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

, probably a native of Sussex, was of the Roman catholic persuasion, being secretary to queen Mary, the wife of James II. and one who followed the fortunes of his abdicating master; who rewarded him first with knighthood, and then with the honorary titles of earl Caryl and baron Dartford. How long he continued in that service is not known: but he was in England in the reign of queen Anne, and was the intimate friend of Pope, to whom he recommended the subject of the “Rape of the Lock,” and who at its publication addressed it to him. From some of his letters in the last edition of Pope’s Works, he appears to have been living in 1717; but he was not the intimate friend of Pope’s unfortunate lady, as asserted in the last edition of this Dictionary. It is plain from one of his letters, dated July 1717, that he had no knowledge of her, and asks Pope “who was the unfortunate lady you address a copy of verses to?” to which Pope does not appear to have returned any answer.

, a learned Jesuit, of a distinguished family in Placentia, was born there in 1617, and became professor of mathematics and theology at Rome. He was one of the two ecclesiastics who contributed to convert Christina, queen of Sweden, to the popish faith. She had desired that two Jesuits might be sent to confer with her on the subject. In 1652 he returned to Italy, and, as he had considerable political talents, was appointed superior to several houses belonging to the society of Jesuits: and he presided over the university of Parma for thirty years, and acted as confessor to two successive duchesses of Parma. Amidst all these occupations he had leisure for his mathematical studies and publications. He died at Parma, Dec. 22, 1707. His principal works are, 1. “Vacuum proscriptum,” Genoa, 1649. 2. “Terra machinis mota,” Rome, 1668, 4to. 3. “Mechanicorum libri octo,” 1684, 4to. 4. “De igne dissertationes,” 1686 and 1695. 5. “De angelis disputatio theologica,” Placentia, 1703. 6. “Hydrostaticse dissertationes,” Parma, 1695* 7. “Opticae disputationes,” Parma, 1705. What is somewhat extraordinary is, that he composed this treatise on optics at the age of eighty-eight, when he was already blind. His works on physics abound with good experiments and just notions.

Casaubon is to be ranked amongst those learned men who, in the beginning of the last century, were very solicitous to have an union formed between the popish and protestant religions. This is expressly asserted by Burigny, in his life of Grotius. According to that biographer, Casaubon, who wished to see all Christians united in one faith, ardently desired a re-union of the protestants with the Roman catholics, and would have set about it, had he lived longer in France. He greatly respected the opinions of the ancient church, and was persuaded that its sentiments were more sound than those of the ministers of, Charentou. Grotius and he had imparted their sentiments to each other before the voyage to England, which we are to mention, and Arminius had a project of the same kind, which he communicated to Casaubon, by whom it was approved. In the year 1610 two things happened that afflicted Casaubou extremely; one was the murder of king Henry IV. which deprived him of all hopes of keeping his place; the other, his eldest son’s embracing popery. This made him resolve to come over into England, where he had often been invited by king James I.; and having obtained leave of absence from the queen-regent of France, he arrived in England October 1610,along with sir Henry Wotton, ambassador-extraordinary from king James I. and was received with the utmost civility, by most persons of learning and distinction, although he complains of being ill used by the rabble in the streets. He waited upon the king, who took great pleasure in discoursing with him, and even did him the honour of admitting him several times to eat at his own table. His majesty likewise made him a present of a hundred and fifty pounds, to enable him to visit the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. On the Christmas day after he arrived in England, he received the communion in the king’s chapel, though he did not understand the language. In his diary he says, that he had carefully considered the office for the sacrament the day before, and preferred it and the manner of receiving to that of other churches. The 3d ofJanuary, 1611, he was naturalized, and the 19th of the same month, the king granted him a pension of three hundred pounds; as also two prebends, one at Canterbury, and the other at Westminster. He likewise wrote to the queen regent of Franc*-, to desire Casaubon might stay longer in England than she had at first allowed him. But Casaubon did not long enjoy these great advantages, as a painful distemper in the bladder proved fatal July 1, 1614, in the 55th year of his age. He was buried in Westminster-abbey, where a monument was erected to his memory, with a Latin epitaph in a high style of panegyric. Of his twenty children, John, the eldest, turned Roman catholic, as has been mentioned above. Another, named Augustin, became a capuchin, at Calais, where he was poisoned, with eleven oihers of the same order. Mr. Dupin relates, upon the authority of Mr. Cotelier, that before he took the vow of capuchiu, /he went to ask his father’s blessing, which the father readily granted him; adding, “My son, I do not condemn thee; nor do thou condemn me; we shall both appear before the tribunal of Jesus Christ.” What became of the rest of his children (except Meric, mentioned in the next article), is not known. In 1612, he had a son born in England, to which the king and the archbishop of Canterbury were godfathers, and sir George Gary’s lady, godmother. This great man received the highest encomiums from persons of learning in his time, which he amply deserved by his extensive knowledge, modesty, sincerity, and probity.

, son of the preceding, was born at Geneva, August 14, 1599, and had the name of Meric from Meric de Vicq, a great friend and benefactor to his father. His first education he received at Sedan, but coming to England with his father, in the year 1610, he was instructed by a private master till 1614, when he was sent to Christ Church, Oxford; and being put there under a most careful tutor, Dr. Edward Meetkirk (afterwards Regius Hebrew professor), was soon after elected a student of that house. He took the degree of bachelor of arts, May 8, 1618, and that of master, June 14, 1621, being even then eminent for his extensive learning; and the same year, though he was but two and twenty, he published a book in defence of his father, against the calumnies of certain Roman catholics, entitled “Pietas contra maledicos, &c.” Loud. 1621, 8vo. This book made him known to king James I. who ever after entertained a good opinion of him; and also brought him into reputation abroad, especially in France, whither he was invited with offers of promotion, when his godfather, Meric de Vicq, was keeper of the great seal of that kingdom. Three years after, he published another vindication of his father, written by the command of king James I. and entitled, “Vindicatio Patris, &c.” 1624, 4to. About that time he was collated by Dr. Lancelot Andrews, bishop of Winchester, to the rectory of Bledon in Somersetshire; and June 1628, took the degree of bachelor of divinity. He had now formed the design of continuing his father’s “Exercitations against Baronius’s Annals,” but was diverted by some accident. At length, when he came to maturity of years for such a work, and had acquainted archbishop Laud, his great friend and patron, with his design, who was very ready to place him conveniently in Oxford or London, according to his desire, that he might be furnished with books necessary for such a purpose, the rebellion broke out in England. Having now no fixed habitation, he was forced to sell a good part of his books; and, after about twenty years’ sufferings, became so infirm, that he could not expect to live many years, and was obliged to relinquish his design. Before this, however, in June 1628, he was made prebendary of Canterbury, through the interest of bishop Laud; and when that prelate was promoted to the archbishopric of Canterbury, he collated him, in Oct. 1634, to the vicarage of Minster, in the Isle of Thanet; and in the same month, he was inducted into the vicarage of Monckton, in that island. In August 1636, he was created doctor in divinity, by order of king Charles I. who was entertained at the same time, with his queen, by the university of Oxford. About the year 1644, during the heat of the civil wars, he was deprived of his preferments, abused, fined, and imprisoned. In 1649, one Mr. Greaves, of Gray’s inn, an intimate acquaintance of his, brought him a message from Oliver Cromwell, then lieutenant-general of the parliament forces, desiring him to come to Whitehall, on purpose to confer with him about matters of moment; but his wife being lately dead, and not, as he said, buried, he desired to be excused. Greaves came again afterwards, and Dr. Casaubon being somewhat alarmed, desired him to tell him the meaning of the matter; but Greaves refusing, went away the second time. At length he returned again, and told him, that the lieutenant-general intended his good and advancement; and his particular errand was, that he would make use of his pen to write the history of the late war; desiring withal, that nothing but matters of fact should be impartially set down. The doctor answered, that he desired his humble service and hearty thanks should be returned for the great honour done unto him; but that he was uncapable in several respects for such an employment, and could not so impartially engage in it, as to avoid such reflections as would be ungrateful, if not injurious, to his lordship. Notwithstanding this answer, Cromwell seemed so sensible of his worth, that he acknowledged a great respect for him; and, as a testimony of it, ordered, that upon the first demand there should be delivered to him three or four hundred pounds, by a bookseller in London, whose name was Cromwell, whenever his occasions should require, without acknowledging, at the receipt of it, who was his benefactor. But this ofter he rejected, although almost in want. At the same time, it was proposed by Mr. Greaves, who belonged to the library at St. James’s, that if our author would gratify him in the foregoing request, Cromwell would restore to him all his father’s books, which were then in the royal library, having been purchased by king James; and withal give him a patent for three hundred pounds a year, to be paid to the family as long as the youngest sou of Dr. Casaubon should live, but this also was refused. Not long after, it was intimated to him, by the ambassador of Christiana, queen of Sweden, that the queen wished him to come over, and take upon him the government of one, or inspection of all her universities; and, as an encouragement, she proposed not only an honourable salary for himself, but offered to settle three hundred pounds a year upon his eldest son during life: but this also he waved, being fully determined to spend the remainder of his days in England. At the restoration of king Charles II. he recovered his preferments; namely, his prebend of Canterbury in July 1660, and his vicarages of Monckton and Minster the same year: but, two years after, he exchanged this last for the rectory of Ickham, near Canterbury, to which he was admitted Oct. 4, 1662. He had a design, in the latter part of his days, of writing his own life; and would often confess, that he thought himself obliged to do it, out of gratitude to the Divine Providence, which had preserved and delivered him from more hazardous occurrences than ever any man (as he thought) besides himself had encountered with; particularly in his escape from a fire in the night-time, which happened in the house where he lived, at Geneva, while he was a boy: in his recovery from a sickness at Christ Church, in Oxford, when he was given over for dead, by a chemical preparation administered to him by a young physician: in his wonderful preservation from drowning, when overset in a boat on the Thames near London, the two watermen being drowned, and himself buoyed up by his priest’s coat: and in his bearing several abuses, fines, imprisonments, &c. laid upon him by the republicans in the time of his sequestration: but this he did not execute. He died July 14, 1671, in the seventy-second year of his age, and was buried in the south part of the first south cross aile of Canterbury cathedral. Over his grave was soon after erected a handsome monument with an inscription. He left by will a great number of manuscripts to the university of Oxford. His character is thus represented. He was a general scholar, but not of particular excellence, unless in criticism, in which probably he was assisted by his father’s notes and papers. According to the custom of the times he lived in, he displays his extensive reading by an extraordinary mixture of Greek and Latin quotations and phrases. He was wont to ascribe to Descartes’s philosophy, the little inclination people had in his time for polite learning. Sir William Temple very highly praises his work, hereafter mentioned, on “Enthusiasm;” and unquestionably it contains in any curious and learned remarks; buthisbeingamaintainer of the reality of witches and apparitions, shews that he was not more free from one species of enthusiasm than most of his contemporaries. In his private character he was eminent for his piety, charity to the poor, and his courteous and affable disposition towards scholars. He had several children, but none made any figure in the learned world; one, named John, was a surgeon at Canterbury .

, M. D. among Granger’s heroes, was a noted astrologer in the time of queen Anne, and succeeded Lilly, who left him possessed of his apparatus, particularly his darkened chamber, and pictures, with which he pretended to shew his customers their absent friends. Case used to exhibit these to his intimates, in the hours of conviviality, laughing at the folly and credulity of the people. Over his door was written, “Within this place Lives Dr. Case.”

, called Nicoletto, a Venetian, artist, was born at Venice in 1659, and was the eldest son, and disciple of John Francis Cassana, a Genoese, who had been taught the art of painting by Bernardino Strozzi, and under his direction became an eminent portraiupainter; and the grand duke of Tuscany invited him to his court, where he painted the portraits of that prince and the princess Violante his consort. Of the historical subjects painted by this master while he resided at Florence, perhaps the most considerable was the Conspiracy of Catiline it consisted of nine figures as large as life, down to the knees; and the two principal figures were represented, as with one hand joined in the presence of their companions, and in their other hand holding a cup of blood. Nicoletto was invited to England, with strong assurances of a generous reception; and on his arrival, painted the portrait of queen Anne, in which he succeeded so happily, that the queen distinguished him by many marks of favour and of honour; but he had not the happiness to enjoy his good fortune for any length of time, dying in London, universally regretted, in the year 1713. He had a younger brother, G. Augustine Cassana, who, though a good portrait- painter, preferred the representation of animals and various fruits his pictures of that class are frequent in the collections of Italy, and sometimes ascribed to Castiglione. He had a sister, Maria Vittoria Cassana, who painted images of devotion for private amateurs, and died at Venice in the beginning of the last century.

, a Spanish divine, was a native of Zamora, and of the order of St. Francis. He flourished in the sixteenth century, under the reigns of the emperor Charles V. and Philip II. and accompanied the latter into England when his majesty married queen Mary. De Castro after this appears to have resided in the Netherlands, and was there promoted to the archbishopric of Compostella; but before he could receive the necessary documents from the pope, he died at Brussels, Feb. 13, 1558, in the sixty-third year of his age. His works were printed at Paris in 1578, folio. The principal and most valued was his “Treatise against Heresies,” a work partly historical, and partly controversial.

, Queen Of England, and first consort of Henry VIII. was the fourth daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, king and queen of Castile and Arragon. She was born in 1485. In the sixteenth year of her age, Nov. 14, 1501, she was married to Arthur, prince of Wales, son of Henry VII. who died a few months after. The king, either from political reasons, or, as some think, because he was unwilling to restore Catherine’s dowry, which was 200,000 ducats, obliged his second son Henry, whom he created prince of Wales, and who was then in his twelfth year, to be contracted to the infanta. The prince resisted this injunction to the utmost of his power; but the king was invincible, and the espousals were at length, by means of the pope’s dispensation, contracted between the parties. Immediately after the accession of Henry VIII. to the crown, in 1509, the king began to deliberate on his former engagements, to which he had many objections, but his privy council, though contrary to the opinion of the primate, gave him their advice for celebrating the marriage. Even the prejudices of the people were averse to an union betwixt such near relations as Henry and his brother’s widow; and the late king is thought to have had an intention to avail himself of a proper opportunity of annulling the contract. In 1527 several circumstances occurred which combined to excite scruples in the king’s mind concerning the lawfulness of his marriage, but probably the chief were what arose from his own passions. The queen was six years older than the king; and the decay of her beauty, together with particular infn-mities and diseases, had contributed, notwithstanding her blameless character and deportment, to render her person unacceptable to him. Though she had borne him several children, they all died in early infancy, except one daughter, Mary; and it was apprehended, that if doubts of Mary’s legitimacy concurred with the weakness of her sex, the king of Scots, the next heir, would advance his pretensions, and might throw the kingdom into confusion. But most of all, Anne Boleyn had acquired an entire ascendant over his affections, and he was now determined on a divorce, and upon consulting them, all the prelates of England, except Fisher, bishop of Rochester, unanimously declared that they deemed his marriage unlawful. In this they were supported by cardinal Wolsey, who had political purposes to answer in breaking off the match with Catherine, although he was no friend to Anne Boleyn. Accordingly Henry determined to apply to the pope, Clement VII. for a divorce, who, though at first disposed to favour Henry’s application, and had actually concerted measures for its successful issue, was overawed by the interference of the emperor, Charles V. Catherine’s nephew; and when the negociation was protracted to such a length as to tire Henry’s patience, the pope, importuned by the English ministers, put into their hands a commission to Wolsey, as legate, in conjunction with the archbishop of Canterbury, or any other English prelate, to examine the validity of the king’s marriage, and of the late pope’s dispensation. He also granted them a provisional dispensation for the king’s marriage with any other person; and promised to issue a decretal bull, annulling the marriage with Catherine; but he enjoined secrecy, and conjured them not to publish these papers, or to make any farther use of them, till his afflxirs with regard to the emperor were in such a train as to secure his liberty and independence. After considerable hesitation and delay, the legates, Campeggio and Wolsey, to whom the pope had granted a new commission for the trial of the king’s marriage, opened their court in London, May 31, 1529, and cited the king and queen to appear before it. They both presented themselves, and the king answered to his name, when called; but the queen, instead of answering to her’s, threw herself at the king’s feet, and appealed to his justice, declaring that she would not submit her cause to be tried by the members of a court who depended on her enemies; and making the king a low reverence, she departed, and never would again appear in that court.

Upon her departure, the king, after acknowledging that she had ever been a dutiful and affectionate wife, and that the whole tenor of her behaviour had been conformable to the strictest rules of probity and honour, insisted on his own scruples with regard to the lawfulness of their marriage; and craved a sentence of the court agreeable to the justice of his cause. The legates, after citing the queen anew, declared her contumacious, notwithstanding her appeal to Rome, and then proceeded to the examination of the cause; but while the king was all impatience for a sentence, Campeggio suddenly prorogued the court to a future day. This threw the king into the utmost perplexity, from which he was relieved by Dr. Cranaaer, who suggested, that the readiest way, either to quiet Henry’s conscience, or to extort the pope’s consent, would be to consult all the universities of Europe. If they agreed to approve of the king’s marriage with Catherine, his remorse would naturally cease; if they condemned it, the pope would find it difficult to resist his majesty’s solicitations. In consequence of this application several of the foreign universities gave an opinion in the king’s favour; as did Oxford and Cambridge, although subsequently, and with more reluctance; and the convocations both of Canterbury and York, pronounced the king’s marriage invalid, and contrary to the law of God. But pope Clement, still subject to the influence of the emperor, continued to summon the king to appear, either by himself or proxy, before his tribunal at Rome; and the king, apprized that no fair trial could be expected there, refused to submit to such a condition, and would not admit of any citation, which he regarded as a high insult, and a violation of his royal prerogative. In the progress of this business, the queen’s appeal was received at Rome. The king was cited to appear; and several consistories were held to examine the validity of their marriage. The king retained his purpose of not sending any proxy to plead his cause before this court, and alleged, that the prerogatives of his crown must be sacrificed if he allowed appeals from his own kingdom. For the purpose of adding greater security to his intended defection from Rome, he procured an interview with Francis at Boulogne and Calais, and renewed his alliance with that monarch; and it is said that he even persuaded Francis to follow his example, in withdrawing his obedience from the bishop of Rome, and administering ecclesiastical affairs without having further recourse to that see. In the mean time he privately celebrated his marriage with Anne Boleyn, Nov. 14, 1532; and in April of the following year he publicly owned it, and prepared measures for declaring, by a formal sentence, the invalidity of his marriage with Catherine. Catherine, however, did not quit the kingdom; but fixed her abode for some time at Ampthill, in Bedfordshire, where, after several preliminary steps, Cranmer pronounced a sentence which annulled the king’s marriage with her. Catherine still continued obstinate in maintaining the validity of her marriage; and she would admit no person to her presence who did not approach her with the customary formalities. Although Henry employed menaces against such of her servants as complied with her commands in this particular, he was never able to make her relinquish her title and pretensions.

