his cross, which the city of Nuremberg presented to the emperor; an adoration of the wise men; and two pieces of the Passion, that he made for the monastery at Francfort; an Assumption, the beauty of which was a good income to the monks, by the presents made to them for the sight of so exquisite a piece: that the people of Nuremberg carefully preserve, in the senators -hall, his portraits of Charlemagne, and some emperors of the house of Austria, with the twelve apostles, whose drapery is very remarkable: that he sent to Raphael his portrait of himself done upon canvass, without any colours or touch of the pencil, only heightened with shades and white, but with such strength and elegance, that Raphael was surprised at the sight of it; and that this excellent piece, coming afterwards into the hands of Julio Romano, was placed by him among the curiosities of the palace of Mantua.

The particular account which we find in Vasari of his engravings is curious; and it is no small compliment to him to have this Italian author own, that the prints of Durer, being brought to Italy, excited the painters there to perfect that part of the art, and served them for an excellent model. Vasari is profuse in his praises of Duivr’s delicacy, and the fertility of his imagination. As Durer could not hope to execute all his designs while he worked on copper, he bethought himself of working on wood. One of his best pieces in this style is a Saint Eustachius kneeling before a stag, which has a crucifix between its horns which cut, says Vasari, is wonderful, and particularly for the beauty of the dogs represented in various attitudes. John Valentine Andreas, a doctor in divinity in the duchy of Wirtemberg, sent this piece to a prince of the house of Brunswick; to whom the prince replied by letter, “You have extremely obliged me by your new present; a cut which merits a nobler metal than brass, done by the celebrated painter of Nuremberg, and which, I think, wants nothing, unless Zeuxis or Parrhasius, or some person equally favoured by Minerva, should add colours and the native form.” The praises which this same divine gave to Durer in his answer to the prince’s letter, are remarkable, and worth transcribing: “I could easily guess,” says he, “that the Eustachius of Durer would not prove an unacceptable present to you, from whatever hand a performance of that admirable artist came. It is very surprising in regard to that man, that, in a rude and barbarous age, he was the first of the Germans who not only arrived to an exact imitation of nature by the perfection of his art, but likewise left no second; being so absolute a master of it in all its parts, in etching, engraving, statuary, architecture, optics, symmetry, and the rest, that he had no equal, except Michel Angelo Buonaroti, his contemporary and rival; and left behind him such works as were too much for the life of one man. He lived always in a frugal manner, and with the appearance of poverty. The Italians highly esteem him, and reproach us for not setting a due value on the ornaments of our own country.” We learn from the same authority, that the emperor Rodolphus II. ordered the plate of St. Eustachius to be gilded; and that Durer, at the intimation of his friend and patron Bilibaldus Pirkheimer, corrected an error in it, which was, that the stirrups of the horse on which Eustachius was to ride, were too short.

The incidents of Albert Durer’s life have been variously represented, and modern critics have entertained various opinions of his skill. Referring to our authorities for some of these, we shall conclude this article with what has been advanced by his latest critic, Mr. Fuseli. He seems, says this artist, to have had a general capacity, not only for every branch of his art, but for every science that stood in some relation with it. He was perhaps the best engraver of his time. He wrote treatises on proportion, perspective, geometry, civil and military architecture. He was a man of extreme ingenuity, without being a genius. He studied, and as far as his penetration reached, established rtain proportions of the human frame, but he did not invent or compose a permanent standard of style. Every work of his is a proof that he wanted the power of imitation; of concluding from what he saw, to what he did not see; that he copied rather than imitated the forms of individuals, and tacked deformity and meagreness to fulness, and sometimes to beauty. Such is his design. In composition, copious without taste, anxiously precise in parts, and unmindful of the whole, he has rather shewn us what to avoid than what to follow: in conception he sometimes had a glimpse of the sublime, but it was only a glimpse. Such is the expressive attitude of his Christ in the Garden, and the figure of Melancholy as the Mother of Invention. His Knight attended by Death and the Fiend, is more capricious than terrible, and his Adam and Eve are two common models, hemmed in by rocks. If he approached genius in any part of the art, it was in colour. His colour went beyond his age, and in easel-pictures, as far excelled the oil-colour of Raphael for juice and breadth, and handling, as Raphael excels him in every other quality. His drapery is broad, though much too angular, and rather snapt than folded. Albert is called the Father of the German school, and if numerous copyists of his faults can confer that honour, he was. That the exportation of his works to Italy should have effected a temporary change in the principles of some Tuscan artists, in Andrea del Sarto and Jacopo da Pontormo, who had studied Michel Angelo, is a fact which proves that minds at certain periods may be as subject to epidemic influence, as bodies.

, born of a noble family at Beaug6-laville, in Brescia, then belonging to the duke of Savoy, in 1527, was among the most famous physicians of his time, and practised his art at Paris with great reputation, during the reigns of Charles IX. and Henry III. to whom he was physician in ordinary. He came to Paris very young, without money or friends, yet soon acquired distinction in his studies of the belles Jettres and medicine, and when he had taken his doctor’s degree in the latter faculty, acquired great practice; a very advantageous marriage served to introduce him at court, and to the appointment of professor of medicine. Henry Til who had a singular esteem and affection for him, granted him a pension of four hundred crowns of gold, with survivance to his five sons; and, as a mark of his condescension, was present at the marriage of his daughter, to whom he made presents to a considerable amount. Duret died Jan. 22, 1586, at the age of fifty-nine. He was firmly attached to the doctrine of Hippocrates, and treated medicine in the manner of the ancients. Of several books that he left, the most esteemed is a “Commentaire sur les Coaques d'Hippocrate,” Paris, 1621, Gr. and Lat. folio. He died before he had put the finishing hand to this work. John Duret, his son, revised it, and gave it to the public under this title, “Hippocratis magni Coacte praenotiones: opus admirabile, in tres libros distributum, interprete et enarratore L. Dureto.” John Duret followed his father’s profession with great success, and died in 1629., aged sixty-six.

D‘Urfey (Thomas), an author, more generally spoken of by the familiar name of Tom, was descended from an ancient family in France. His parents, being protestants, fled from Rochelle before it was besieged by Lewis XIII. in 1628, and settled at Exeter, where this their son was born, but in what year is uncertain. He was originally bred to the law; but soon finding that profession too saturnine for his volatile and lively genius, he quitted it, to become a devotee of the muses; in which he met with no small success. His dramatic pieces, which are very numerous, were in general well received: yet, within thirty years after his death, there was not one of them on the muster-roll of acting plays; that licentiousness of intrigue, looseness of sentiment, and indelicacy of wit, which were their strongest recommendations to the audiences for whom they were written, having very justly banished them from the stage in the periods of purer taste. Yet are they very far from being totally devoid of merit. The plots are in general busy, intricate, and entertaining; the characters are not ill drawn, although rather too farcical, and the language, if not perfectly correct, yet easy and well adapted for the dialogue of comedy. But what obtained Mr. D’Urfey his greatest reputation, was a peculiarly happy knack he possessed in the writing of satires and irregular odes. Many of these were upon temporary occasions, and were of no little service to the party in whose cause he wrote; which, together with his natural vivacity and good humour, obtained him the favour of great numbers of all ranks and conditions, monarchs themselves not excluded. He was strongly attached to the tory interest, and in the latter part of queen Anne’s reign had frequently the honour of diverting that princess with witty catches and songs of humour, suited to the spirit of the times, written by himself, and which he sung in a lively and entertaining manner. And the author of the Guardian, who, in No. 67, has given a very humorous account of Mr. D‘Urfey, with a view to recommend him to the public notice for a benefitplay, tells us, that he remembered king Charles II. leaning on Tom D’Urfey’s shoulder more than once, and humming over a song with him. He used frequently to reside with the earl of Dorset at Knole; where a picture of him, painted by stealth, is still to be seen.

He appears to have been a diverting companion, and a cheerful, honest, good-natured man; so that he was the delight of the most polite companies and conversations, from the beginning of Charles II.‘s to the latter part of king George’s I.’s reign; and many an honest gentleman got a reputation in his county by pretending to have been in company with Tom D'Urfey. Yet he shared the fate of those whose only merit is to contribute to merriment, and towards the latter part of his life he stood in need of assistance, to prevent his passing the remainder of it in a cage, like a singing-bird for, to speak in his own words, “after having written more odes than Horace, and about four times as many comedies as Terence, he found himself reduced to great difficulties by the importunities of a set of men, who of late years had furnished him v\ith the accommodations of life, and would not, as we say, be paid with a song.” Mr. Addison informs us, that, in order to extricate him from these difficulties, he himself immediately applied to the directors of the play-house, who very generously agreed to act “The Plotting Sisters,” a play of Mr. D'Urfey’s, for the benefit of its author. What the result of this benefit was, does not appear; but it was probably sufficient to make him easy, as we find him living and continuing to write with the same humour and liveliness to the time of his death, which happened Feb. 26, 1723. What was his age at this time, is not certainly specified any where; but he must have been considerably advanced in life, his first play, which could scarcely have been written before he was twenty years of age, having made its appearance forty-seven years before. He was buried in the church-yard of St. James’s, Westminster.

Those who have a curiosity to see his ballads, sonnets, &c. may find a large number of them in six volumes, 12mo, entitled “Pills to purge Melancholy,” of which the Guardian, in No. 29, speaks in very favourable terms, although his muse was certainly not of a very high order. The titles of his dramatic pieces (thirty-one in number) may be found in the Biographia Dramatica.

, an English divine, son of John Durham of Willersley near Carnpden in Gloucestershire, was born there in 1611, and educated at Broadway in the same county. In 1626 he became a student of New-inn, Oxford, took his degrees in arts, and after receiving orders became curate of St. Mary’s, Reading. In the beginning of the rebellion he went to London, conformed with the ruling powers, and became preacher at the Rolls chapel. He was afterwards presented to the rectory of Burfield in Berkshire, and that of Tredington in Worcestershire; but after the restoration was ejected and came to London, where he remained unemployed for some time. At length upon his conformity to the established church, Sir Nich. Crispe presented him to the rectory of St. Mildred’s, Bread-street, where he died July 7, 1684. He published several single sermons, a tract on family instruction, and, what is now the most valuable of his works, the life of Dr. Harris, president of Trinity college, Oxford, 1660, 12mo. He had a son, of the same names, who was D. D. of Cambridge, rector of Letcombe Basset in Berkshire, and chaplain to the duke of Monmouth. He died of an apoplexy June 18, 1686.

, in Latin Duroeus, was a divine of Scotland, in the seventeenth century, who laboured with great zeal to unite the Lutherans and Calvinists. He was bora educated for the ministry in Scotland. In 1624 he came to Oxford for the sake of the public library. Hovr long he remained there is uncertain; for his strong inclination for his great work, and his sanguine hopes of success in it, induced him to let his superiors know, that he could employ his talents better by travelling through the world, than if he was confined to the care of one flock. They agreed to his proposals, and permitted him to go from place to place, to negociate an accommodation between the protestant churches. He obtained likewise the approbation and recommendation of Laud archbishop of Canterbury; and was assisted by Bedell bishop of Kilmore, and also by Dr. Joseph Hall, bishop of Exeter, as he acknowledges in the preface to his “Prodromus.” He began by publishing his plan of union in 1634; and the same year appeared at a famous assembly of the evangelical churches in Germany at Francfort. The same year also the churches of Transylvania sent him their advice and counsel. Afterwards he negociated with the divines of Sweden and Denmark: he turned himself every way: he consulted the universities; he communicated their answers, and was not deterred by the ill success of his pains, even in 1661 . He appeared at that time as much possessed as ever with hopes of succeeding in this wild and impracticable scheme; and, going for Germany, desired of the divines of Utrecht an authentic testimony of their good intentions, after having informed them of the state in which he had left the affair with the king of Great Britain and the elector of Brandenburgh; and of what had passed at the court of Hesse, and the measures which were actually taken at Geneva, Heidelberg, and Metz. He desired to have this testimonial of the divines of Utrecht, in order to shew it to the Germans; and having obtained it, he annexed it to the end of a Latin work, which he published this year at Amsterdam, under the following title: “Johannis Dursei irenicorum tractatuum prodromus, &c.” The preface of this book is dated at Amsterdam, October 1, 1661.

Being at Francfort in April 1662, he declared to some gentlemen of Metz, that he longed extremely to see M. Ferri, an enthusiast, like himself, for uniting discordancies. He resolved at length to go to Metz, but met with two difficulties: the first was, that he must consent to dress after the French fashion, like a countryman: the second, to have his great white and square beard shaved. He got over these difficulties: and, upon his arrival, monsieur Ferri was so surprised, so overjoyed, and so very eager to salute this good doctor and fellow-labourer immediately, that he went out to meet him in a complete undress. They conferred much; and their subject was an universal coalition of religions. In 1674, however, Dury began to be much discouraged; nor had he any longer hopes of serving the church by the methods he had hitherto taken. He had therefore recourse to another expedient, as a sure means of uniting not only Lutherans and Calvinists, but all Christians; and this was, by giving a new explication of the Apocalypse. Accordingly he published it in a little treatise in French, at Francfort in 1674, He now enjoyed a quiet retreat in the country of Hesse: where Hedwig Sophia, princess of Hesse, who had the regency of the country, had assigned him a very commodious lodging, with a table well furnished, and had given him free postage for his letters. He returns her thanks for this in the epistle dedicatory to the book above mentioned. It is not known in what year he died. He was an honest man, full of zeal and piety,but somewhat fanatical. Among his publications, the titles of some of which shew his cast of opinions, in which he was by no means steady, we find, 1. “Consultatio theologica super negocio Pacis Ecclesiast.” Lond. 1641, 4to. 2. “A summary discourse concerning the work of Peace Ecclesiastical,” Camb. 1641, 4to, which was presented in 1639 to sir Thomas Rowe, ambassador at Hamburgh. 3. “Petition to the house of commons for the preservation of true Religion,” Lond. 1642, 4to. 4. “Certain considerations, shewing the necessity of a correspondency in spiritual matters betwixt all professed Churches,” ibid. 1642, 4to. 5. “Epistolary Discourse to Thomas Godwin, Ph. Nye, and Sam. Hartlib,” ibid. 1644, 4to, a discourse against toleration, which was answered by H. Robinson. 6. “Of Presbytery, and Independency, &c.” 1646, 4to. 7. “Model of the Church Government,” 1647, 4to. 8. “Peace makes the Gospel way,” 164*, 4to. 9. “Seasonable discourse for Reformation,” 1649, 4to, published by Sam. Hartlib. 10. “An epistolical Discourse to Mr. Thos. Thorowgood, concerning his conjecture that the Americans are descended from the Israelites, &c.” 1649, 4to. 11. “Considerations concerning the Engagement,” 1650, with two other pamphlets on the same subject, in answer to an antagonist. 12. “The Reformed School,” 1650, 12mo, published by Hartlib, with a supplement in 1651. 13. “The reformed Library Keeper,” 1650, 12mo, to which is added “Bibliotheca ducis Brunovicensis et Lunenburgi,” at Wolfenbuttle. 14. “Conscience eased, &c.” 165J, 4to. 15. “Earnest plea for Gospel Communion,” 1654. 16. “Summary platform of Divinity,” 1654. Hartlib wrote a defence of Dury against the presbyterians, Lond. 1650. In this we are told that he obtained an estate of 60l. per ann. in the marshes of Kent, which came into the possession of Henry Oldenburg, who married his daughter.

, a French writer of distinguished taste and talents, was born at Chartres, Dec. 28, 1728, of a family which made a considerable figure in the profession of the law. He appears to have first served in the army under the marechal Richelieu, and was noted for his courage. On his return to Paris, by the advice of the learned professor Guerin, he devoted his time to literature, and was in 1776 admitted a member of the academy of inscriptions. On the breaking out of the revolution, although chosen into the convention, he was too moderate for the times, and was imprisoned, and probably would have ended his days on the scaffold, had not Marat obtained his pardon by representing him as an old dotard, from whom nothing was to be feared. In 1797 he was chosen a member of the council of ancients, and on that occasion delivered a long speech against the plan of a national lottery. He died March 16, 1799. His principal works are, 1. A French translation of Juvenal, by far the best that ever appeared in that language, and which he enriched with many valuable notes. It was first published in 1770, 8vo, in a very correct and elegant manner, and was reprinted in 1796. 2. “De la passion du Jeu,” 1779, 8vo. The author had been once fond of play, but renounced it in consequence of witnessing the many miseries it occasions, which he has displayed in this treatise. He was afterwards, in 1793 or 1794, charged by the committee of public instruction to draw up, in conjunction with M. Mercier, a report on the suppression of games of chance, which produced a treatise from him, “Sur la suppression des Jeux de Hazard,” probably a repetition of what he had advanced before. 3. “Eloge de l'abbe Blanches,” prefixed to his works. 4. “Memoire sur les Satiriques Latins,” in the 43d vol. of the Memoirs of the academy of inscriptions. 5. “Voyage a Barrege et dans les hautes Pyrenees,” 1796, 8vo, an amusing tour, which would not have been less so if he had avoided an affected imitation of Sterne. 6. “Mes rapports avec J. J.Rousseau,” 1798, 8vo, in which there are some curious particulars of the Genevan philosopher. From the Memoirs of the National Institute we learn that when M. Dussaulx was in the army he married a lady who survived him, and to whom he appears to have been attached with extraordinary fidelity and unremitted affection. He declared, towards the close of his life, that she had been his first and his last love; and it was to her he was indebted for nearly the whole of his literary reputation. Madame Dussaulx, from the casual effusions of his pen, conceived him to be capable of spirited as well as elegant versification, and proposed to him to translate particular passages of Juvenal. These he executed with so much success, that he was incited by degrees to make a complete version of the whole of his satires, and thereby produced a performance which secured to him a very large acquaintance and friendship with the literary world.

, a man of extraordinary talents, and who by their means was enabled to emerge from poverty and obscurity, was born in 1695 in the little village of Artonay in Champagne. At the age rjf ten years he lost his father, a poor labourer, who left his wife poor, and burthened with children, at a time when war and famine desolated France. In this state Duval accustomed himself from his infancy to a rude life, and to the privation of almost every necessary. He had scarcely learned to read, when, at the age of twelve years, he entered into the service of a peasant of the same village, who appointed him to take care of his poultry, but at the commencement of the severe winter of 1709, he quitted his native place, and travelled towards Lorraine. After a few days journey he was seized by an excessive cold, and even attacked by the small-pox, but by the humane care of a poor shepherd in the environs of the village of Monglat, aided by the strength of his constitution, he recovered, and quitted his benefactor to continue his route as far as Clezantine, a village on the borders of Lorraine, where he entered into the service of another shepherd, with whom he remained two years; but taking a disgust to this kind of life, chance conducted him to the hermitage of La llochette, near Deneuvre. The hermit, known by the name of brother Palemon, received him, made him partake his rustic labours, and when obliged to resign his place to a hermit sent to brother Palemon by his superiors, he got a letter of recommendation to the hermits of St. Anne, at some distance from La Rochette, and a mile or two beyond Luneville, where he arrived in 1713, and was entrusted with the care of six cows. The hermits also taught him to write; and as he had a great ardour for books, he engaged in the business of the chase, and with the money he procured for his game, was already enabled to make a small collection of books, when an unexpected occasion furnished him with the means of adding to it some considerable works. Walking in the forest one day in autumn, he found a gold seal, with a triple face well engraved on it. He went the following Sunday to Luneville, to entreat the vicar to publish it in the church, that the owner might recover it by applying to him at the hermitage. Some weeks after, a Mr. Foster, or Forster, an Englishman, knocked at the gate of St. Anne’s, and inquired for his. seal. In the course of the conversation which passed between him and Duval, he was surprized to find that the latter had picked up some knowledge of heraldry, and being much pleased with his answers, gave him two guineas as a recompense. Desirous of being better acquainted with this young lad, he made him promise to come and breakfast with him at Luneville every holiday. Duval kept his word, and received a crown-piece at every visit. This generosity of Mr. Foster continued during his abode at Luneville, and he added to it his advice respecting the choice of books and maps. The application of Duval, seconded by such a guide, could not fail of being attended with improvement, and he acquired a considerable share of various kind of knowledge.

Seated one day at the foot of a tree, absorbed in his reflections, and surrounded by maps of geography, which he examined with the most eager attention, a gentleman suddenly approached him, and asked with an air of surprise what he was doing. “Studying geography,” said he. “And do you understand any thing of the subject r” “Most assuredly I never trouble myself about things I do not understand.” “And what place are you now seeking for?” “I am trying to find the most direct way to Quebec.” “For what purpose?” “That I might go there, and continue my studies in the university of that town.” < But why need you go for this purpose to the end of the world? There are universities nearer home, superior to that of Quebec; and if it will afTord you any pleasure, I will point them out to you." At this moment they were joined by a large retinue belonging to the young princes of Lorraine, who were hunting in the forest with count Vidampiere and baron Pfutschner, their governors. A variety of questions were put to Duval, which he answered with equal precision and good sense, and without being out of countenance. In consequence of this interview, Leopold, duke of Lorraine, took him under his protection, and when he was brought to the court at Luneville, the duke received him in the midst of a numerous assembly, whom this singular event had collected. He answered every question that was put to him, without being confused, notwithstanding the novelty of the scene to him, and the important part he had to act; and the duke committed the care of his establishment at the college of Pont-a-Mousson to baron Pfutschner. Here his natural taste for study, added to his desire of answering the expectations of his illustrious patron, made him redouble his zeal. History, geography, and antiquities, were the studies he preferred, and in which his new guides were peculiarly qualified to assist him. He lived two years in this house; and the improvement he made was so great, that duke Leopold, as a recompense, and to give him an opportunity of still further progress, permitted him in 1718 to make a journey to Paris in his suite. On his return the next year the duke appointed him his librarian, and conferred on him the office of professor of history in the academy of Luneville.

Duval, occupied by his studies, and the inspection of the hermitage of St. Anne, had spent many years in perfect content, when an unexpected accident interrupted his felicity. Dnke Leopold died in 1738, and his son Francis exchanged the duchy of Lorraine for the grand duchy of Tuscany. King Stanislaus, the new possessor of Lorraine, used indeed the most urgent entreaties to prevail on Duval to continue in the office of professor in the academy of Luneville, but his attachment to his old patron would not permit him to listen to the proposal. He went to Florence, where he was placed at the head of the ducai library, which was transferred thither. Notwithstanding the charming climate of Italy, Lorraine, to which he had so many reasons to be attached, did not cease to be the object of his regret. His regret was considerably increased by his separation from the young duke Francis, who, on his marriage with the heiress of the house of Austria, was obliged of course to reside at Vienna. The science of medals, upon which Duval had already read lectures in Lorraine, became now his favourite amusement, and he was desirous of making a collection of ancient and modern coins. He was deeply engaged in this pursuit, when the emperor Francis, who had formed a similar design, sent for him, that he might have the care and management of the collection. In 1751 he was appointed sub-preceptor to the archduke Joseph, the late emperor; but he refused this office, and gave the reasons of his refusal in writing. He preserved, nevertheless, the friendship of their majesties, and continued to receive new proofs of it. He was, indeed, beloved by all the Imperial family; but, from his extreme modesty, he was scarcely acquainted with the personsof many individuals of it. The eldest archduchesses passing him one day without his appearing to know them, the king of the Romans, who was a little behind them, and who perceived his absence, asked him if he knew those ladies “No, sir,” said he ingenuously. “I do not at all wonder at it,” replied the prince; “it is because my sisters are not antiques.” His health being impaired by his close application to study, he was advised to take a journey to re-establish it. He returned into France, and arrived at Paris in 1752, where he found a number of persons who were desirous of shewing him civilities, and rendering his abode agreeable, particularly the abbé Lenglet du Fresnoy, M. du Fresne d'Aubigny, the abbe Barthelemi, M. de Bose, M. Duclos, and Madame de Graffigny. On his return he passed by Artonay, his native village, and purchased his paternal cottage, which one of his sisters had sold from indigence; and having caused, it to be pulled down, he built on the spot a solid and commodious house, which he made a present of to the community, for the abode of the schoolmaster of the village. His beneficence distinguished itself also in a hamlet situated near Artonay, where, finding that there were no wells, he had some dug at his own expence.