All historians seem to agree in their praises of the personal character of Catherine. Notwithstanding her subsequent fate, she by her sweetness of manners, good sense, and superior endowments, engaged the affections of her husband, and contrived to retain the heart of this fickle and capricious monarch for near twenty years. Catherine, devoted to literature, became the patroness of learned men: the celebrated Erasmus and Ludovicus Vives were more particularly distinguished by her favour. She engaged the latter to draw up instructions for the assistance of her daughter in the study of the Latin. This essay, written by her command, is dedicated to the queen, by an epistle, dated from Oxford, 1523, under the title of “De Ratione Studii Puerilis.” The same year Ludovicus also addressed to his patroness a work entitled “De Institutione Feminæ Christianæ, lib. 3.” The queen was one of his auditors when he read the cardinal’s lecture on humanity, in the hall at Christ-church college, which she had recently founded. Ludovicus Vives was also appointed by her, Latin tutor to her daughter, the lady Mary. Several foreign authors have asserted that Catherine composed “Meditations upon the Psalms” also a book entitled “The Lamentation of a Sinner” but these productions belong to Catherine Parr. In “Burnet’s History of the Reformation,” are two letters from Catherine of Arragon to her husband; and, in “The Life of Henry V.” by Livy, one addressed to the king, then in France, on a victory gained over the Scots, 1513; and another, requesting permission to see her daughter, the princess Mary.

, queen of England, and fifth wife of Henry VIII. was daughter of lord Edmund Howard (third son of Thomas duke of Norfolk, and grandson of John first duke of Norfolk), by Joyce, daughter of sir Richard Culpepper, of Holingbourne in Kent, knight. Her mother dying while she was young, she was educated under the care of her grandmother, the duchess dowager of Norfolk; and when she grew up, the charms of her person soon captivated the affections of Henry VIII, who, upon his divorce from Anne of Cleves, married her, and shewed her publicly as queen, Aug. 8, 1540, But this marriage proved of the utmost prejudice to the cause of the reformation, which had begun to spread itself in the kingdom. ' The queen being absolutely guided by the counsels of the duke of Norfolk, her uncle, and Gardiner bishop of Winchester, used all the power she had over the king to support the credit of the enemies of the protestants, In the summer of 1541, she attended his majesty to York, to meet his nephew the king of Scotland, who had promised to give him an interview in that city, but was diverted by his clergy, and a message from the court of France, from that resolution; and during that progress she gained so entire an ascendant over the king’s heart, that at his return to London, on All-Saints day, when he received the sacrament, he gave public thanks to God for the happiness which he enjoyed by her means and desired his confessor, the bishop of Lincoln, to join with him in the like thanksgiving. But this proved a very short-lived satisfaction, for the jiext clay, archbishop Cranmer came to him with information that the queen had been unfaithful to his bed. By the advice of the lord chancellor and other privy counsellors, the archbishop wrote the particulars on a paper, which he delivered to the king, being at a loss how to open so delicate a matter in conversation. When the king read it, he was much confounded, and his attachment to the queen made him at first consider the story as a forgery, but having full proof, the persons with whom the queen Jiad been guilty, Dierham and Mannoch, two of the duchess dowager of Norfolk’s domestics, were apprehended, and not only confessed what was laid to their charge, but revealed some other circumstances, which placed the guilt of the queen in a most heinous light. The report of this struck the king so forcibly, that he lamented his misfortune with a flood of tears. The archbishop and some other counsellors were sent to examine the queen, who at first denied every thing, but finding that her crime was known, confessed all, and subscribed the paper. It appeared likewise, that she had intended to continue in that scandalous course of life; for as she had brought Dierham into her service, she had also retained one of the women, who had formerly been privy to their familiarities, to attend upon her in her bed-chamber; and while the king was at Lincoln, by the lady Rochford’s means, one Culpepper was brought to her at eleven at night, and stayed with her till four next morning; and at his departure received from her a gold chain. Culpepper being examined, confessed the crime: for which he, with Dierham, suffered death on the 1 Oth of December.

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

This remarkable act being passed, the queen and the lady llochford were beheaded on Tower-hill on the 12tli of February, about seventeen months after she had been married to the king. The queen confessed the miscarriages of her former life before marriage, which had brought her to this fatal end; but protested to Dr. White, afterwards bishop of Winchester, that she took God and his angels to be her witnesses, upon the salvation of her soul, that she was guiltless of the charge of defiling her sovereign’s bed. Yet the unbounded looseness of her former course of living inclined the world to believe the most scandalous things that could be reported. But all observed the judgment of Heaven upon the lady Rochford, who had been the principal instrument in the death of queen Anne Boleyn, her sister-in-law, and that of her own husband; and her appearing now so enormously profligate tended much to raise their reputations again, in whose fall her malice and artifices had so great a share. It was thought, however, extremely cruel to shew such extraordinary severity against the queen’s kindred for not discovering her former ill life, since the making such a discovery would have been a very hard instance of duty. The duchess dowager of Norfolk being her grandmother, had educated her from a child; and it was said, that for her to have acquainted the king with her grand-daughter’s lewd behaviour, when he intended to marry her, as it was an unheard-of thing, so the not doing it could not have drawn so high a punishment from any but a prince of the king’s temper. However he pardoned her, and most of the rest, though some continued in prison after others were discharged. That other proviso, which obliged a young lady to discover her own frailties, if his majesty should please to make love to her, seemed likewise a strange piece of tyranny; since if a king, especially one of so imperious a disposition as Henry VIII, should design such an honour to any of his subjects, who had failed in, their former life, they must either disgrace themselves by publishing so odious a secret, or run the hazard of being afterwards attainted of high treason. Upon this, some persons, who were inclined to rally the sex, took occasion to say, “that after such a regulation, no one, reputed a virgin, could be induced to marry the king; and therefore it was not so much choice as necessity, that caused him to marry a widow two years after.” But this part of the act was afterwards repealed in the first parliament of king Edward VI.

, sixth and last queen to Henry VIII. celebrated for her learning, whose perfections, though a widow, attracted the heart of this monarch, and whose prudence preserved her from the effects of his cruelty and caprice, was the daughter of sir Thomas Parr, and was married first to Edward Burghe, and secondly to John Neville, lord Latimer, whose widow she was when king Henry cast his affections on her. She was early educated in polite literature, as was the fashion of noble women at that time in England, and in her riper years was much given to reading and studying the Holy Scriptures. Several learned men were retained as her chaplains, who preached to her every day in her privy chamber, and often touched such abuses as were common in the church. The king approved of this practice, and often permitted her to confer with him on religious subjects. But when disease and confinement added to his natural impatience of contradiction, and when in the presence of the bishop of Winchester and others of the popish faction, she had been urging her old topic of perfecting the reformation, the king broke out into this expression after she was retired, “A good hearing it is, when women become such clerks and a thing much to mycomfort, to come in mine old age to be taught by my wife” Winchester failed not to improve this opportunity to aggravate the queen’s insolence, to insinuate the danger of cherishing such a serpent in his bosom, and to accuse her of treason cloaked with heresy; and the king was prevailed upon to give a warrant to draw lip articles to touch her life. The day and hour was appointed, when she was to be seized: but the design being accidentally discovered to her, she waited upon the king, who received her kindly, and purposely began a discourse about religion. She answered, <* That women by -their creation at first were made subject to men; that they, being made after the image of God, as the women were after their image, ought to instruct their wives, who were to learn of them: and she much more was to be taught of his majesty, who was a prince of such excellent learning and wisdom.*' “Not so, by St. Mary,” said the king, “you are become a doctor, Kate, able to instruct us and not to be instructed by us.” To which she replied, “that it seemed he had much mistaken her freedom in arguing with him, since she did it to ejigage him in discourse, to amuse this painful time of his infirmity, and that she might receive profit by his learned discourse; in which last point she had not missed of her aim, always referring herself in these matters, as she ought to do, to his majesty.” “And is it even so, sweetheart?” said the king, “then we are perfect friends again.”

The day which had been appointed for carrying her to the Tower being fine, the king took a walk in the garden, and sent for the queen. As they were together, the lord chancellor, who was ignorant of the reconciliation, came with the guards. The king stepped aside to him, and after a little discourse, was heard to call him “Knave, aye, errant knave, a fool, and beast;” and bid him presently avaunt out of his sight. The queen, not knowing on Tvhat errand they came, endeavoured with gentle words to qualify the king’s anger. “Ah! poor soul,” said the king, “thou little knowest how ill he deserves this at thy hands: on my word, sweetheart, he hath been toward thee an errant knave; and so let him go.” The king, as a mark of his affection, left her a legacy of 4000l. besides her jointure. She was afterwards married to sir Thomas Seymour, lord-admiral of England, and uncle to Edward VI. but she lived a very short time, and that unhappily, with this gentleman. She died, in 1548, in child-bed; though, as some writers observe, not without a suspicion of poison, to make way for Seymour’s marriage with the princess Elizabeth. She was buried in the chapel of Sudley-castle. Her leaden coffin having been explored by female curiosity in 1782, her features, and particularly her eyes, are said to have appeared in a state of perfect preservation.

Her majesty wrote, “Queen Catherine Parr’s Lamentation of a Sinner, bewailing the Ignorance of her blind life.” This was a contrite meditation on the years she had passed in popery, in fasts, and pilgrimages; and, being found among her papers after her death, was published with a preface, by the great lord Burleigh, in 1548, 8vo, and afterwards, in 1563. In her life-time she published a volume of psalms, prayers, and pious discourses, with this title; “Prayers or Meditations, wherein the mind is stirred patiently to suffer all afflictions here, and to set at nought the vain prosperitie of this worlde, and always to long for the everlasting felicitee,” 1545, 12mo. Several letters of this queen’s are preserved in “Strype’s Annals,” in “Haynes’s collection of State Papers,” in the “Ashmoiean Collection,” and in the library of C. C. C. Cambridge.

In the following year, 1783, she augmented the splendour of her court, by instituting the new order of St. Wolodimir, or Vladimir, and this year, having acquired, without a war, the sovereignty of the Crimea, of the isle of Taman, and a great part of the Kuban, she called the former of these countries Taurida, and the other Caucasus. Thus Catherine gained a point of much importance towards the main object of her ambition, i. e. the destruction of the Turkish empire in Europe; in the view of which she had named the grand duke’s second son Constantine, and had put him into the hands of Greek nurses, that he might be thoroughly acquainted with the language of his future subjects. Instigated by Potemkin, the empress formed a design in 1787 of being splendidly crowned in her new dominions “queen of Taurida;” but the expence being objected to by some of her courtiers, she contented herself with making a grand progress through them. At her new city of Cherson, she had a second interview with the emperor Joseph. She then traversed the Crimea, and returned to Moscow, having left traces in her progress of her munificence and condescension. This ostentatious tour was probably one cause of the new rupture with the Turkish court, in which the emperor of Germany engaged as ally to Russia, and the king of Sweden as ally to the Porte. The latter prevented the empress from sending a fleet into the Mediterranean; and even endangered Petersburgh itself by a sudden incursion into Finland. The danger, however, was averted by the empress’s own vigorous exertions, by the desertion of some of Gustavus’s troops, who would not fight against the Russians, and by an attack of Sweden, on the part of the prince of Denmark, who proceeded as far as Gottenburgh. The Turkish army, though superior to that of the empress, could not resist the efforts of the Russian generals. Potemkin at the head of a numerous army, and a large train of artillery, laid siege to Otchakof, and it was at length taken by storm, with the loss of 25,000 Turks and 12,000 Russians, but the issue of the war was upon the whole unfavourable, and all parties consented to the peace signed in 1792, by which the Dniester was declared to be in future the limit of the two empires. Mr. Pitt at this time had a strong desire to compel Russia to restore Otchakof to the Turks, but not being supported by the nation, this point was conceded. When the French revolution took place, the empress finding Prussia and Austria engaged in opposing it by force of arms, turned her attention to Poland, marched an army thither, overturned the new constitution the Poles had formed, and finally broke the spirit of the Poles by the dreadful massacre made on the inhabitants of the suburbs of Warsaw by her general Suvarof: a new division took place of this illfated country, between Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and afforded precedents for other divisions which the two latter powers little suspected.

Previous to the death of Catherine the monuments of her reign resembled already so many wrecks and dilapidations: colleges, colonies, education, establishments, manufactories, hospitals, canals, towns, fortresses, every thing had been begun, and every thing given up before it was finished. As soon as a project entered her head, all preceding ones gave place, and her thoughts were fixed on that alone, till some new idea was started and drew off her attention. She abandoned her new code of laws, to drive the Turks out of Europe. After the glorious peace of Ka'inardgi, she seemed for a time to attend to the interior administration of her affairs; but the whole was presently forgotten, that she might be queen of Tauris. Her next project was the re-establishment of the throne of Constantino; to which succeeded that of humbling and punishing the king of Sweden. Afterwards the invasion of Poland became her ruling passion; and then a second Pugatshef might have arrived at the gates of Petersburgh without forcing her to relinquish her hold. She died, again meditating the destruction of Sweden, the ruin of Prussia, and mortified at the successes of France and republicanism. Thus was she incessantly led away by some new passion still stronger in its influence than the preceding, so as to neglect her government, both in its whole and in its parts. This mania of Catherine, of planning every thing and completing nothing, drew from Joseph II. a very shrewd and satirical remark. During his travels in Taurida, he was invited by the empress to place the second stone of the town of Ekatarinoslaf, of which she had herself, with great parade^ laid the first. On his return, he said, " I have finished in a single day a very important business with the empress of Russia; she has laid the first stone of a city, and I have laid the last.

Mr. Vertue, according to the Anecdotes of Painting, vol. I. p. 17, thinks it highly probable, that the shrine of Edward the Confessor, and the crosses erected to the memory of queen Eleanor, were constructed from the designs of Pietro Cavallini, by abbot Ware; and he supposes Cavallini to be the inventor of Mosaic, alleging that Giotto was twenty years younger than the other. But those suppositions seem not to be very defensible; for, by the testimony of Vasari, and other writers, and also by the Historical Tables of Ancient and Modern Painters, published by Anthony Harms, at Brunswick, it appears that Giotto was three years older than Cavallinj, instead of being twenty years younger; and was really his instructor in the art of Mosaic; as may be evident from the dates of their birth, according to Vasari: Giotto was born in 1276, and CavaiJini was born in 1279. Indeed, Vasari does not mention the precise year of the birth of Cavallini but as he testifies that he died in 1364, at the age of eighty-five, he determines the year of his birth in 1279. Nor can the other supposition of abbot Ware’s constructing those crosses and shrine from the designs of Cavallini, be any ways established; for, according to the Anecdotes, Ware was at Rome in 1260, and there saw a shrine that had been erected in 1254; and the abbot himself died in 1283, which, it is observable, was eight years before the death of queen Eleanor,' who died in 1291. Now, as it appears that Giotto was born in 1276, he could have been but seven years old at the death of Ware; and Cavallini being three years younger than Giotto, it must appear impossible that he should have been a designer for Ware, as that abbot died when Cavallini was only four years old.

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

Sir William Cavendish xvrote the life of his old master cardinal Wolsey, and therein gives him a very high character; affirming that, in his judgment, he never saw the kingdom in better obedience and quiet than during the time of his authority, or justice better administered. Indeed, impartial inquirers into the history of Wolsey will be ready to conclude that he was not the worst man in the court of Henry VIII. No work, however, has experienced a more singular fate than sir William Cavendish’s “Life of' Wolsey.” It was long known only by manuscripts, and by the large extracts from it, inserted by Stowe in his “Annals,” and in this state it remained from the reign of queen Mary in which it was composed, until 1641, when it was first printed under the title of “The Negociations of Thomas Wolsey,” &c. 4to; and as the chief object of the publication was to institute a parallel between the cardinal and archbishop Laud, in order to reconcile the public to the murder of that prelate, the manuscript was mutilated and interpolated without shame or scruple, and no pains having been taken to compare the printed edition with the original, the former passed for genuine above a century, and was reprinted, with a slight variation in the title, in 1667 and 1706, besides being inserted in the Harleian Miscellany. At length Dr. Wordsworth printed a correct transcript in his valuable “Ecclesiastical Biography,” 1810, 6 yols. 8vo, collated with four Mss. two in the Lambeth, one in the York cathedral library, and one in the British Museum.

He was one of the earliest in inviting over the prince of Orange; and James II. upon the first alarm from Holland, being jealous of him above any other peer, endeavoured to draw him to court, which the earl evaded. Upon the prince’s landing, he appeared in arms for him, and was afterwards received by him with the highest marks of affection and esteem. In the debates of the house of lords concerning the throne, he was very zealous for declaring the prince and princess of Orange king and queen of England. Feb. 14, 1689, he was admitted one of the privy-council, and not long after, named lord steward of their majesties’ houshold; and, April 3, 1689, chosen a knight of the garter. At their majesties’ coronation he acted as lord high steward of England; and, in the first session of parliament afterwards, procured a resolution of the house of lofds, as to the illegality of the judgment given against him in the former reign, and a vote, that no peer ought to be committed for non-payment of a fine to the crown. Jan. 1691 he attended king William to the congress at the Hague, where he lived in the utmost state and magnificence; and had the honour to entertain several sovereign princes at his table, the king himself being also present incognito. May 12, 1694, he was created marquis of Harrington, and duke of Devonshire; which, with his garter and white staff, the place of lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Derby, and justiceship in Eyre, was perhaps as much honour as an English subject could enjoy. After the queen’s death, when the king’s absence made the appointment of regents necessary, he was one of the lords justices for seven successive years; an honour which no other temporal peer enjoyed.

In the case of sir John Fenwick, though he had a conviction of his guilt, yet he was so averse to any extraordinary judicial proceedings, that he opposed the bill, as he did likewise another bill for the resumption of the forfeited estates in Ireland. At the accession of queen Anne, he was confirmed in all his offices. April 1705 he attended her majesty to Cambridge, and was there created LL. D. In 1706, himself and his son the marquis of Harrington were in the number of English peers appointed commissioners for concluding an union with Scotland; this was the last of his public employments. He died August 18, 1707. His mien and aspect were engaging and commanding: his address and conversation civil and courteous in the highest degree. He judged right in the supreme court; and on any important affair his speeches were smooth and weighty. As a statesman, his whole deportment came up to his noble birth and his eminent stations: nor did he want any of what the world call accomplishments. He had a great skill in languages; and read the Roman authors with great attention: Tacitus was his favourite. He was a true judge of history, a critic in poetry, and had a fine hand in music. He had an elegant taste in painting, and all politer arts; and in architecture in particular, a genius, skill, and experience beyond any one person of his age; his house at Chatsworth being a monument of beauty and magnificence that perhaps is not exceeded by any palace in Europe. His grace’s genius for poetry shewed itself particularly in two pieces that are published, and are allowed by the critics to be written with equal spirit, dignity, and delicacy. 1. “An Ode on the Death of queen Mary.” 2. “An allusion to the bishop of Cambray’s supplement to Homer.” He married the lady Mary, daughter of James duke of Ormond, by whom he had three sons and a daughter.

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

, duchess of Newcastle, and second wife of the preceding, was born at St. John’s, near Colchester in Essex, about the latter end of the reign of James I. Her father, of whom she was the youngest daughter, was sir Charles Lucas, a gentleman of a very ancient and honourable family, and who was himself a man of great spirit and fortune. Dying young, he left the care of his children to his widow, a lady of exquisite beauty and admirable accomplishments, who took upon herself the education of her daughters, and instructed them in needlework, dancing, music, the French tongue, and other things that were proper for women of fashion. As, however, she had from her infancy an inclination for literature, and spent much of her time in study and writing, her biographers have lamented that she had not the advantage of an acquaintance with the learned languages, which might have improved her judgment, and have been of infinite service to her in the numerous productions of her pen. In 1643 she obtained permission from her mother to go to Oxford, where the court then resided, and where she could not fail of meeting with a favourable reception, on account of the distinguished loyalty of her family, as well as of her own accomplishments. Accordingly, she was appointed one of the maids of honour to Henrietta Maria, the royal consort of Charles I.; and in that capacity accompanied her majesty to France, when the queen was obliged by the civil war to quit England. At Paris Miss Lucas first saw the marquis of Newcastle, then a widower, who admiring her person, disposition, and ingenuity, was married to her at that place, in 1645. The marquis had heard of the lady’s character before he met with her in France; for having been a friend and patron of her gallant brother lord Lucas, he took occasion one day to ask his lordship in what respect he could promote his interest. To this his lordship replied, that he was not solicitous about his own affairs, as being prepared to suffer either exile or death in the royal cause; but that he was chiefly concerned for his sister, on whom he could bestow no fortune, and whose beauty exposed her to danger. At the same time, he represented her other amiable qualities in so striking a light, as raised the marquis’s curiosity to see her. After their marriage, the marquis and marchioness of Newcastle went from Paris to Rotterdam, where they resided six months, and from that to Antwerp, which they fixed upon as the place of their residence during the time of their exile. In this city they enjoyed as quiet and pleasant a retirement as their ruined fortunes would permit. Though the marquis had much respect paid him by all men, as well foreigners as those of his own country, he principally confined himself to the society of his lady, who, both by her writings and her conversation, proved a most agreeable companion to him during his melancholy recess. The exigency of their affairs obliged the marchioness once to come over to England. Her view was to obtain some of the marquis’s rents, in order to supply their pressing necessities, and pay the debts they had contracted; but she could not procure a grant from the rulers of those times, to receive one penny out of her noble husband’s vast inheritance: and had it not been for the seasonable generosity of sir Charles Cavendish, she and her lord must have been exposed to extreme poverty. At length, however, having obtained a considerable sum from her own and the marquis’s relations, she returned to Antwerp, where she continued with him till the restoration, and employed herself in writing several of her works.

, a French Jesuit, and confessor to Lewis XIII. was born at Troyes, in Champagne, in 1580, and entered into the order of Jesuits when he was twentysix years of age. He taught rhetoric in several of their colleges; and afterwards began to preach, by which he gained very great reputation, and increased it not a little by his publications. At length he was preferred to bje confessor to the king; but, although pious and conscientious, did not discharge this office to the satisfaction of cardinal Richelieu, and the cardinal used every effort to get him removed. A little before his death, he is said to have delivered into the hands of a friend some original letters; from short extracts of which, since published, it appears that he "fell into disgrace because he would not reveal some things which he knew by the king’s confession; nor even take advice of his superiors how he was to behave himself in the direction of the king’s conscience, when he could not do it without breaking through the laws of confession. There are also some hints in the same extracts, which shew that he did not approve Lewis the Thirteenth’s conduct towards the queen his mother; and there is a probability that he caballed to get Richelieu removed. If we may believe the abbe Siri in his memoirs, this Jesuit, in his private conversations with the king, insisted upon the cardinal’s removal, for the four following reasons: 1. Because Mary de Meclicis, the queen-mother, was banished. 2. Because he left Lewis only the empty name of king. 3. Because he oppressed the nation. 4. Because he powerfully assisted the Protestants to the prejudice of the Catholic church. According to this author, he even engaged to maintain these four articles against the cardinal in the king’s presence; and he offered the cardinal’s place to the duke of Angouleme. This plot was the occasion of his disgrace, according to the abbe* Siri. Others have asserted, that the queen-mother obliged him to leave Paris, to gratify cardinal Mazarine, whom he had displeased; and that his disgrace was occasioned by his Latin piece concerning the kingdom and bouse of God, published in 1650, in which be had freely spoken of the qualities with which princes ought to be adorned. It is certain, however, that he was deprived of his employment, and banished to a city of Lower Britanny. He got leave to return to Paris aftr the cardinal’s death, and died there in the convent oi the Jesuits, July 1651.

, a puritan clergyman of the church of England, exiled for his loyalty during the rebellion, was born at Rainham in Norfolk in 1605, of parents who were not in circumstances to give him an education suited to his capacity and their wishes, but were so much respected as to procure the patronage of sir Roger Townsend, knt. who not only sent him to school, but took the pains to assist him in his tasks, particularly in the Greek. By the same interest he was sent to Cambridge, and entered of Queen’s college, and made a distinguished figure, not only in the usual studies preparatory to the ministry, but in that of the languages, acquiring an uncommon acquaintance with the oriental languages, the Saxon, high and low Dutch, and the Italian, French, and Spanish. His religious principles he imbibed from Drs. Preston and Sibbs, and Mr. Herbert Palmer, puritans of great reputation at that time. After taking orders, he resided for four years in the house of sir William Armine of Orton in Huntingdonshire; and his old patron sir Roger Townscncl, just before his death in r presented him to the living of \V ivcnhoc in Essex. Alter he had been on this living about seven years, a violent and long continued tit of ague rendered it necessary to try a change of air, and in compliance with the advice of his physicians, he removed to London, where, by the interest of sir Ilai bottle Grirnston, he was promoted to the valuable rectory of St. Bartholomew, Exchange. He had not been here above five years when Charles I. was put to death. A few weeks after, Mr. Gawton was called upon to preach before the lord mayor and aldermen of London, at Mercers’ chapel, when he delivered himself in such plain terms against the hypocrisy of the predominant powers, that he was first sent for to Westminster, and then committed to the Gatehouse. This served only to raise his character among the loyal presbyterians, who, when Charles II. had thoughts of entering England, and asserting his right, intrusted him, with Mr. Christopher Love, and some other worthy persons, with the money raised by them for his majesty’s service, for which Mr. Love was imprisoned, and afterwards executed. Mr. Cawton then betook himself to a voluntary exile, and retiring to Rotterdam, became minister of the English church there, and died Ang. 7, 1659. His son, th.e subject of our next article, took care to preserve a just account of his merits and sufferings by writing “The Life nnd Death of that holy and reverend man of God Mr. Thomas Cawton, some time minister of St. Bartholomew,” &c. To which is added, his father’s Sermon, entitled “God’s Rule for a godly Life, from Philippians i. 27.” which is the sermon for the preaching of which he was imprisoned, London, 1662, 8vo. This account is an artless picture of a man who did great honour to his profession, and was a pattern of virtue in every social relation. His life is important in another respect, as proving that the ambition of civil power was as much the cause of the trpu-f bles of that time, as any want of liberty of conscience in matters of religion. Cawton knew how to unite the puritan with the loyalist. His biographer informs us that when he first received the sacrament, he ever afterwards expressed the profoundest reverence, and the most elevated devotion at that solemnity.

, a Spanish artist, the son of Patrizio Caxes, of Arezzo, who settled in Spain, was born at Madrid in 1577, and learned the art of his father, with whom he was employed by Philip III. in the palace del Pardd. Their chief work in the queen’s gallery there, was the story of “Joseph and Potiphar’s wife,” which perished with many other works of art in the fire which consumed that palace. The father died in 1625, before which his son had attained high favour and eminence. The excellence of his frescos in the Sala d' Udienza procured him the favour of Philip III. who appointed him painter to the court in 1612. He soon after painted one of the principal altar-pieces for the church de la Merced at Madrid; and in 1615, various pictures in company with Vinzenzio Caoducho in the cathedral of Toledo and elsewhere. Though, his pencil, in common^with his contemporaries, was chiefly devoted to church legends, he found means to paint the “History of Agamemnon” in the Alcazar at Madrid. His scholars were, Luis Fernandez of Madrid, who painted the life of S. Ramori in the cloisters of La Merced Calzada, a celebrated series; Juan de Arnau of Barcellona; and Don Pedro de Valpuesta of Burgo de Osma, a young man of education, who probably would have excelled his fellow-scholars, had he not entered the church, in which he arrived at the dignity of licentiate. Caxes died in 1642.

Sir William Cecil acted \yith such caution and prudence in the various intrigues for the crown on the death of king Edward, that on queen Mary’s accession, although known to be a zealous protestaut, he remained unmolested in person, property, or reputation. Rapin has given a very unfair colouring to sir William’s conduct at this critical period. After stating that he waited upon the queen, was graciously received, and might have kept his employment, if he would have complied so far as to have declared himself of her majesty’s religion, he closes with the following remark: “He was nevertheless exposed to no persecution on account of his religion, whether his artful behaviour gave no advantages against him, or his particular merit procured him a distinction above all other protestants.” As to the artfulness of his behaviour, it will best appear from the answer he gave to those honourable persons, who by command of the queen communed with him on this subject, to whom he declared, “That he thought himself bound to serve God first, and next the queen; but if her service should put him out of God’s service, he hoped her majesty would give him leave to chuse an everlasting, rather than a momentary service; and as for the queen, she had been his so gracious lady, that he would ever serve and pray for her in his heart, and with his body and goods be as ready to serve in her defence as any of her loyal subjects, so she would please to grant him leave to use his conscience to himself, and serve her at large as a private man, which he chose rather than to be her greatest counsellor,” The queen took him at his word, and this was all the art that sir William used to procure liberty of conscience for himself; unless we should call it art, that he behaved himself with much prudence and circumspection afterwards. Nor is it true, as insinuated by Rapin, that he was the only protestant unmolested in this reign. Among others, the names of sir Thomas Smith, and the celebrated Roger Ascham, may be quoted; but as Mary’s bigotry increased with her years, it may be doubtful whether those would have been long spared. Almost the last act of her life was an attempt to kindle the flames of persecution in Ireland.

All this was very gratefully acknowledged by Elizabeth, on her accession to the throne, Norember 16, 1558. The first service that he rendered her was on that day, when he presented her with a paper, consisting of twelve particulars, which were necessary for her to dispatch immediately. At the time of her sister’s decease, queen Elizabeth was at her manor of Hatfield, whither most of the leading men repaired to her; and on the 20th of the same month, her council was formed, when sir William Cecil was first sworn privy-counsellor and secretary of state; and as he entered thus early into his sovereign’s favour, so he continued in it as long as he lived; which if in one sense it does honour to the abilities and services of Cecil, it was in another no less glorious to the queen his mistress, who, in this respect, did not act from any spirit of partiality or of prepossession, but with that wisdom and prudence which directed her judgment in all things. She saw plainly that sir William Cecil’s interests were interwoven with her own, and that he was fittest to be her counsellor whose private safety must depend upon the success of the counsel he gave; and though there were other persons, who were sometimes as great or greater favourites than Cecil, yet he was the only minister whom, she always consulted, and whose advice she very rarely rejected. The first thing he advised was to call a parliament, for the settlement of religion; and caused a plan of deformation to be drawn with equal circumspection and moderation; for, though no man was a more sincere protestant, yet he had no vindictive prejudices against papists, nor did he on the other hand lay any greater weight upon indifferent things, than he judged absolutely necessary for preserving decency and order. It was his opinion that without an established church, the state could not at that time subsist; and whoever considers the share he had in establishing it, and has a just veneration for that wise and excellent establishment, cannot but allow that the most grateful reverence is due to his memory.

The remainder of his administration would in fact be a history of that memorable reign, and in such a sketch as the present, we can advert only to the leading events. He had not been long seated in his high office, before foreign affairs required his care. France, Spain, and Scotland, all demanded the full force of his wisdom and skill. Spain was a secret enemy; France was a declared one, and had Scotland much in her power. By the minister’s advice, therefore, the interest of the reformed religion in Scotland was taken under Elizabeth’s protection. This produced the convention of Leith; and Cecil, as a remuneration for his services in this affair, obtained the place of master of the wards, Jan. 10, 1561, an office which he did not take as a sinecure, but of which he discharged the load of business with patience and diligence to the satisfaction of all. In his management of the house of commons, sir William exhibited equal caution, address, and capacity. The question of the future succession to the crown was often brought forward, sometimes from real and wellfounded anxiety; sometimes from officiousness; and often from factious motives. On this subject both the sovereign and the minister preserved an unbroken reserve, from which neither irritation nor calumny could induce him to depart. Perhaps this reserve, on his part, arose from his deference to the queen, but it seems more likely that his advice influenced her behaviour on this critical point. There were no less than three claimants publicly mentioned, viz. the queen of Scots, the family of Hastings, and the family of Suffolk; and the partizans of each of these were equally vehement and loud, as appears by “Leicester’s Commonwealth,” Doleman’s “Treatise of the Succession,” and other pieces on the same subject. The queen observed a kind of neutrality, but still in such a manner as sufficiently intimated she favoured the first title, or rather looked upon it as the best, notwithstanding the jealousies she had of her presumptive successor. This appeared by her confining John Hales, who wrote a book in defence of the Suffolk line, and by imprisoning one Thornton, upon the complaint of the queen of Scots, for writing against her title. The secretary kept himself clear of all this, and never gave the least intimation of his own sentiments, farther than that he wished the question of the succession might rest during the queen’s life, or till she, thought proper to determine it in a legal way.

Sir William early penetrated into the hostile feelings of II. of Spain; but he advised his mistress to keep ou her guard against that monarch; and yet not to break with him. With France he proposed ether measures; the protestants had there created very powerful internal dissentions, and England, he thought, might avail herself of that hostility with effect, while it opened a probability of success, and afforded an opportunity for our troops to gain experience, and our navy strength. His rival, Leicester, in vain misrepresented and censured the advice now given, for the purpose of destroying the queen’s confidence in him; and a plot laid by that subtle favourite for overthrowing him utterly failed, through her majesty’s penetration and spirit. The affair is thus related:

Some Spanish ships, having great treasure on board, put into the English ports to secure it from the French, and afterwards landed it, the queen’s officers assisting, and the Spanish ambassador solemnly affirming it was his master’s money, and that he was sending it into the Netherlands for the pay of his army. The secretary, in the mean time, received advice that this was not true, and that it was the money of some Genoese bankers, who were in the greatest terror lest the duke of Alva should convert the same to his master’s use, in order to carry on some great design, which the court of Spain kept as an impenetrable secret. Cecil therefore advised the queen to take the money herself, and give the Genoese security for it, by which she would greatly advantage her own affairs, distress the Spaniards, relieve the Netherlands, and wrong nobody. The queen took his advice, and when upon this the duke of Alva seized the effects of the English in the Netherlands, she made reprisals, and out of them immediately indemnified her own merchants. The Spanish ambassador at London behaved with great violence upon this occasion, giving secretary Cecil ill language at the council-table, and libelling the queen, by appealing to the people against their sovereign’s administration. This produced a great deal of disturbance, and Leicester and his party took care to have it published every where, that Cecil was the sole author of this counsel. While things were in this ferment, Leicester held a private consultation with the lords he had drawn to his interest, wherein he proposed that they should take this occasion of removing a man whom they unanimously bated. Some of the lords inquiring how this could be 4one? sir Nicholas Throgmorton answered, “Let him be charged with some matter or other in council when the queen is not present, commit him to the Tower thereupon, and when he is once in prison we shall find things enow against him.” It so happened, that about this time a flagrant libel being published against the nobility, lord Leicester caused Cecil to be charged before the council, either with being the author of it, or it’s patron; of which he offered no other proof than that it had been seen on Cecil’s table. This the secretary readily confessed, but insisted that he looked upon it in the same light they did, as a most scandalous invective; in support of which he produced his own copy with notes on the margin, affirming that he had caused a strict inquiry to be made after the author and publisher of the work. All this, however, would have been but of little use to him, if the queen had not had private notice of their design. While therefore the secretary was defending himself, she suddenly and unexpectedly entered the council-room, and having in few words expressed her dislike of such cabals, preserved her minister, and shewed even Leicester himself that he could not be overthrown. The affair of the duke of Norfolk’s ruin followed, not long after he had been embarked in the faction against Cecil; and therefore we find this minister sometimes charged, though very unjustly, with being the author of his misfortunes, a calumny from which he vindicated himself with candour, clearness, and vivacity, as equally abhorring the thoughts of revenge, and hazarding the public safety to facilitate his private advantage. Cecil, indeed, had no greater share in the duke’s misfortune, than was necessarily imposed upon him by his office of secretary, and which consequently it was not in his power to avoid; to which we may add, that the duke himself was in some measure accessary thereto, by acting under the delusive influence of his capital enemy as well as Cecil’s. The duke’s infatuated conduct, after having once received a pardon, rendered his practices too dangerous to be again forgiven. It cannot be doubted that this great nobleman was the tool of the views of the catholic party: and there is reason to believe that the previous design of ruining Cecil was to get rid of him before this plan was ripe, from a just fear of his penetration, and his power to defeat it. Cecil’s fidelity was followed by much, public and some severe private revenge. His sonin-law, lord Oxford, put his threat into execution of ruining his daughter, by forsaking her bed, and wasting the fortune of her posterity, if the duke’s life was not spared.