, an eminent English lawyer, was descended from an ancient and honourable family in Somersetshire, of the same family with sir Edward Dyer, the poet, who was fourth in descent from sir James Dyer’s great-grandfather. Sir James was the second son of Richard Dyer, esq. of Wincalton and Roundhill in Somersetshire, at the latter of which places he was born about the year 1512. Wood says he was a commoner of Broadgate-hall (now Pembroke college), Oxford, and that he left it, without taking a degree, probably about 1530, when he went to the Middle Temple. Here he appears to have rendered himself conspicuous for learning anil talents, as in 1552 he performed the office of autumnal reader to that society; a distinction which was at that time conferred only upon such as were eminent in their profession. He had, on May 10 preceding, been called to the degree of serjeant at law, and in the following November his abilities were rewarded with the post of king’s Serjeant. On the meeting of the last parliament of Edward VI. 1552-3, Dyer was chosen speaker of the house of commons (that office being considered in those days as peculiarly appropriated to lawyers of eminence), and in this capacity, on Saturday afternoon, March 4, made “an ornate oration before the king.” This is the only particular concerning the speaker which occurs in the Journals of that short parliament, which sat only for one month; and the dissolution of which was quickly followed by the death of that excellent young prince; whose successor, though in most respects she pursued measures totally opposite to those of his reign, continued the royal favour to Dyer, whom, Oct. 19, 1553, she appointed one of her serjeants, In this office his name appears as one of the commissioners. on the singular trial of sir Nicholas Throckmorton; when his jury, with a freedom rarely exercised in that unhappy period, ventured to acquit the prisoner. Our author’s behaviour on that occasion is not disgraced by any servile compliances with the views of the court; yet his regard for his own character was tempered with so much discretion, as not to occasion any diminution of her majesty’s protection; for on May 20, 1557, being at that time recorder of Cambridge, and a knight, he was appointed a judge of the common pleas, whence on April 23 of the next year, he was promoted to the queen’s bench, where he sat (though of the reformed religion) during the remainder of this reign as a puisne judge.

About the same time he married a lady of Coleshill, named Ensor; “whose grandmother,” says he, “was a Shakspeare, descended from a brother of every body’s Shakspeare.” His ecclesiastical provision was a long time but slender. His first patron, Mr. Harper, gave him in 1741, Calthorp in Leicestershire, of 80l. a year, on which he lived ten years; and in April 1757, exchanged it for Belchford, in Lincolnshire, of 75l. which was given him by lord-chancellor Hardwicke, on the recommendation of a friend to virtue and the muses. His condition now began to mend. In the year 1752 sir John Heathcote gave him Coningsby, of 140l. a-year; and in 1756, when he was LL. B. without any solicitation of his own, obtained for him, from the chancellor, Kirkby-on-Bane, of 110l. “I was glad of this,” says Mr. Dyer, in 1756, “on account of its nearness to me, though I think myself a loser by the exchange, through the expence of the seal, dispensations , journies, &c. and the charge of an old house, half of which I am going to pull down” The house, which is a very good one, owes much of its improvement to Mr. Dyer. His study, a little room with white walls, ascended by two steps, had a handsome window to the church-yard, which he stopped up, and opened a less, that gave him a full view of the fine church and castle at Tateshall, about a mile off, and of the road leading to it. He also improved the garden. In May 1757 he was employed in rebuilding a Lirge barn, which a late wind had blown down, and gathering materials for re-building above half the parsonage-house at Kirkby. “These,” he says, “some years ago, I should have called trifles but the evil days are come, and the lightest thing, even the grasshopper, is a burden upon the shoulders of the old and fickly.” He had then just published “The Fleece,” his greatest poetical work; of which Dr. Johnson relates this ludicrous story: Dodsley the bookseller was one day mentioning it to a critical visitor, with more expectation of success than the other could easily admit. In the conversation the author’s age was asked: and being represented as advanced in life, “he will,” said the critic, “be buried in woollen.” He did not indeed long outlive that publication, nor long enjoy the increase of his pre; ments; for a consumptive disorder, with which he had long struggled, carried him off at length, July 24, 1758. Mr. Gough, who visited Coningsby Sept.5, 17S2, could find no memorial erected to him in the church. Mr--. Dyer, on her husband’s decease, retired to her friends in Caernarvonshire. In 17.56 they had four children living, three girls and a boy. Of these, Sarah died single. The son, a youth of the most amiable disposition, heir to his father’s truly classical taste, and to his uncle’s estate of 300l. or 400l. a year in Suffolk, devoted the principal part of his time to travelling; and died in London, as he was preparing to set out on a tour to Italy, in April 1782, at the age of thirty-two. This young gentleman’s fortune was divided between two surviving sisters; one of them married to alderman Hewitt, of Coventry; the other, Elizabeth, to the rev. John Gaunt, of Birmingham. Mr. Dyer had some brothers, all of whom were dead in 1756, except one, who was a clergyman, yeoman of his majesty’s almonry, lived at Marybone, and had then a numerous family.

Sir John Hawkins, in his life of Johnson, has given a very unfavourable sketch of Mr. Dyer’s character, representing him as an infidel and a sensualist. These charges Mr. Malone, in a long note on his Life of Dryden, has minutely examined, with a view to refute them, but in our opinion is more to be praised for the intention than the execution of this desirable purpose. Sir John Hawkins seems to have drawn his facts from personal knowledge of Dyer. Mr. Malone does not pretend to this, and while he expresses a just indignation at sir John’s charging Mr. Dyer with infidelity (supposing the charge to be false) he tells us that he himself had no means of knowing what Mr. Dyer’s religious sentiments were. There is nothing conclusive, therefore, to be expected from one who is led, from whatever motive, to deny assertions without being able to prove that they are untrue. Mr. Malone is the first, if we mistake not, who himself asserted what he has not in the least attempted to prove, viz. that Dyer was the author of Junius’s letters. This indeed he qualifies among his errata, by saying that Dyer was not the sole author, but the principal author but even here he offers no kind of proof, nor, since the publication of the late edition of those celebrated letters will it probably be thought that he had any to offer, more worthy of attention than the conjectures which have ascribed these letters to a Boyd or a Wilmot.

Though Dr. Eachard’s works abound with wit and humour, he is said to have failed remarkably when he attempted to write in a serious manner. Mr. Baker, of St. John’s college, Cambridge, in a blank leaf of his copy of Kachard’s “Letter to R. L.” observes, that he went to St. Mary’s with great expectation to hear him preach, but was never more disappointed. And dean Swift says, “I have known men happy enough at ridicule, who, upon grave subjects, were perfectly stupid; of which Dr. Eachard, of Cambridge, who writ `The Contempt of the Clergy,' was a great instance.” It is remarked by Mr. Granger, and Dr. Warton, that the works of Dr. Eachard had been evidently studied by Swift. Dr. Eachard’s wit, however, was applied to the best of purposes; for although some parts of his “Grounds of the Contempt, &c.” may be mistaken, he cannot be too highly praised for turning the philosophy of Hobbes into contempt.

, or Edmer, the faithful friend and historian of archbishop Anselm, was an Englishman, who flourished in the twelfth century, but we have no information respecting his parents, or the particular time and place of his nativity. He received a learned education, and very early discovered a taste for history, by recording every remarkable event that came to his knowledge. Being a monk in the cathedral of Canterbury, he had the happiness to become the bosom friend and inseparable companion of the two archbishops of that see, St. Anselm, and his successor Ralph. To the former of these he was appointed spiritual director by the pope; and that prelate would do nothing without his permission. In 1120 he was elected bishop of St. Andrew’s, by the particular desire of Alexander I. king of Scotland; but on the very day after his election, an unhappy dispute arose between the king and him respecting his consecration. Eadmer would be consecrated by the archbishop of Canterbury, whom he regarded as primate of all Britain, while Alexander contended that the see of Canterbury had no pre-eminence over that of St. Andrew’s. After many conferences, their dispute becoming more warm, Eadmer abandoned his bishopric, and returned to England, where he was kindly received by the archbishop and clergy of Canterbury, who yet thought him too precipitate in leaving his bishopric. Eadmer at last appears to have been of the same opinion, and wrote a long and submissive letter to the king of Scotland, but without producing the desired effect. Whartort fixes his death in 1124, which was not long after this affair, and the very year in which the bishopric of St. Andrew’s was tilled up. Eadmer is now best known for his history of the affairs of England in his own time, from 1066 to 1122, in which he has inserted many original papers, and preserved many important facts that are nowhere else to be found. This work has been highly commended, both by ancient and modern writers, for its authenticity, as well as for regularity of composition and purity of style. It is indeed more free from legendary tales than any other work of this period, and affords many proofs of the learning, good sense, sincerity and candour of its author. The best edition is that by Selden, under the title of “Eadmeri monachi Cantuarensis Historiac Novorum, give sui Saeculi, Libri Sex,” Lond. 1623, fol. His other works are, 1. A Life of St. Auselm, from 1093 to 1109, often printed with the works of that archbishop, and by Wharton in the “Anglia Sacra.” 2. The Lives of St. Wilfrid, St. Oswald, St. Dunstan, &c. &c. and others inserted in the “Anglia Sacra,” or enumerated by his biographers, as in print or manuscript.

, successively bishop of Worcester and Salisbury, was born at York in the year 1601, and entered of Merton-college, Oxford, in 1620, where hebecame M. A. in 1624, was senior proctor in 1631, and about that time was created chaplain to Philip earl of Pembroke, who presented him with the living of Bishopston, in Wiltshire. He was afterwards appointed chaplain and tutor to prince Charles, and chancellor of the cathedral of Salisbury. For his steady adherence to the royal cause, he was deprived of every thing he possessed, and at length was compelled to fly into exile with Charles II. who made him his chaplain, and clerk of the closet. He was intimate with Dr. Morley, afterwards bishop of Winchester, and lived with him a year at Antwerp, in sir Charles Cotterel’s house, who was master of the ceremonies; thence he went into France, and attended James, duke of York. On the restoration he was made dean of Westminster, and on Nov. 30, 1662, was consecrated bishop of Worcester, and in Sept of the following year, was removed to the see of Salisbury, on the translation of Dr. Henchman to London. In 1665 he attended the king and queen to Oxford, who had left London on account of the plague. Here he lodged in University-college, and died Nov. 17, of the same year. He was buried in Mertoncollege chapel, near the high altar, where, on a monument of black and white marble, is a Latin inscription to his memory. Walton sums up his character by saying that since the death of the celebrated Hooker, none have lived “whom God hath blest with more innocent wisdom, more sanctified learning, or a more pious, peaceable, primitive temper.” When the nonconformist clergy stepped forward to administer to the relief of the dying in the great plague, what is called the Five-mile Act was passed, forbidding them, unless they took an oath against taking up arms on any pretence whatever, &c. to come within five miles of any city or town. Our prelate before his death declared himself much against this act. Burnet, who informs us of this, adds, that “he was the man of all the clergy for whom the king had the greatest esteem.”

Bishop Earle wrote an “Elegy upon Mr. Francis Beaumont,” afterwards printed at the end of Beaumont’s Poems, London, 1640, 4to. He translated also from the English into Latin, the “Eikon Basilike,” which he entitled “Imago regis Caroli, in illis suis Ærumnis et Solitudine,” Hague, 1649, and Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, which was destroyed by the carelessness of his servants. But his principal work, of which a very neat and accurate edition was lately superintended by Mr. Philip Bliss, fellow of St. John’s college, Oxford, and published in 1811, is his “Microcosmographie, or a Peece of the World discovered, in essays and characters,” a work of great humour and knowledge of the world, and which throws much light on the manners of the times. It appears to have been in his life-time uncommonly popular, as a sixth edition was published in 1630. As his name was not to it, Langbaine attributed it to Edward Blount, a bookseller in St. Paul’s Church-yard, who was only the publisher.

, an English divine, reckoned by some the founder of Antinomianism, was a native of Kent, where he was born in 1575, and studied at Oxford, being the first of Blount’s exhibitioners in Trinity-college, to which he was admitted in 1590. He took his degree of M. A. in 1603, and entering into holy orders, officiated as a curate for several years, and at length, in 1625, was made minister and preacher at Wickbam Market, in Suffolk, where he died and was buried in 1641. His works are, 1. ‘.’ The discovery of a most dangerous dead faith,“Lond. 1641, 12mo; and 2.” The Honeycomb of free justification,“Lond. 1642, 4to, published by Robert Lancaster, who informs us in his preface that” the author’s faith, zeal, and diligence in doing his calling, and his faith, patience, and cheerfulness in suffering for the same," were highly exemplary. It appears that he was imprisoned in the Gate-house, Westminster, for his book on justification; and Neal admits that he committed some mistakes in his assertions about the doctrines of grace. Ecbard gives him in other respects a favourable character.

, a Swedish divine, who became professor of philosophy at the university of Halle, and died at Stockholm, Jan. 6, 171)6, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, was a member of several learned societies, and owed much of his reputation to a work he published in German, called “An Inquiry into the doctrine respecting the salvation of Heathens,” or “The New apology for Socrates,” which was translated from German into French by Dumas, and published at Amsterdam in 1773, 8vo. It contains also a defence of Marmontel’s “Belisarius,” which at that time had occasioned a controversy in Holland and Germany. Eberhard had among his countrymen the reputation of a man who was a powerful advocate for revealed religion in its original simplicity.

, who was born at Hamburgh Feb. 8, 1725, is ranked among the revivers of true literary taste in Germany, in which undertaking, he associated with Gartner, Schlegel, Cramer, Gellert, Rabener, Schmidt, Klopstock, &c. who used to communicate their works to each other, and diffuse various knowledge by means of periodical papers. Ebert was professor of the Carolinean Institute at Brunswick, and in high esteem with the duke, who made him a canon of St. Cyriac, and afterwards conferred on him the title of counsellor. He wrote with equal elegance in prose and verse, and his songs are much esteemed in Germany. Besides many contributions to the periodical journals, he published two volumes of “Poems” at Hamburgh, the one in 1789, and the other in 1795, 8vo. He was well acquainted with the English language and English literature, and translated into German, Young’s “Night Thoughts,” and Glover’s “Leonklas,” both which, we are told, are well executed. This writer died at Brunswick March 19, 1795.

, a learned* professor at Francfort upon Oder, in the seventeenth century, and rector of that university in 1618 and 1627, acquired a considerable name, among oriental scholars particularly, by his works; the principal of which are: “Juvenilia philosophica,” Franc. 1616, 4to “Poetica Hebraica,” Lips. 1628, 8vo “Elogia Jurisconsultorum et politicorum centum illustrium, qui Sanctam Hebraeam Linguam aliasque ejus propagines orientales propagarunt, auxerunt, promoverunt,” Lips. 1628, 8vo, &c. He had a great enthusiasm for the study of the Hebrew language, and the other oriental languages connected with it, and wrote this collection of eulogies in compliment to other eminent scholars who had succeeded in the same pursuit. Moreri mentions another of his works, but without giving the date, entitled “Speculum Morale.”

, one of the early reformers, was born at Kitzingen in Franconia, Nov. 8, 1511, and was first educated in the college at Anspach. In 1525 he went to Nuremberg, and in 1532 the senate of that city sent him to Wittemberg, where he took his master’s degree in 1536. 'As he wrote a fair hand, Melancthon employed him as his amanuensis, and finding in him talents of a superior order, consulted him on all his undertakings, which made him be called by some, “Philip’s Repertory.” In 1544 he was appointed to the professorship of philosophy, and in 1556 to that of Hebrew, and this last year he took orders. Some time after he was sent to the college of Worms, along with Melancthon; and in 1558 was appointed first pastor of Wittemberg, in the room of Bugenhagius. He took the degree of doctor in 1559, and in 1568 went to Anspach, with Paul Crellius, to allay some disputes that had arisen among the clergy of that place. In this attempt he gave so much satisfaction to prince George Frederick, that he rewarded him liberally, and settled a pension on his son. He died Dec. 20, 1589. After the death of Melancthon, he was regarded as the firat of his disciples who were usually called Crypto-Calvinists, from being somewhat tacit and moderate in their principles. He was a man of great learning, and an eloquent preacher. The only works mentioned by his biographers are: “Expositio Evangelior. Dominicalium;” “Calendarium Historicum,” Wittem. 1550, 8vo, reprinted at Basil the same year; “Historia populi Judaici a reditu Babylonico ad Hierosolymae excidium;” and “Hymni sacri vernacule editi,” for the use of his church, where they long continued to be sung.

, a learned Maronite of the seventeenth century, was professor of Syriac and Arabic in the royal college at Paris, to which city he had been invited from Rome by M. le Jay, that he might supply the place of Gabriel Sionita, another Maronite, whom he had employed in his edition of the Polyglot Bible. Gabriel Sionita complained to the parliament, abused his countryman, and involved him in difficulties, which made much noise. The abilities of Ecchellensis were also attacked by M. de Flavigny, a learned doctor of the house and society of the Sorbonne, and they wrote with much unbecoming warmth against each other. There is, however, no doubt but that Ecchellensis was well acquainted with the Arabic and Syriac languages. The congregation de propaganda JFidti associated him, 1636, with those whom they employed to translate the Bible into Arabic; and, recalling him from Paris, appointed him professor of Oriental languages at Rome. It was at that time that the grand duke, Ferdinand II. engaged Ecchellensis to translate the 5th, 6th, and 7th books of the Conies of Apollonius from Arabic into Latin, in which he was assisted by the celebrated John Alphonso Borelli, who added commentaries to them. The whole is printed with Archimedes “De Assumptis,” Florence, 1661, fol. Abraham Ecchellensis died at Rome, 1664, leaving many other works, in which he combines the sentiments of the Orientals with those of the church of Rome against the Protestants “Euthychius vindicatus,” against Selden and Hottinger, Rome, 1661, 4to “Remarks on the Catalogue of Chaldee Writers composed by Ebed-jesu, and published at Rome,” 1653; “Chronicoa Orientale,” printed at the Louvre, 1651, fol. which is joined to the Byzantine; “Institutio* ling. Syriacae,” Rome, 1628, 12mo; “Synopsis Philosophise Orientalium,” Paris, 1641, 4to; “Versio Durrhamani de medicis virtutibus Animaiium, Plantarum, et Gemmarum,”' Paris, 1647, 8vo.

, an English musician, was much admired 'for many years for his surprising skill on several instruments, but while in the zenith of his fame, became a quaker, and practised so many follies in this new profession that he was the ridicule of the whole town. He burnt his lute and his violins, and by meditation found out a new expedient for ascertaining the true religion; this was, to collect under one roof the most virtuous men of the several sects that divide Christianity; who should unanimously fall to prayer for seven days without taking any nourishment. “Then,” said he, “those on whom the spirit of God shall manifest itself in a sensible manner, that is to say, by the trembling of the limbs, and interior illuminations, may oblige the rest to subscribe to their decisions.” He found, however, none that would put this strange conceit to the trial; and while he persisted in propagating his folly, his prophecies, his invectives, his pretended miracles, only served to pass him from one prison into another: till at length, by this sort of discipline he was brought to confess the vanity of his prophecies, and he finished his life in tranquillity, but without religion. He died about the close of the seventeenth century.

Eccles had two brothers: Henry, a performer on the violin, said to have been in the king of France’s band, and to have been the author of twelve excellent solos for his own instrument, printed at Paris, 1720; and Thomas, who bad been taught the violin by Henry, and had the character of a very fine player, but preferred the life of a strolling fuller at taverns to that of a regular professor, and was more fond of drinking than either of good company or clean linen. He seems to have been one of the last vagrant bards, who used to inquire at taverns if there were any gentlemen in the house who wished to hear music Since smoking has been discontinued, few evenings are spent in taverns, which has diminished the number of modern minstrels, particularly such as are as well qualified to amuse good company and lovers of music as Tom Eccles, who used to regale his hearers with Corelli’s solos and Handel’s best opera songs, which he executed with precision and sweetness of tone, equal to the most eminent performers of the time. He survived his brother, John, more than twenty years; and continued to officiate as a priest of Bacchus to the last.

, an useful French biographer, was born at Rouen, Sept. 22, 1644, and entered among the Dominicans in 1660, whose order he has celebrated to posterity by writing the lives of their authors, under the title “Scriptores ordinis Praedicatorum recensiti, notisque historiciset criticis illustrati,” Paris, 1719 1721, 2 vols. fol. It is a work of great accuracy, as he inserted nothing without referring to good authority, and he is very correct in the bibliographical part. Quetif, also a Dominican, who died in 1698, had begun this work, but had made so little progress, that the whole merit may be ascribed to father Echard, who died at Paris, March 15, 1724.

, a clergyman, and author of several historical and other works, was nearly related to Dr. John Eachard, although they chose to spell the name differently. He was born at Cassam, near Beccles, in Suffolk, about 1671, and was the son of a clergyman, who, by the death of an elder brother, became possessed of a good estate in that county. Having passed through a course of grammar-learning, he was sent to Christ’s college, Cambridge, and, in 1691, he took the degree of bachelor of arts, and that of master in 1695. He afterwards entered into holy orders, and was ordained by More, bishop of Norwich, being presented for ordination by Whiston, then the bishop’s chaplain, who says that his character was unexceptionable. Echard then was promoted to the livings of Welton and Elkinton, in Lincolnshire, where he spent above twenty years of his life; and, during that time, he published a variety of works. One of his first publications was, “The Roman History, from the building of the City to the perfect Settlement of the Empire by Augustus Caesar.” This was so well received, that the fourth edition, in one volume 8vo, was published in 1699. He also published “The History, from the Settlement of the Empire, by Augustus Caesar, to the removal of the Imperial Seat of Constantine the Great,” said to be “for the use of his highness the duke of Gloucester,” to whom it was dedicated; and the second edition, in 8vo, was printed in 1699. Two continuations of this work, one of which was revised by Mr. Echard, were afterwards published in 3 vols. 8vo. In 1702, our author published, in folio, with a dedication to queen Anne, “A General Ecclesiastical History, from the Nativity of our blessed Saviour to the first establishment of Christianity by Human Laws, under the emperor Constantine the Great. Containing the space of about 313 years. With so much of the Jewish and Roman History as is necessary and convenient to illustrate the work. To which is added, a large chronological table of all the Roman and Ecclesiastical affairs, included in the same period of time.” This work was so well received, that the sixth edition of it was published in 1722, in 2 vols. 8vo. Dean Prideaux says, that it is the best of its kind in the English tongue.

, in Latin Clusius, an eminent botanist, was born at Arras, in French Flanders, on Feb. 19, 1526, and was educated at Ghent and Louvain, in the languages, jurisprudence, and medicine, in which last faculty he took a degree, but without any view to practice. At the age of twenty-three he began his travels, and pursued in them all the study of botany, to which he was extremely partial. He visited England three times, and in all his journeys cultivated the acquaintance of the learned in his favourite science. He also not only collected and described a number of uew plants, but made drawings of several with his own hand. In 1573 he was invited to Vienna, by the emperor Maximilian II. with whom, as well as with his son, afterwards the emperor Rodolphus II. he was in great favour, and was honoured by the former with the rank of nobility. In 1593, the sixty-eighth year of his age, he was chosen professor of botany at Leyden, where he resided in great reputation till his death, April 4, 1609. At his funeral, in St. Mary’s church, Leyden, a Latin oration in his praise was delivered by the rector of the university. With respect to hodily health, Ecluse was unfortunate beyond the usual lot of humanity. In his youth he was afflicted with dangerous fevers, and afterwards with a dropsy. He broke his right arm and leg by a fall from his horse in Spain, and dislocated, as well as fractured his left ankle at Vienna/ In his sixty-third year he dislocated his right thigh, which, being at first neglected, could never afterwards be reduced, and he became totally unable to walk. Calculous disorders, in consequence of his sedentary life, accompanied with colic and a hernia, close the catalogue of his afflictions. Yet his cheerful temper and ardour for science never forsook him, nor did any man ever enjoy more respect and esteem from those who knew him.