The queen was so sensible of the great importance of Cecil’s service on this occasion, that, however sparing of her honours, she raised him to the peerage by the title of Baron of Burleigh in February 1571, when he had not much to support his rank, for in a confidential letter written about this time, he calls himself “the poorest lord in England.” The queen’s favour did not in other respects add to his comfort, nor protect him from new attempts to destroy him. A conspiracy of the private kind was now formed against his life: and the two assassins, Barney and Matter, charged it, at their execution, on the Spanish ambassador, for which and other offences the ambassador was ordered to quit the kingdom. As a consolation, however, for these dangers, he was honoured with the order of the garter in June 1572; and in September following, on the death of the marquis of Winchester, was appointed lord high treasurer.

The weight of business that now lay upon him, and the variety of his duties, was such as it seems almost incredible that one man could discharge; yet he went through them all with the utmost strictness and punctuality. All his power, talents, industry, and fortitude, could not however at all times place him above anxiety and disgust at the intrigues, troubles, and dangers that surrounded him. He had even thoughts of a resignation, which the queen would not hear of. The popish and Spanish factions were his incessant enemies; and the favourite Leicester never slackened in his arts to lower and counteract him. His vigour however was not lessened; and the next great affair in which he was engaged required it all. The trial of the queen of Scots approached; and the lord treasurer is charged with having been a strong promoter of this measure. Of an affair which has engaged the pens and passions of so many able historians, it would be impossible in this place to discuss the merits. We shall only add in the words of an able authority, whom we have in various instances followed, that the measure was a tremendously strong one but there might be a state- necessity for it. Burleigh was not a man of blood Mary’s intrigues were incessant and her constant intercourse and machinations with a truly dangerous, powerful, and unappeasable faction, notorious. In March 1587, the lord treasurer lost his mother at a great age, with which he was much affected; and on April 4, 1589, he lost his beloved wife, daughter of sir Anthony Cook, whose death he mourned with the deepest regret*. He had but lately been delivered from the fatigue of drawing up schemes for the defence of the country against the threatened Spanish armada. Not long afterwards he again requested to resign, but the queen still refused to spare his services, and the remaining part of his life was spent in the unabated discharge of his high office. In 1592 he managed the concerns of a supply, which he furthered in the upper house by a speech of great knowledge and talent. In short, even at this late period of his age, almost all the important affairs of state were under his guidance, and ecclesiastical affairs, in particular, required much of his moderating wisdom. Besides the catholic party, he had to contend with some of the ablest of the puritans, who maintained a hostility of a different kind with the established church. Matters of finance, and the affairs of the admiralty, were all continually referred to him; and he let nothing pass him without due consideration. The maxim which aided him through these complicated concerns was this, that “the shortest way to do many things was only to do one thing at once.”

With regard to his domestic habits, he had during queen Elizabeth’s reign, four places of residence; his lodgings at court, his house in the Strand, his family seat at Burleigh, and his own favourite seat at Theobalds. At his house in London he had fourscore persons in family, exclusively of those who attended him at court. His expences there, as we have it from a person who lived many years in his family, were thirty pounds a week in his absence, and between forty and fifty when present. At Theobalds he had thirty persons in family; and besides a constant allowance in charity, he directed ten pounds a week to be laid out in keeping the poor at work in his gardens, &c. The expences of his stables were a thousand marks a year: so that as he had a great income, and left a good estate to his children, he was not afraid of keeping up also a style suited to his offices. He also kept a standing table for gentlemen, and two other tables for persons of meaner condition, which were always served alike, whether he were in town or out of town. About his person he had people of great distinction, and had twenty gentlemen retainers, who had each a thousand pounds a year; and as many among his ordinary servants, who were worth from lOOOl. to 3, 5, 10, and 20,000. Twelve times he entertained the queen at his house for several weeks together, at the expence of 2 or 3000l. each time. Three fine houses he built, one in London, another at Burleigh, and the third at Theobalds: all of which were less remarkable for their largeness and magnificence, than for their neatness and excellent contrivance. Yet with all this mighty expence, it was the opinion of competent judges, that an avaricious man would have made more of his offices in seven years, than he did in forty. At his death he left about 4000l. a year inland, ll,000l. in money, and in valuable effects about 14,000l.

He was considered as the best parent of his time, for he had all his children, and their descendants, constantly at his table; and in their conversation lay the greatest pleasure of his life, especially while his mother lived, who was able to see the fifth descent from herself, there being no degree of relation, or consanguinity, which at festival times were not to be found at lord Burleigh’s table. It was there that, laying aside all thoughts of business, he was so affable, easy, and merry, that he seemed never to have thought of any, and yet this was the only part of his life which was entirely free therefrom; and his frankness and familiarity brought so many persons of high rank to his house, as did him great credit and service. In respect to his friends, he was always easy, cheerful, and kind; and whatever their condition was, he talked to them, as if they had been his equals in every respect; yet it is said, that he was held a better enemy than friend; and that this was so well known, that some opposed him from a view of interest. It is certain, that those who were most intimate with him, had no sort of influence over him, and did not care to ask him for any thing; because he did not readily grant, and was little pleased with such sort of suits. One reason of this was, that most of those whom he preferred became his enemies, because he would not gratify them in farther pretensions. His secrets he trusted with none, indulged a general conversation, and would not suffer affairs of state to be canvassed in mixed company, or when friends were met to divert themselves. With respect to his enemies, he never said any thing harsh of them, farthered on every occasion their reasonable requests, and was so far from seeking, that he neglected all opportunities of revenge; always professing, that he never went to bed out of charity with any man; and frequently saying, that patience, and a calm bearing of aspersions and injuries, had wrought him more good than his own abilities. He was far, however, from being an ungrateful man, for without intreaty he would serve his friends as far as it was just; and for his servants, and those about him, he was very careful of their welfare, mostly at his own expence. He never raised his own rents, or displaced his tenants; and as the rent was when he bought land, so it stood; insomuch, that some enjoyed, for twenty pounds a year, during his whole life, what might have been let for two hundred: yet in his public character he was very severe; and as he never meddled with the queen’s treasure himself, so he would see that it was not embezzled by others; for it was his saying, that whoever cheated the crown oppressed the people. In the midst of all his grandeur he was ever easy of access, free from pride, and alike complaisant to all degrees of people: for as he was grave in council, exact in courts of justice, familiar towards his friends, outwardly and inwardly fond of his children, so when he went into the country he would converse with all his servants as kindly as if he had been their equal; talk to country people in their own style and manner, and would even condescend to sooth little children in their sports and plays so gentle was his temper, and so abundant his good-nature. At Theobalds he had fine gardens, which cost him a great deal of money, and which were laid out according to his own directions. He had a little mule, upon which he rode up and down the walks; sometimes he would look on those who were shooting with arrows, or playing with bowls; but as for himself, he never took any diversion, taking that word in its usual sense. He had two or three friends, who were constantly at his table, because he liked their company; but in all his life he never had one favourite, or suffered any body to get an ascendant over him. His equipage, his great house-keeping, his numerous dependents, were the effects of his sense, and not at all of his passions, for he delighted little iri any of them; and whenever he had any time to spare, he fled, as his expression was, to Theobalds, and buried himself in privacy.

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

Besides these lesser failings of this great man, he has been accused of illiberality to the poet Spenser, which perhaps may be attributed to his dislike of Leicester, under whose patronage Spenser had come forward, but perhaps more to his want of relish for poetry. On the other hand, our historians are generally agreed in their praises of his high character. Smollett only has endeavoured to lessen it, but as this is coupled with a disregard for historical truth, the attempt is entitled to little regard, and the advocates for Mary queen of Scots cannot be supposed to forgive the share he had in her fate. Lord Orford has given lord Burleigh a place among his “Royal and Noble Authors,” but at the same time justly observes, that he is one of those great names, better known in the annals of his country than in those of the republic of letters. Besides lord Burleigh’s answer to a Latin libel published abroad, which he entitled “Slanders and Lies,” and “A Meditation of the State of England, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth,” lord Orford mentions “La Complainte de PAme pecheresse,” in French verse, extant in the king’s library; “Car mina duo Latina in Obitum Margaretae Nevillee, Reginoe Catherine a Cubiculis;” “Carmen Latinum in Memoriain Tho. Challoneri Equitis aurati, prsefixum ejusdem Libro de restaurata Republica;” “A Preface to Queen Catherine Parr’s Lamentation of a Sinner.” When sir William Cecil accompanied the duke of Somerset on his expedition to Scotland, he furnished materials for an account of that war, which was published by William Patten, under the title of “Diarium Expeditions Scoticae,” London, 1541, 12mo. This is supposed to be the reason why lord Burleigh is reckoned by Holinshed among the English historians. “The first paper or memorial of sir William Cecil \ anno primo Eliz.” This, which is only a paper of memorandums, is printed in Somers’s tracts, from a manuscript in the Cotton library. “A Speech in Parliament, 1592.” This was first published by Strype in his Annals, and has since been inserted in the Parliamentary History. “Lord Burleigh’s Precepts, or directions for the well-ordering and carriage of a man’s life,” 1637. “A Meditation on the Death of his Lady.” Mr. Ballard, in his Memoirs of British Ladies, has printed this Meditation from an original formerly in the possession of James West, esq. but now in the British Museum. Lord Burleigh was supposed to be the author of a thin pamphlet, in defence of the punishments inflicted on the Roman catholics in the reign of queen Elizabeth: it is called “The Execution of Justice in England, for maintenance of public and Christian peace, against certain stirrers of sedition, and adherents to the traitors and enemies of the realm, without any persecution of them for questions of religion, as it is falsely reported, &c.” London, 1583, second edition. Other political pieces were ascribed to him, and even the celebrated libel, entitled “Leicester’s Commonwealth,” It was asserted, that the hints, at least, were furnished by him for that composition. But no proof has been given of this assertion, and it was not founded on any degree of probability. His lordship drew up also a number of pedigrees, some of which are preserved in the archbishop of Canterbury’s library at Lambeth. These contain the genealogies of the kings of England, from William the Conqueror to Edward the Fourth; of queen Anne Boleyn; and of several princely houses in Germany.

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a late clergyman of the church of England, was born in Chiswell-street, London, on -Nov. 8, 1743. His father and grandfather were scarlet-dyers to the East India company. His mother was the only child of Mr. Grosvenor, a merchant of London, and was a strict dissenter, but his father belonged to the established church. In his early years his father intended him for business, but the son had a stronger predilection for general literature; and the success of some juvenile attempts, inserted in the periodical journals, with a taste for music and painting, diverted him still more from trade. At length his father determined to give him an university education, and, by the advice of Dr. Phanuel Bacon, an old acquaintance, sent him to Oxford, where he entered of Queen’s college, May 19, 1773. Before this he had fallen into a course of reading which dispelled the religious education of his infancy, and had made him almost a confirmed infidel. Previously, however, to going to the university, he had recovered from this infatuation, and became noted for that pious conduct and principles which he maintained through life. With his studies he combined his former attachment to the fine arts, particularly music and painting, and might be deemed a connoisseur in both, and upon most subjects of polite literature manifested a critical taste and relish for the productions of genius and imagination, of both which he had himself no small portion. In 1776 he was ordained deacon, and in 1777 priest, having only taken his bachelor’s degree, after which he withdrew his name from the college books, and exercised his talents as a preacher in some churches in Lancashire. Soon after, by the interest of some friends, two small livings were obtained for him at Lewes in Sussex, together in value only about 80l. a year. These he did not long enjoy, a rheumatic affection in his head obliging him to employ a curate, the expence of which required the whole of the income, but he continued to hold them for some years, and occasionally preached at Lewes. Removing to London, he officiated in different churches and chapels, particularly the chapel in Orangestreet and thai in Long-acre, &c. In 1780 he was invited to undertake the duty of the chapel of St. John’s, in Bedford-row, and by the assistance of some friends who advanced considerable sums of money, was enabled to repair it, and collected a most numerous and respectable congregation. But for many years he derived little emolument I from it, as he devoted the produce of the pews most conscientiously to the discharge of the debts incurred. Even in 1798, a debt of 500l. remained on it, which his friends and hearers, struck with his honourable conduct, generously defrayed by a subscription. In this year appeared that complaint, of the schirrous kind, which more or less afflicted him with excruciating pain during the remainder of his life, and frequently interrupted his public labours, but which he bore with incredible patience and constancy. In 1800 he was presented by the trustees of John Tiiornton, esq. to the livings of Chobham and Bisley in Surrey, by which 150l. was added to his income, the remainder of their produce being required to provide a substitute at St. John’s chapel, and defraying the necessary travelling expences. In these parishes, notwithstanding the precarious state of his health, he pursued his ministerial labours with unabated assiduity, and conciliated the affections of his people by his affectionate addresses, as well as by an accommodation in the matter of tithes, which prevented all disputes. In 1807 and 1808 two paralytic attacks undermined his constitution, and at length terminated in a fit of apoplexy, which proved fatal August 15, 1810. Few men have left a character more estimable in every quality that regards personal merit, or public services, but for the detail of these we must refer to the “Memoirs” prefixed to an edition of his Works, in 4 vols. 8vo, published in 1811 for the benefit of his family. Such was the regard in which he was held, that the whole of this edition of 1250 copies, was subscribed for by his friends and congregation. The first volume contains his “Life of Mr. Cadogan,” printed separately in 1798; that of “John Bacon, esq. the celebrated sculptor,” in 1801; and that of the “Rev. John Newton” in 1808. Vol. II. contains his “Miscellanies,” practical tracts published in the course of his life vol. Ill; his “Sermons,” and vol. IV. his “Remains,” consisting of remarks made by Mr. Cecil in conversation with the editor (the rev. Josiah Pratt, B. D.) or in discussions when he was present, with an appendix communicated by some friends.

Her attachment to the theatre was so great, that she not only distinguished herself as a writer for it, but also became a performer on it; though she probably did not attain to any great merit as an actress, as she seems never to have played at the theatres of the metropolis. But in 1706, we are told, she performed the part of Alexander the Great, in Lee’s Rival Queens, at Windsor, where the court then was; and in this heroic character, she made so powerful an impression upon the heart of Mr. Joseph Centlivre, yeoman of the mouth, or principal cook to queen Anne, that he soon after married her, and with him she lived happily till her death.