, knt. memorable for his embassies at several courts, was born at Plymouth, in Devonshire, about 1563. He was the fifth and youngest son of Thomas Edmondes, head customer of that port, and of Fowey, in Cornwall, by Joan his wife, daughter of Antony Delabare, of Sherborne, in Dorsetshire, csq. who was third son of Henry Edmondes, of New Sarum, gent by Juliana his wife, daughter of William Brandon, of the same place. Where he had his education is nut known. But we are informed that he was introduced to court by his name-sake, sir Thomas Edmonds, comptroller of the queen’s household; and, being initiated into public business under that most accomplished statesman, sir Francis Walsingham, secretary of state, he was, undoubtedly through his recommendation, employed by queen Klizabcth in several embassies. In 1592, she appointed him her resident at the court of France, or rather agent for her affairs in relation to king Henry IV. with a salary of twenty shillings a day, a sum so ill paid, and so insufficient, that we find him complaining to the lord treasurer, in a letter dated 1593, of the greatest pecuniary distress. The queen, however, in May 1596, made him a grant of the office of secretary to her majesty for the French tongne, “in consideration of his faithful and acceptable service heretofore done.” Towards the end of that year he returned to England, when sir Anthony Mild may was sent ambassador to king Henry; but he went back again to France in the beginning of May following, and in less than a month returned to London. In October, 1597, he was dispatched again M agent for her majesty to the king of France and returned to EngJand about the beginning of May 1598, where his stay Was extremely short, for he was at Paris in the July following. But, upon sir Henry Neville being appointed ambassador to the French court, he was recalled, to his great satisfaction, and arrived at London in June 1597. Sir Henry Neville gave him a very great character, and recommended him to the queen in the strongest terms. About December the 26th of that year, he was sent to archduke Albert, governor of the Netherlands, with a letter of credence, and instructions to treat of a peace. The archduke received him with great respect; but not being willing to send commissioners to England, as the queen desired, Mr. Edmondes went to Paris, and, having obtained of king Henry IV. Boulogne for the place of treaty, he returned to England, and arrived at court on Sunday morning, February 17. The llth of March following, he embarked again for Brussels and, on the 22d, had an audience of the archduke, whom having prevailed upon to treat with the queen, he returned home, April 9, 1600, and was received by her majesty with great favour, and highly commended for his sufficiency in his negotiation. Soon after he was appointed one of the commissioners for the treaty of Boulogne, together with sir Henry Neville, the queen’s ambassador in France, John Herbert, esq. her majesty’s second secretary, and Robert Beale, esq. secretary to the council in the North; their commission being dated the 10th of May, 1600. The two last, with Mr. Edmondes, left London the 12th of that month, and arrived at Boulogne the 16th, as sir Henry Neville did the same day from Paris. But, after the commissioners had been above three months upon the place, they parted, July 28th, without ever assembling, owing to a dispute about precedency between England and Spain. Mr. Edmondes, not long after his return, was appointed one of the clerks of the privy-council; and, in the end of June 1601, was sent to the French king to complain of the many acts of injustice committed by his subjects against the English merchants. He soon after returned to England but, towards the end of August, went again, and waited upon king Henry IV. then at Calais to whom he proposed some measures, both for the relief of Ostend, then besieged by the Spaniards, and for an offensive alliance against Spain. After his return to England he was appointed one of the commissioners for settling, with the two French ambassadors, the depredations between England and France, and preventing them for the future. The 20th of May, 1603, he was knighted by king James I; and, upon the conclusion of the peace with Spain, on the 18th of August, 1604, was appointed ambassador to the archduke at Brussels. He set out for that place the 19th of April, 1605; having first obtained a reversionary grant of the office of clerk of the crown and, though absent, was chosen one of the representatives for the Burgh of Wilton, in the parliament which was to have met at Westminster, Nov. 5, 1605, but was prevented by the discovery of the gunpowder-plot. During his embassy he promoted, to the utmost of his power, an accommodation between the king of Spain and the States-General of the United Provinces . He was recalled in 1609, and came back to England about the end of August, or the beginning of September. In April 1610, he was employed as one of the assistant-commissioners, to conclude a defensive league with the crown of France; and, having been designed, ever since 1608, to be sent ambassador into that kingdom , he was dispatctyed thither in all haste, in May 1610, upon the new of the execrable murder of king Henry IV. in order to learn the state of affairs there. He arrived at Paris, May 24th, where he was very civilly received; and on the 27th of June, had his audience of Mary de Medicis, queen regent; the young king (Lewis XIII.) being present. In November following he caused an Italian to be apprehended at Paris for harbouring a treasonable design against his master, king James I. There being, in 1613, a competition between him and the Spanish ambassador about precedency, we are told that he went to Home privately, and brought a certificate out of the pope’s ceremonial, shewing that the king of England is to precede the king of Castile. He was employed the same year in treating of a marriage between Henrv prince of Wales and the princess Christine, sister of Lewis XIII. king of France; but the death of that prince, on the 6th of November 1612, put an end to this negotiation. And yet, on the 9th of the same month, orders were sent him to propose a marriage between the said princess and our prince Charles, but he very wisely declined opening such an affair so soon after the brother’s death. About the end of December 1613, sir Thomas desired leave to return to England, but was denied till he should have received the final resolution of the court of France about the treaty of marriage; which being accomplished, he came tp England towards the end or' January 1613-14. Though- the privy-council strenuously opposed this match because they had not sooner been made acquainted with so important an affair, yet, so zealous was the king for it, that he sent sir Thomas again to Paris with instructions, dated July 20, 1614, for bringing it ta a conclusion. But, after all, it appeared that the court of France were not sincere in this affair, and only proposed it to amuse the protestants in general. In 1616 sir Thomasassisted at the conference at Loudun, between the protestants and the opposite party; and, by his journey to liochelle, disposed the protestants to accept of the terms offered them, and was of great use in settling the pacification. About the end of October, in the same year, he was ordered to England; not to quit his charge, but, after he should have kissed the king’s hand, and received such honour as his majesty was resolved to confer upon him, in acknowledgment of his long, painful, and faithful services, then to go and resume his charge; and continue in France, till the affairs of that kingdom, which then were in an uncertain state, should be better established. Accordingly he came over to England in December; and, on the 21st of that month, was made comptroller of the king’s household; and, the next day, sworn a privy-counsellor. He returned to the court of France in April 1617; but took his leave of it towards the latter end of the same year. And, on the 19th of January, 1617-18, was advanced to the place of treasurer of the household; and in 1620 was appointed clerk of the crown in the court of king’s bench, and might have well deserved the post of secretary of state that he had been recommended for, which none was better qualified to discharge. He was elected one of the burgesses for the university of Oxford, in the first parliament of king Charles I. which met June 18, 1623, and was also returned for the same in the next parliament, which assembled at Westminster the 26th of February following; but his election being declared void, he was chosen for another place. Some of the speeches which he made in parliament are primed. On the 11th of June 1629, he was commissioned to go ambassador to the French court, on purpose to carry king Charles’s ratification, and to receive Lewis the XIIIth’s oath, for the performance of the treaty of peace, then newly concluded between England and France: which he did in September following, and with this honourable commission concluded all his foreign employments. Having, after this, enjoyed a creditable and peaceful retreat for about ten years, he departed this life, September 20, 1639. His lady was Magdalen, one of the daughters and co-heirs of sir John Wood, knight, clerk of the signet, by whom he had one son, and three daughters. She died at Paris, December 31, 1614, with a character amiable and exemplary in all respects. Sir Thomas had with her the manor of Albins, in the parishes of Stapleford-Abbot, and Navestoke in Essex, where Inigo Jones built for him a mansion ­house, delightfully situated in a park, now the seat of the Abdy family. Sir Thomas was small of stature, but great in understanding. He was a man of uncommon sagacity, and indefatigable industry in his employments abroad; always attentive to the motions of the courts where he resided, and punctual and exact in reporting them to his own; of a firm and unshaken resolution in the discharge of his duty, and beyond the influence of terror, flattery, or corruption. The French court, in particular, dreaded his experience and abilities; and the popish and Spanish party there could scarcely disguise their hatred of so zealous a supporter of the protestant interest in that kingdom. His letters and papers, in twelve volumes in folio, were once in the possession of secretary Thurloe, and afterwards of the lord chancellor Somers. The style of them is clear, strong, and masculine, and entirely free from the pedantry and puerilities which infected the most applauded writers of that age. Several of them, together with abstracts from the rest, were published by Dr. Birch in a work entitled “An historical view of the Negotiations between the Courts of England, France, and Brussels, from the year 1592 to 1617. Extracted chiefly from the ms State-papers of sir Thomas Edmondes, kt. ambassador in France, &c. and of Anthony Bacon, esq. brother to the lord chancellor Bacon,” London, 1749, 8vo. Several extracts of letters, written by him in the early part of his political life, occur in Birch’s “Memoirs of queen Elizabeth,” and other letters are in Lodge’s “Illustrations of British History.”

, a learned schoolmaster, who styled himself Henricus Edmundus ab Edmundo, was born an Cumberland in 1607, and in 1622 entered a student in Queen’s college, Oxford, in the inferior rank of tabarder, from which be probably rose by his talents, as he took his degrees in arts, and obtained a fellowship. Afterwards he was employed as usher of Tunbridge school; and in 1655, was appointed, by the provost and fellows of Queen’s college, master of die free school at Northleach in Gloucestershire, which he retained until his death, July 15, 1659, Jeaving the character of a learned and successful teacher. He published at least two school books the one entitled “Lingua linguarum,” London, 1615, 8vo and the other “Homonyma et Synonyma Linguae Latin it- conjuncta et distincta,” Oxon. 1661, 8vo.

, Mowbray herald extraordinary, F. S. A. and an able heraldic writer, was a man who raised himself by dint of ingenuity and perseverance from a very humble station to considerable celebrity. He was originally an apprentice to a barber, but discovering some knowledge of the art, became an herald painter, and was much employed in emblazoning arms upon carriages. This led him to study heraldry as a science, which imperceptibly led him also to genealogical researches, and his progress hi both was rapid and successful. When the baronets of England wished for some augmentation to their privileges, as appendages to their titles (in which, however, they were flot successful), they chose Mr. Edmoudson their secretary. In 1764 he was appointed Mowbray herald extraordinary. He died in Warwick-street, Golden -square, Feb. 17, 1786, and was buried in the church-yard of St. James’s, Piccadilly. He was a man of good sense as well as skill in his profession, and maintained an excellent private character. His works, which will convey his name to posterity with great credit, were, 1. “Historical account of the Grevillc Family, with an account of Warwick Castle,” Lond. 1766, 8vo. 2. “A Companion to the Peerage of Great Britain and Ireland,” ibid. 1776, 8vo. 3. “A Complete Body of Heraldry,” ibid. 1780, 2 vols. folio; and 4. his very magnificent work, entitled “Buronagium Genealogicum, or The Pedigree of English Peers,” 176 84, 6 vols. folio.

king of England, deserves notice here as a young prince of great promise and high accomplishments, rather than as a sovereign, although in the latter character he afforded every presage of excellence, had his life been spared. He was the only son of Henry VIII. by queen Jane Seymour, and was born in 1538. From his maternal uncle, the duke of Somerset, he imbibed a zeal for the progress of the reformation. The ambitious policy of his courtiers, however, rendered his reign upon the whole turbulent, although his own disposition was peculiarly mild and benevolent, and amidst all these confusions, the reformation of religion made very great progress. He was at last, when in his sixteenth year, seized with the measles, and afterwards. with the small-pox, the effects of which he probably never quite recovered; and as he was making a progress through some parts of the kingdom, he was afflicted with a cough, which proved obstinate, and which gave way neither to regimen nor mexlicines. Several fatal symptoms of a consumption appeared, and though it was hoped, that as the season advanced, his youth and temperance might get the better of the malady, his subjects saw, with great concern, his bloom and vigour sensibly decay. After the settlement of the crown, which had been effected with the greatest difficulty, his health rapidly declined, and scarcely a hope was entertained of his recovery. His physicians were dismissed by the earl of Northumberland’s advice, and the young king was entrusted to the hands of an ignorant woman, who undertook to restore him to health in a very short time but the medicines prescribed were found useless violent symptoms were greatly aggravated and on the 6th of July, 1553, he expired at Greenwich, in the sixteenth year of his age, and the seventh of his reign. The excellent disposition of this young prince, and his piety and zeal in the prolestant cause, have rendered his memory dear to the nation. He possessed mildness of disposition, application to study and business, a capacity to learn and judge, and an attachment to equity and justice. He is to this day commemorated as the founder of some of the most splendid charities in the metropolis.

, the very able and accurate historian of the West Indies, was born May 21, 1743, at Westbury in Wiltshire. His father inherited a small paternal estate in the neighbourhood, of about 100l. per annum, which proving insufficient for the maintenance of a large family, he undertook to deal in corn and malt, in which he had but little success. He died in 1756, leaving a widow and six children in distressed circumstances. Mrs. Edwards, however, had two opulent brothers in the West Indies, one of them a wise and worthy man, of a liberal mind, and princely fortune. This was Zachary Bayly, of the island of Jamaica, who took the family under his protection; and as the subject of this article was the eldest, directed that he should be well educated. He had been placed before by his father at the school of a dissenting minister in Bristol, waere he learned writing, arithmetic, and English grammar. His master, whose name was Foot, had an excellent method of making the boys write letters to him on different subjects, such as the beauty and dignity of truth, the obligation of a religious life, the benefits of good education, the mischiefs of idleness, &c. previously stating to them the chief arguments to be used; and insisting on correctness in orthography and grammar. In this employment Mr. Edwards sometimes excelled the other boys, and on Such occasions, his master never failed to praise him very liberally before them all 1; and would frequently transmit his letters to his father and mother. This excited in his mind a spirit of emulation, and gave him the first taste for correct and elegant composition, in which Mr. Edwards, it must be confessed, attained considerable facility. All this time, however, he informs us that he attained but very little learning, and when his uncle took him under his protection, his agent in Bristol considered him as neglected by Mr. Foot, and immediately removed him to a French boarding-school in the same city, where he soon obtained the French language, and having access to a circulating library, acquired a passion for books, which afterwards became the solace of his life.

In course of time, Mr. Edwards, who succeeded his uncle, and, in 1773, was left heir to the great property of a Mr. Hume of Jamaica, became an opulent merchant, returned to England, and in 1796 took his seat in parliament for the borough of Grampound, which he represented until his death, which happened at his house, Polygon, near Southampton, July 15, 1800. His first publication was a pamphlet, entitled “Thoughts on the Proceedings of Government respecting the Trade of the West India islands with the United States of America,” 1784. This was followed by a “Speech delivered by him at a free conference between the council and assembly at Jamaica, held on the 25th of November 1789, on the subject of Mr. Wilberforce’s propositions in the house of commons, concerning the Slave Trade.” But his most distinguished performance is his “History, civil and commercial, of the British Colonies in the West Indies,” 1793, 2 vols. 4to, a work of very superior merit, and of the highest authority, particularly in the commercial part. To a new edition of this work, published in 1801, 3 vols. 8vo, and including his “History of St. Domingo,” is prefixed a short memoir of his early life, written by himself. In 1796 Mr. Edwards published “The proceedings of the governor and assembly of Jamaica, in regard to the Maroon Negroes,” 8vo. In all these works Mr. Edwards’s style is easy and elegant, and many of his remarks highly valuable as the result of long experience and observation.

, the late teacher of perspective in the royal academy, was born March 7, 1738, in Castlestreet, Leicester-fields, where his father was a chair-maker and carver, and educated at a protestant school established for the children of French refugees. When fifteen years of age he assisted his father, who intended him for his own business, but discovering in him some inclination to drawing, permitted him to take some lessons at a drawingschool, and in 1759, young Edwards was admitted a student at the duke of Richmond’s gallery. On the death of his father, in the following year, be found himself without employment; and with a view to his support, and that of his mother, and a brother and sister, opened an evening school at his lodgings, where he taught drawing. In 1761 he was admitted a member of the academy in Peter-court, St. Martin’s-lane, where he studied the human figure with, the principal artists of that period, and made such progress as to obtain a premium for a drawing from the society for the encouragement of arts, manufactures, and commerce. In 1763 he was employed by the late Boydell to make some drawings for his publication of engravings from the old masters; and in 1764- obtained another premium from the society of arts, &c. for the best historical picture in chiaro oscuro; and became a member (and frequent exhibiter) of the incorporated society of artists. In 1770 he was employed by the society of antiquaries to make a large drawing from the picture at Windsor of the interview between Henry VIII. and Francis I. at Calais.

On his arrival in London, he again established himself in his profession. He had seen much, and his opinions, which were given with uudeviating integrity, were always respected,- but his productions seldom excited much approbation, nor have there been many instances where an artist, with so much general capacity and vigour of mind, has not been able to make greater proficiency. In 1781 he obtained a premium from the society of arts for a landscape painting; and the same year he presented to the royal society a paper on the storm at Roehampton, accompanied by drawings made by himself of the singular effects of it. In June 1782, he went to Bath, where he was employed to paint three arabesque ceilings, in the house of the honourable Charles Hamilton. This was one of the greatest commissions he ever received, and occupied him till March 1783; and the politeness and liberality of Mr. Hamilton made his time pass very agreeably. He soon after met with less liberal treatment from Horace Walpole, who gave him some commissions until 1784, when their intercourse ceased. Walpole had been, as he thought, charged too much for a cabinet made by a person recommended by Edwards, and expressed himself on the subject with so much petulance and coarseness as to provoke Edwards to reply with proper indignation.

He died of a very short illness, and indeed almost suddenly, Dec. 19, 1806, and his funeral at St. Pancras churchyard, was attended by many members of the royal academy, who paid an unfeigned tribute of respect to the memory of his useful and blameless life.

, an eminent English naturalist, was born April 3, 1693, at Stratford, a hamlet. belonging to West- Ham, in Essex. Some of his early years were passed under the tuition of two clergymen, one of whom kept a school at Laytonstone, and the other at Brentwood, after which, being designed by his parents for business, he was put apprentice to a tradesman in Fenchurch-street. He was particularly happy in his master, who treated him with great kindness and civility; and who, besides his being a man of a strict regard to religion, had the uncommon qualification of being well skilled in the learned languages. About the middle of the term of Mr. Edwards’s apprenticeship, an event happened, which gave a direction to his future studies. Upon the death of Dr. Nicholas, a person of eminence in the physical world, and a relation of Edwards’s master, the doctor’s books, which were very numerous, were removed to our apprentice’s apartment. So unexpected an opportunity of acquiring knowledge he embraced with eagerness, and passed all the leisure of the day, and not onfrequently a considerable part of the night, in turning over Dr. Nicholas’ collections of natural history, sculpture, painting, astronomy, and antiquities. From this time, he lost what little relish he had for trade, and on the expiration of his servitude, formed the design of travelling into foreign countries for the purpose of improving his taste, and enlarging his mind. His first voyage was to Holland in 1716, when he visited most of the principal towns of the United Provinces. He then returned to England, and continued two years unemployed in London and its neighbourhood, though not without increasing his acquaintance with natural history. His next voyage was to Norway, where an active and philosophic mind, like his, could not fail to be highly gratified both with the stupendous scenery of nature, and with the manners of the inhabitants. In an excursion to Frederickstadt, he was not far distant from the cannon of Charles XII. of Sweden, who was then engaged in the siege of that place, before which he lost his life. By this circumstance Mr. Edwards was prevented from visiting Sweden, the Swedish army being particularly watchful against strangers. Notwithstanding all his precaution, and his solicitude to give no offence on either side, he was onqe confined by the Danish guard, who supposed him to be a spy employed by the enemy to procure intelligence of their designs. Upon obtaining testimonials, however, of his innocence, a release was granted.

On his return to England, he closely pursued his favourite study of natural history; applying himself to the drawing and colouring of such animals as fell under his notice. His earliest rare was rather to preserve natural than picturesque beauty. Birds first engaged his particular attention; and some of the best pictures of these subjects being purchased by him, he was induced to make a few drawings of his own. These were admired by the curious, who, by paying a good price for them, encouraged him in labours- which now procured him a decent subsistence and a large acquaintance. In 1731 he was enabled to remit his industry, and, in company with two of his relations, made an excursion to Holland and Brabant, where he collected several scarce books and prints, and had an opportunity of examining the original pictures of various great masters, at Antwerp, Brussels, Utrecht, and other large cities. In December 1733, by the recommendation of sir Hans Sloane, president of the college of physicians, he was chosen their librarian, and had apartments assigned him in the college. This, which was the principal epocha of his private life, fixed him in an office that was particularly agreeable to his taste and inclination. He had now an opportunity of a constant recourse to a valuable library, filled with scarce and curious books on those subjects of natural history which he most assiduously studied. By degrees he became one of the most eminent ornithologists in our own or any other country, and in acquiring this character, such was his scrupulous industry, that he never trusted to others what he could perform himself; and when he found it difficult to give satisfaction to his own mind, frequently made three or four drawings to delineate the object in its most lively character, attitude, and representation.

But with this work it soon appeared that he did not mean to discontinue his labours; his mind was too active, and his love of knowledge too ardent, for him to rest satisfied with what he had already done. Accordingly, in 1758, he published his first volume of “Gleanings of Natural History,” exhibiting seventy different birds, fishes, insects, and plants, most of which were before non-descripts, coloured from nature, on fifty copper-plates. This work much increased his fame as a natural historian, and as an artist. In 1760, a second volume appeared, dedicated to the late earl of Bute, whose studious attachment to natural history, particularly to botany, was then well known. The third part of the “Gleanings,” which constituted the 7th and last volume of Mr. Edwards’s works, was published in 1763, and was dedicated to earl Ferrers, who, when captain Shirley, had taken in a French prize, a great number of birds, intended for madame Pompadour, mistress of Louis XV. These he communicated to our naturalist, who was hence enabled more completely to add to the value of his labours. Thus, after a long series of years, the most studious application, and a very extensive correspondence with every quarter of the world, Mr. Edwards concluded a work, which in 7 vo!s. 4to, contains engravings and descriptions of more than an hundred subjects in natural history, not before described or delineated, and all the productions of his own hand. We have already mentioned his scrupulous exactness, and may now confirm it in his own words. In the third volume of his “Gleanings” he says, “It often happens that my figures on the copper-plates differ from my original drawings for sometimes the originals have not altogetherpleased me as to their attitudes or actions. In such cases I have made three or four, sometimes six sketches, or outlines, and have deliberately considered them all, and then fixed upon that which I judged most free and natural, to be engraven on my plate.” He added to the whole a general index in English and French, which is now perfectly completed, with the Linna-an names, by Li mums himself, who frequently honoured him with his friendship and correspondence. Upon Mr. Edwards’ completing his great work, we find him making the following singular declaration, or rather petition, in which he seems afraid that his passion for his favourite subject of natural history, should get the better of a nobler pursuit, viz. the contemplation of his Maker.

Several occasional papers upon natural history were communicated by Mr. Edwards to the royal society, and inserted in the Philosophical Transactions . In a few instances, he corresponded with other periodical publications. The prefaces and introductions to many of his volumes contain some curious and ingenious essays relative to the object of his principal pursuit;, and he has given, likewise, a brief and general idea of drawing and painting in water-colours, with instructions for etching on copperplates; and reflections on the passages of birds. In 1770 these essays were selected and published by our author, in one vol. 8vo, his design in doing which was to accommodate those persons who could not afford the expence of his great work.

After the last publication of his “Gleanings,” being arrived at his seventieth year, he found that his sight began to fail him, and that his hand lost its steadiness. He continued, however, some years afterward in his office of librarian; but finding his infirmities to increase, he retired in 1769 from public employment, to a small house which be had purchased at Plaistow: previously to which he disposed of all the copies, as well as plates, of his works to the late Mr. Robson, bookseller in New Bond-street, who published the Linnaean Index, his papers from the Philosophical Transactions, with the plates relative to these subjects all new engraved, in 1776, in a proper size to bind with his other vorks, the whole of which he assigned to Mr. Robson solely, and addressed a letter to the public upon the occasion, dated May 1, 1709. His collection of drawings, amounting to upwards of nine hundred, had before been purchased by the earl of Bute. The conversation of a few select friends, and the perusal of a few choice books, w,ere his amusement in the evening of his life, and he occasionally made excursions to some of the principal cities in England. During his residence at Plaistow, however, he delineated some scarce animals, which were afterwards engraved. His latter years were much embittered by a cancerous complaint which deprived him of the sight of one of his eyes, and by the stone, to which he had been subject at different periods of his life. It was nevertheless remarked, that in the severest paroxysms of misery, he was scarcely known to utter a single complaint. Having completed his eightieth ye?.r, and become emaciated with age and sickness, he died on the 23d of July, 1773, and was Interred in the church-yard of WestHam, his native parish, where his executors erected a stone with a plain inscription, to perpetuate his talents as an artist and zoologist. Dying a bachelor, he left his fortune to two sisters, who did not long survive him.

With regard to his person, he was of a middle stature, rather inclining to corpulence. The turn of his mind was liberal and cheerful. The benevolence of his temper was experienced by all his acquaintance, and his poor neighbours frequently partook of his bounty. From the diffidence and humility which were always apparent in his behaviour, he was not calculated for shining in general conversation; but to persons who had a taste for studies congenial to his own, he was a most entertaining as well as communicative companion. How much his works continue to be held in estimation, is apparent from the high price at which they are commonly sold. His proper and distinct character is, that he far excelled all the English ornithologists who had gone before him. The immense accessions which, since 1763, have been made to natural knowledge, and the higher degree of taste and elegance to which the art of engraving has been carried, may give to future productions an eminence and reputation superior to what our author has attained. But that he should be exceeded by those who come after him, will be no diminution to his just fame, or prevent his memory from being handed down to posterity with honour and applause.

, a famous presbyterian writer in the seventeenth century, and a bitter enemy to the independents, who then bore sway in this kingdom, was educated in Trinity-college, in Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1605, and that of M. A. in 1609. He was incorporated M. A. at Oxford, July 14, 1623. Where and what his preferments were, we do not find; but we learn from himself, that though he conformed, yet he was always a puritan in his heart. He exercised his ministry, chiefly as a lecturer, at Hertford, and at several places in and about London; and was sometimes brought into trouble for opposing the received doctrines, or not complying duly with the established church. When the long parliament declared against Charles I. our author espoused their cause, and by all his actions, sermons, prayers, praises, and discourses, earnestly promoted their interest. But, when the independent party began to assume the supreme authority, he became as furious against them as he had been against the royalists, and wrote the following pieces against them: 1. “Reasons against the Independent Government of particular Congregations,” &c. Lond. 1641, 4to which was answered the same year by a woman called Catherine Chidley. 2. “Antapologia,” or a full answer to the “Apologeticall Narration of Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Nye, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Burroughs, Mr. Bridge, members of the assembly of divines. Wherein is handled many of the controversies of these times; viz. I. Of a particular visible church. II. Of classes and synods. III. Of the Scriptures, how farre a rule for church government. IV. Of formes of prayer. V. Of the qualifications of church members. 6.” Of submission and noncommunion. VII. Of excommunication. VIII. Of the power of the civill magistrate in ecclesiasticals. IX. Of separation and schisme. X. Of tolerations, and particularly of the toleration of independencie. XI. Of suspension from the Lord’s supper. XII. Of ordination of ministers by the people. XIII. Of church covenant. XIV. Of non-residencie of church-members,“Lond. 1644, 4to. 3.” Gangnrna: or a catalogue and discovery of many of the errours, heresies, blasphemies, and pernicious practices of the sectaries of this time, vented and acted in England in these four last years as also a particular narration of divers stories, remarkable passages, letters an extract of many letters, concerning the present sects together with some observations upon, and corollaries from, all the forenamed premisses,“Lond. 1G46, 4to, reprinted afterwards. 4.” The second part of C'angrjena,“&c. Lond. 1646, 4to. 5.” The third part of Gangracna; or, A new and higher discovery of the errors, heresies, blasphemies, and insolent proceedings of the sectaries of these times; with some animadversions, by way of confutation, upon many of the errors and heresies named.“In these three parts of Gangrsena, he gives catalogues of the errors of the independents, and exposes the errors of the other sectaries of his time, in a manner which could not fail to render him particularly obnoxious to them, but at the same time in such a spirit of bitter invective, as must render many of his facts doubtful. He also published,' 6.” The casting down of the last and strongest hold of Satan; or, a Treatise against Toleration,“Part I. Lond. 1647, 4to. 7.” Of the particular visibility of the Church.“8.” A treatise of the Civil Power of Ecclesiasticals, and of suspension, from the Lord’s supper,“Lond. 1642, 1644. He promised several other pieces, but it does not appear that he published them; particularly, 1. A fourth Part of his Gangracna. 2. An Historical Narration of all the proceedings and ways of the English Sectaries. 3. Catalogue of the Judgments of God upon the Sectaries within these four years last past. 4. Many Tractates against the errors of the times. He promised likewise to resemble that tree spoken of in the Revelation, to yield fruit every month i. e. to be often setting forth one tractate or other but we do not hear of more than have been enumerated. As for his character, he professes himself” a plain, open-hearted man, who hated tricks, reserves, and designs;" zealous for the assembly of divines, the directory, the use of the Lord’s Prayer, singing of Psalms, &c. and so earnest for what he took to be truth, that he was usually called in Cambridge, young Luther.

, an eminent English divine and voluminous writer, the son of the preceding Thomas Edwards, was born at Hertford, February 26, 1637. His father, as we have already noticed, died in 1647, and by his wife, who was an heiress of a very considerable fortune, he left one daughter and four sons, the second of whom was John, the subject of the present narrative. After having received his grammatical education at Merchanttaylors’ school, in London, he was removed in 1653 to the university of Cambridge, and was admitted of St. John’s college, then under the government of Dr. Anthony Tuckney, a presbyterian divine of acknowledged character and learning, and particularly distinguished for the wise and exact discipline of his college. Mr. Edwards, soon after his admission, was chosen scholar of the house, and was quickly taken notice of for his exercises, both in his tutor’s chamber, and in his college-hall. Towards the close of his undergraduateship, the senior proctor being then of the college, he was appointed one of the moderators for the year. Whe: he was middle bachelor, he was elected a fellow of his college, for which he was principally indebted to the exertions of Dr. Tuckney in his behalf. During the time of his senior bachelorship he was again chosen moderator in the schools, and his performances were long remembered with esteem and praise. In 1661 he was admitted to the degree of M. A.; and soon after sir Robert Carr presented him to Dr. Sanderson, bishop cf Lincoln, who conferred upon him the order of deacon. That learned prelate engaged him, at the same time, to preach a sermon at the next ordination, when with the other candidates, he was ordained priest. In 1664, he undertook the duty of Trinity-church, in Cambridge, and went through the whole both parts of the day. In his preaching, without affecting eloquence, he studied to be plain, intelligible, and practical; and his church was much frequented by the gown, and by persons of considerable standing in the university. Dr. Sparrow, master of Queen’s, Dr. Beaumont, master of Peterhouse, and Dr. Pearson, master of Trinity-college, were often heard to applaud his pulpit performances. In 1665, during the time of the plague, he quitted his residence in the college, and dwelt all that year, and part of the next, in the town, that he might devote himself entirely to the edification and comfort of the parishioners of Trinity church, in that season of calamity. A little after this, sir Edward Atkins offered him a good living near Cirencester, in Gloucestershire, but he chose to continue in his station at Cambridge. In 1668 he was admitted to the degree of B. D. About the same time, through the interest of sir Robert Carr with sir Thomas Harvey, Mr. Edwards was unanimously chosen lecturer at St. Edmund’s Bury, with a salary of loo/, a year. This office he discharged with great reputation and acceptance, notwithstanding which, after a period of twelve months, he resigned it, and returned to his college, where, however, his situation was uneasy to him. He had not been upon the best terms with Dr. Peter Gunning, the former master of St. John’s, and being still more dissatisfied with Dr. Francis Turner, Gunning’s successor, who had somehow offended him, he determined to resign his fellowship. On quitting his college, he was presented by the fellows with a testimonial of his worthy and laudable behaviour among them. From St. John’s he removed to Trinity-hall, where he entered himself as a fellow-commoner, and performed the regular exercises in the civil Jaw. Being willing to be employed in the offices of jits clerical function, he accepted of the invitation of the parishioners of St. Sepulchre, in Cambridge, to be their minister; and his sermons there were as much attended by persons of consequence in the university as they had formerly been at Trinity church. In 1676 Mr. Edwards married Mrs. Lane, the widow of Mr. Lane, who had been ati alderman, a justice of peace, and an eminent attomey in the town. “This gentlewoman,” says his biographer, “was an extraordinary person, of unusual accomplishments and singular graces but had the unhappiness (as some others of that sex) to be misrepresented to the world. She being naturally of a high and generous spirit, and not framed to low observances and vulgar compliances, incurred thereby the imputation of pride and superciliousness among vulgar minds. But those who were no strangers to good breeding, and knew how to make distinction of persons, admired the agreeableness of her conversation, and saw those excellent and worthy things in her deportment which they could find but in very few of her sex. She understood herself and her duty, and all the rules of civil and religious behaviour.”

Soon after Mr. Edwards’s marriage, his friend sir Robert Carr, generously offered him the presentation of two considerable benefices then vacant in Norfolk, which he as generously declined, being willing that those livings should be bestowed upon some other person or persons who needed them. About the same time he accepted a preferment less valuable, that of St. Peter’s church in Colchester, merely from the prospect of extensive usefulness. Thither he accordingly removed with his family, and was highly acceptable to his parishioners, but quitted the place at the end of three years, and removed to Cambridgeshire. To this he was induced by the unkind usage which (as he thought) he met with from the clergy of the town, by the sickly habit of his wife, and by an apoplectic and convulsive fit with which he was himself visited. Upon his removal into the county of Cambridge, being afflicted with bodily pains and weaknesses, and especially the gout, which prevented him from appearing in public, he employed himself in presenting a succession of publications to the world. About 1697, he removed with his family to Cambridge, for the convenience of the university library. Our author had often been solicited by his friends to take his degree of D. D. but he did not comply with their motion till 1699. Upon this occasion he had not the opportunity of keeping an act, there being none, on account of the illness of the divinity professor, to moderate and determine. He only preached an English sermon at the commencement, and a Concio ad Clerum; besides which he made a determination in Latin, in the schools, on a theological question. In 1701, Dr. Edwards lost his lady, and, after a decent time, married again, a niece of alderman Lane, who had been brought up several years under Mrs. Edwards before her marriage to the doctor. It is remarkable, that, notwithstanding his numerous; publications, he was never possessed of a library; some bibles, lexicons, dictionaries, and other works of a similar nature and constant use, excepted. The university and college libraries furnished him with all the classic authors, and Greek and Latin fathers, and indeed with whatever related to ancient learning. These he either perused in the places where they were kept, or had them brought to his chamber; and his method was, from the early part of his life, to make adversaria and collections out of the books which he read, and all along to frame notes, observations, inferences, and reflections, from and on them, and to reduce them to the particular heads and subjects on which he designed to treat. He never had a commonplace book. With regard to modern authors, his practice was to procure the loan of them from the booksellers, at the price of sixpence for an 8vo, a shilling for a 4to, and two shillings for a folio. By this good husbandry, he was forced to read the works which he borrowed within the time prefixed; whereas, otherwise he might perhaps never have perused them thoroughly. Dr. Edwards continued in his course of diligent study and repeated publications till near the period of his decease, April 16, 1716, in the seventy-ninth year of his age.

Catharine, his second wife, who is said to have been adorned with every Christian grace and virtue, survived her husband nearly thirty-nine years. She died on the 14th of January, 1744-5, aged eighty-one.

Besides several single sermons, Mr. Edwards published 1. “An enquiry into four remarkable texts of the New Testament,” 1692, 8vo. 2. “A farther enquiry into several remarkable texts of the Old and New Testament,” 1692, 8vo. 3. “Of the truth and authority of Scripture,” 1693. 4. “Of the Style of Scripture,” 1694. 5. “Of the excellency and perfection of Scripture,” 1695. & “Thoughts concerning the causes and occasions of Atheism,” 1695. 7. “A Demonstration of the Existence and Providence of God,” 1696. 8. “Socinianism unmasked; or the unreasonableness of the opinion concerning one article of faith only.” 9. “A brief Vindication of the fundamental Articles of the Christian faith;” and a discourse, entitled “The Socinian Creed,” 1696 and 1697: These three pieces, together with some part of the treatise concerning “The causes and occasions of Atheism,” were occasioned by Mr. Locke’s publication of “The Reasonableness of Christianity, as delivered in the Scriptures,” and by the writings of some professed Socinians. Mr. Edwards was the first person that encountered what he apprehended to be Mr. Locke’s dangerous notions of the “One sole Article of Faith.” This he did, in the beginning of the dispute, in a manner very respectful to Mr. Locke’s person and parts. But Mr. Locke, in his two Vindications of his doctrine, having treated our author with severity, he assumed, in his replies, an air of mirth and pleasantness, and chastised his antagonist with some smartness, and his attack upon Mr. Locke was approved and applauded by a number of learned men, both at home and abroad. He published also, 10. “Remarks on Mr. Whiston’s Theory of the Earth,” 1697. 11. “Twelve Sermons on special occasions and subjects,” 1698, 8vo. 12. “A Survey of the different dispensations of Religion, from the beginning of the world to the consummation of all things,” in two volumes, 1699. 13. “Exercitations, critical, philosophical, historical, theological, on several important places in the Old and New Testament,” in two parts, 1702, 8vo. 14. “The Preacher,” the first part, 1705; the second part, 1706. 15. “Veritas redux, or evangelical truths restored,” 1707. 16. “Treatise of Faith and Justification,” 1708. 17. “The Preacher,” the third part, 1709. 18. “Remarks on the archbishop of Dublin’s sermon,” 1710. 19. “An Answer to Dr. Whitby, concerning the Arminian doctrines,” 1711. 20. “Observations and reflections on Mr. Winston’s Primitive Christianity,” 1712. 21. “Animadversions on Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,” 1712, with a Supplement, 1713. 22. “Theologia Reformata, or the substance and body of the Christian religion,” 1713, 2 vols. folio. A third volume, in folio, was published in 1726, ten years after our author’s decease. 23. “Remains,” 1713, 8vo. The writings which Dr. Edwards left behind him in manuscript/ were nearly as many as those which have already been named. By some of his contemporaries he was censured for appearing too frequently from the press, while others said, that those who were just estimators of things cleared him of the imputation of writing too often, when they observed, that what he continually published exceeded rather than fell short of his former performances.

, president of the college of New Jersey, and a divine of very considerable fame in America, was descended from English parents who emigrated in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and was born, Oct. 5, 1703, at Windsor, in the province of Connecticut in North- America. In 1716 he became a student of Yale college, and received the degree of B. A. in 1720, before he had completed his seventeenth year. His mental powers are said to have opened themselves so early and so strong, that he read Locke’s “Essay on the Human Understanding” with delight, in his second year at this college. After taking his bachelor’s degree he remained two years more at college preparing himself for the ministry, and after the usual trials, was licensed to preach. In August 1722 he was invited to preach to the English presbyterians at New York, where he continued with approbation above eight months; but as this society was too small to maintain a preacher, he returned in the spring of 1723 to his father’s house at Connecticut, where, for some time, he applied to his studies with great industry and perseverance; and severe application became habitual to him, although he was of a delicate constitution. In the spring of 1724, having taken his master’s degree, he was appointed tutor of Yale college, and notwithstanding his youth, and the time necessary to be devoted to his own improvement, he filled this office for two years in a manner which afforded his superiors no reason to repent of their choice. He would probably have remained longer here, had he not received, in Sept. 1726, an invitation from the people of Northampton in Connecticut, to become assistant to his mother’s father, Mr. Stoddard, who was the settled minister of the town. Having accepted this offer, he was ordained colleague to Mr. Stoddard, Feb. 15, 1727, when only in his twenty-fourth year, and continued pastor of this congregation until June 1750, at which time his congregation dismissed him with every mark of contempt and insult. This, however, will appear to reflect no discredit on Mr. Edwards, when the reader is told that the first cause of complaint against him was, his having detected and endeavoured to expose a combination of youths who had imported obscene books, and were corrupting one another’s principles with great eagerness. So many of these young men were connected with the best families, that the parents declared their children should not be called to an account, and all inquiry was stifled. Still, however, they could not have proceeded to expel their preacher, if they had not soon afterwards laid hold of another pretext, which arose from Mr. Edwards’s refusing to administer the sacrament to persons of notoriously loose lives. Meetings were held, in which he endeavoured to justify his opinions; but upon a decision, on the question of continuing him their pastor, he was left in a minority of 180, after a residence among them of twenty-four years, and a character of unimpeachable integrity and piety. As it is impossible to suppose that all his hearers joined in the above decision, he appears to have been supported for some time, by the kindness of those who admired his character, until sent on a mission to the Indians at Stockbridge, in the western part of Massachusett’s bay, about sixty miles from his former residence. Here he arrived in 1751, and enjoying a quiet retirement, employed himself at his leisure hours in composing the principal part of his works, until 1757, when, on the death of Mr. Aaron Burr, he was chosen president of New Jersey college. He had not, however, long commenced the business of his new office when the small-pox raging with great virulence, he caught the infection, although after inoculation, and died of the disorder March 22, 1758. Mr. Edwards was a man of extensive learning, principally in theology, and his avidity for knowledge was insatiable. He commonly spent thirteen hours a day in his study, and yet did not neglect the necessary exercises of walking and riding. He read all the books, especially in divinity, that he could procure, from which he could hope to get any help in his pursuit of knowledge. And in this, he did not confine himself to authors of any particular sect or denomination; but took much pains to procure the works of the most noted writers who advanced a scheme of divinity most contrary to his own, which was nearly that termed Calvinistic.

, one of our ancient English poets, was born in Somersetshire in 1523, and admitted scholar of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, under the tuition of George Etheridge, May 11, 1540, and probationer fellow Aug. 11, 1514. In 1547, when Christ church was founded by Henry VIII. he was admitted student of the upper table, and the same year took his master’s degree. Warton cites a passage from his poems to prove that in his early years, he was employed in some department about the court. In the British Museum there is a small set of manuscript sonnets, signed with his initials, addressed to some of the beauties of the courts of queen Mary and queen Elizabeth. He therefore probably did not remain long at the university. In the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, he was made one of the gentlemen of her chapel, and master of the children there, having the character of not only being an excellent musician, but an exact poet, as many of his compositions in music and poetry testify. For these he was highly valued, by those who knew him, especially his associates in Lincoln’s- Inn (of which he was a member), and much lamented by them when he died. This event, according to sir John Hawkins, happened Oct. 31, 1556, but others say in 1566. He wrote “Damon and Pythias,” a comedy, acted at court and in the university, first printed in 1570, or perhaps’ in 1565, and “Palamon and Arcyte,” another comedy in two parts, probably never printed, but acted in Christ-church hall, 1566, before queen Elizabeth, of which performance Wood gives a curious account. Warton thinks it probable that he wrote many other dramatic pieces now lost. He is mentioned by Puttenham, as gaining the prize for comedy and interlude. Besides being a writer of regular dramas, he appears to have been a contriver of masques, and a composer of poetry for pageants. In a word, he united all those arts and accomplishments which ministered to popular pleasantry, in an age when the taste of the courtiers was not of a much higher order than that of the vulgar in our time. His English poems, for he wrote also Latin poetry, are for the most part extant in “The Paradise of Dainty Devises,” Lond. 1578, 4to, lately reprinted in the “Bibliographer,” where, as well as in our other authorities, are some farther notices of Edwards. It is justly observed by Warton, that his popularity seems to have altogether arisen from those pleasing talents, of which no specimens could be transmitted to posterity, and which prejudiced his partial contemporaries in favour of his poetry.

Who study Shakspeare at the inns of court.

“111,” says our annotator, “would that scholiast discharge his duty, who should neglect to honour those whom Dulness has distinguished; or suffer them to lie forgotten, when their rare modesty would have left them nameless. Let us not, therefore, overlook the services which have been done her cause, by one Mr. Thomas Edwards, a gentleman, as he is pleased to call himself, of Lincoln’s Inn; but, in reality, a gentleman only of the Dunciad; or, to speak him better, in the plain language of our honest ancestors to such mushrooms, a gentleman of the last edition: who, nobly eluding the solicitude of his careful father, very early retained himself in the cause of Dulness against Shakspeare, and with the wit and learning of his ancestor Tom Thimble in the ‘ Rehearsal,’ and with the ?ir of good-nature and politeness of Caliban in the `Tempest,' hath now happily finished the Dunce’s progress, in personal abuse. For, a libeller is nothing but a Grubstreet critic run to seed.”

Mr. Edwards, who bad inflicted so deep a wound on Wai-burton’s edition of Shakspeare, and who could be no stranger to the irascibility of his literary temper, was by no means prepared for such an attack, which was felt by him in a very sensible degree; and he was particularly hurt at what he thought a reflection upon his birth. His resentment on this occasion was strongly expressed in a preface which he prefixed to a new impression of the “Canons of Criticism;” but in one respect Mr. Edwards appears to have been mistaken. Warburton hud no reference to his parental origin; which circumstance he condescended to explain in an additional note, though in very vncourtly language. “Lamentable,” says he, “is the dulness of these gentlemen of the Dunciad. This Fungoso and his friends, wbo are all gentlemen, have exclaimed much against us for reflecting on his birth, in the words, a gentleman of the last edition, which we hereby declare concern not his birth, but his adoption only and mean no more than that he is become a gentleman of the last edition of the Dunciad. Since gentlemen then are so captious, we think it proper to declare that Mr. Thomas Edwards’s ancestor is only related to him by the muse’s side.” Mr. Edwards, besides answering Warburton in prose, attacked him with sonnets, but had more ample caflse for satisfaction in the repeated impressions of his work, in the approbation of his friends, and in an elegant ode addressed to him by Dr. Akenside.

The early part of Mr. Edwards’s life was chiefly spent in town, and at Pitzhanger in Middlesex. But in 1739 he purchased an estate at Turrick, in the parish of Ellesborough, in Buckinghamshire, where he resided till his decease. This, however, did not prevent his frequent mixture with his literary friends, who were numerous and, respectable, both in rank and character. It appears that he was acquainted with Richard Owen Cambridge, esq. the honourable Philip Yorke (afterwards second earl of Hardwicke), Daniel Wray, esq. the honourable Charles Yorke, Isaac Hawkins Browne, esq. the lord chancellor Hardwicke, archbishop Herring, lord Willoughby of Parham, Mr. Samuel Richardson, George Onslow, esq. (now lord Onslow), Dr. Heberden, the right honourable Arthur Onslow, Mr. Highmore the painter, and other accomplished gentlemen. Dr. Akenside’s regard for him has already been displayed. Three of his letters to Dr. Birch may be perused in the fifty-third volume of the Gentleman’s Magazine;" and Mrs. Chapone, -when Miss Mulso, addressed an elegant ode to him, which he answered by a sonnet.