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

, a gallant soldier, an able statesman, and a very learned writer in the sixteenth century, was descended from a good family in Wales, and born at London about 1515. His quick parts discovered themselves even in his infancy; so that his family, to promote that passionate desire of knowledge for whidh he was so early distinguished, sent him to the university of Cambridge, where he remained some years, and obtained great credit, as well by the pregnancy of his wit as his constant and diligent application, but especially by his happy turn for Latin poetry, in which he exceeded most of his contemporaries. Upon his removing from college he came up to court, and being there recommended to the esteem and friendship of the greatest men about it, he was soon sent abroad into Germany with sir Henry Knevet, as the custom was in the reign of Henry VIII. when young men of great hopes were frequently employed in the service of ambassadors, that they might at once improve and polish themselves by travel, and gain some experience in business. He was so well received at the court of the emperor Charles V. and so highly pleased with the noble and generous spirit of that great monarch, that he attended him in his journies, and in his wars, particularly in that fatal expedition against Algiers, which cost the lives of so many brave men, and was very near cutting short the thread of Mr. Chaloner’s; for in the great tempest by which the emperor’s fleet was shattered on the coast of Barbary in 1541, the vessel, on board of which he was, suffered shipwreck, and Mr. Chaloner having quite wearied and exhausted himself by swimming in the dark, at length beat his head against a cable, of which laying hold with his teeth, he was providentially drawn up into the ship to which it belonged. He returned soon after into England, and as a reward of his learning and services, was promoted to the office of first clerk of the council, which he held during the remainder of that reign. In the beginning of the next he came into great favour with the duke of Somerset, whom he attended into Scotland, and was in the battle of Mussleburgh, where he distinguished himself so remarkably in the presence of the duke, that he conferred upon him the honour of knighthood Sept. 28, 1547, and after his return to court, the duchess of Somerset presented him with a rich jewel. The first cloud that darkened his patron’s fortune, proved fatal to sir Thomas Chaloner’s pretensions; for being a man of a warm and open temper, and conceiving the obligation he was under to the duke as a tie that hindered his making court to his adversary, a stop was put to his preferment, and a vigilant eye kept upon his actions. But his loyalty to his prince, and his exact discharge of his duty, secured him from any farther danger, so that he had leisure to apply himself to his studies, and to cultivate his acquaintance with the worthiest men of that court, particularly sir John Cheke, sir Anthony Coke, sir Thomas Smith, and especially sir William Cecil, with whom he always lived in the strictest intimacy. Under the reign of queen Mary he passed his time, though safely, yet very unpleasantly; for being a zealous protestant, he could not practise any part of that complaisance which procured some of his friends an easier life. He interested himself deeply in the affair of sir John Cheke, and did him all the service he was able, both before and after his confinement. This had like to have brought sir Thomas himself into trouble, if the civilities he had shewn in king Edward’s reign, to some of those who had the greatest power under queen Mary, had not moved them, from a principle of gratitude, to protect him. Indeed, it appears from his writings, that as he was not only sincere, but happy in his friendships, and as he was never wanting to his friends when he had power, he never felt the want of them when he had it not, and, which he esteemed the greatest blessing of his life, he lived to return those kindnesses to some who had been useful to him in that dangerous season. Upon the accession of Elizabeth, he appeared at court with his former lustre; and it must afford us a very high opinion of his character as well as his capacity, that he was the first ambassador named by that wise princess, and that also to the first prince in Europe, Ferdinand I. emperor of Germany. In this negociation, which was of equal importance and delicacy, he acquitted himself with great reputation, securing the confidence of the emperor and his ministers, and preventing the popish powers from associating against Elizabeth, before she was well settled on the throne, all which she very gratefully acknowledged. After his return from this embassy, he was very soon thought of for another, which was that of Spain; and though it is certain the queen could not give a stronger proof than this of her confidence in his abilities, yet he was very far from thinking that it was any mark of her kindness, more especially considering the terms upon which she then stood with king Philip, and the usage his predecessor, Chamberlain, had met with at that court. But he knew the queen would be obeyed, and therefore undertook the business with the best grace he could, and embarked for Spain in 1561. On his first arrival he met with some of the treatment which he dreaded. This was the searching of all his trunks and cabinets, of which he complained loudly, as equally injurious to himself as a gentleman, and to his character as a public minister. His complaints, however, were fruitless; for at that time there is great probability that his Catholic majesty was not over desirous of having an English minister, and more especially one of sir Thomas’s disposition, at his court, and therefore gave him no satisfaction. Upon this sir Thomas Chaloner wrote home, set out the affront that he had received in the strongest terms possible, and was very earnest to be re-called; but the queen his mistress contented herself with letting him know, that it was the duty of every person who bore a public character, to bear with patience what happened to them, provided no personal indignity was offered to the prince from whom they came. Yet, notwithstanding this seeming indifference on her part, the searching sir Thomas Chaloner’s trunks was, many years afterwards, put into that public charge which the queen exhibited against his Catholic majesty, of injuries done to her before she intermeddled with the affairs of the Low Countries. Sir Thomas, however, kept up his spirit, and shewed the Spanish ministers, and even that haughty monarch himself, that the queen could not have entrusted her affairs in better hands than his. There were some persons of very good families in England, who, for the sake of their religion, and no doubt out of regard to the interest to which they had devoted themselves, desired to have leave from queen Elizabeth to reside in the Low Countries or elsewhere, and king Philip and his ministers made it a point to support their suit. Upon this, when a conference was held with sir Thomas Chaloner, he answered very roundly, that the thing in itself was of very little importance, since it was no great matter where the persons who made this request spent the remainder of their days; but that considering the rank and condition of the princes interested in this business, it was neither fit for the one to ask, nor for the other to grant; and it appeared that he spoke the sense of his court, for queen Elizabeth would never listen to the proposal. In other respects he was not unacceptable to the principal persons of the Spanish court, who could not help admiring his talents as a minister, his bravery as a soldier, with which in former times they were well acquainted, his general learning and admirable skill in Latin poetry, of which he gave them many proofs during his stay in their country. It was here, at a time when, as himself says in the preface, he spent the winter in a stove, and the summer in a barn, that he composed his great work of “The right ordering of the English republic.” But though this employment might in some measure alleviate his chagrin, yet he fell into a very grievous fit of sickness, which brought him so low that his physicians despaired of his life. In this condition he addressed his sovereign in an elegy after the manner of Ovid, setting forth his earnest desire to quit Spain and return to his native country, before care and sickness forced him upon a longer journey. The queen granted his petition, and having named Dr. Man his successor in his negociation, at length gave him leave to return home from an embassy, in which he had so long sacrificed his private quiet to the public conveniency. He accordingly returned to London in the latter end of 1564, and published the first five books of his large work before-mentioned, which he dedicated to his good friend sir William Cecil; but the remaining five books were probably not published. in his life-time. He resided in a fair large house of his own building in Clerkenwell-close, over-against the decayed nunnery; and Weever has preserved from oblivion an elegant fancy of his, which was penciled on the frontispiece of his dwelling. He died Oct. 7, 1565, and was buried in the cathedral church of St. Paul with great funeral solemnity, sir William Cecil, then principal secretary of state, assisting as chief mourner, who also honoured his memory with some Latin verses, in which he observes, that the most lively imagination, the most solid judgment, the quickest parts, and the most unblemished probity, which are commonly the lot of different men, and when so dispersed frequently create great characters, were, which very rarely happens, all united in sir Thomas Chaloner, justly therefore reputed one of the greatest men of his time. He also encouraged Dr. William Malim, formerly fellow of King’s college in Cambridge, and then master of St. Paul’s school, to collect and publish a correct edition of our author’s poetical works; which he accordingly did, and addressed it in an epistle from St. Paul’s school, dated August 1, 1579, to lord Burleigh. Sir Thomas Chaloner married Ethelreda, daughter of Edward Frodsham of EJton, in the county palatine of Chester, esq. by whom he had issue his only son Thomas, the subject of the next article. This lady, not long after sir Thomas’s decease, married sir * * * Brockett, notwithstanding which the lord Burleigh continued his kindness to her, out of respect to that friendship which he had for her first husband. Sir Thomas’s epitaph was written by one of the best Latin poets of that age, Dr. Walter Haddon, master of requests to queen Elizabeth.

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

, an eminent man-midwife, was grandson to Dr. Peter Chamberlen, who, with his fathers and uncles, were physicians to the kings James I. Charles I. and II. James II. William, and queen Anne. He was born in 1664, and educated at Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree in 1683, and that of M. D. in 1690. He has a Latin poem in the “Hymenæus Cantabrigiensis,” on the marriage of prince George of Denmark with the princess Anne, 1683. He, his father, and brothers, invented among them an obstetric forceps, with which they were enabled to deliver women with safety in cases where, before this discovery, the child was usually lost. In 1672 he went to Paris, but happening to be unsuccessful in a case there, he thought it adviseable to remove to Holland, where he is said to have succeeded better. Here he imparted his secret to two eminent practitioners, and received a considerable reward. On his return to London he had great practice, and realized a handsome fortune. In 1683 he published his translation of “Mauriceau’s Midwifery,” a work in great request, and republished as late as 1755. Mauriceau mentions him often in some of his works, but always with the littleness of jealousy. Chamberlen’s forceps, improved by Smellie and some other practitioners, continues in use, and gives the inventor an honourable rank among the improvers of art. In 1723 we find him attending bishop Atterbury in the Tower, in lieu of Dr. Freind, who was himself a prisoner. He died at his house in Covent-garden, June 17, 1728; and a very fine marble monument was erected to his memory in Westminster-abbey at the expence of Edmund, duke of Buckingham. The long Latin epitaph, the production of bishop Atterbury, records, besides his skill, his benevolence, liberality, and many other amiable personal characteristics. Dr. Chamberlen was thrice married; and his widow, the daughter of sir Willoughby Aston, bart. was afterwards married to sir Thomas Crew, of Utkinton, in Cheshire, knight, who also left her a widow, but she died suddenly, April 6, 1734, and that year Dr. Chamberlen’s library was sold by Fletcher Gyles.

, a Scotch historian, priest, and lawyer, was born in the shire of Ross about the year 1530, and educated in the university of Aberdeen. From thence he went to France and Italy, and continued some time, particularly at Bologna, where in 1556 he was a pupil of Marianus Sozenus. After his return to Scotland he was appointed by queen Mary, parson of Suddy, and chancellor of Ross. He was soon after employed in digesting the laws of Scotland, and was principally concerned in publishing the acts of parliament of that kingdom by authority in 1566, which, from the type, were commonly called the “Black Acts.” Not long after this he was appointed one of the lords of session, by the title of lord Ormond, and continued attached to the queen until the decline of her power, when he and her other adherents were obliged to go abroad. He then went into Spain, and to France, in both which countries he was kindly received by their respective sovereigns, Philip and Charles IX. to which last in 1572 he presented his “Abridgment of the History of Scotland, France, and Ireland.” He died at Paris in 1552, much regretted by all who knew him. His works, which were published in one vol. 8vo, Paris, 1579, and which relate to the succession to the crown, the right of Mary to that of England, &c. consist of, 1. “Histoire abrege de tous les Roys c'e France, Angleterre, et Escosse.” 2. “La recherche des singularitez plus remarkables concernant le estat d'Ecosse.” 3. “Discours de la legitime succession des femmes aux possessions de leurs parens, et du government des princesses aux empires et royaumes.” Machenzie gives a full analysis of all these, but bishop Nicolson has not so high an opinion of the soundness of the author’s principles. Dempster and others highly extol his learning and character.

, a celebrated painter, was born at Brussels in 1602. He discovered an inclination to painting from his youth; and owed but little to masters for the perfection he attained in it, excepting that he learned landscape from Fouquiere. In all other branches of his art nature was his master, and he is said to have followed her very faithfully. At nineteen years of age he set off for Italy, taking France in his way; but he proceeded, as it happened, no farther than Paris, and lodged in the college pf Laon, where Poussin also dwelt; and these two painters became very good friends. Du Chesne, painter to queen Mary of Medicis, was employed about the paintings in the palace of Luxembourg, and set Poussin and Champagne at work under him. Poussin did a few small pieces in the cieling, and Champagne drew some small pictures in the queen’s apartment. Her majesty liked them so well, that du Chesne grew jealous, of him; upon which Champagne, who loved peace, returned to Brussels, with an intent to go through Germany into Italy. He was scarcely got there, when a letter came to him from the abbot of St. Ambrose, who was surveyor of the buildings, to advertise him of du Chesne’s death, and to invite him back to France. He accordingly returned thither, and was presently made director of the queen’s paintings, who settled on him a yearly pension of 1200 livres, and allowed him lodgings in the palace of Luxembourg. Being a lover of his business, he went through a great deal of it. There are a vast number of his pieces at Paris, and other parts of the kingdom: and among other places, some of his pictures are to be seen in the chapter-house of Notre-dame at Paris, and in several churches in that city; without reckoning an infinity of portraits, which are noted for their likeness, as well as for being finished to a very high degree. The queen also ordered him to paint the vault of the Carmelites, church in the suburbs of St. James, where his crucifix is much esteemed: but the best of his works is thought to be his cieling in the king’s apartment at Vincennes, composed on the subject of the peace in 1659. After this hi. 1 was made rector of the royal academy of painting, which office he exercised many years.

He had been a long while famous in his profession, when le Brun arrived at Paris from Italy; and, though le Brun was soon at the head of the art, and made principal painter to the king, he shewed no disgust at the preference that was given to his detriment and loss. There is another instance upon record of Champagne’s goodness of disposition and integrity. Cardinal Richelieu had offered to make his fortune, if he would quit the queen-mother’s service; but Champagne refused. The cardinal’s chief valet-de-chambre assured him farther, that whatever he would ask, his eminency would grant him to which Champagne replied, “if the cardinal could make me a better painter, the only thing I am ambitious of, it would be something but since that was impossible, the only honour he begged of his eminency was the continuance of his good graces.” It is said, the cardinal was highly affected with the integrity of the painter; who, though he refused to enter into his service, did not however refuse to work for him. Among other things he drew his picture, and it is supposed to be one of the best pieces he ever painted. Sir Robert Strange had his portrait of Colbert, which he thought claimed a rank with the finest of Vandyke’s.

Chapelain died at Paris, Feb. 22, 1674, aged seventynine. He was of the king’s counsellors; very rich, and had some amiable qualities, but was covetous. “Pelisson and I,” says Menage, “had been at variance a long time with Chapelain; but, in a fit of humility, he called upon me and insisted that we should go and offer a reconciliation to him, for that it was his intention,” as much as possible, to live in peace with all men.“We went, and I protest I saw the very same billets of wood in the chimney which I had observed there twelve years before. He had 50,Ooo crowns in ready cash by him; and his supreme delight was to have his strong box opened and the bags taken out, that he might contemplate his treasure. In this manner were his bags about him when he died; which gave occasion to a certain academician to say,” there is our friend Chapelain just dead, like a miller among his bags.“He had no occasion therefore to accept of cardinal Richelieu’s offer. Being at the height of his reputation, Richelieu, who was fond of being thought a wit as well as a statesman, and was going to publish something which he would have pass for an excellent performance, could not devise a better expedient than prefixing Chapelain’s name to it.” Chapelain,“says he,” lend me your name on this occasion, and I will lend you my purse on any other.“The learned Huet endeavoured to vindicate his great poem, but could not succeed against the repeated attacks of Boileau, Racine, and Fontaine. Chapelain, however, was a man of learning, and a good critic, and he has found an able defender in the abbe cT Olivet, in his History of the French Academy, It was at the desire of Malherbe and Vaugelas that Chapelain wrote the famous preface to the” Adone“of Marino; and it was he who corrected the very first poetical composition of Racine, his” Ode to the Queen," who introduced Racine to Colbert, and procured him a pension, for which Racine repaid him by joining the wits in decrying his poem.

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

She then applied to the stage, apparently from inclination as well as necessity; and opened with the little part of Mademoiselle in the “Provoked Wife,” in which she met with all the success she could expect. From this she rose in her second and third attempts to the capital characters of Alicia in “Jane Shore,” and Andromache in the “Distressed Mother;” in which, notwithstanding the remembrance of Mrs. Porter and Mrs. Oldfield, she met with great indulgence from the audience; and being remarkable for reading well, was suffered upon sudden emergencies to read characters of no less importance than those of Cleopatra and queen Elizabeth. She was after this engaged at a good salary and sufficient supply of very considerable parts, at the Haymarket, and after that at Drury-lane. She now seemed well settled, and likely to have made no inglorious figure in theatrical life; but that ungovernable impetuosity of passions, which ran through all her actions, induced her to quarrel with Fleetwood, the then manager; whom she not only left on a sudden without any notice given, but even vented her spleen against him in public, by a little dramatic farce, called “The Art of Management;” and though Fleetwood forgave that injury, and restored her to her former station, yet she acknowledges that she afterwards very ungratefully left him a second time, without any blame on his part.

, was born at Paris in 1541. Though his parents were in narrow circumstances, yet discovering their son’s capacity, they were particularly attentive to his education. After making a considerable proficiency in grammar-learning, he applied to logic, metaphysics, moral and natural philosophy, and afterwards studied civil and common law at the universities of Orleans and Bourges, and commenced doctor in that faculty. Upon his return to Paris, he was admitted an advocate in the court of parliament. He always declared the bar to be the best and most improving school in the world; and accordingly attended at all the public hearings for five or six years: but foreseeing that preferment in this way, if ever attained at all, was like to come very slow, as he had neither private interest, nor relations among the solicitors and proctors of the court, he gave over that employment, and closely applied to the study of divinity. By his superior pulpit eloquence, he soon came into high reputation with the greatest and most learned men of his time, insomuch that the bishops seemed to strive which of them should get him into his diocese; making him an offer of being theological canon or divinity lecturer in their churches, and of other dignities and benefices, besides giving him noble presents. He was successively theologal of Bazas, Aqcs, Lethoure, Agen, Cahors, and Condom, canon and schoolmaster in the church of Bourdeaux, and chanter in the church of Condom. Queen Margaret, duchess of Bulois, entertained him for her preacher in ordinary; and the king, though at that time a protestant, frequently did him the honour to be one of his audience. He was also retained by the cardinal d'Armagnac, the pope’s legate at Avignon, who had a great value for him; yet amidst all these promotions, he never took any degree or title in divinity, but satisfied himself with deserving and being capable of the highest. After about eighteen years absence from Paris, he resolved to end his days there; and being a lover of retirement, vowed to become a Carthusian. On his arrival at Paris, he communicated his intention to the prior of the order, but was rejected, notwithstanding his most pressing entreaties. They told him that he could not be received on account of his age, then about forty-eight, and that the order required all the vigour of youth to support its austerities. He next addressed himself to the Celestines at Paris, but with the same success, and for the same reasons: in this embarrassment, he was assured by three learned casuists, that as he was no ways accessary to the non -performance of his vow, it was no longer binding; and that he might, with a very safe conscience, continue in the world as a secular. He preached, however, a course of Lent sermons at Angers in 1589. Going afterwards to Bourdeaux, he contracted a very intimate friendship with Michael de Montagne, author of the well known Essays, from whom he received all possible testimonies of regard; for, among other things, Montagne ordered by his last will, that in case he should leave no issue-male of his own, M. Charron should, after his decease, be entitled to bear the coat of arms plain, as they belonged to his noble family, and Charron, in return, made Montagne’s brotherin-law his residuary legatee. He staid at Bourdeaux from 1589 to 1593; and in that interval composed his book, entitled, “Les Trois Verge’s,” which he published in 1594. These three truths are the following 1. That there is a God and a true religion 2. That of all religions the Christian is the only true one 3. That of all the Christian communions the Roman catholic is the only true church. This work procured him the acquaintance of M. de Sulpice, Bishop and count of Cahors, who sent for him and offered him the places of his vicar-general and canon theological in his church, which he accepted. He was deputed to the general assembly of the clergy in 1595, and was chosen first secretary to the assembly. In 1599 he returned to Cahors; and in that and the following year composed eight discourses upon the sacrament of the Lord’s supper; and. others upon the knowledge and providence of God, the redemption of the world, the communion of saints, and likewise his “books of Wisdom.” Whilst he was thus employed, the bishop of Condom, to draw him into his diocese, presented him with the chaptership in his church; and the theologal chair falling vacant about the same time, made him an offer of that too, which -Charron accepted, and resolved to settle there. In 1601 he printed at Bourdeaux his books “of Wisdom,” which gave him a great reputation, and made his character generally known. October 1603, he made a journey to Paris, to thank the Bishop of Boulogne; who, in order to have him near himself, had oifered him the place of theologal canon. This he was disposed to accept of; but the moisture and coldness of the air at Boulogne, and its nearness to the sea, not only made it, he said to a friend, a melancholy and unpleasant place, but very unwholesome too; adding, that the sun was his visible god, as God was his invisible sun. At Paris he began a new edition of his books “of Wisdom,” of which he lived to see but three or four sheets printed, dying Nov. 16, 1603, of an apoplexy. The impression of the new edition of his book “of Wisdom,” with alterations by the author, occasioned by the offence taken at some passages in the former, was completed in 1604, by the care of a friend; but as the Bourdeaux edition contained some things that were either suppressed or softened in the subsequent one, it was much sought after by the curious. Hence the booksellers of several cities reprinted the book after that edition; and this induced a Paris bookseller to print an edition, to which he subjoined all the passages of the first edition which had been struck out or corrected, and all those which the president Jeannin, who was employed by the chancellor to examine the book, judged necessary to be changed. This edition appeared in 1707. There have been two translations of it into English, the last by George Stanhope, D. D. printed in 1697. Dr. Stanhope says, that M. Charron “was a person that feared God, led a pious and good life, was charitably disposed, a person of wisdom and conduct, serious and considerate; a great philosopher, an eloquent orator, a famous and powerful preacher, richly furnished and adorned with the most excellent virtues and graces both moral and divine; such as made him very remarkable and singular, and deservedly gave him the character of a good man and a good Christian; such as preserve a great honour and esteem for his memory among persons of worth and virtue, and will continue to do so as long as the world shall last.” From this high praise considerable deductions may surely be made. Charron’s fame has scarcely outlived his century; his book on “Wisdom” certainly abounds in ingenious and original observations on moral topics, but gives a gloomy picture of human nature and society. Neither is it free from sentiments very hostile to revealed religion, but so artfully disguised as to impose on so orthodox a divine as dean Stanhope.