In 1770, he was presented by the crown to the valuable vicarage of Nuneaton in Warwickshire; which preferment he is understood to have obtained through the interest of the corporation of Coventry, and some private friends, with the earl of Hertford, lord lieutenant of the county. Our author, in 1773,. published a sermon, entitled “The indispensable Duty of contending for the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints,” preached before the university of Cambridge, on the 29th of June, 1766, being commencement Sunday. In 1779, he resigned the mastership of the free grammar-school of Coventry, and the rectory of St. John’s, and retired to Nuneaton, where he resided during the remainder of his life. His last publication was given to the world in the same year. The title of it is “Selecta quaedam Theocrki Idyllia. Recensuit, variorum notas adjecit, suasque animadversiones, partim Latine, partim Anglice, scriptas immiscuit, Thomas Edwards, S. T. P.” 8vo. This work reflects honour on the accuracy and extent of our author’s classical literature. Though, the original text of what is selected from Theocritus consists only of about three hundred and fifty lines, the notes are extended through upwards of two hundred and fifty pages, besides more than twenty pages, consisting of addenda, corrigenda, collationes, &c. Dr. Ed wards’ s reason for his being so minute and particular in many of his animadversions, was, that he might- give every possible kind of assistance to young persons, for whom the book was principally intended. Having written the notes sometimes in Latin, and sometimes in English, as chance or inclination directed, he thought proper to publish them in that promiscuous form. It would, however, undoubtedly have been preferable uniformly to have composed them in the Latin language. There are two appendiculae at the end of the volume; one containing the editor’s reasons for not prefixing the accentual marks to his own and Mr. Warton’s notes; and the other affording hints of a new method which he had discovered, of scanning Greek and Latin hexameters, the usual mode of doing it being, as he thought, erroneous. A fuller explanation of his system was intended to be given by him in avork which he had in contemplation, designed to be entitled “Miscellanea Critica,” but which was not carried into execution. He had also made collections for an edition of Quintus Curtius. 1 In May 1784, Dr. Edwards lost his wife, a lady of distinguished good sense, and of the most engaging manners; and he, who had passed his life in his study, and was totally unacquainted with domestic concerns, and indeed with worldly affairs of every kind, never enjoyed himself after this event. What aggravated his distress was, that, previously to Mrs. Edwards’s death, he had been afflicted with a stroke of the palsy, from which, however, he so far recovered as to be capable of discharging part of his parochial duties. But, within a few months after her decease", he had a second stroke, for which he was advised to go to Bath, but received no benefit from his journey. He departed this life at Nuneaton, on the 30th of June, 1785, in the fifty -sixth year of his age; and on the 7th of July, was interred in the church-yard belonging to the parish of Foleshill, in the same grave with his wife. An inscription on a mural marble, contains nothing of moment excepting the dates already specified.

, a very skilful architect, and one of that class of geniuses who are usually said to be self-taught, was the son of a farmer in the parish of Eglwysilan, in the county of Glamorgan, where he was born in 1719. In his fifteenth year he appears to have manifested his skill in repairing the stone fences so common in that country, and executed his work with such peculiar neatness, that his talents became in great request From this humble beginning, he aspired to be a builder of houses; and his first attempt was to build a small workshop for a neighbour, in the performance of which he gave great satisfaction. He was then employed to erect a mill, which was admired by good judges as an excellent piece of masonry; and while employed on this he became first acquainted with the principles of an arch, which led him to get higher undertakings. In 1746 he undertook to build a new bridge over the river Taff, which he executed in a style superior to any thing of the kind in any part of Wales, for neatness of workmanship and elegance of design. It consisted of three arches, elegantly light intheir construction. The hewri stones were excellently well dressed, and closely jointed. But this river runs through a very deep vale, that is more than usually woody, and crowded about with mountains. It is a'lso to be considered, that many other rivers of no mean capacity, as the Crue, the Bargoed Taff, and the Cunno, besides almost numberless brooks that run through long, deep; and well-wooded vales or glens, fall into the Taffiii its progress. The descents into these vales from the mountains being in general very steep, the water in long and heavy rains collects into these rivers with great rapidity and force; raising floods that in their descriptions would appear absolutely incredible to the in. habitants of open and flat countries. Such a flood unfortunately occurred after the completion of this undertaking, which tore up the largest trees by the roots, and carried them down the river to the bridge, where the arches were not sufficiently wide to admit of their passage, and in consequence of the obstruction to the flood, a thick and strong dam, as it were, was thus formed, and the streams being unable to get any farther, rose here to a prodigious height, and carried the bridge entirely away. As Edwards had given the most ample security for the stability of the bridge during the space of seven years, he was obliged to erect another, which was of one arch, for the purpose of admitting freely under it whatever incumbrances the floods might bring down. The span or chord of this arch was one hundred and forty feet its altitude thirty-five feet; the segment of a circle whose diameter was one hundred and seventy feet. The arch was finished, but the parapets not yet erected, when such was the pressure of the unavoidable ponderous work over the haunches, that it sprung up in the middle, and the key-stones were forced out. This was a severe blow to a man who had hitherto met with nothing but misfortune in an enterprize which was to establish or ruin him in his profession. Edwards, however, engaged in it the third time; and by means of three cylindrical holes through the work over the haunches, so reduced the weight over them, that there was no longer any danger from it. These holes or cylinders rise above each other, ascending in the order of the arch, three at each end, or over each of the haunches. The diameter of the lowest is nine feet of the second, six feet and of the uppermost, three feet. They give the bridge an air of uncommon elegance. The second bridge fell in 1751. The third, which has stood ever since, was completed in 1755.

, a celebrated painter, was born at Brussels in 1656, but it is not ascertained from what master he learned the art. He travelled to Italy with his brother-in-law Lewis Deyster, a very eminent artist, with whom he painted in conjunction, during the whole time of his continuance abroad, Deyster executing the figures, and Eeckhout the fruit and flowers, and with such perfect harmony and union, that the difference of their pencils was quite imperceptible. When he returned to Brussels, he received many marks of respect and distinction, and also an appointment to a very honourable station; yet he soon forsook friends, honours, and a certainly of being enriched, and embarked for Italy, where he wished to spend the remainder of his days. But chance conducted him to Lisbon, where his pictures sold for an exceeding high price, as he painted all his subjects in the Italian taste, and, during his residence in Italy, he had taken pains to sketch so many elegant forms of fruits and flowers, that he had a sufficient number for all his future compositions. He had lived at Lisbon about two years, when he married a young lady of quality, and extremely rich. This splendid fortune probably raised him rivals, who were jealous of his prosperity. Being out one day in his coach, he was shot with a ball, of which he instantly died, in 1695; but the cause of this assassination, or who were the authors and perpetrators of it, was never disf covered.

, an enterprising Danish missionary, was a native of Denmark, horn Jan. 31, 1686, and was for some time a preacher at Trundheim, in Norway. Having heard that lung before his time some families of Norway had established themselves in Greenland, where the Christian religion was propagated by them, and even churches and convents built, be felt himself interested in the welfare of this colony, and curious to know its actual state; and although he was told that the ice rendered that country intolerable, that the people were savages, and that no traces were now to be found of the religion which they had been taught, he still persisted in his design of reviving an establishment there, and for some years made many unsuccessful attempts to procure the necessary means. At length Frederic IV. king of Denmark seemed disposed to second his efforts, and called together the body of merchants of Bergen, to know what assignee and what privileges they would grant to a company disposed to make the experiment of establishing a colony in Greenland. But these merchants could not be made to comprehend the utility of the plan, and nothing was done by them as a body. Egede, however, was not wholly disheartened, but visited the merchants individually, and by dint of solicitation, obtained a subscription amounting to 10,000 crowns, to which he added 300, which wasthe whole of his own property. He then built vessels fit for the voyage, and provided all necessaries the king appointed him missionary, with a salary of 300 crowns, and in May 1721, Egede Bet sail with his wife and children, full of ardent hopes. After many dangers, he landed on the Baals river, in West Greenland, and built a house. He now endeavoured to gain the confidence of the natives by kind approaches; be learned their language, and took every method to soften their manners, and enlighten their understandings. He also, as a very necessary step towards civilization, endeavoured to form a commercial establishment with them, and, some time after, the king sent other vessels and two more ecclesiastics to assist Egede in his undertaking. The colony then began to prosper; above 150 children were baptised and taught the principles of the Christian religion, and every thing wore a promising appearance, when, on the accession of Christian VI. to the throne, an order came to discontinue their proceedings. On this the greater part of the colonists returned home; but Egede persisted in remaining on the spot, and having persuaded about a dozen seamen to share his lot, he renewed his endeavours with success, and the following year a vessel arrived from the mother-country with provisions and men, and an order to persevere in the objects of the mission. Every succeeding year a vessel arrived with similar assistance, and Egede received 2000 crowns by each, for the annual expences of the colony, in the promotion of which he continued to labour with great zeal, until old age and infirmities obliged him to desist, when his eldest son, Paul, was appointed his successor. After a residence of fifteen years, the good old man returned to Copenhagen, and employed the remainder of his days in teaching the Greenland language to young missionaries. He died in the island of Falster, Nov. 5, 1758. A short time before this event, he published his “Description and Natural History of Greenland,” of which there has been a French translation by Roches de Parthenay, printed at Geneva, 1763, 8vo, and the same year a German translation by Knrnitz. There is also a German translation of “The Journal of his Mission,” printed at Hamburgh, 1740, 4to. His son Paul, who died in 1789, wrote an “Account of his own Mission,” which appeared in 1789, 8vo.

The integrity and abilities of the lord keeper so conciliated the favour and confidence of the queen, that she. employed him in her most weighty emergencies. In 1598^ tye was in corpmission for treating with the Putch, and, jointly with the lord Buckhurst, Cecil, and others, signed a new treaty with their ambassadors in London, hy which the queen was eased of an annual charge of 120,000l. In 1600, he was again in commission with the lord treasurer Buckhurst and the earl of Jlsscx, for negotiating affairs with the senate of Denmark. His conduct in regard to the unfortunate earl of Essex, whose name will for ever distinguish yet disgrace the annals of Elizabeth, exhibits his character both as a wise and loyal subject, and a siacere and honest friend. These illustrious men filled two of ttie highest and most important offices of state at the same time, and with the most perfect harmony, although their characters were very different. Sensible, however, of Essex’s great merit as a soldier, and of his constitutional infirmity as a man, the lord keeper took every opportunity tq soften the violence and asperity of his disposition, and to reclaim him to the -dictates of reason and duty. An instance of his friendly interference, in the year 1598, is given by Mr. Camden by which the high and fesentful spirit of Essex, which disdained to brook an insult from a queen, who, our readers will remember, struck him, was at length softened into a due submission to his royal benefactress; in consequence of which he was pardoned, and again received into her favour. (See Devereux). From this unfortunate affair, however, his friends took an omen of his future ruin, under the conviction that princes, once offended, are seldom thoroughly reconciled. When on his hasty and unexpected return from the Irish expedition, he was summoned before the privy council, suspended from his offices, and committed to the custody of the lord keeper, the latter rendered him every kind and friendly office and, in all his future condu?t to this unfortunate man, tempered justice with compassion preserving a proper medium between the duty of the magistrate, and the generosity of the friend. By the most popular and well-timed measures, he appeased the minds of a, prejudiced people, who then became tumultuous from, the injuries and indignities 'which they supposed were done to the person of their favourite general; asserting the queen’s authority, and justifying the conduct of the public counsels, without heightening or exaggerating the misconduct of the unfortunate earl. Still as the minds of the people remained dissatisfied, under a persuasion of his innocence, to remove the grounds of these suspicions, the queen resolved that his cause should have an open hearing, not in the star-chamber, but in the lord keeper Egerton’s house, before the council, four earls, two barons, and four judges, in order that a censure might be formally passed upon him, but without charge of perfidy. On this occasion, when he began to excuse and justify his conduct, the lord keeper interrupted him in the most friendly manner, and advised him to throw himself upon the mercy and goodness of the queen, and not, by an attempt to alleviate his offences, to extenuate her clemency. The issue of this trial it is unnecessary here to relate, as it may be found in our account of this unfortunate nobleman. As far as the subject of the present article is concerned, it may be sufficient to add, that after the execution of Essex, with Cuffe, Jvlerrick, Danvers, and Blunt, principal confederates, the lord keeper was in a special commission, with others of the first dignity, to summon all their accomplices, in order to treat and compound with them for the redemption of their estates; and, on security being given for the payment of the fines assessed, their pardon and redemption were obtained. The next year, 1602, he was again commissioned with others of the privy council, to reprieve all such persons/convicted of felony as they should think convenient, and to send them, for a certain time, to some of the queen’s galleys. And again, in the forty-fifth year of Elizabeth, for putting the laws in execution against the Jesuits and seminary priests, ordained according to the rites of the church of Rome. In March 1603, after the queen, oppressed with the infirmities of age, had retired from Westminster to Richmond, the lord keeper and the lord admiral, accompanied by the secretary, were deputed by the rest of the privy council to wait upon her there, in order to remind her majesty of her intentions, in regard to her successor to the crown, whom she appointed to be her nearest kinsman, James of Scotland. After the queen’s death, the care and administration of the kingdom devolved upon the lord keeper and the other ministers of state, till the arrival of king James, her successor, from Scotland, who, by his sign manual, dated at Holy-rood house, Sth of April, 1603, signified to the privy council, that it was his royal pleasure that sir Thomas Egerton should exercise the office of lord keeper till farther orders. On the 3d of May he waited upon the king at Broxbourne in Hertfordshire, and resigned the great seal to his majesty, who delivered it back again, confirming his office, and commanding him to use it as he had done before. On the 19th of July, king James caused the great seal to be broken, and put a new one into his hands, accompanied with a paper of his own writing, by which he created him “Baron, of Kllesmere for his good and faithful services, not only in. the administration of justice, but also in council, both to the late queen and himself;” the patent for which title he caused to be dispatched the 2 1st of the same month. On the 24th, the day before his coronation, he constituted him lord high chancellor of England, which high and important office of state he supported for more than twelve years, with equal dignity, learning, and impartiality. On the 25th and 26th of November, Henry lord Cobham, and Thomas lord Grey de Wilton, were tried by their peers, the lord chancellor sitting as lord high steward. In 1604, he was, with certain other commissioners, authorized by act of parliament, to bring about an union between England and Scotland, it being the king’s desire, that, as the two crowns were united in one person, an union of the nations might be effected by naturalization. But, differences arising between the house of lords and house of commons upon this point of the naturalization of the Scotch, he was one of the lords appointed of the committee of conference between the two houses. The whole of this transaction, and the causes of its failure, are stated at large in the fifth volume of the Parliamentary History. In 1605, he was appointed high steward of the city of Oxford, and in 1609, he was in commission to compound with all those, who, holding lands by knight’s service, &c. were to pay the aid for making the king’s son a knight.

At the death of Dr. Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, who was chancellor of the university of Oxford, on the 2d of Nov. 1610, lord Ellesmere was the next day unanimously elected into that honourable office; and on the 10th, installed in the bishop of Durham’s house in London. At this period, that university was in a very flourishing tate in point of the number of its members, which amounted to more than 2420 but many of> them, and those of the senior part, were tainted with factious principles, both of a civil and religious nature. Convinced how destructive these ideas and principles, inculcated on the minds of the youth of the university, who were to be called forth to fill the several departments of church and state, would be of the future health and prosperity of the constitution, he bent his earliest attention to eradicate and correct them.

The fame of John Williams, fellow of St. John’s college, in Cambridge, as an able scholar and accomplished preacher, came to the ear of the lord chancellor, who sent for him, and about Midsummer 1611, made him his chapJain (the first chancellor since the reformation who had a domestic chaplain); and to this promotion, and the subsequent friendship of his patron, this great prelate, afterwards archbishop of York, was indebted for all his future success. The lord chancellor, indeed, employed on all occasions the ablest servants and coadjutors, and his affection made choice of the most honourable and valuable friends. Besides the archbishop Williams, sir Francis Bacon lord Verulam was honoured by his friendship, and promoted by his favour.

Neither the infirmities of. old age, nor the active exertions of a long and laborious life, devoted to the service of their country, are always a privilege which can shelter men from unmerited persecution. On the 19th of January, 1615, the lord chancellor being much indisposed, and novr in his seventy-fifth year, a professional attack from that great lawyer the lord chief justice Coke, though unable to damp the firmness of his spirit, threw an additional weight of anxiety upon his minfl. Sir Edward Coke had heard and determined a cause at common law, but there was some collusion in the matter; for, the witness that knew, and should have related the truth, was prevailed upon to absent himself, on condition that some person would undertake to excuse his non-appearance. A fellow of the party undertook it, in a whimsical manner: he went with the witness to a tavern, called for a gallon of sack, and bade bim drink; and, leaving him in the act of drinking, went immediately into court. This witness was called for, on, whose evidence the issue of the cause depended, when the fellow answered upon oath, “that he left him in such a condition, that, if be continued in it but a quarter of an hour, he was a dead man.” This evidence of the witness’s incapacity to appear in court lost the cause. The plaintiffs removed it into chancery; and the defendants, having ajreadj ha4 judgment at common law, refused to obey tUe orders of that court; on which the chancellor, for contempt of cdurt, committed them to prison. Thejr preferred two indictments against his Jordship the last day of Hilary term, and he was threatened with a preemunire in the star-chamber upon the statutes 27 Edw. III. and 4 Hen. IV. The lord chancellor being recovered of his indisposition, pursued this affair in Easter Term with great spirit and alacrity; and, it being brought to a hearing before the king as supreme judge of the jurisdiction of courts, he referred the matter to sir Francis Bacon and sir Henry Yelverton, his attorney and solicitor, sir Henry Montague and sir Ranulph Crewe, his Serjeants, and Mr. Walter, the prince’s attorney, all eminent men in their profession, who, upon a serious consideration of the statutes, and the occasion of making them, and of the precedents since that tirne^ in April 1616 presented the king with their opinions and reasons why they conceived these statutes did not extend to the court of chancery. Consonant to this resolution^ his majesty, upon farther advice, gave judgment in July following. “That the statute of 27 E. III. ch. 1. and 4 Hen. IV. did not extend to the court of chancery: for the first was enacted against those who sued at Rome, and the latter was 'designed to settle possessions against disturbances, and not to take away remedy in equity.” Upon this, his majesty ordered the case, the certificate, and the transactions thereupon, to be enrolled in the court of chancery.

The lord chancellor, having repelled, with credit and success, this extraordinary attack, and being recovered from his indisposition, was, on the 12th of May 1616, constituted lord high steward for the trial of Robert earl of Somerset and Frances his wife, for poisoning sir Thomas Overbury, who were both convicted. After their conviction the chancellor resolutely and consistently refused to affix the great seal to the very extraordinary pardon granted, and already signed by the too indulgent lenity of the king, which was copied from one granted by the pope to cardinal Wolsey, and which ran in these words: “That the king, of his mere motion and special favour, did pardon all and all manner of treasons, misprisions of treasons, murders, felonies, and outrages whatsoever, by the said Robert Carre, earl of Somerset, committed, or hereafter to be committed.”

On the 20th of May following, he was constituted one of the commissioners to treat with sir Noel Caroon, knight, ambassador for the States General, concerning the rendition of the cautionary towns into the hands of the States. On the 3d of June, the archbishop of Canterbury, and others, were appointed to inquire who were the authors of his being indicted of pr<emunirc, which was the leading cause of sir Edward Coke’s disgrace. He was one of the grand council, convened at Whitehall on the 6th of June, 1616, the king himself in council, before whom the twelve judges were summoned to appear, and accused of having, in the execution of their office, unconstitutionally trenched on the powers and prerogatives of the crown, in granting commcndams. The king himself took an active part in this business, and, after a judicial discussion of the question, in which the opinion of sir Francis Bacon, the attorney general, was seconded and confirmed by that of the chancellor, they were severely censured for having grossly and wilfully erred both in the matter and manner of their proceedings; particularly in not obeying the royal command delivered to them by the attorney general, and in not delaying to proceed in a cause in which the prerogative was concerned till they had consulted his majesty, and known his farther pleasure. They all submitted willingly, except the lord chief justice Coke (in the whole of which business he acted a very noble part), and were obliged to crave his majesty’s gracious favour and pardon npon their knees. On the 20tb, the king, in the star-chamber, asserted the authority of the chancellor as more especially his own; and on the 30th, lord chief justice Coke was degraded for several causes of offence, particularly those two which have been just mentioned, viz. his attack upon the chancellor, and the affair of the commendams.

The lord chancellor was now more than seventy-six years of age, and feeling both the powers of his mind and body shrink under the pressure of old age and infirmity, by the most earnest solicitations he entreated the king to give him an honourable discharge from his high office; partly from a scrupulous apprehension and conscientious diffidence of being competent to bear the fatigues, and to discharge the duties of it as he ought; but principally from an ardent desire to retreat from the busy scenes of office, in order to devote the evening of a life, spent in the honest and faithful discharge of a high profession, to religious meditation. These sentiments he conveyed to the king in two pathetic letters, who at last consented, though he, as well as the prince of Wales, had endeavoured to induce him, as much as possible, to remain in, office. King James parted with an old and faithful servant with all imaginable tenderness, and, as a mark of his royal favour and approbation, advanced him to the dignity of viscount Brackley on the 7th of November, 1616. Though he then resigned the duties of that high and important office of state, the king let him, however, keep the seal in possession till the beginning of Hilary term following, when, according to Camden, on the 3d of March, 1617, his majesty went to visit the chancellor, and received it from his hands with tears of gratitude and respect. On the seventh it was committed to the custody of sir Francis Bacon, the person whom his lordship desired might succeed him. Another author says, that the king sent secretary Winwood for the seal w.ith this gracious message, “That himself would be his underkeeper, and not dispose of it while he lived to bear the title of chancellor,” and that no one received it out of the king’s sight till lord chancellor Egerton’s death, which followed soon after: these accounts are very reconcileable, as the king might both receive it in form from the chancellor’s hands and send his secretary for it afterwards. On the 24th of January he had, for the same reasons, resigned the office of chancellor of the university of Oxford, and was succeeded by the earl of Pembroke.

His lordship left four manuscripts of choice collections. 1. “The Prerogative Royal. 2. The Privileges of Parliament. 3. Proceedings in Chancery. 4. The Power of the Star-Chamber;” and, when he was lying upon his death-bed, to testify his affection to his chaplain Williams, he desired him to chuse what most acceptable legacy he should leave him; when Williams requested only these four books, and having been the principal instruments of his future fortunes, he so highly valued as to deem them a present fit to be offered to king James, to whom he gave them. In lord chancellor Egctrton’s life-time was printed in quarto, in sixteen sheets, Lond. 1609, his “Speech in the Exchequer-chamber,” in Robert C'alvine’s cause, son and heir-apparent of James lord Calvine, of Colcross, in the realm of Scotland, commonly called the case of the postnati. In 1641 was printed at London “The Previleges and Prerogatives of the high court of Chancery, written by the right honourable Thomas lord Ellesmere, late lord chancellor of England.” In 1651 there was published at London a small octavo book, entitled “Certaine Observations concerning the office of Lord Chancellor,” composed by the right honourable and most learned Thomas lord Ellesmere, late lord chancellor of England, small octavo, extracted chiefly from records. And Mr. George Paul published some papers found amongst the manuscripts of Mr. Laughton, of Cambridge, which were said to have been written with the lord chancellor Egerton’s own hand. These were entitled “The lord chancellor Egerton’s Observations on the lord Coke’s Reports, particularly in the debate of causes relating to the Right of the Church, the Power of the king’s Prerogative, the Jurisdiction of Courts, or the Interest of the Subject;” but it is not generally agreed that these papers are truly ascribed to lord chancellor Egerton. There is, however, in Mr. Hargrave’s collection of law manuscripts, a piece entitled “Abridgment of the lord Coke’s Reports under the lord Egerton’s own hand.” It contains a short account of each case in the eleven volumes of Reports published by lord Coke himself; and, probably, was a labour undergone by lord chancellor Egerton, as a preliminary to his observations on lord Coke’s Reports. There is also in Mr. Hargrave’s collection a piece with tbis title, “Observations upon lord Coke’s Reports, made by the lord chancellor Egerton, taken by me out of his own papers, written with his own hand.” These observations are not the same as those in print, but seem to be additional. Who the transcriber was does not appear.

His person, as to its exterior, was possessed of such grave and striking dignity, as to excite the curiosity of many to go to the chancery in order to see and admire his venerable presence. His apprehension was keen and ready, his judgment deep and sound, his reason clear and comprehensive, his method and elocution elegant and easy. As a lawyer, he was prudent in counsel, extensive in information, just and honest in principle; so that, while be lived, he was excelled by none, and, when he died, he vyas lamented by all. As a statesman, he was able, faithful, and sincere, on all occasions; and, as a judge, impartial and incorrupt. In his private character he was generous, beneficent, and condescending to his friends; and to his enemies, who were tew, he was merciful and forgiving; and the same spirit of benevolence and affection which distinguished the whole of his public character, pervaded his more intimate and domestic connections, and displayed themselves in every act of his private life. Though uncommonly successful in every occurrence of his life, and promoted through the merit of superior parts and application to the highest honours, neither the insolence of fortune, nor the splendour of these honours, could, in his enlarged and exalted mind, efface the sentiments of the Christian, nor deaden the feelings of the man. Fine sensibility, the inseparable attendant on fine genius, cultivated by philosophy and religion, was his privilege and ornament and the pain which it necessarily and occasionally experienced from the feelings and distresses of humanity, was abundantly repaid, and often heightened into enjoyment, by the exercise of a benevolent, and by the reflections of a Christian and conscientious mind. His heart was full of faith, and his hope of immortality was frequently expressed in the apostolic language, “Cupio dissolvi et ease cuin Christo.”

, late bishop of Durham, a descendant of the preceding, was the son of Henry Egerton, bishop of Hereford (fifth son of John third earl of Bridgewater, by lady Jane Powlett, first daughter of Charles duke of Bolton), who marrying lady Elizabeth Ariana Bentinck, daughter of William earl of Portland, had by her one daughter and five sons, of whom John was the eldest. He was born in London, on the 30th of November, 1721, was educated at Eton school, and admitted a gentleman commoner in Oriel college, Oxford, upon the 20th of May 1740, under the tuition of the rev. Dr. Bentham, afterwards regius professor of divinity in that university, where he prosecuted his studies extensively and successfully for six or seven years. He was ordained deacon privately by Dr. Benjamin Hoadly, bishop of Worcester, in Grosvenor chapel, Westminster, on the 21st of Dec. 1745, and the following day he was ordained priest, at a general ordination holden by the same bishop in the same place. On the 23d he was collated by his father to the living of Ross in Herefordshire, and on the 28th was inducted by Robert Breton archdeacon of Hereford. On the 3d of January 1746 (a short time before his father’s death, which happened on the 1st of April following), he was collated to the canonry or prebend of Cublington, in the church of Hereford. Upon the 30th of May 1746, he took the degree of bachelor of civil law, for which he went out grand compounder. On the 21st of November 1748 he married Indy Anne Sophia, daughter of Henry de Grey, duke of Kent, by Sophia, daughter of William Bentinck, earl of Portland. He was appointed chaplain in ordinary to the king upon the lyth of March 1749; and was promoted to the deanery of Hereford on the 24th of July 1750. He was consecrated bishop of Bangor on the 4th of July 1756, at Lambeth; and had the temporalities restored to him upon the 22d, previously to which, on the 21st of May, the university of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of LL. D. by diploma, and he was empowered to hold the living of Ross, and the prebend of Cublington, with that bishopric, in commendam, dated the 1st of July. On the 12th of November 1768, he was translated to the see of Lichfield and Coventry, with which he held the prebend of Weldland, and residentiary ship of St. Paul’s, and also the two preferments before mentioned. He was inducted, installed, and enthroned at Lichfield by proxy, upon the 22d of November, and had the temporalities restored upon, the 26th. On the death of Dr. Richard Trevor, he was elected to the see of Durham, upon the 8th of July 1771, and was confirmed on the 20th in St. James’s church, Westminster. Upon the 2d of August following he was enthroned and installed at Durham by proxy. The temporalities of the see were restored to his lordship on the 15th of August, and on the 3d of September he made his public entry into his palatinate. On his taking possession of the bishopric, he found the county divided by former contested elections, which had destroyed the general peace: no endeavours were wanting on his part to promote and secure a thorough reconciliation of contending interests, on terms honourable and advantageous to all; and when the affability, politeness, and condescension, for which he was distinguished, uniting in a person of his high character and station, had won the affections of ll parties to himself, he found less difficulty in reconciling them to each other, and had soon the high satisfaction to see men of the first distinction in the county conciliated by his means, and meeting in good neighbourhood at his princely table. The harmony he had so happily restored, he was equally studious to preserve, which he effectually did, by treating the nobility and gentry of the county at all times with a proper regard, by paying an entire and impartial attention to their native interests, by forbearing to improve any opportunities of influencing their parliamentary choice in favour of his own family or particular friends, and by consulting on all occasions the honour of the palatinate. The same conciliating interposition he had used in the county, he employed in the city of Durham with the same success. At the approach of the general election in 1780 he postponed granting the Mew charter, which would considerably enlarge the number of voters, till some months after the election, that he might maintain the strictest neutrality between the candidates, and avoid even the imputation of partiality; and when he confirmed it, and freely restored to the city all its ancient rights, privileges, and immunities, in the most ample and advantageous form, he selected the members of the new corporation, with great care, out of the most moderate and respectable of the citizens, regardless of every consideration but its peace and due regulation; objects which he steadily held in view, and in the attainment of which he succeeded to his utmost wish, and far beyond his expectation. A conduct equally calculated to promote order and good government, he displayed, if possible, still more conspicuously in the spiritual than in the temporal department of his double office. Towards the chapter, and towards the body of the clergy at large, he exercised every good office, making them all look up to him as their common friend and father: and to those who had enjoyed the special favour of his predecessor, he was particularly kind and attentive, both from a sense of their merit, and that he might mitigate in some degree their loss of so excellent a friend and patron. In the discharge of all his episcopal functions, he was diligent and conscientious. He was extremely scrupulous whom he admitted into orders, in respect of their learning, character, and religious tenets. In his visitations, he urged and enforced the regularity, the decorum, and the well-being of the church, by a particular inquiry into the conduct of its ministers, encouraging them to reside upon their several henetices, and manifesting upon all opportunities, a sincere and active concern for the interests and accommodation of the inferior clergy. His charges were the exact transcripts of his mind. Objections have been made to some compositions of this kind, that they bear the resemblance of being as specious as sincere, and are calculated sometimes, perhaps, rather a little more to raise the reputation of their author as a fine writer, than to edify the ministry and advance religion. Of the charges his lordship delivered, it may truly be said, that, upon such occasions, he recommended nothing to his clergy which he did not practise in his life, and approve of in his closet.

He applied to parliament to exonerate the copyholders of Lanchester-fell, and Hamsteel’s-fell, of the lord’s right to the timber, a measure highly useful and liberal; in consequence of which, many trees are planted on a surface of nearly thirty thousand acres, and are become already ornamental to the country, and will in time be useful to the nation. He cpnsemed to an act of parliament for infranchising certain copyholds in the manor of Howdenshire, for the accommodation and convenience of the tenants, by enabling them to convey their lands with more ease and safety, and at the same time without prejudice to the lord. In the great flood of November 1771 the whole of the bridge over the Tyne, between Newcastle and Gateshead, was either swept away, or so much damaged as to render the taking it down necessary. Of the expence of rebuilding it, the see of Durham was subject to onethird, and the corporation of Newcastle to the remainder. Parliament enabled the bishop to raise, by life annuities chargeable upon the see, a sum sufficient for rebuilding his proportion. The surveyors for the bishop and corporation disagreeing, the bridge is not rebuilt upon a regular plan; which was so contrary to his lordship’s wishes, that he offered to advance to the corporation the amount of his one-third, that they mi^ht undertake the management of the whole, and finish it uniformly; which proposal was not accepted. In the progress of this business, he not only consented that his expence should be enlarged, but likewise that his income should be diminished; for he agreed to the widening of the new bridge, by which the expences of rebuilding were increased; and then, to alleviate the losses of his tenants who had houses on the old bridge, he gave them full leases for building upon the new, without taking any tine: but as building upon the new bridge would impair the beauty of it, and be an inconvenience to the public, he gave up his own interests in the sites of the houses, on condition that his tenants should have an equivalent on another spot, upon agreeing not to build upon the new bridge; and he then procured it to be enacted by parliament, that no houses should, in future, be built upon the new bridge, though the renewal of the leases of the buildings that otherwise might have been erected thereon, would have produced him a considerable income. The important rights of property, which had been long in dispute between the see and the respectable family of C layering, were brought by his means to an amicable conclusion and the rights of boundary, which his predecessors had long been litigating, were fully ascertained and when, by authority of parliament, he granted a lease of the estates in question, for Un.<. lues, he gave the fine he received for the lease to his lessee of the mines, in consideration of the expences which were formerly incurred by him in defending the right It may truly be considered as no small proof of his moderation, that notwithstanding for nearly seventeen years he held the bishopric of Durham, in which the rights of property are so various and extensive, the persons with whom he had to transact business so numerous, and in their expectations, perhaps, not always reasonable, he had during that whole period but one Jaw-suit: and though there are in these times certainly no improper prejudices in favour of the claims of the church, that law-suit was, by a jury of the county, determined in his favour. It was instituted to prevent the onus of repairing the road between Auckland park and the river Wear from being fixed upon his successors, to whose interests he was always properly attentive. He adjusted the quota of the land tax of the estates in London belonging to the see, procuring to himself and his successors an abatement of 13-20ths of what had been before unduly paid; and he greatly increased the rents of the episcopal demesnes at Stockton. His additions and improvements at the episcopal palaces, offices, and grounds, did equal credit to his taste and liberality. Exclusively of such as he made in the castle and offices at Durham, by fitting up the great breakfast-room, now used as a drawing-room, and by enlarging and repairing the stables and their dependencies; at Auckland-castle, where he chiefly resided, his improvements were equally well judged, and much more various and expensive. At the north-east entrance of Auckland demesne, which, in the approach from Durham, opens the extensive and magnificent scene of the park and castle, he built a porter’s lodge and a gateway, and ornamented these with large plantations: and the new apartments at the south of the castle, which were begun by his predecessors, he completed, and made into a magnificent suite of rooms. The great room he fitted up, and new furnished the chapel. The steward’s house, as well as the offices and stables, he enlarged, repaired, and altered into regular buildings; and he lowered the walls of the court and bowling-green, to the great beauty of the scenery from the house. With the monies arising from the sale of the rents and fines in Howdenshire, he bought the Park closes, the Haver closes, and other grounds adjoining to the park, with some houses and tenements in Auckland; he considerably extended the park wall, intending to continue it round the whole the kitchen garden he greatly enlarged, and secured it by a stone pier from the river Gaunless he built another stone pier and wall, to cover part of the park from the ravages of the river Wear; he embanked against the Gaunless in its whole course through the park, and formed in it many beautiful falls. He ornamented the park and demesne lands with various plantations, draining and improving the whole with much judgment, and especially the park farm, which he inclosed. Ail the grounds he kept in the very neatest order, employing the oldest and most indigent persons in the neighbourhood. In Belbourne wood, he cut several walks and ridings, and totally rebuilt the lodge-house and farm, which presents a beautiful object to the castle. Notwithstanding all these expences, he was liberal and indulgent to his tenants, remitting many fines, and taking no more than one year’s rent for a renewal of seven years, or one life; attempts, however, were sometimes made to abuse his lenity and indulgence.

It is not always that men distinguished in public appear to advantage in their private characters. We shall consider the life of our prelate in both these views, and each will throw a lustre upon the other. In the following sketch we mean to delineate such select traits only as are not common to all other men, but were more peculiar in him. His person was tall and well formed, it had both elegance and strength; his countenance was ingenuous, animated, and engaging. By nature he was endowed with strong and lively parts, a good temper, “and an active disposition. Descended from noble ancestors, and initiated from his birth in the most honourable connections, his manners and sentiments were cast from an early age in the happiest mould, and gave all the advantages of that ease and propriety of behaviour, which were so very observable even in the most indifferent actions of his life. In his address there was a peculiar mixture of dignity and affability, by which he had the remarkable art both of encouraging those who were diffident, and checking those who were presumptuous. The vivacity of his spirits and conversation, and the peculiar propriety of his manners, made him universally admired and caressed. His memory was accurate and extensive. In describing the characters, and in relating the anecdotes and transactions with which he had been acquainted, he took particular delight; and this, when his health permitted, he did with much spirit, and often with the utmost pleasantry and humour; but scrupulously taking care that the desire of ornamenting any narrative should never in the smallest degree induce him to depart from the truth of it. With so rare and happy a talent for description, with a mind stored with much information, and a memory very retentive, he was one of the most instructive and entertaining of companions; his conversation was enriched with pertinent and useful observations, and enlivened by genuine wit and humorous anecdote. He had a very peculiar art of extricating himself with much immediate address from those little embarrassments which perplex and confound many, and which often occur in society from thf awkwardness of others, or from a concurrence of singular and unexpected circumstances. When pressed by improper questions, instead of being offended with them himself, or giving offence by his replies, be had a talent of returning very ready and very dextrous answers. In every sort of emergency, as well in personal danger as in difficulties of an inferior nature, he shewed an uncommon presence of mind. He possessed a great reach of understanding, and was singularly gifted with a quick and ready judgment, deciding rightly upon the instant when it was necessary. No man was better qualified, or at the same time more averse to give his opinion; which, upon many occasions, he found a difficulty in avoiding, its value being so well known, that it was often solicited by his friends; and, when he was prevailed upon, he delivered it rather with the humility of one who asked, than with the authority of one who gave advice. In forming his friendships, he was as cautious as he was steady and uniform in adhering to them. He was extremely partial to the friendships of his youth, and made a particular point of being useful to those with whom he had been thus early connected. In all the domestic relations of life he was exemplary, as a husband, a master, and a parent. Instead of holding over his children an authority founded upon interest, during his life he put them into possession of a great part of such fortunes as they would have inherited from him upon his death, willing to have their obedience proceed not merely from a sense of duty, but from gratitude, and from pure disinterested affection. Though he was ever disinclined to write for the public, yet his merit as a scholar was, however, well known, and properly estimated, by such of his private friends as were them” selves distinguished by their erudition, particularly by archbishop Seeker, Benson bishop of Gloucester, Butler bishop of Durham, the late lord Lyttelton, the late lord Egremont, the late Mr. George Grenville, Mr. William Gerard Hamilton, Mr. Ansty, Mr. Richard Owen Cambridge, Mr. Garrick, Mr. Stillingfleet, Mr. J. Nourse, author of several pieces of poetry in Dodsley’s collection, Dr. Croxall, sir William Draper, &c. &c. His only publications were three sermons one preached before the lords, the llth of February, 1757, being a general fast another before the lords, the 30th of January, 1761 and a third before the society for the propagation of the gospel, on the 18th of February, 1763. In the early part of his life he was fond of those manly exercises which give strength and vigour both to the body and mind, without suffering them to interrupt his studies; a practice, which thus regulated, instead of being injurious, is serviceable to learning, and which men eminent for their judgment have lamented was not more cultivated and improved. His usual relaxations were such as exercised the understanding; chess was his favourite amusement, and he played well at that game. The Greek and Latin tongues were familiar to him. He spoke the French and Italian languages; and wrote, and spoke his own with purity and precision. Of books he had a competent knowledge, and collected a good library. In every thing he had a pure taste. In history, anecdotes, and memoirs, in the belles-lettres, in the arts and sciences, and in whatever else may be supposed to fall within the circle of polite education, he was by no means uninstructed.

His health had been declining for many years, and though he was neither so old nor so infirm as to look upon death as a release, he lived as it he hourly expected it. He died at his house in Grosvenor-square, London, on the 18th of January, 1787, and by his own express desire was privately interred in St. James’s church, under the communion-table, near his father. By his wife, lady Sophia, he had a daughter (the lady of sir Abraham Hume, bart.) and two sons, John-William, who on the death of Francis, third duke of Bridgwater, succeeded to the earldom, and is now seventh earl of Bridgewater; and the hon. and rev. Francis Egerton, prebendary of Durham, and rector of Whitchurch, in Shropshire, to whom the last and present articles are much indebted for his work entitled “A compilation of various authentic evidences and historical authorities, tending to illustrate the life and character of Thomas Egerton, lord Ellesmere, viscount Brackley, lord chancellor of England, Jfcc. and the nature of the times in wjiich he was lord keeper and lord chancellor; also a sketch of the lives of John Egerton, bishop of Durham, and of Francis Egerton, third duke of Bridgewater,” fol.

It is understood that his grace before be came of age, digested the plans which he afterwards prosecuted with such success, and proceeded to put them in execution as soon as he obtained possession of his paternal inheritance. Among other estates, the duke had one at Worsley, in Lancashire, rich in coal-mines, but, owing to the expence of land-carriage, of inconsiderable value: desirous, therefore, of working those mines to greater advantage, he projected a canal from his estate at Worsley, to the rich and flourishing town of Manchester. With this view he applied to the ingenious Mr. Brindley, who had previously manifested unusual talents; and that artist, after surveying the ground, pronounced the execution of the work to be practicable. As, however, we have detailed the early history of this undertaking in our article of Bkindley, (vol. VII.) it may suffice to refer to it; and briefly notice in this place that the duke caused a bill to be introduced into Parliament in 1758-9, which met with uncommon opposition in its progress, though it ultimately passed both houses; and further powers, as well for the purpose of effecting the original design, as for extending the line of navigation, being afterwards found necessary, application was again made to parliament, and they were much more readily obtained than the former. This canal begins at Worsley-Mill, about seven miles from Manchester, where his grace cut a bason capacious enough to hold all his boats and a body of water to serve as a reservoir for his navigation. The canal enters a hill by a subterraneous passage of nearly a mile in length, that admits flat-bottom boats, which are toweci along by hand-rails to the coal-works: this passage afterwards divides into two; is in some places cut through the solid rock, in others arched with brick; and is provided with several air-funnels, cut to the top of the hill. At the entrance, the arch is about six feet wide,and in some parts of sufficient breadth to admit of boats passing each other. Five or six of those boats, which carry seven tons each, are drawn by one horse to Manchester. In other places, the canal is carried over public roads by means of ardhes; and where the road is too high, it is gradually lowered, and rises on the opposite side. But one of the most arduous works accomplished on this canal is the aqueduct over the river Irwell, where the canal runs forty feet over the river, and where the barges are seen passing on the former, and the vessels on the latter in full sail under them. This aqueduct begins three miles from Worsley, and is carried for more than two hundred yards over a valley. When the works approached the river, several artists pronounced their completion impracticable; and one went so far as to call it “building a castle in the air.” Had the duke attended to these opinions, without doubt delivered by men of skill and penetration, he would have relinquished his purpose; but his own sagacity, and his confidence in the assurances of Mr. Brindley, determined him to persevere; and the aqueduct over the river Irwell will for ages remain as a monument of the public spirit of his grace the late duke of Bridgewater, and of the rare abilities of the artist; while it may also read a salutary lecture on the imbecility of human judgment and human foresight.

In order to the prosecution, as well as to the completion, of the whole undertaking, it must be obvious to every one at all acquainted with the construction of canals, even now, when their principles are so well understood, that, under all the unforeseen difficulties and discouraging circumstances of the case, it was only such a man as Mr. Brindley, blessed, as he was, with a peculiarly fertile genius, and honoured with the confidence, and supported by the wealth, of his illustrious patron, who could have successfully persevered in it. Assailed by clashing interests, by inveterate prejudices, by adverse opinions, and by the most discouraging predictions, he must have possessed a very superior mind not to have yielded to them. Indeed, no obstacle, however unexpected or considerable, seems to have been capable of impeding him in the execution of his plan; and the ingenuity and contrivance displayed throughout were wonderful.

His grace died at his house in Cleveland-row, in the morning of March 8, 1803, after a cold which brought on the complaints accompanying the influenza. He was never married; and his celibacy is asserted to have been occasioned (though we do not vouch for the fact) by a circumstance which is said to have occurred in early life. We understand it to be in substance as follows: the duke being on a visit at a friend’s, who was on the eve of marriage, the lady to whom he was betrothed took a fancy to his grace; and, forgetting her own dignity and her sacred engagement to another, made an easy sacrifice of her virtue to him. This occurrence is said to have wrought so strongly on his grace’s mind, as to have indelibly impressed on it an idea of general infidelity in the sex, and to have determined him against ever entering the pale of matrimony. If this statement be true, it affords a striking instance of what is not very uncommon among men; namely, of a great and enlightened mind being led, by a peculiar incident, into a general conclusion; and, in this case, a conclusion which, for the honour of the fair part of our species, we trust and believe, is equally unfounded in. nature and experience, and no less libellous than unwarranted. By his active spirit, and his unshaken perseverance, he amassed immense wealth. But the public grew rich with him; and his labours were not more profitable to himself than they were to his country. His return to the income-tax was 110,000l. a-year the greater part acquired by his own exertions, and derived from circumstances of the highest benefit to the nation. To the loyally loan he subscribed 100,000l. all in ready money, at one time. By his will he left most of his houses, his plate, his pictures, valued at 150,000l. and his estate lately purchased at Woolmers, in Hertfordshire, to earl Gower, together with his canal property in Lancashire, which brings in from 50 to 80,000l. per annum. All this property is entailed on earl Gower’s second son, lord Francis Levison Gower: the first son will inherit the marquis of Stafford’s estates. To general Egerton, now earl of Bridgewater, he bequeathed the estate of Ashridge, in Hertfordshire, and other estates in Bucks, Salop, and Yorkshire, to the amount of 30,000l. per annum. About 600,000l. in the funds he left chiefly to general Egerton, and partly among the countess of Carlisle, lady Anne Vernon, and lady Louisa Macdonald, the chief baron’s lady all of whom were his relations.

, who flourished in the ninth century, was the celebrated secretary and supposed son-in-law of Charlemagne. He is said to have been carried through the snow on the shoulders of his affectionate and ingenious mistress Imma, to prevent his being tracked from her apartments by the emperor her father: a story which the elegant pen of Addison has copied and embellished from an old German chronicle, and inserted in the third volume of the Spectator, This happy lover (supposing the story to be true) seems to have possessed a heart not unworthy of so enchanting a mistress, and to have returned her affection with the most faithful attachment for there is a letter of Eginhard’s still extant, lamenting the death of his wife, which is written in the tenderest strain of connubial affliction; it does not, however, express that this lady was the affectionate princess, and indeed some late critics have proved that Imina was not the daughter of Charlemagne. Eginhard, however, appears to have been a native of Germany, and educated by the munificence of his imperial master, of which he has left the most grateful testimony in his preface to the life of that monarch. After the loss of his lamented wife, he is supposed to have passed the remainder of his days in religious retirement, and to have died soon after the year 840. His life of Charlemagne, written in a style superior to that of his age, his annals from 741 to 889, and his letters, are all inserted in the second volume of Duchesne’s “Scriptores Francorum.” But there is an improved edition of this valuable historian, with the annotations of Hermann Schmincke, in 4to, 1711, and another yet more improved by professor Bredow, in 1806.

, a painter, was born at Leyden in 1602. Who was his master is not known. He travelled early in life, and his longest stay was in France, where he was painter to Lewis XIII. and Lewis XIV. and one of the twelve elders of the then establishment of the royal academy of painting and sculpture of Paris, Jan. 20, 1649. He assisted Vouet in many of his historical works, and himself painted history in various dimensions. He was a person of consideration in his time, and especially at court. It is not known what induced him to leave France; but it is certain that he returned to Antwerp, where he died, January 8, 1674, and his wife on June 19, 1685. They were both buried in the church 'of St. James.