, whose name we find sometimes spelt Chamney, Chancy, and Channy, was a monk of the Charter-house, London, and with many others of the same order, was imprisoned in the reign of Henry VIII. for refusing to own his supremacy. When the monastery was dissolved, and several of his brethren executed in 1535, Chauncy and a few others contrived to remain unmolested partly in England and partly in Flanders, until the accession of queen Mary, when they were replaced at Shene near Richmond, a monastery formerly belonging to the Carthusians. On the queen’s death, they were permitted to go to Flanders, under Chauncy, who was now their prior. The unsettled state of the reformation there obliged them to remove from Bruges to Doway, and from Doway to Louvain, where they remained until a house was prepared for them at Nieuport, and there at length they obtained a settlement under the crown of Spam, Chauncy, however, died at Bruges July 15, 1581, highly respected by those of his own order. Of his works one only is worth mentioning, entitled “Historia aliquot nostri saeculi Martyrum, cum pia, turn lectu jucunda, nuuqua.ni antehac typis excusa,” printed at Mentz, 1550, 4to, with eurious copper-plates. This work, which is very rare, contains the epitaph of sir Thomas More, written by himself; the captivity and martyrdom of Fibber, bishop of Rochester; and the same of sir Thomas More; and of other eminent persons, who were executed in Henry VIII.'s reign. Wood mentions a second edition at Cologne in 1608, which we think we have seen.

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

Mr. Cheke being at Cambridge at the commencement in 1552, disputed there against Jesus Christ’s local descent into hell. On the 25th of August, the same year, he was made chamberlain of the exchequer for life; and in 1553 constituted clerk of the council; and, soon after, one of the secretaries of state, and a privy-counsellor. In May the same year, the king granted to him, and hb heirs male, the honour of Clare in 'Suffolk, with divers other lands, to the yearly value of one hundred pounds. His zeal for the protestant religion induced him to approve of the settlement of the crown upon the lady Jane Grey; and he acted, but for a very short time, as secretary to her and hercouncil after king Edward’s decease, for which, upon queen Mary’s accession to the throne, he was committed to the Tower, and an indictment drawn up against him, the 12th or 13th of August. The year following, after he was almost stripped of his whole substance, he obtained the queen’s pardon, and was set at liberty September 3, 1554. But not being able to reconcile himself to popery, and foreseeing the days of persecution, having obtained a licence from the queen to travel for some time into foreign parts, he went first to Basil, where he staid some time; and thence passed into Italy. At Padua he met with some of his countrymen, whom he directed in their studies, and read and explained to them some Greek orations of Demosthenes. Upon his return from Italy he settled at Strasburgh, where the English service was kept up, and many of his pious and learned friends resided. But this having offended the popish zealots in England, his whole estate was confiscated to the queen’s use, under pretence that he did notcome home at the expiration of his travel. Being now reduced in circumstances, he was forced to read a Greek lecture at Strasburgh for his subsistence.

In the beginning of the year 1556, his wife being come to Brussels, he resolved, chiefly upon a treacherous invitation he received from the lord Paget and sir John Mason, to go thither. But first he consulted astrology, in which he was very credulous, to know whether he might safely undertake that journey; and being deceived by that delusive art, he fell into a fatal snare between Brussels and Antwerp. For, by order of king Philip II. being way- laid there by the provost-marshal, he was suddenly seized on the 15th of May, unhorsed, blindfolded, bound, and thrown into a waggon; conveyed to the nearest harbour, put on board a ship under hatches, and brought to the Tower of London, where he was committed close prisoner. He soon -found that this was on account of his religion; for two of the queen’s chaplains were sent to the Tower to endeavour to reconcile him to the church of Rome, though without success. But the desire of gaining so great a man, induced the queen to send to him Dr. Feckenham, dean of St. Paul’s, a man of a moderate temper, and with whom he had been acquainted in the late reign. This man’s arguments being inforced by the dreadful alternative, “either comply, or burn,” sir John’s frailty was not able to withstand them. He was, therefore, at his own desire, carried before cardinal Pole, who gravely advised him to return to the unity of the church: and in this dilemma of fear and perplexity, he endeavoured to escape by drawing up a paper, consisting of quotations out of the fathers that seemed to countenance transubstantiation, representing them as his own opinion, and hoping that would suffice to procure him his liberty, without any other public declarations of his change. This paper he sent to cardinal Pole, with a letter dated July 15, in which he desired him to spare him from making an open recantation but that being refused, he wrote a letter to the queen the same day, in which he declared his readiness to obey her laws, and other orders of religion. After this, he made his solemn submission before the cardinal, suing to be absolved, and received into the bosom of the Roman catholic church; which was granted him as a great favour. But still he was forced to make a public recantation before the queen, on the 4th of October, and another long one before the whole court; and submitted to whatever penances should be enjoined him by the pope’s legate, i. e. the cardinal. After all these mortifications, his lands were restored to him, but upon condition of an exchange with the queen for others*. The papists, by way of triumph over him and the protestants, obliged him to keep company generally with catholics, and even to be present at the examinations and convictions of those they called heretics. But his remorse, and extreme vexation for what he had done, sat so heavy upon his mind, that pining away with shame and regret, he died September 13, 1557, aged forty-three, at his friend Mr. Peter Osborne’s house, in Wood-street, London, and was buried in St. Alban’s church there, in the north chapel of the choir, the 16th of September. A stone was set afterwards over his grave, with an inscriptionf. He left three sons; John and Edward, the two youngest, died without issue; Henry, the eldest, was secretary to the council in the north, and knighted by queen Elizabeth: he died about the year 1586. Thomas, his eldest son and heir, was knighted by

mentioned, the queen granted him, magister,

His works are: 1. A Latin translation of two of St. Chrysostom’s Homilies, never before published, “Contra observatores novilunii;” and “De dormientibus in Christo,” London, 1543, 4to. 2. A Latin translation of six homilies of the same father, “De Fato,” and “Providentia Dei,” Lond. 1547. 3. “The hurt of Sedition, how grievous it is to a commonwealth.” The running title is, “The true subject to the rebel*” It was published in 1549, on occasion of the insurrections in Devonshire and Norfolk; and besides being inserted in Holinshed’s Chronicle, under the year 1549, was reprinted in 1576, as a seasonable discourse upon apprehension of tumults from malcontents at home, or renegadoes abroad. Dr. Gerard Langbaine of Queen’s college, Oxon, caused it to be reprinted again about 1641, for the use and consideration of those who took arms against Charles I. in the time of the civil wars, and prefixed to it a short life of the author. 4. A Latin translation of the English “Communion-book;” done for the use of M. Bucer, and printed among Bucer’s “Opuscula Angiicana.” 5. “De obitu doctissimi et sanctissimi Theologi domini Martini Buceri, &c. Epistolae duse,” Lond. 1551, 4to, printed in Bucer’s “Scripta Angiicana.” He also wrote an epicedium on the death of that learned man. 6. “Carmen heroicum, or Epitaphium, in Antonium Deneium clarissimum virum,” Lond. 4to. This sir Anthony Denny was originally of St. John’s college in Cambridge, and a learned man: afterwards he became one of the gentlemen of the privy chamber, and groom of the stole to Henry VIII. and one of the executors of his will. 7. “De Pronuntiatione Graecse potissimum linguae disputationes,” &c. containing his dispute on this subject with Gardiner, Basil, 1555, 8vo. 8. “De superstitione ad regem Henricum.” This discourse on superstition was drawn up for king Henry’s use, in order to excite that prince to a thorough reformation of religion. It is written in very elegant Latin, and was prefixed by the author, as a dedicar tion to a Latin translation of his, of Plutarch’s book of Superstition. A copy of this discourse, in manuscript, is still preserved in the library of University college, Oxon, curiously written, and bound up in cloth* of silver, which makes it probable, that it was the veiy book that was presented to the king. An English translation of it, done by the learned W. Elstob, formerly fellow of that college, was published by Mr. Strype, at the end of his Life of sir John Cheke. 9. Several “Letters” of his are published in the Life just now mentioned, and eight in Harrington’s “Nugae antiquae,” and perhaps in other places. 10. A Latin translation of Archbishop Cranmer’s book on the Lord’s Supper, was also done by sir John Cheke, and printed in 1553. 11. He likewise translated “Leo de apparatu bellico,” Basil, 1554, 8 vo. Strype gives also a long catalogue of his unpublished writings, which are probably lost. Sir John Cheke, like some other learned men of his time, particularly Smith, Cecil, and Ascham, wrote a very fair and beautiful hand.

, grandson of the preceding Chemnitz, the reformer, was bora at Stettin May 9, 1605, and after completing his education, served in the army, first in Holland, and afterwards in Sweden, where his merit raised him from the rank of captain to that of counsellor of state, and historiographer of Sweden. Queen Christina also granted him letters of nobility, with the estate of Holstaedt in that country, where he died in 1678. He wrote, in six books, an account of the war carried on by the Swedes in Germany, which was published in 2 vols. folio, the first at Stettin in 1648, and the second at Holme in 1653; the whole in the German language: the second volume is most highly esteemed, owing to the assistance the author received from count Oxenstiern. The abbe Lenglet mentions a Latin edition, at least of the first volume, entitled “Beilum Germanicum ab ejus ortu anno 1612, ad mortem Gustavi Adolphi anno 1632.” Chemnitz is also said to be the author of “De ratione Status Imperii Romano- Germanici,” which was published at Stettin in 1640, under the assumed name of Hyppolitus a Lapide. Its object is to impugn the claims of the house of Austria, and it was answered by an anonymous writer, Franefort, 1657, by Bruggeman, at Jena, 1667, and by Henry Boeder, at Strasbtirgh, in 1674. It was afterwards translated into French by Bourgeois de Chastelet, under the title of “Des Interets des princes d'Allemagne,” Friestad, 1712, 2 vols. 12mo, and by Samuel Formey, as late as 1762, under the title of “Les vrais interets de l'Allemagne,” Hague, with notes and applications to the then state of German politics.

, an eminent surgeon and anatomist, and a celebrated writer, was born Oct. 19, 1688, at Burrow-on-the-Hill, near Somerby in Leicestershire. After having received a classical education, and been instructed in the rudiments of his profession at Leicester, he was placed about 1703, under the immediate tuition of the celebrated anatomist Cowper, and resided in his house, and at the same time studied surgery under Mr. Feme, the head surgeon of St. Thomas’s hospital. Such was the proficiency he made under these able masters, that he himself began, at the age of twenty-two, to read lectures in anatomy, a syllabus of which, in 4to, was first printed in 1711. Lectures of this kind were then, somewhat new in this country, having been introduced, not many years before, by M. Bussiere, a French refugee, and a surgeon of high note in the reign of queen Anne. Till then, the popular prejudices had run so high against the practice of dissection, that the civil power found it difficult to accommodate the lecturers with proper subjects; and pupils were obliged to attend the universities, or other public seminaries, where, likewise, the procuring of bodies was no easy task. It is an extraordinary proof of Mr. Cheselden’s early reputation, that he had the honour of being chosen a member of the royal society in 1711, when he could be little more than twenty- three years of age but he soon justified their choice, by a variety of curious and useful communications. Nor were his contributions limited to the royal society, but are to be found in the memoirs of the royal academy of surgeons at Paris, and in other valuable repositories. In 1713 Mr. Cheselden published in 8vo, his “Anatomy of the Human Body,” reprinted in 1722, 1726, 1732; in folio in 1734, and in 8vo, 1740, and an eleventh edition aslate as 1778. During the course of twenty years, in which Mr. Cheselden carried on his anatomical lectures, he was continually rising in reputation and practice, and upon Mr. Feme’s retiring from business, he was elected head surgeon of St. Thomas’s hospital. At two other hospitals, St. George’s, and the Westminster Infirmary, he was chosen consulting surgeon; and at length had the honour of being appointed principal surgeon to queen Caroline, by whom he was highly esteemed; and was indeed generally regarded as the first man in his profession.

In 1723 he published in 8vo, his “Treatise on the high operation for the Stone.” This work was soon attacked in an anonymous pamphlet, called “Lithotomus castratus, or an Examination of the Treatise of Mr. Cheselden,” and in which he was charged with plagiarism. How unjust this accusation was, appears from his preface, in which he had acknowledged his obligations to Dr. James Douglas and Mr. John Douglas, from one of whom the attack is supposed to have come. Mr. Cheselden’s solicitude to do justice to other eminent practitioners is farther manifest, from his having annexed to his book a translation of what had been written on the subject by Franco, who published “Traite des Hernies,” &c. at Lyons, in 1561, and by Rosset, in his “Cæsarei Partus Assertio Historiologica,” Paris, 1590. The whole affair was more candidly explained in 1724, by a writer who had no other object than the public goodj in a little work entitled “Methode de la Tailie au haut appareile recuillie des ouvrages du fameux Triumvirat.” This triumvirate consisted of Rosset, to whom the honour of the invention was due; Douglas, who had revived it after long disuse; and Cheselden, who had practised the operation with the most eminent skill and success. Indeed Mr. Cheselden was so celebrated on this account, that, as a lithotomist, he monopolized the principal business of the kingdom. The author of his eloge, in the “Memoires de L' Academic Royale de Chirurgerie.,” who was present at many of his operations, testifies, that one of them was performed in so small a time as fifty-four seconds. In 1728, Mr. Cheselden added greatly to his reputation in another view, by couching a lad of nearly fourteen years of age, who was either born blind, or had lost his sight so early, that he had no remembrance of his having ever seen. The observations made by the young gentleman, after obtaining the blessing of sight, are singularly curious, and have been much attended to, and reasoned upon by several writers on vision. They may be found in the later editions of the “Anatomy.” In 1729, our author was elected a corresponding member of the royal academy of sciences at Paris; and in 1732, soon after the institution of the royal academy of surgery in that city, he had the honour of being the first foreigner associated with their learned body. Mr. Cheselden’s “Osteography, or Anatomy of the Bones,” inscribed to queen Caroline, and published by subscription, came out in 1733, a splendid folio, in the figures of which all the bones are represented in their natural size. Our author lost a great sum of money by this publication, which in 1735 was attacked with much severity by Dr. Douglas, whose criticism appeared under the title of “Remarks on that pompous book, the Osteography of Mr. Cheselden.” The work received a more judicious censure from the celebrated Haller, who, whilst he candidly pointed out its errors, paid the writer that tribute of applause which he so justly de­“served. Heister, likewise, in his” Compendium of Anatomy,“did justice to his merit. Mr. Cheselden having long laboured for the benefit of the public, and accomplished his desires with respect to fame and fortune, began at length to wish for a life of greater tranquillity and retirement; and in 1737 he obtained an honourable situation of this kind, by being appointed head surgeon to Chelsea hospital; which place he held, with the highest reputation, till his death. He did not, however, wholly remit his endeavours to advance the knowledge of his profession; for, upon the publication of Mr. Gataker’s translation of Mons. le Dran’s” Operations of Surgery," he contributed twenty-one useful plates towards it, and a variety of valuable remarks, some of which he had made so early as while he was a pupil to Mr. Feme. This was the last literary work in which he engaged. In 1751, Mr. Cheselden, as a governor of the Foundling hospital, sent a benefaction of fifty pounds to that charity, enclosed in a paper with the following lines, from Pope:

Du Chesne’s first attempt as an author, was a duodecimo volume, printed in 1602, and dedicated to Boulanger, entitled “Egregiarum seu Electarum Lectionum et Antiquitatum liber.” The same year he dedicated another to M. de Cerisy, archbishop of Tours, entitled “Januariae Kalendae, seu de solemnitate anni tain Ethnica quam Christiana brevis tractatus,” with a Latin poem “Gryphus de Ternario numero.” In 1605 he composed for a young lady whom he married in 1608, “Les figures mystiques du riche et precieux Cabinet des Dames,” apparently a moral work. In his twenty-third year he began a translation of Juvenal, which he published with notes, in 1607. This is a work of very rare occurrence. In 16-09 he published “Antiquitez et Recherches de la grandeur et majeste des Rois de France,” dedicated to Louis XIII. then dauphin. In 1610 he wrote a poem, “Chandelier de Justice,” and also a panegyrical discourse on the ceremonies of the coronation of queen Mary of Medicis, with a treatise on the ampulla and fleur-de-lys, &c. but owing to the assassination of the king, which happened after this ceremony, these productions were lost. The same year he published a funeral discourse on king Henry IV. and the first edition of his “Antiquitez et Recherches des Villes et Chateaux de France,” which has been often reprinted. In 1611, appeared his translation and abridgement of the controversies and magical researches of Delrio, the Jesuit, 8vo. In 1612 and 1613, he was employed on his “Histoire d'Angleterre,” the first edition of which was published in 1614; and the same year, in conjunction with father Marrier, he published in folio, a collection of the works of the religious of Cluny, under the title “Bibliotheca Cluniacensis.” This was followed in 1615, by his “Histoire des Papes,” fol. reprinted in 1645, but as this last edition was very incorrect, his son Francis Du Chesne published a new one in 1653, enlarged and illustrated with portraits. In 1616 he published the “Works of Abelard,” with a preface and notes/ which are rarely found together.

, aprotestant divine, was born at Montchamps near Vire in Normandy, in 1507. He learned Hebrew under Vatablus at Paris, and having gone to England, became of the household of the princess, afterwards queen Elizabeth, whom he taught French. He then went to Germany, where he married the daughter of Tremellius, and this alliance procured him the assistance of Tremellius in his Hebrew studies, in which he made very distinguished progress, and became one of the first Hebrew scholars and critics of his age. In 1559 he was invited to Strasburgh, and thence went to Geneva, where he taught Hebrew, and published an improved edition of Pagninus’s Dictionary of that language. His love, however, for his native country induced him to return to Caen, which the civil wars soon obliged him to leave, and take refuge in England: he again returned on the peace, but the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s day obliged him to escape to the island of Guernsey, where he died in 1572. He translated from the Syriac into Latin the “Targum Hierosolymitanum;” and two years after his death, his “Rudimenta Hebraicse linguae,” a very accurate work, was published at Wittemberg, 4to. He had designed to publish an edition of the Bible in four languages, but did not live, to accomplish it.

, was born at Loudun, a town of Poitou in France, May 12, 1613. His inclination led him to the study of the belles lettres, in which he made so considerable progress, that he obtained a distinguished rank among the learned. His application to letters, however, did not unqualify him for business; for he was a man of great address and knowledge of the world, and on that account advanced to be secretary to Christina queen of Sweden. The king of Denmark engaged him also at his court. Several German princes entertained him, and among the rest the elector palatine Charles Lewis, father to the duchess of Orleans. He continued for some time at this court, sat at the council-board, and helped to bring over the princess just mentioned to the Romish communion. At his return to Paris, he was made preceptor and afterwards secretary to the duke of Maine. Then he retired to Loudun, where he had built an elegant habitation for the repose of his old age; and, after spending there the last twenty years of his life in study and retirement, he died Feb. 15, 1701, almost 88 years of age. He left a very noble library behind him, and was himself the author of some works 1. “Le Tableau de la Fortune,” 1651, 8vo, in which he relates all the considerable revolutions that have happened in the world. It was reprinted, with alterations, under the title of “Effets de la Fortune,” a romance, 1656, 8vo. 2. “L'Histoire du Monde,” 1686, frequently reprinted; the best edition is that of Paris, 1717, 8 vols. 12mo, with additions by Bourgeois de Chastenet: but although the author had recourse to original information, his quotations are not always to be depended on. He often mistakes in matters of fact, and the style is harsh and unpolished. Jn 1697 were printed at the Hague, 2 volumes of his “Oeuvres melees,” consisting of miscellaneous letters and pieces in prose and verse. He wrote also notes on Petronius and Malherbe, and was esteemed a good critic. Much of his turn of mind and sentiments may be seen in the “Chevraeana,” Paris, 1697 and 1700, 2 vols.

As, in forsaking the church of England, as well as in returning to it, he was solely influenced by a love of truth, so, upon the same principles, even after his return to protestantism, he thought it incumbent upon him to re-examine the grounds of it. This appears from a letter he wrote to Sheldon, containing some scruples he had about leaving the church of Rome, and returning to the church of England; and these scruples, which he declared ingenuously to his friends, seemed to have occasioned a report that he had turned papist a second time, and then protestant again. It would have been more just, perhaps, to conclude that his principles were still unsettled, but, as his return to the protestant religion made much noise, he became engaged in several disputes with those of the Homish; and particularly with John Lewgar, John Floyd a Jesuit, who went under the name of Daniel, or Dan. a. Jesu, and White. Lewgar, a great zealot for the church of Rome, and one who had been an intimate friend of our author, as soon as he heard of his return to the church of England, sent him a very angry and abusive letter; to which Chillingvvorth returned so mild and affectionate an answer, that Lewgar could not help being touched with it, and desired to see his old friend again. They had a conference upon religion before Skinner and Sheldon and we have a paper of Chillingworth printed among the additional discourses above-mentioned, which seems to contain the abstract or summary of their dispute. Besides the pieces already mentioned, he wrote one to demonstrate, that “the doctrine of infallibility is neither evident of itself, nor grounded upon certain and infallible reasons, nor warranted by any passage of scripture.” And in two other papers, he shews that the church of Rome had formerly erred; first, “by admitting of infants to the eucharist, and holding, that without it they could not be saved;” and secondly, “by teaching the doctrine of the millenaries, viz. that before the world’s end Christ shall reign upon the earth 1000 years, and that the saints should live under him in all holiness and happiness;” both which doctrines are condemned as false and heretical by the present church of Rome. He wrote also a short letter, in answer to some objections by one of his friends, in which he shews, that “neither the fathers nor the councils are infallible witnesses of tradition and that the infallibility of the church of Rome must first of all be proved from Scripture.” Lastly, he wrote an answer to some passages in the dialogues published under the name of Rush worth. In 1635 he was engaged in a work which gave him a far greater opportunity to confute the principles of the church of Rome, and to vindicate the religion of protestants. A Jesuit called Edward Knott, though his true name was Matthias Wilson, had published in 1630 a little book called “Charity mistaken, with the want whereof catholics are unjustly charged, for affirming, as they do with grief, that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation.” This was answered by Dr. Potter, provost of Queen Vcollege, Oxford, in 1633, in a tract entitled “Want of Charity justly charged on all such Romanists as dare without truth or modesty affirm, that protestancy destroyeth salvation.” The Jesuit in 1634 published an answer, called “Mercy and Truth, or Charity maintained by catholics with the want whereof they are unjustly chargetl, for affirming that protestancy destroyeth salvation.” Knott being informed of Chillingworth’s intention to reply to this, resolved to prejudice the public both against the author and his book, in a pamphlet called “A Direction to be observed by N. N. if he means to proceed in answering the book entitled Mercy and Truth, &c. printed in 1636, permissu superiorum:” in which he makes no scruple to represent Chillingworth as a Socinian, a charge which has been since brought against him with more effect. Chillingworth’s answer to Knott was very nearly finished in the beginning of 1637, when Laud, who knew our author’s freedom in delivering his thoughts, and was under some apprehension he might indulge it too much in his book, recommended the revisal of it to Dr. Prideaux, professor of divinity at Oxford, afterwards bishop of Worcester; and desired it might be published with his approbation annexed to it. Dr. Baylie, vice-chancellor, and Dr. Fell, lady Margaret’s professor in divinity, also examined the book; and at the end of the year it was published, with their approbation, under this title: “The religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation: or, an answer to a book entitled Mercy and Truth, or Charity maintained by Catholics, which pretends to prove the contrary.” It was presented by the author to Charles I. with a very elegant dedication i from whence we learn this remarkable circumstance, that Dr. Potter’s vindication of the protestant religion against Knott’s books was written by special order of the king 5 and that, by giving such an order, that prince, besides the general good, had also some aim at the recovery of Chillingworth from the danger he was then in by the change of his religion. This work was received with general applause; and what perhaps never happened to any other controversial work of that bulk, two editions of it wer6 published within less than five months: the first at Oxford, 1638, in folio; the second at London, with some small improvements, the same year. A third was published in 1664 to which were added some pieces of Chillingworth a fourth in 1674; a fifth in 1684, with the addition of his Letter to Lewgar, mentioned above. In 1687, when the nation was in imminent danger of popery, and this work was in its Cull popularity, Dr. John Patrick, at the request of the London clergy, published an abridgment of it in 4to, with the additional pieces, which we have taken notice of already. The sixth edition of the original appeared in 1704, with the “Additional Discourses,” but full of typographical errors; the seventh edition in 1719; the eighth in ———; and the ninth in 1727. This last edition was prepared from that of 1664, carefully examined and compared with the two preceding editions. The various readings of these editions are. taken notice of at the bottom of each page, with the words Oxf, or Lond. after them. The tenth and last edition is of the year 1742, with the “Life of Mr. Chillingworth,”by Dr. Birch', which life was copied into the General Dictionary, 10 vols. fol. The Jesuit Knott, as well as Floyd and Lacy, Jesuits, wrote against Chillingworth; but their answers were soon forgotten.

, a learned divine and antiquary, was born at Ey worth, in Bedfordshire, and was the son of Paul Chishull, formerly bible clerk of Queen’s college, Cambridge, and master of arts, as a member of Pembroke college, Oxford. His son being intended for the church, was sent to Oxford, became a scholar of Corpus Christi college, and received the degree of master of arts in February 1693; and he was chosen, likewise, a fellow of his college. Previously to his commencing master of arts, he had published in 1692, a Latin poem, inquarto, on occasion of the famous battle of La Hogue, entitled, “Gulielmo Tertio terra manque principi invictissimo in Gallos pugna navali nuperrime devictos, ' carmen heroic urn,” Oxon. When queen Mary died, on the 28th of December 1694, Mr. Chishull was one of the Oxford gentlemen who exerted their poetical talents in deploring that melancholy event, and his tribute of loyalty is preserved in the third volume of the Musse Anglicans, but is rather a school exercise, than a production of genius. In 1698, having obtained a grant of the traveller’s place, from the society of Corpus Christi college, he sailed from England on the 12th of September, and arrived on the 19th of November following at Smyrna. Before he set out on his voyage, he preached a sermon to the Levant company, which was published, and probably procured him to be appointed chaplain to the English factory at Smyrna, in. which station he continued till the 12th of February, 1701-2. On the 16th of June, 1705, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor in divinity. In the next year he engaged in a controversy, which at that time excited considerable attention, by publishing “A charge of Heresy maintained against Mr. Dodwell’s late Epistolary Discourse concerning the Mortality of the Soul,” London, 8vo. This was one of the principal books written in answer to Dodwell on that subject. In 1707, Chishull exerted his endeavours in opposing the absurdities and enthusiasm of the French prophets, and their followers, in a sermon, on the 23d of November, at Serjeant’s-inn chapel, in Chancery-lane, which was published in the beginning of 1708, and was entitled, “The great Danger and Mistake of all new uninspired Prophecies relating to the End of the World,” with an appendix of historical collections applicable to subject. On the 1st of September, in the same year, he was presented to the vicarage of Walthamstow, in Essex; and in 1711, he had the honour of being appointed one of the chaplains in ordinary to the queen. About the same time, he published a visitation and a few other occasional sermons, preached on public occasions, all which were favourably received. But he, soon became more distinguished for his researches in ancient literature and history.

, queen of Sweden, one of the few sovereigns whose history is entirely personal, was the only child of the great Gustavus Adolphus, by Maria Eleonora of Brandenburg. She was born Dec. 18, 1626, and succeeded to the throne of her father when she was only five years of age. During her minority, the long war with the German empire, in consequence of the invasion of Gustavus, as supporter of the protestant league, was carried on by able men, and particularly Oxentiern. Her education was conducted upon a very liberal plan, and she possessed a strong understanding, and was early capable of reading the Greek historians. Thucydides, Polybius, and Tacitus, were her favourite authors; but she as early manifested a distaste for the society and occupations of her sex, and delighted in manly sports and exercises. She affected likewise an extraordinary love of letters, and even for abstract speculations. When at the age of eighteen she assumed the reins of government, she was courted by several princes of Europe, but rejected their proposals from various motives, of which the true one appears to have been a conceited sense of superiority, and a desire to rule uncontrouled. Among her suitors were the prince of Denmark, the elector Palatine, the elector of Brandenburgh, the kings of Portugal and Spain, the king of the Romans, and Charles Gustavus, duke of Deux Ponts, her first cousin. Him the people, anxious for her marriage, recommended to her; but she rejected the proposal, and to prevent its renewal, she solemnly appointed Gustavus her successor. In 1650, when she was crowned, she became weary and disgusted with public affairs, and seemed to have no ambition but to become the general patroness of learning and learned men. With this view, she invited to her court men of the first reputation in various studies among these were Grotius, Descartes, Bochart, Huet, Vossius, Paschal, Salmasius, Naude, Heinsius, Meibom, Scudery, Menage, Lucas, Holstenius, Lambecius, Bayle, and others, who did not fail to celebrate her in poems, letters, or literary productions of some other kind, the greatest part of which are now forgotten. Her choice of learned men seems to have been directed more by general fame, than by her own judgment, or taste for their several excellencies, and she derived no great credit either as a learned lady, or as a discriminating patroness of literature. She was much under the influence of Bourdelot the physician, who gained his ascendancy by outrageous flattery: and her inattention to the high duties of her station disgusted her subjects. She was a collector of books, manuscripts, medals, and paintings, all which she purchased at such an enormous expence as to injure her treasury, and with so little judgment, that having procured some paintings of Titian at a most extravagant price, she had them clipped to fit the pannels of her gallery.

In 1652 she first proposed to resign in favour of her successor, but the remonstrances of the States delayed this measure until 1654, when she solemnly abdicated the crown, that she might be at perfect liberty to execute a plan of life which vanity and folly seem to have presented to her imagination, as a life of true happiness, the royal cum dignitatc. Some time before this step, Anthony Macedo, a Jesuit, was chosen by John IV. king of Portugal, to accompany the ambassador he sent into Sweden to queen Christina; and this Jesuit pleased this princess so highly, that she secretly opened to him the design she had of changing her religion. She sent him to Rome with letters to the general of the Jesuits; in which she desired that two of their society might be dispatched to her, Italians by nation, and learned men, who should take another habit that she might confer with them at more ease upon matters of religion. The request was granted; and two Jesuits were immediately sent to her, viz. Francis Malines, divinity professor at Turin, and Paul Casati, professor of mathematics at Rome, who easily effected what Macedo, the first confidant of her design, had begun. Having made her abjuration of the Lutheran religion, at which the Roman catholics triumphed, and the protestants were discontented, both without much reason, she began her capricious travels: from Brussels, or as some say, Inspruck, at which she played the farce of abjuration, she went to Rome, where she intended to fix her abode, and where she actually remained two years, and met with such a reception as suited her vanity. But some disgust came at last, and she determined to visit France, where Louis XIV. received her with respect, but the ladies of the court were shocked at her masculine appearance, and more at her licentious conversation. Here she courted the learned, and appointed Menage her master of ceremonies, but at last excited general horror by an action, for which, in perhaps any other country, she would have been punished by death. This was the murder of an Italian, Moualdeschi, her master of the horse, who had betrayed some secret entrusted to him. He was summoned into a gallery in the palace, letters were then shewn to him, at the sight of which he turned pale, and intreated for mercy, but he was instantly stabbed by two of her own domestics in an apartment adjoining that in which she herself was. The French court was justly offended at this atrocious deed, yet it met with vindicators, among whom was Leibnitz, whose name was disgraced by the cause which he attempted to justify. Christina was sensible that she was now regarded with horror in France, and would gladly have visited England, but she received no encouragement for that purpose from Cromwell: she therefore, in 1658, returned to Rome, and resumed her amusements in the arts and sciences. But Rome had no permanent charms, and in 1660, on the death of Gustavus, she took a journey to Sweden for the purpose of recovering her crown and dignity. She found, however, her ancient subjects much indisposed against her and her new religion. They refused to confirm her revenues, caused her chapel to be pulled down, banished all her Italian chaplains, and, in short, rejected her claims. She submitted to a second renunciation of the throne, after which she returned to Rome, and pretended to interest herself warmly, first in behalf of the island of Candia, then besieged by the Turks, and afterwards to procure supplies of men and money for the Venetians. Some differences with the pope made her resolve, in 1662, once more to return to Sweden; but the conditions annexed by the senate to her residence there, were now so mortifying, that she proceeded no farther than Hamburgh, and from Hamburgh again to Rome, where she died in 1689, leaving a character in which there is little that is amiable. Vanity, caprice, and irresolution deformed her best actions, and Sweden had reason to rejoice at the abdication of a woman who could play the tyrant with so little feeling when she had given up the power. She left some maxims, and thoughts and reflections on the life of Alexander the Great, which were translated and published in England in 1753; but several letters attributed to her are said to be spurious.

, a learned English bishop, was a Lancashire man by birth, and educated in St. John’s college, Cambridge. He was one of the first fellows of Trinity college after its foundation by Henry VIII. in 1546, and shortly after became master of it; and in 1554 was made dean of Norwich. In the reign of Edward VI. he lived abroad in a state of banishment, in which, as he tells us in the preface to his translation of Philo Judxus, he was all the while supported by his college; but upon queen Mary’s succeeding to the crown, returned, and was made bishop of Chichester. He is said to have died a little before this queen in 1558. He translated Philo Judaeiis into Latin, Antwerp, 1553, 4to, and also the ecclesiastical histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Evagrius, and Theodoret, Louvain, 1570, 8vo; Cologn, 1570, fol. hut his translations are very defective. Valesius, in his preface to Eusebius, says, that compared with Rufinus and Musculus, who had translated these historians before him, he may be reckoned a diligent and learned man; but yet that he is very far from deserving the character of a good translator: that his style is impure, and full of barbarism; that his periods are long and perplexed: that he has frequently acted the commentator, rather than the translator; that he has enlarged and retrenched at pleasure; that he has transposed the sense oftimes, and has not always preserved the distinction even of chapters. The learned Huet has passed the same censure on him, in his book “De Interpretatione.” Hence it is that all those who have followed Christopherson as their guide in ecclesiastical antiquity, and depended implicitly upon his versions, have often been led to commit great faults; and this has happened not seldom to Baronius among others.