, one of the principal lords of the bow Countries, was born in 1522 of an illustrious family in Holland, and served with great distinction in the armies of the emperor Charles V. whom he followed into Africa in 1544. Being appointed general of horse under Philip II. he signalized himself at the battle of St. Quentin in 1557, and that of Graveliwes in 1553. But, after the departure of Philip for Spain, unwilling, as he said himself, to fight for the re-establishment of the penal laws, and the inquisition, he took a part in the troubles which broke out in the Low Countries. He nevertheless made it his endeavour to dispose the governess of those provinces, and the nobles combined against her, to terms of peace and moderation. He even took an oath to that princess to support the Romish religion, to punish sacrilege, and to extirpate heresy; but his connections with the prince of Orange and the chief nobles of that party, brought him into suspicion with the court of Spain. The duke of Alva having been sent by Philip II. into the Low Countries to suppress the rebels, ordered his head to be struck off at Brussels, the 5th of June 1568, as well as that of Philip de Montmorency, comte de Horn. The count Egmont was then in his 46th year; and submitted to death with resignation, professing himself of the communion of the church of Rome. The ambassador of France wrote to his court, that “he had seen that head fall, which had twice made France to tremble.” The same day that the count Egmont was executed, his wife, Sabina of Bavaria, came to Brussels, for the purpose of consoling the countess of Aremberg on the death of her husband; and as she was discharging this office of affection and. charity, the afflicting tidings were announced to her of the condemnation of the count her husband. The count of Egmont had written to Philip II. protesting to him, “that he had never attempted any thing against the catholic religion, nor contrary to the duty of a good subject;” but this justification was deemed insufficient. Besides, it was thought necessary to make an example; and Philip II. observed on occasion of the deaths of the counts Egmont and Horn, that he struck off their heads, because “the heads of salmons were of greater accoufct than many thousands of frogs.” The posterity of count Egmont became extinct in the person of Procopius Francis, count Egmont, general of the horse, and of the dragoons of the king of Spain, and brigadier in the service of the king of France, who died without children at Fraga in Arragon, in 1707, at the age of 38. Maximilian d' Egmont, count 9f Buren, a general in the army of Charles V. of the same family, but of a different branch, displayed his courage and conduct in the wars against Fi%ncis I.; but besieged Terouane in vain, and died of a quinsey at Brussels in 1543. The president De Thou says, that he was great both in war and in peace, and praises his fidelity and magnificence. His physician, Andrew Vesalius, having, as it is pretended, foretold him the time of his death, he made a great feast for his friends, and distributed rich presents among them. When the entertainment was over, he put himself to bed, and died precisely at the time foretold him by Vesalius.

, an ingenious botanical painter, the son of the prince of Baden Durlach’s gardener, was born in 1710, and very early shewed a taste for drawing, and painting the flowers of the garden. Although he received no instructions, yet such was his proficiency, that, whilst a very young man, he had painted 500 plants with a skill and accuracy that was almost unexampled, under the disadvantages of so total a want of instruction as this young artist had experienced. His merit, however, remained long unknown, or at least ineffectually noticed, until it was discovered by a gentleman of curiosity and judgment, who visited the garden of which his father was the superintendant. Fortunately for young Ehret, this stranger was a physician and a friend of the celebrated Dr. Trew, of Norimberg, to whom he justly supposed these paintings would be acceptable. Ehret by this means was introduced to Trew, who immediately purchased the whole 500 paintings, and generously gave him double the price at which the young artist had modestly valued them.

The liberality of Trew, by which Ehret gained 4000 florins, inspired him with confidence in his own abilities, and such a share of ambition as inclined him to quit his home, and seek at once to raise his fortune, and to gratify the desire he had to see the world. It appears, however, that he was too much elated with his success, and having soon dissipated his money, found himself at Basil with a very few florins in his pocket. Necessity now obliged him to exert himself, and he was so successful, that although he exhibited numerous specimens of his art, and put a high price upon them, the demand was beyond what his industry could supply. Having, however, by this means recruited his finances, he journeyed into France, and resided some time at Montpelier, where he taught his art to a lady of fortune, who rewarded him generously, and, on his wish to remove, paid his expences to Lyons and Paris. At the latter city he became known to Jussieu, and was for some time employed to paint the plants of the royal garden, under that eminent professor’s inspection. After a certain time, he came to London, but not succeeding to his mind, soon returned to the continent, and in 1736 he was employed in the garden of Mr. Clifford, where Linnaeus found him, and gave him some instructions in the principles of the sexual system. His fine taste and botanical accuracy appear to have been first publicly displayed in the figures of the “Hortus Cliffortianus,” which appeared in 1737.

of Guienne, queen of France and England, was married in 1137, at the age of fifteen, to Louis VII. king of France, by whom she had two daughters, but, when she had accompanied him to Palestine, her intrigues with the prince of Antioch, and with a young handsome Turk named Saladin, led to a divorce in 1152. In the following year she married Henry duke of Normandy, who succeeded to the throne of England, in 1154, under the title of Henry II. and by his wile’s influence became a formidable rival to the French king. Eleanor at length became jealous of Henry with the fair Rosamond and this produced the rebellion of her sons against the king, whose unnatural conduct has been imputed wholly to her instigation. She was at length seized, and imprisoned, just as she was attempting to escape to France. In confinement she remained several years, but on the accession of Richard I. in 1189, she was set at liberty, and was when he went upon his crusade, made regent of the kingdom. The zeal which she manifested for this prince led her to considerable exertions on his behalf: she went to Navarre, to procure him, for a wife, Berengaria, daughter of the king of the country; and when Richard on his return from Palestine, was imprisoned in Germany, she proceeded thither with a ransom, accompanied by the chief justiciary, in 1194. After his death she supported the succession of John her son, in prejudice of her grandson Arthur. She died in 1202; though, according to some writers, she took the veil this year, at the abbey of Fontevrault, and there finished her busy and chequered life in 1204.

, bishop of Rome, was a native of Nicopolis, and flourished in the second century. He was first a deacon of the church, and about the year 177 was elected bishop of Rome. Soon after his elevation, letters were addressed to him by the martyrs of Lyons, then shut up in prison, on the subject of the peculiar tenets of Montanus and his followers; the object of which was to recommend healing and temperate measures in the treatment of that sect. During the episcopate of Eleutherius, the church is said to have enjoyed much peace, notwithstanding the parties which rose up, and which zealously contended for the truth. Among these were persons headed by Florinus and filastus, both presbyters, who maintained that God was the author of evil as well as good, for which they were degraded and excommunicated. Eleutherius died in the year 192, and deserves credit for some liberal additions which be made to the pontifical code; of these, one enacted that a man should not abstain from any sort of meat that was commonly eaten; and the other, that sentence should not be pronounced against any one accused of crimes, unless he were present to make his defence. According to Bede, but the circumstance appears doubtful, it was at this period that an embassy was sent by Lucius, king of Britain, to Rome, to request the pope to send over proper persons to explain to him and his people the nature of the Christian faith.

, an eminent painter, was born in the village of Peene, near Cassel, in 1658, of parents extremely poor, and seemed destined to rise in the world by slow degrees. His mother, who was a widow, lived in the country on what she earned by washing linen; her whole wealth consisted in a cow, which her little boy used to lead to pick up its pasture by the side of the ditches. One day Corben, a famous painter of landscapes and history, going to put up some pictures which he had made for Cassel, as he went along the road, took notice of this lad, who had made a fortification of mud, and little clay" figures that were attacking it. Corbéen was immediately struck with the regularity and taste that was evident in the work. He stopped his chaise, and put several questions to the lad, whose answers increased his astonishment. His figure and countenance added to the impression; and the painter asked him whether he would go and live with him, and he would endeavour to put him in a way of getting his bread; the boy said he would willingly accept of his offer, if his mother would but agree to it. Elias failed not to be at the same place on the day appointed, accompanied by his mother; he ran before the chaise, and Corbéen told the woman to bring her son to him at Dunkirk, where he lived. The boy was received, and the master put him to school, where he was taught the languages, and he himself taught him to draw and to paint. The scholar surpassed his fellow-students: he acquired the esteem of the public, and gained the favour of his master to such a degree, that he sent him to Paris at the age of twenty; whence Elias transmitted his works to his master and benefactor. With great gentleness of character, he possessed the good quality of being always grateful; he thus repaid his master for his kindness to him, as Corbéen frequently confessed. Elias, after having been some while at Paris, married. He made a journey to Dunkirk for the purpose of visiting his master, and it was while there that he painted a picture for the altar of St. Barbara’s chapel, in which he represented the martyrdom of that saint; a fine composition. On his return to Paris, he was appointed professor at St. Luke, and successively obtained several other posts. He was much employed, and composed several subjects taken from the life of St. John Baptist de la Barriere, author of the reform of the Feuillants. All these subjects were painted on glass, by Simpi and Michu, and are in the windows of the cloister. Elias, now become a widower, took a journey to Flanders, in hopes of dispelling his grief. Being arrived at Dunkirk, the brotherhood of St. Sebastian engaged him to paint their principal brethren in one piece; he executed this great picture, with a number of figures as large as life, and some in smaller dimensions. The company of taylors having built a chapel in the principal church, Elias was employed to paint the picture for the altar, in which he represented the baptism of Christ; in the fore-ground is St. Lewis at prayers, for obtaining the cure of the sick. Being now on the point of returning to Paris, he was so earnestly solicited to remain in his native country, that at length he yielded to the entreaties of his numerous friends. He now executed a grand picture for the high altar of the Carmelites; it was a votive piece of the city to the Virgin Mary. This picture is a fine composition, and of a style of colouring: more true and warm than was usual with him the artist, as is often the practice, has introduced his own portrait. Elias was complimented on this alteration in his colouring; by which he was encouraged to redouble his care. He executed for the parish church of Dunkirk art altar-piece of the chapel of St. Croix; a Transfiguration for the altar of the parish church of Bailleul, and in that of the Jesuits at Cassel, a miracle of St. Francis Xavier, &c. The abbot of Bergues, St. Winox, employed our artist a long time in ornamenting the refectory of his house. Among his great works he made some portraits in a capital manner. In his greatest successes, Elias never made any change in his conduct, but always continued to lead the same regular life; he was seen no where but at church and in his work-room, into which he rarely admitted visitors. He was much esteemed for the mildness of his disposition. Detesting those malicious reports which are but too common among rival artists, he minded only his business. Not desirous of having pupils, he rather dissuaded young men from cultivating an art that was attended with so much trouble, than encouraged them to enter upon it; those that knew him best, always spoke of this artist as a model of good conduct. He continued working to the end of his days, which happened at Dunkirk the 22d of April 1741, in the eighty -second year of his age. He had but one son, who died at Paris, doctor of the Sorbonne. Neither had he more than one pupil, Carlier, who was living at Paris in 1760.

, in Latin Elichius, lived at the beginning of the seventeenth century, and probably was born at Marpurg. He there maintained a public dispute on diabolical magic, in which he implicitly believed, and would have printed a book on the same subject, if the magistrates had not taken care to prevent it; who, on searching his house, found several books on which he had written immoral and impious notes. The books were confiscated, and he was cited before the judges; to whom he promised upon oath and in writing, that he would renounce such frivolous studies for the future; yet he published his book at Francfort in 1607, under the title of ' De dapmoijomagia, de daemonis cacurgia, et lamiarum c-ner-gia,“with a very angry preface against the academical senate of Marpurg. In this work he arrogantly contends against those who doubt of the truth of what is related of witches, hd of their being really conveyed through the air to their meetings. He particularly attacks Tobias Tandler, professor of medicine at Wirtemberg, who had published an oration” De fascino et incantatione,“in 1606. This Tandler reprinted in 1607, with some other tracts of the same nature, and added a short reply to the calumnies of Elichius,” Repulsio calumniarum Elichii,“from which Bayle took the materials of this article. Elichius, being informed that he was to be called to account for his book, made his escape, and turned Roman catholic. He is said by Bayle to have published at Francfort, in 1609, another book, entitled” Innocentius; sive de miseria hominis, libri tres, in ignominiam et confusionem superborum editi.“But Moreri thinks he was only the editor, and that it is the same which is attributed to Innocent III. and of which there is a Paris edition of 1645, entitled” D. Innocentiae papre, de contemptu mundi, sive de miseria humans conditionis, libri tres."

, a physician of Leyden, and a very able linguist, was a native of Silesia. We have no account of his early years. At Leyden, in 1638, he married the daughter of a burgomaster, and died the following year, 1639. He was remarkable for understanding sixteen languages, and was so well skilled in the Persian, that, in the judgment of Salmasius, Europe had never produced a man who had equal knowledge of that language. He was of opinion, that the German and the Persian languages were derived from the same original; and he gave several reasons for it. He wrote a letter in Arabic, “De usu lingua? Arabicae in medicina,” which was printed at Jena in 1636. His dissertation “De termino vitae secundum mentem orientalium” appeared in 1639, and would have been more extensive and correct, if he had not died while he was writing it. His Latin translation of the Picture of Cebes was printed at Leyden in 1640, together with the Arabic version, and the Greek, under the care of Salmasius, who prefixed a very ample preface.

, a Jewish rabbi in high repute among them, wrote a book called the “Chapters of Eliezer,” which was partly historical, and partly allegorical. The Jews, who consider it as one of their most ancient books, would refer the time of this author to the first century; but father Worin has very ably proved that he lived in the seventh, and that he was an impostor who assumed the ancient name of Eliezer to give currency to his work, which is a collection of fables from the Talmud, &c. Vorstius translated this work into Latin, and published it in 1644, 4to, with notes, &c. and although he allows that it contains much fabulous matter, yet thinks it may be useful in explaining some parts of the history and traditions of the Jews.

Mr. Eliott returned in his seventeenth year to his native country of Scotland, and was in the same year, 1735, introduced by his father, sir Gilbert, to lieutenant-colonel Peers of the 23d regiment of foot, or royal Welsh fuzileers, then lying in Edinburgh. Sir Gilbert presented him as a youth anxious to bear arms for his king and country. He was accordingly entered as a volunteer in that regiment, and continued for a twelvemonth or more. At this time he gave a promise of his future military talents, and shewed that he was at least a soldier in heart. From the 23d he went into the engineer corps at Woolwich, and made great progress in that study, until his uncle, colonel Eliott, introduced him as adjutant of the 2d troop of horsegrenadiers. In this situation he conducted himself with the most exemplary attention, and laid the foundation of that discipline which has rendered those two troops the finest corps of heavy cavalry in Europe. With these troops he went upon service to Germany, in the war before last, and was with them in a variety of actions, particulars’ at the battle of Dettingen, where he was wounded. In this regiment he first bought the rank of captain and major, and afterwards purchased the lieutenant-colonelcy from colonel Brewerton, who succeeded to his uncle. On arriving at this rank he resigned his commission as an engineer, which he had enjoyed along with his other rank, and in which service be had been actively employed very much to the advantage of his country. He bad received the instructions of the famous engineer Bellidor, and made himself completely master of the science of gunnery. Had he not so disinterestedly resigned his rank in the engineer department, he would now by regular progression have been at the head of that corps. Soon after this he was. appointed aid-de-camp to king George II. and was already distinguished for his military skill and discipline. In 1759 be quitted the second troop of horse grenadier guards, being selected to raise, form, and discipline the first regiment of light horse, called after him Eliott’s. As soon as they were raised and formed, he was appointed to the command of the cavalry, in the expedition on the coasts of France, with the rank of brigadier- general and after this he passed into Germany, where he was employed on the staff, and greatly distinguished himself in a variety of movements, while his regiment displayed a strictness of discipline, an activity, and enterprise, which gained them signal honour; and indeed they have been the pattern regiment, both in regard to discipline and appointment, to the many light dragoon troops that have been since raised in our service. From Germany he was recalled for the purpose of being employed as second in command in the memorable expedition against the Havannah. The circumstances of that conquest are well known. It seems as if our brave veteran had always in his eye the gallant Lewis de Velasco, who maintained his station to the last extremity, and, when his garrison were flying from his side, or falling at his feet, disdained to retire or call for quarter, but fell gloriously exercising his sword upon his conquerors. A circumstance which occurred immediately after the reduction shews, that in the very heat and outrages of war the general was not unmindful of the rights of humanity. He was particularly eminent among the conquerors of the Havannah, for his disinterested procedure, and for checking the horrors of indiscriminate plunder. To him, therefore, appeals were most frequently made. A Frenchman, who had suffered greatly by the depredations of the soldiery, made application to him, and begged, in bad English, that he would interfere to have his property restored. The petitioner’s wife, who was present, a woman of great spirit, was angry at the husband for the intercession, and said, “Comment pouvez vous demander de grace a uu homme qui vient vous de‘pouilliefr N’en esperez pas.” The husband persisting in his application, his wife grew more loud in the censure, and said, “Vous n'étes pas François!” The general, who was busy writing at the time, turned to the woman, and said smiling, “Madame, ne vous échauffez pas; ce que votre mari demande lui sera accordé!”—“Oh, faut-il pour surcroit de malheur,” exclaimed the woman, “que le barbare parle le François!” The general was so very much pleased with the woman’s spirit, that he not only procured them their property again, but also took pains to accommodate them in every respect; and such was through life the manly characteristic of the general: if he would not suffer his troops to extend, for the sake of plunder, the ravages of war, he never impoverished them by unjust exactions. He would never consent that his quarter-master’s place should be sold, “not only,” says he, “because I think it the reward of an honest veteran soldier; but also because I could not so directly exercise my authority in his dismission should he behave ill.”

On his return to England, the gratitude of the British senate was as forward as the public voice in giving him that distinguished mark his merit deserved, to which his majesty was pleased to add that of knight of the bath and an elevation to the peerage, by the title of lord Heathfield, baron Gibraltar, on June 14, 1787, and permitting his lordship to take also the arms of the fortress he had so bravely defended, to perpetuate to futurity his noble conduct. He married Anne, daughter of sir Francis Drake, of Devonshire, who died in 1769, leaving his lordship a son, Francis Augustus Eliott, the present peer. He closed a life of military renown at the most critical season for his memory. He had acquired the brightest honours of a soldier, the love and reverence of his country; and he fell in an excursion beyond his strength, from an anxiety to close his life on the rock where he had acquired his fame. He died in the seventy-third year of his age, July 6, 1790, at his chateau at Aix-la-Chapelle, of a second stroke of the palsy, after having enjoyed for some weeks before a tolerable share of good health, and an unusual flow of spirits. Two days before his death, he dined with a friend with whom he was soon after to have travelled to Leghorn in his way to Gibraltar. His remains were brought to Dover from Ostend, in the Race-horse packet, whence they were conveyed to Heathfield in Sussex, and there deposited, in a vault built for that purpose, over which a handsome monument is erected.

, known by the title of the Apostle of the North American Indians, from having been the first that preached the gospel among them, was a native of England, and born about the year 1604. He was educated at Cambridge, and engaged himself as an assistant to a school, which, Neal says, he was not permitted to continue, on account of his puritanical notions; but for this we have no other authority. It appears, however, that he was a nonconformist in matters of church-government, and that in 1631, in order to enjoy his own opinions uncontrouled, he embarked for America, and succeeded a Mr. Wilson as pastor of an independent church at Boston. He afterward^ removed to Roxburg, in New England, where Mr. Eliot passed with some of his countrymen and friends the greater part of his life in the active discharge of those duties which belong to the pastoral office. In 1646, he began his scheme of preaching to the native Indians, and for this purpose learned their language; and, besides preaching among them with considerable success, and at much hazard, he translated the Bible into the Indian language: this was printed at Cambridge, in New England, in 1664, and a short time before Mr. Eliot’s death, it was reprinted with corrections by Mr. Cotton, his fellow-labourer in the Indian mission. By the exertions and influence of this excellent man, many of the wandering Indian tribes were collected into regular societies, and formed into congregations, which were instructed by him, and by others who joined him, in the manner best adapted to their capacities. At Roxburg he established a free grammar school, which was eminently beneficial to the interests of learning in the New England states: and among the Indians he formed schools in which many were trained to useful knowledge, and some of whom became qualified for a liberal education, which they afterwards received at college. The measures adopted by Mr. Eliot were aided by large contributions from England, with which estates were purchased and placed in the hands of trustees, who were afterwards incorporated under the title of “The society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts.” This venerable apostle continued his labours till he arrived at his eightyfourth year. He died in the latter end of 1689, having attained to the great age of eighty-six.

Elizabeth was at Hatfield, when she heard of her sister’s death, Nov. 17, 1558, and hastening up to London, was received by the multitude with universal acclamations. Even the catholics, it is said, were not sorry at an event which promised greater security to the civil liberties of the nation. On her entrance into the Tower, then a royal palace, she could not refrain from remarking on the difference of her present and her former visit when a prisoner. Not to alarm the partizans of the catholic religion too much, before her power should be completely established, she retained eleven of her sister’s counsellors, but in order to balance their authority, she added eight who were known to be attached to the pwtestant interest, namely the marquis of Northampton, the earl of Bedford, sir Thomas Parry, sir Edward Rogers, sir Ambrose Cave, sir Francis Knolles, sir Nicholas Bacon, whom she created lord keeper, and sir William Cecil, secretary of state. With these counsellors, particularly Cecil, she frequently deliberated concerning the means of restoring the protestant religion, and by his advice, her first measure was to recall all the exiles who had fled from her sister’s tyranny, and give liberty to all prisoners who were confined on account of religion. She next published a proclamation by which she forbade all preaching without a special licence. She also suspended the laws so far as to have a great part of the service read in English, and forbade the host to be any more elevated in her presence. A parliament soon after, in 1539, sanctioned these acts of the prerogative; and in one session the form of religion was established as it has ever since remained; and to show what a deep root the principles of the reformation had taken, even in her bloody sister’s reign, it is upon record, that out of 9400 beneficed clergymen, which was the number of those in the kingdom, only fourteen bishops, twelve archdeacons, fifteen heads ef colleges, and about eighty of the parochial clergy, a number not exceeding 121, chose to quit their preferments rather than give up their religion.

The first important political measure was the negotiation for peace between France, Spain, and England, which terminated in the final abandoning of Calais, which on the queen’s part was rather prudent than pleasing; but, although peace seemed thus restored, a ground of quarrel soon appeared of a most serious nature. As Elizabeth had been declared illegitimate by Henry VIII., Francis, king of France, who had espoused Mary queen of Scots, began to assume the title of king of England, in right of his wife; and the latter seemed so far from declining this empty appellation, that she assumed the arms of that kingdom. It was natural, therefore, that Elizabeth should conclude that the king of France intended, on the first opportunity, to dispute her legitimacy, and her title to the crown. She therefore conceived a violent jealousy against the queen of Scots, which ended at length in the death of the latter by Elizabeth’s orders, a measure which has been generally accounted a great stain on her government, while some have excused it as a painful act of necessity. It is not, however, our object in this sketch to invade the province of history; and as no event has been assigned a larger portion of history, any abridgment of the actions of, and proceedings against the unfortunate queen of Scots, would be more apt to raise curiosity than to gratify it. Besides, the history of Mary will hereafter form a separate article.

Elizabeth had scarcely been proclaimed queen, when Philip, king of Spain, the widower of Mary, who still hoped, by means of Elizabeth, to obtain over England that dominion of which he had failed in espousing Mary, immediately dispatched orders from the Low Countries to the duke of Feria, his ambassador at London, to make her proposals of marriage, and he offered to procure from Rome a dispensation for that purpose. This, however, she rejected, although in a polite manner. Philip appears to have secretly resented the rejection, and some years after, the coolness between the two sovereigns became more visible, and some petty hostilities aided to bring their mutual dislike to a crisis. The Spaniards, on their part, had sent into Ireland a body of 70,0 of their nation, with some Italians, who built there a fort, but were soon after cut off to a man by the duke of Ormond. On the other hand, the English, under the conduct of sir Francis Drake, attacked the Spaniards in their settlements in South America. Amidst such hostilities, the queen began to look out for an alkance that might support her against so dangerous an adversary. The duke of Anjou, a powerful prince, had long made pretensions to the queen and though he was younger by twenty- five years, he took the resolution to prefer his suit in person, and paid her a private visit at Greenwich. It appears that though his figure was not very advantageous, his address was so pleasing, that the queen ordered her minister to fix the terms of the contract and a day was appointed for the solemnization of their nuptials but as the time approached, Elizabeth became more and more irresolute, and at length declared against changing her condition. Capricious as this conduct may have appeared, it is certain that her principal cou 1 tiers were hostile to a match which threatened to endanger the kingdom and the established religion.

Deprived thus of a foreign ally, Elizabeth looked for resources in the loyalty of her people; but among them she had enemies, and several conspiracies were formed against her life, for which some persons, particularly Francis Throgmorton and William Parry, were condemned and executed. Such attempts, incited by the popish party, served to increase the severity of the laws against persons of that communion. Popish priests were banished the kingdom; those who harboured or relieved them were declared guilty of felony, and many were executed in consequence of these laws. Babington’s conspiracy was perhaps yet more formidable, but being discovered, the conspirators were executed, and the fate of Mary, queen of Scots, was precipitated by the share, or supposed share, she had in it. The conduct of Elizabeth, after Mary’s execution, forms a part of her character too important to be omitted. When informed of that event, she affected the utmost surprize and indignation. Her countenance changed, her speech faultered, she stood some time fixed, like a statue, in mute astonishment, and afterwards burst into loud lamentations. She put herself in deep mourning, was seen perpetually bathed in tears, and surrounded only by her female attendants. If any of her ministers approached her, she chased them from her, with the most violent expressions of rage and resentment. They had, all of them, she 'said, been guilty of an unpardonable crime, in putting to death her dear sister and kinswoman, contrary to her fixed purpose, with which they were sufficiently acquainted. In order to appease the king of Scots, to whom she soon wrote a letter of apology, she committed Davison to prison, and commanded him to be tried in the star-chamber for sending off the warrant for Mary’s execution. (See Davison.) James, of Scotland, notwithstanding Elizabeth’s apology, discovered the highest resentment at the death of his mother, and refused to admit into his presence sir Robert Gary, whom the queen had sent as her ambassador. He likewise recalled his ambassadors from England, while the states of Scotland, being assembled, professed that they were ready to spend their lives and fortunes in revenge of his mother’s death, and in defence of his title to the crown of England: but Elizabeth, by frequent messengers and persuasions, aided, perhaps, by James’s peaceable disposition, prevailed on him to return to his amicable correspondence with the court of England.

The Spanish Armada was ready in the beginning of May, 1588, but its sailing was retarded by the death of the marquis de Santa Croce, the admiral, and that also of the vice-admiral, the duke of Paliano. The command of the expedition was, therefore, given to the duke of Medina Sidonia, a man entirely unexperienced in sea affairs. This promotion in some measure served to frustrate the design, which was also rendered less successful by some other accidents. Upon leaving the port of Lisbon, the armada next day met with a violent tempest, which sunk some of the smallest of their shipping, and obliged the fleet to put back into the harbour. After some time spent in refitting, they put again to sea, where they took a fisherman, who informed them that the English fleet, hearing of the dispersion of the armada in a storm, had retired into Plymouth, and that most of the seamen were discharged. From this false intelligence, the Spanish admiral, instead of sailing directly to the coast of Flanders, to receive the troops stationed there, as he had been instructed, resolved to steer for Plymouth, and destroy the shipping in that port, a resolution which proved the safety of England.

The Lizard was the first land made by the armada, about sun-set; and as the Spaniards took it for the Ramhead, near Plymouth, they bore out to sea with an intention of returning next day, and attacking the English navy. They were descried by Fleming, a Scotch pirate, who was roving in these seas, and who immediately set sail to inform the English admiral of their approach, another event which contributed extremely to the safety of the fleet. EffinL,ham, the English admiral, had just time to get out of port, when he saw the Spanish armada coming full sail towards him, disposed in the form of a crescent, and stretching the distance of seven miles from the extremity of one division to that of the other The writers of that age, says Hume, whose narrative we have partly followed, raise their style by a pompous description of this spectacle; the most magnificent that had ever appeared upon the ocean, infusing equal terror and admiration into the minds of all beholders. The lofty masts, the swelling sails, and the towering prows of the Spanish galleons, seem impossible to be justly painted, but by assuming the colours of poetry; and an eloquent historian of Italy, Bentivoglio, in imitation of Camden, has asserted, that the armada, though the ships bore every sail, yet advanced with a slow motion, as if the ocean groaned with supporting, and the winds were tired with impelling, so enormous a weight. The truth, however, is, that the largest of the Spanish vessels would scarcely pass for third-rates in the present navy of England; and they were so ill-framed, or so ill-governed, that they were quite unwieldy, and could not sail upon a wind, nor tack on occasion, nor be managed in stormy weather by the seamen. Neither the mechanics of ship-building, nor the experience of mariners, had attained so great perfection as could serve for the security and government of such bulky vessels; and the English, who had already had experience how unserviceable they commonly were, beheld without dismay their, tremendous appearance.

The armada had now reached Calais, and cast anchor before that place; in expectation that the duke of Parma, who had gotten intelligence of their approach, would put to sea and join his forces to them. The English admiral practised here a successful stratagem upon the Spaniards. He took eight of his smaller ships, and filling them with all combustible materials, sent them one after another into the midst of the enemy. The Spaniards fancied that they were fireships of the same contrivance with a famous vessel which had lately done so much execution in the Scheld near Antwerp; and they immediately cut their cables, and took to flight with the greatest disorder and precipitation. The English fell upon them next morning while in confusion; and besides doing great damage to other ships, they took oV destroyed about twelve of the enemy. By this time it was become apparent, that the intention for which these preparations were made by the Spaniards, was entirely frustrated. The vessels provided by the duke of Parma were made for transporting soldiers, not for fighting; and that general, when urged to leave the harbour, positively refused to expose his flourishing army to such apparent hazard; while the English were not only able to keep the sea, but seemed even to triumph over their enemy. The Spanish admiral found, in many rencounters, that while he lost so considerable a part of his own navy, he had destroyed only one small vessel of the English and he foresaw that by continuing so unequal a combat, he must draw inevitable destruction on all the remainder. He prepared therefore to return homewards; but as the wind was contrary to his passage through the channel, he resolved to sail northwards, and making the tour of the island, reach the Spanish harbours by the ocean. The English feet followed him during some time; and had not their ammuniiion fallen short, by the negligence of the offices in supplying them, they had obliged the whole armada to surrender at discretion. The duke of Medina had once taken that resolution; but was diverted from it by the advice of his confessor. This conclusion of the enterprize would have been more glorious to the English; but the event proved almost equally fatal to the Spaniards. A violent tempest overtook the armada after it passed the Orkneys; the ships had already lost their anchors, and were obliged to keep to sea; the mariners, unaccustomed to such hardships, and not able to govern such unwieldy vessels, yielded to the fury of the storm, and allowed their ships to drive either on the western isles of Scotland, or on the coast of Ireland, where they were miserably wrecked^ Not a half of the navy returned to Spain; and the seamen as well as soldiers who remained, were so overcome with hardships and fatigue, and so dispirited by their discomfiture, that they filled all Spain with accounts of the desperate valour of the English, and of the tempestuous violence of that ocean which surrounds them. Such was the miserable and dishonourable conduct of an enterprize which had been preparing for three years, which had exhausted the revenue and force of Spain, and which had long filled all Europe with anxiety or expectation, and which was intended to have destroyed the civil liberties, as well as the reformed religion, in England. Soon after this, which was one of the most important events in the history of Elizabeth, or any other sovereign of England, Elizabeth became the ally of Henry IV. in order to vindicate his title, and establish him firmly on the throne of France, and for some years the Englisii auxiliaries served in France, while several naval expeditions, undertaken by individuals, or by the queen, raised the reputation of England to an extraordinary height. At this period Robert Devereux earl of Essex, the queen’s favourite, highly distinguished himself; but the events of his unfortunate life have been already given. (See Devereux.)

In 1601, Elizabeth held a conference with the marquis de Rosni, who is better known in history as s the celebrated Sully, for the purpose of establishing, in concurrence with England, a new system of European power, with a view of controlling the vast influence of the house of Austria, and producing a lasting peace. The queen coincided with his projects, and the French minister departed in admiration of the solidity and enlargement of her political views. The queen, having suppressed an insurrection in Ireland, and obliged all the Spanish troops sent to its assistance to quit the island, she turned her thoughts towards relieving the burdens of her subjects; she abolished a number of monopolies, and became extremely popular. But the execution o her favourite, the earl of Essex, gave a fatal blow to her happiness. When she learnt from the countess of Nottingham, that he had solicited her pardon, which had been concealed from her, she at first became furious with rage, and when the violence of anger subsided, she fell into the deepest and most incurable melancholy, rejecting all consolation, and refusing food and sustenance of every kind. She remained for days sullen and immoveable, “feeding,” says the historian, “her thoughts on her afflictions, and declaring life and existence an insufferable burden to her.” Few words she uttered, and they were all expressive of some inward grief, which she cared not to reveal: but sighs and groans were the chief vent which she gave to her despondency, and which, though they discovered her sorrows, were never able to ease or assuage them. Ten days and nights she lay upon the carpet, leaning on cushions which her maids brought her, and her physicians could not persuade her to allow herself to be put to bed, much less to make trial of any remedies which they prescribed to her. Her anxious mind at last had so long preyed on her frail body, that her end was visibly approaching; and the council being assembled, sent the keeper, admiral, and secretary, to know her will with regard to her successor. She answered with a faint voice, that, as she had held a regal sceptre, she desired no other than a royal successor. Cecil requesting her to explain herself more particularly, she subjoined, that she would have a king to succeed her, and who should that be, but her nearest kinsman, the king of Scots Being then advised by the archbishop of Canterbury to fix her thoughts upon God, she replied, that she did so, nor did her mind in the least wander from him. Her voice soon after left her her senses failed she fell into a lethargic slumber, which continued some hours, and she expired gently, without farther struggle or convulsion, in the 70th year of her age, and forty-fifth of her reign.

So dark a cloud, says Hume, overcast the evening of that day which had shone out with a mighty lustre in the eyes of all Europe. There are few great personages in history who have been more exposed to the calumnies of enemies, and the adulation of friends, than queen Elizabeth, and yet there is scarcely any whose reputation has been more certainly determined by the unanimous consent of posterity. The unusual length of her administration, and the strong features of her character, were able to overcome all prejudices; and obliging her detractors to abate much of their invectives, and her admirers somewhat of their panegyrics, have at last, in spite of political factions, and, what is more, of religions animosities, produced an uniform judgment with regard to her conduct. Her vigour, her constancy, her magnanimity, her penetration, vigilance, and address, are allowed to merit the highest praises, and appear not to have been surpassed by any person that ever filK d a throne; a conduct less rigoro.us, less imperious, more sincere, more indulgent to her people, would have been requisite to have formed a perfect character. By the force of her mind, she controlled all her more active and stronger qualities, and prevented them from running into excess. Her heroism was exempt from temerity, her frugality from avarice, her friendship from partiality, her active temper from turbulency and a vain ambition she guarded not herself with equal care or equal success from lesser infirmities the rivalship of beauty, the desire of admiration, the jealousy of love, and the sallies of anger.

Referring to lord Orford, &c. for a catalogue of her translations from the French, her prayers and meditations, her speeches in parliament, and her letters, which last are dispersed in vast numbers through a variety of collections, we may remark that education and principle led her to favour the reformation; nor could she hesitate on the subject, but acted with caution, not to alarm the adherents to popery by too explicit a declaration of her sentiments, and yet taking care to afford early indications of her favourable views to the cause, some of them displayed in a manner pleasing and ingenious. At the time of her coronation, when she was solemnly conducted through London, a boy, who personated Truth, was let down from one of the triumphal arches, and presented her with a copy of the Bible, which she received in the most gracious manner, placing it in her bosom, and declaring, that amidst all the costly testimonies which the citizens had that day afforded of their attachment, this present was by far most precious and acceptable.

, daughter of the emperor Maximilian II. and wife of Charles IX. king of France, was married at Mezieres, Nov. 26, 1570. She was one of the most beautiful persons of her time, and her virtue is said to have surpassed her beauty. The deplorable and fatal night of St Bartholomew afflicted her extremely; on hearing the news of what had past, when she rose in the morning, bathed in tears, she threw herself at the foot of her crucifix to: ask mercy of God on the perpetrators of so atrocious a deed, which she detested with horror. Elizabeth had but very little share in what passed in France under the tumultuous reign of Charles IX. She attended to pothing but her domestic concerns, and conducted her fat-­niily by the principles of prudence and honour for which she xvas highly remarkable. Sensible to the irregularities of, her husband, whom she loved and honoured extremely, she never let him perceive those jealous disquietudes which often augment and seldom remedy the evil. She was mild and patient Charles was lively and impetuous; the ardour of the king was moderated by the serenity of Elizabeth accordingly she never lost his affection and his esteem, and he recommended her, when dying, to Henry IV. then king of Navarre, with the utmost tenderness: “Take cart? of my daughter and my wife,” said he; “my brother, take care of them; I recommend them to the generosity of your heart.” During his illness, Elizabeth spent all the time when she was not attending upon him, in prayers for his recovery. When she went to see him, she did not place herself by his bedside, as she had a right to do; but kept at a little distance, and by her modest silence, by her tender and respectful looks, she seemed to cover him in her heart with the love she bore him “then,” adds Brantome, “she was- seen to shed tears so tender and so secret, that a common spectator would have known nothing of it; and wiping her watery eyes, excited the liveliest emotions of pity in all that were present: for,” continues he, “I was a witness to it.” She stifled her grief; she dared not let her tenderness appear, fearing lest the king should perceive it. The prince could not avoid saying, when speaking of her, that he might boast of having an amiable wife, the most discreet and the most virtuous woman, not in all France, not in all Europe, but in the whole world. He was nevertheless as reserved with her as the queen mother, who, apprehending that she might have some power over the king, doubtless employed her influence in preventing that prince from reposing in her confidence, which would have disconcerted her schemes. "While she was at the court of France, she honoured with a tender affection Margaret queen of Navarre, her sisterin-law, though of a conduct so totally opposite to hers; and, after her return to Germany, Elizabeth always kept up an epistolary correspondence with her. She even sent her, as a pledge of her friendship, two books of her own composing: the one, on the word of God; the other, on the most considerable events that had happened in France in her time. Tins virtuous princess, after the death of the king her husband, retired to Vienna, where she died in 1592, aged only thirty-eight, in a convent of her own foundation.

, daughter of Peter the great, by the revolution of 1741, renewed in her person the line of that monarch on the throne of Russia. Elizabeth was born in 1709, and when arrived at years of maturity, was extremely admired for her great personal attractions. Her beauty, as well as her exalted rank, and large dowry, occasioned her several offers, none of which, however, took effect; and she died in celibacy. During the life of her father Peter I. a negotiation had commenced for her marriage with Lewis XV. but although not seriously adopted by the court of France, it was never relinquished until the daughter of Stanislaus, titular king of Poland, was publicly affianced to the young monarch. By the will of Catharine, Elizabeth was betrothed to Charles Augustus, bishop of Lubec, duke of Sleswick and Holstein, and brother to the king of Sweden; but he died before the completion of the ceremony. In the reign of Peter II. she was demanded by Charles margrave of Anspach in 1741, by the Persian tyrant Kouli Kan; and at the time of the revolution, the regent Ann endeavoured to force her to espouse prince Louis of Brunswick, for whom she entertained a settled aversion. From the period of her accession she renounced all' thoughts of the connubial state, and adopted her nephew Peter. Her dislike to marriage, however, certainly did not proceed from any rooted aversion to the other sex; for she would freely and frequently own to her confidants, that she was never happy but when she was in love; if we may dignify by that name a capricious passion ever changing its object. The same characteristic warmth of temper hurried her no less to the extremes of devotion: she was scrupulously exact in her annual confessions at Easter of the wanderings of her heart; in expressing the utmost contrition for her frequent transgressions; and in punctually adhering both in public and private to the minutest ceremonies and ordinances of the church. With respect to her disposition and turn of mind, she is generally styled the humane Elizabeth, as she made a vow upon her accession to inflict no capital punishments during her reign; and is reported to have shed tears upon the news of every victory gained by her troops, from the reflection that it could not have been obtained without great bloodshed. But although no criminal was formally executed in public, yet the state prisons were filled with wretched sufferers, many of whom, unheard of and unknown, perished in clamp and unwholesome dungeons: the state inquisition, or secret committee appointed to judge persons suspected of high treason, had constant occupation during her reign many upon the slightest surmises were tortured in secret many underwent the knoot, and expired under the infliction. But the transaction which reflects the deepest disgrace upon her reign, was the public punishment of two ladies of fashion; the countesses Bestuchef and Lapookin: each received fifty strokes of the knoot in the open square of Petersburg: their tongues were cut out; and they were banished into Siberia. One of these ladies, Madame Lapookin, esteemed the handsomest woman in Russia, was accused of carrying on a secret correspondence with the French ambassador; but her real crime was, her having commented too freely on the amours of the empress. Even the bare recital of such an affecting scene, as that of a woman of great beauty and high rank publicly exposed and scourged by the common executioner, must excite the strongest emotions of horror; and forbid us to venerate the memory of a princess, who, with such little regard to her own sex, could issue those barbarous commands. But let us at the same time lament the inconsistency of human nature; and, in considering the character of Elizabeth, let us not deny that her heart, perhaps naturally benevolent, was eventually corrupted by power, and steeled with suspicion; and that although mercy might predominate whenever it did not interfere with her passions and prejudices; yet she by no means deserves the appellation of humane, the most noble attribute of a sovereign when it interposes to temper and mitigate the severity of justice. Elizabeth died in 1761, in the twenty-first year of her reign, and in the fifty-third year of her age; she expired in December (the 25th), the same month in which she was born, and in which she acceded to the throne. It is asserted on unquestionable authority, that it was impossible to obtain this tzarina’s consent for the execution of a felon who had even committed the most horrid species of premeditated murder, and that the master of the police used secretly to order the executioner to knoot to death those delinquents who were found guilty of the most atrocious crimes. It is a pity that she did not reserve her humanity, which in this instance was cruelty to her people, for more respectable objects. By way of conclusion to the present article, it will not be unapt to add the following anecdote, especially as it must at the same time give pleasure to the reader. Although the sovereign of this empire is absolute in the most unlimited sense of the word; yet the prejudice of the Russians in regard to the necessity of torture (and a wise legislator will always respect popular prejudices, be they ever so absurd and unreasonable) was so deeply rooted by immemorial usage, that it required great circumspection in the present tzarina not to raise discontents by an immediate abolition of that inhuman practice. Accordingly, the cautious manner in which it was gradually suppressed, discovered no less judgment than benevolence. In 17C2, Catherine II. soon after her accession, took away the power of inflicting torture from the vayvodes, or inferior justices, by whom it had been shamefully abused. In 1767, a secret order was issued to the judges in the several provinces, that whenever they should think torture requisite to force a criminal to confession, they should draw up the general articles of the charge, and lay the case before the governor of the province for his consideration: and all the governors had received previous directions to determine the case according to the principles laid down in the third question of the tenth chapter of her majesty’s instructions for a code of laws; wherein torture is proved to be no less useless than cruel. This, therefore, was a tacit abolition of torture, which has been since formally and publicly annulled. The prohibition of this horrid species of judicature, throughout the vast dominions of the Russian empire, forms a memorable aera in the annals of humanity.

, an artist, was the son of an able physician, and was born at Gottemburg the I 8th of September 1633, according to Houbraken, and in 1632 by Weyermann’s account. Ottomar’s father centred all his views in making his son a scholar, and he therefore put him to study the languages under the most famous professors. It was soon perceived that he relaxed in his progress in every other of his lessons, in proportion as his taste for painting was unfolded: and that in the very classes and school-hours he was secretly practising with the crayon. Chastisements were even found ineffectual to his correction, notwithstanding the obstinacy of his mother in not altering her purpose. A lucky accident delivered our young man from this disagreeable situation. One day a poor person desired to speak in private with the physician: the beggar displayed to him his extreme distress in several languages. The wife of the physician, who was present at this conversation, said to her husband, “Since I see that there are men of learning in indigence as well as painters, I think it altogether indifferent to which profession my son applies; let him satisfy his own inclination.” Elliger was then placed at Antwerp in the school of Daniel Segers, the Jesuit; where he learnt to paint flowers and fruit, and at length equalled his master. He was called to the court of Berlin, where he was highly honoured for his talents, and the elector Frederic William appointed him his principal painter. This prince found great amusement in conversing with Elliger, and his smart replies on all occasions pleased him so much, that he made frequent visits to his lodgings. This agreeable life, in which he found much profit as well as pleasure, continued till his death, the year of which is not known. Elliger’s works, which are as much sought after as those of his master, are principally in Germany, where they are preserved with the utmost care.

He received several donations towards his subsistence at Oxford from unknown hands, with anonymous letters informing him that those sums were in consideration of his father’s sufferings, and to encourage his progress in his studies; and he received several such presents and letters, both before and after his heingin orders, without his knowing whence they came; but after the restoration, he had some reason to believe he owed them to. Dr. Jeremy Taylor, and Dr. Hammond, being part of those collections of money put into their hands by charitable and welldisposed persons for the support and encouragement of such as had been plundered or oppressed by the republican government. Mr. Ellis, when he had taken orders, was patronized by William, marquis, and afterwards duke of Newcastle, who presented him to the rectory of Kirkhy in Nottinghamshire, of which he was a most laborious, useful, and exemplary minister. In 1693 he was appointed, by archbishop Sharp, a prebendary in the collegiate church of Southwell, merely in reward of his merits and usefulness. He died in 1700, aged about seventy. His writings in practical theology are distinguished for eminent and fervent piety, soundness of doctrine, and a vigorous, unaffected, and manly style. The principal are, 1. “The Gentile Sinner, or England’s brave gentleman characterised, in a letter to a friend,” 1660, 12mo, a work which was written in a fortnight, in the early part of the author’s life, and has considerable merit both in design and exe^ cution. It has gone through many editions. 2. A “Ca^ techism,” 1674, reprinted in 1738, 8vo, by ibr Rev. John Veneer, rector of St. Andrews, Chichester, with a life of the author, and other additions, by Veneer. 3. “The vanity of Scoffing-, in a letter to a witty gentleman,” 1674, 4to. 4. “Christianity in short, or the short way to be a good Christian,” 1682, 12mo, oftener reprinted than any of his works. He published some other pious, and some controversial tracts of less importance, enumerated by Wood, several single sermons, and two pieces of poetry, one on the death of George Pitt, esq. Oxford, 1653, 4to, the other on the Restoration, London, 1660, fol.

, F. R. S. an eminent naturalist, is thought to have been born in London, about 1710, but of his early life and occupations no certain information has been obtained, except that he was engaged in mercantile pursuits. He imbibed a taste for natural history, probably when young, made collections of natural curiosities, and by attentive observation and depth of thought soon rose superior to the merit of a mere collector. It is to him we owe the discovery of the animal nature of corals and corallines, which is justly said to form an epocha in natural science. The first collection he made of these new-discovered animals, after being presented to, and examined by the royal society, was deposited in the British museum, where it till remains. His mind was originally turned to the subject by a collection of corallines sent him from Anglesey, which he arranged upon paper so as to form a kind of natural landscape. But although the opinion he formed of their being animals was confirmed by some members of the royal society, as soon as he had explained his reasons, he determined to make farther observations, and enlarge his knowledge of corallines on the spot. For this purpose he went, in August 1752, to the isle of Sheppy, accompanied by Mr. Brooking, a painter, and the observations which he made still further confirmed him in his opinions. In 1754, he prevailed on Ehret, the celebrated botanist and artist, to accompany him to Brighthelmstone, where they made drawings, and formed a collection of zoophites. In 1755, he published the result of all his investigations, under the title of an “Essay to wards a Natural History of Corallines,” 4to, one of the most accurate books ever published, whether we consider the plates, the descriptions, or the observations which demonstrate the animal nature of the zoophites. His opinions on this subject were opposed by Job Easier, a Dutch physician and naturalist, who published various dissertations in the Philosophical Transactions in order to prove that corallines were of a vegetable nature. But his arguments were victoriously refuted by Ellis, whose opinions on the subject were almost immediately assented to by naturalists in general, and have been further confirmed by every subsequent examination of the subject.