Christopherson wrote also, about the year 1546, the tragedy of Jephtha, both in Latin and Greek, dedicated to Henry VIII. which was most probably a Christmas play for Trinity college. It was said that he was buried in Christ Church, London, Dec. 28, 1558, but Tanner thinks he was buried in Trinity college chapel, as in his will, proved Feb. 9, 1562, he leaves his body to be buried on the south side of the altar of that chapel. Strype, however, in the Introduction to his Annals, p. 3 1, describes his pompous funeral at Christ Church. It is more certain that he joined his brethren in queen Mary’s reign in the measures adopted to check the reformation.

The laurels he brought from France could not fail to gain him preferment at home; accordingly the king made him a lieutenant-colonel, and the duke made him gentleman of his bed-chamber, and soon after master of the robes. The second Dutch war being over, colonel Churchill was again obliged to pass his days at court, where he behaved with great prudence and circumspection in the troublesome times that ensued. In 1679, when the duke of York was constrained to go to the Netherlands, colonel Churchill attended him; as he did through all his peregrinations, till he was suffered to reside again in London. While he waited upon the duke in Scotland, he had a regiment of dragoons given him; and thinking it now time to take a consort, he made his addresses to Sarah Jennings, who waited on the lady Anne, afterwards queen of Great ­Britain. This young lady, then about twenty-one years of age, and universally admired both for her person and wit, he married in 1681, and by this match strengthened the interest he had already at court. In 1682 the duke of York returned to London; and, having obtained leave to quit Scotland, resolved to bring his family from thence by sea. For this purpose he embarked in May, but unluckily ran upon the Lemon Oar, a dangerous sand, that lies about 16 leagues from the mouth of the Humber, where his ship was lost, with some men of quality, and upwards of 120 persons on board. He was particularly careful of colonel Churchill’s safety, and took him into the boat in which himself escaped. The first use made by his royal highness of his interest, after he returned to court, was to obtain a title for his favourite; who, by letters patent, bearing date Dec. 1, 1682, was created baron of Eymouth in Scotland, and also appointed colonel of the 3d troop of guards. He was continued in all his posts upon the accession of James II. who sent him also his ambassador to France to notify that event. On his return, he assisted at the coronation in April 1685; and May following was created a peer of England, by the title of baroti Churchill of Sandridge in the county of Hertford.

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

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

He was on the point of returning to Holland, when, Feb. S, 1703, his only son, the marquis of Blandford, died at Cambridge, at the age of 18, and was interred in the magnificent chapel of King’s college. This very afflicting accident did not however long retard him; but he passed over to Holland, and arrived at the Hague March 6. The nature of our work will not suffer us to relate all the military acts in which the duke of Marlborough was engaged: it is sufficient to say, that, numerous as they were, they were all successful. The French had a great army this year in Flanders, in the Netherlands, and in that part of Germany which the elector of Cologn had put into their hands; and prodigious preparations were made under the most experienced commanders: but the vigilance and activity of the duke baffled them all. When the campaign was over, his grace went to Dusseldorp to meet the late emperor, then styled Charles III. king of Spain, who made him a present of a rich sword from his side, with very high compliments; and then returning to the Hague, after a very short stay, came over to England. He arrived Oct. 13, 1703; and soon after king Charles, whom he had accompanied to the Hague, came likewise over to England, and arrived at Spithead on Dec. 26; upon which the dukes, of Somerset and Marlborough were immediately sent down to receive and conduct him to Windsor. In January the States desired leave of the queen for the duke to come to the Hague; which being granted, he embarked on the 15th, and passed over to Rotterdam. He went immediately to the Hague, where he communicated to the pensionary his sense of the necessity there was of attempting something the next campaign for the relief of the emperor; whose affairs at this time were in the utmost distress, having the Bavarians on one side, and the Hungarian malcontents on the other, making incursions to the very gates of Vienna, while his whole force scarce enabled him to maintain a defensive war. This scheme being, approved of, and the plan of it adjusted, the duke returned to England in the middle of February.

When measures were properly settled at home, April 6, 1704, he embarked for Holland; where, staying about a month to adjust the necessary steps, he began his march towards the heart of Germany; and after a conference held with prince Eugene of Savoy, and Lewis of Baden, he arrived before the strong entrenchments of the enemy at Schellenburg, very unexpectedly, on June 21; whom, after an obstinate and bloody dispute, he entirely routed. It was on this occasion that the emperor wrote the duke a letter with his own hand, acknowledging his great services, and offering him the title of a prince of the empire, which he modestly declined, till the queen afterwards commanded him to accept of it. He prosecuted this success, and the battle of Hochstet was fought by him and prince Eugene, on August 2; when the French and Bavarians were the greatest part of them killed and taken, and their commander, marshal Tallard, made a prisoner. After this glorious action, by which the empire was saved, and the whole electorate of Bavaria conquered, the duke continued his pursuit till he forced the French to repass the Rhine. Then prince Lewis of Baden laid siege to Landau, while the duke and prince Eugene covered it; but it was not taken before the 12th of November. He made a tour also to Berlin; and by a short negotiation, suspended the disputes between the king of Prussia and the Dutch, by which he gained the good will of both parties. When the campaign was over, he returned to Holland, and, Dec. 14, arrived in England. He brought over with him marshal Tallard, and 26 other officers of distinction, 121 standards, and 179 colours, which by her majesty’s order were put up in Westminster-hall. He was received by the queen with the highest marks of esteem, and had the solemn thanks of both houses of parliament. Besides this, the commons addressed her majesty to perpetuate the memory of this victory, which she did, by granting Woodstock, with the hundred of Wotton, to him and his heirs for ever. This was confirmed by an act of parliament, which passed on the 14th of March following, with this remarkable clause, that they should be held by tendering to the queen, her heirs and successors, on August 2, every year for ever, at the castle of Windsor, a standard with three fleurs de lys painted thereon. Jan. 6, the duke was magnificently entertained by the city; and Feb. 8, the commons addressed the queen, to testify their thanks for the wise treaty which the duke had concluded with the court of Berlin, by which a large body of Prussian troops were sent to the assistance of the duke of Savoy.

All things being concerted for rendering the next year’s campaign more successful than the former, the duke, in the beginning of April, 1706, embarked for Holland. This year the famous battle of Ramilies was fought, and won upon May 12, being Whitsunday. The duke was twice here in the utmost danger, once by a fall from his horse, and a second time by a cannon-shot, which took off the head of colonel Bingfield, as he was. holding the stirrup for him to remount. The advantages gained by this victory were so far improved by the vigilance and wisdom of the duke, that Louvain, Brussels, Mechlin, and even Ghent and Bruges, submitted to king Charles without a stroke; and Oudenard surrendered upon the first summons. The city of Antwerp followed this example; and thus, in the short space of a fortnight, the duke reduced all Brabant, and the marquisate of the holy empire, to the obedience of king Charles. He afterwards took the towns of Ostend, Menin, Dendermonde, and Aeth. The forces of the allies after this glorious campaign being about to separate, his grace went to the Hague Oct. 16, where the proposals, which France had made for a peace, contained in a letter from the elector of Bavaria to the duke of Marlborough, were communicated to the ministers of the allies, after which he embarked for England, and arrived at London Nov. 18, 1706 and though at this time there was a party formed against him at court, yet the great services he had done the nation, and the personal esteem the queen always had for him, procured him an universal good reception. The house of commons, in their address to the queen, spoke of the success of the campaign in general, and of the duke of Marlborough’s share in particular, in the strongest terms possible; and the day after unanimously voted him their thanks, as did the lords. They went still farther; for, Dec. 17, they addressed the queen for leave to bring in a bill to settle the duke’s honours upon the male and female issue of his daughters. This was granted; and Blenheim-house, with the manor of Woodstock, was, after the decease of the duchess, upon whom they were settled in jointure, entailed in the same manner with the honours. Two days after this, the standards and colours taken at Ramilies being carried in state through the city, in order to be hung up in Guildhall, the duke, by invitation, partook of a grand dinner with the lord-mayor. The last day of the year was appointed for a general thanksgiving, and her majesty went in state to St. Paul’s; in which there was this singularity observed, that it was the second thanksgiving within the year. Jan. 17, the house of commons presented an address to the queen, in which they signified, that as her majesty had built the house of Blenheim to perpetuate the memory of the duke of Marlborough* s services, and as the house of lords had ordered a bill for continuing his honours, so they were desirous to make some provision for the more honourable support of his dignity. In consequence of this, and of the queen’s answer, the pension of 5000l. per ann. from the post-office was settled in the manner the queen had formerly desired of another house of commons, which happened not to be in quite so good a temper.

These points adjusted, the duke made haste to return to his charge, it being thought especially necessary he should acquaint the foreign ministers at the Hague, that the queen of Great Britain would hearken to no proposals for a peace, but what would firmly secure the general tranquillity of Europe. The campaign of the year 1707 proved the most barren he ever made, which was chiefly owing to a failure on the part of the allies, who began to be remiss in supporting the common cause. Nor did things go on more to his mind at home; for upon his return to England, after the campaign was over, he found that the fire, which he suspected the year before, had broke out in his absence; that the queen had a female favourite, who was in a fair way of supplanting the duchess; and that she listened to the insinuations of a statesman who was no friend to him. He is said to have borne all this with firmness and patience, though he easily saw whither it tended; and went to Holland as usual, early in the spring of 1708, arriving at the Hague March 19. The ensuing campaign was carried on by the duke, in conjunction with prince Eugene, with such prodigious success, that the French king thought fit, in the beginning of 1709, to set on foot a negotiation for peace. The house of commons this year gave an uncommon testimony of their respect for the duke of Marlborough; for, besides addressing the queen, they, January 22, 1709, unanimously voted him thanks, and ordered them to be transmitted to him abroad by the speaker. He returned to England Feb. 25, and on his first appearance in the house of lords, received the thanks of that august assembly. His stay was so very short, that we need not dwell upon what passed in the winter. It is sufficient to say, that they who feared the dangerous effects of those artful proposals France had been making for the conclusion of a general' peace, were also of opinion, that nobody was so capable of setting their danger, in a true light in Holland as his grace of Marlborough. This induced the queen to send Mm thither, at the end of March, with the character of her plenipotentiary, which contributed not a little to the enemy’s disappointment, by defeating all their projects. Marshal Villars commanded the French army in the campaign of 1709; and Lewis XIV. expressed no small hopes of him, in saying a little before the opening of it, that “Villars was never beat.” However the siege of Tournay, and the battle of Malplaquet, convinced the monarch that Villars was not invincible. Upon the news of the glorious victory gained Aug. 1, 1709, the city of London renewed their congratulatory addresses to the queen; and her majesty in council, Oct. 3, ordered a proclamation for a general thanksgiving. The duke of Marlborough came t6 St. James’s Nov. 10, and soon after received the thanks of both houses: and the queen, as if desirous of any occasion to shew her kindness to him, appointed him lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Oxford. But amidst these honours, preferments, and favours, he was really chagrined to the last degree. He perceived that the French intrigues began to prevail both in England and Holland: the affair of Dr. Sacheverell had thrown the nation into a ferment: and the queen was not only estranged from the duchess of Marlborough, but had taken such a dislike to her that she seldom appeared at court.

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

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

The only personal failing attributed to the duke of Marlborough, upon any fair evidence, was avarice; but how far he owes the imputation of that to himself, or to the misconduct and caprice of one nearly allied to him. and to whom it was his weakness to be too subservient, may admit of a doubt. That Sarah, duchess of Marlborough, brought her husband into frequent trouble and disgrace seems to be generally acknowledged; and Swift was not far wrong when he said that the duke owed to her both his greatness (his promotions) and his fall. No woman was perhaps ever less formed by nature and habit for a court, yet she arrived to such a pitch of grandeur at the court of queen Anne, that her sovereign was, in fact, but the second person in it. Never were two women more the reverse of one another in their natural dispositions, than queen Anne and the duchess of Marlborough; yet never had any servant a greater ascendancy over a mistress, than the latter had over the former. But though the duchess did not rise by a court, yet she rose by a party, of which she had the art to put her mistress at the head, who was merely the vehicle of her sentiments, and the minister of her avarice. Few sovereign princes in Europe could, from their own revenues, command such sums of ready money, as the duchess did during the last thirty-five years of her life. Conscious at length that she had incurred the contempt of the nation, she employed Hooke, the Roman historian, at the price of 5000l. to write a defence of her, which was published in 1742, under the title of “An account of the conduct of the Dowager Duchess of Marlborough, from her first coming to court to the year 1710. In a letter from herself to my lord ——————” This work excited considerable

attention at the time of its appearance, and gave rise to many strictures and some controversy. The ease and elegance with which the book is composed, the anecdotes it relates, and the original letters it contains, render it by no means an uninteresting performance; and it is not without its use in the elucidation of our general history. Nevertheless, from the prejudice and passion wherewith the duchess, or rather her amanuensis, writes, from her severity to her enemies, and from the malignity she displays against the memories of king William and queen Mary, she has contrived to make her own character stand in no higher a degree of estimation than that in which it was held before. Lord Orford, who, on account of this book, has introduced her among his “Royal and Noble Authors,” very justly remarks on it, that “it is seldom the public receives information on princes and favourites from the fountain-head: flattery or invective is apt to pervert the relations of others. It is from their own pens alone, whenever they are so gracious, like the lady in question, as to have * a passion for fame and approbation,' that we learn exactly, how trifling and foolish and ridiculous their views and actions were, and how often the mischief they did proceeded from the most inadequate causes.”

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

, a learned Italian, was born at Rome April 11, 1633. He quitted the study of the civil law for the practice of the apostolical chancery, and at the same time found leisure to cultivate the sciences and polite literature. It was by his care and activity that the academy of ecclesiastical history was instituted at Rome in 1671, and in 1677 he established under the auspices of the famous queen Christina, an academy of mathematics and natural history, which, by the merit of its members, soon became known throughout Europe. Ciampini died July 12, 1698, aged sixty-five. His writings are: I. “Conjecturae de perpetuo azymorum usu in ecclcsia Latina,” 1688, 4to. 2. “Vetera monumenta, in quibus praecipua Musiva opera, sacrarum profanarumque aedium structura, dissertationibus iconibusque illustrantur,” Rome, 1690, 1699, 2 vols. fol. This is an investigation of the origin of the most curious remains of the buildings belonging to ancient Rome, with explanations and plates of those monuments, 3. “Synopsis historica de sacris aedificiis a. Constantino Magno constructs,” 1693, fol. 4. An examination of the “Lives of the Popes” said to be written by Anastasius Bibliothecarius, calculated to prove that Anastasius wrote only the lives of Gregory IV. Sergius II. Leo IV. Benedict III. and Nicholas I. and that the others were written by different authors, as we have already noticed in our account of Anastasius. Ciampini published many other dissertations, both in Italian and Latin, and left a great many manuscripts, of both which Fabroni has the most complete catalogue.

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

, eldest son of the preceding, was born at St. Edmundsbury, in Suffolk, September 14, 1646, and educated in the free-school there, under the care of Dr. Thomas Stephens, author of the notes on Statius’s Sylvse, who took very early notice of the promising parts of his scholar. Before he was full thirteen years of age, he was admitted a pensioner in Emanuel-college, in Cambridge, September 5, 1659, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Jackson, where he took his degree of A. B. 1663, A.M. 1667, and commenced D. D. in 1683. He was then chosen one of the preachers of St. Edmundsbury, which office he discharged for seven years with universal reputation. From thence, at the instance of some considerable men of the long robe, whose business at the assizes there gave them opportunities of being acquainted with his great worth and abilities, he was thought worthy by the society of Gray’s-inn, to succeed the eminent Dr. Cradock, as their preacher, which he continued to be all the remaining part of his life, much to the satisfaction of the society. He was also presented by the lord keeper North (who was his wife’s kinsman) to the rectory of Farnham-royal, in Buckinghamshire, into which he was instituted May 14, 1683; but what he most valued next to his preacher’s place at Gray’s-inn, was the lectureship of St. Michael Bassishaw, to which he was elected by that parish about two years before his death. He was also chaplain in ordinary to his majesty. He was cut off, however, in the prime of life. He was seized with the small-pox on a Sunday evening, March the 16th, after having preached at St. Martin in the Fields, in his Lent course there; and died March 28, 1638. He was buried in a vault under part of the church of St. Michael Bassishaw, in the grave with his wife, Mrs. Thornasin North, a most virtuous and accomplished woman, who died eighteen days after him, of the same disease. We are assured by the testimony of Dr. Sharp, that no man of a private condition, in the last age, died more lamented, and his private virtuesand public services are spoken of by all his contemporaries in the highest terms. Bishop Burnet ranks him among those worthy and eminent men whose lives and labours in a great measure rescued the church from those reproaches that the follies of others drew upon it; nor ought it to be forgotten, that he was one of those excellent divines who made that noble stand against popery in the reign of king James II. which will redound to their immortal honour. The several things published by Dr. Clagett, are as follows: 1. “A Discourse concerning the Operations of the Holy Spirit; with a confutation of some part of Dr. Owen’s book upon that subject,” Part I. Lond. 1677, 8vo; Part II. Lond. 1680, 8vo. In this second part there is an answer to Mr. John Humphreys’s Animadversions on the first Part. The author intended a third part, proving that the Fathers were not on Dr. Ovven’s side, which was burnt by an accidental fire, and the author never found leisure to re-write it. We are not of opinion, however, that what is published ranks among his most successful performances. In 1719 Dr. Stebbing published an abridgment of the two parts mentioned above. 2. “A Reply to a pamphlet called The Mischief of Impositions, by Mr. Alsop, which pretends to answer the dean of St. Paul’s (Dr. Stillingfleet’s) Sermon concerning the Mischief of Separation,” Lond. 1681, 4to. 3. “An Answer to the Dissenters’ Objections against the Common Prayers, and some other parts of the divine service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England,” Lond. 1683, 4to. 4. “The Difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants fromthe Church of Rome, and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England,” Lond. 1683, 4to. 5. “The State of the Church of Rome when the Reformation began, as it appears by the advices given to pope Paul III. and Julius III. by creatures of their own.” 6. “A Discourse concerning the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints,” Lond. 1686, 4to. 7. “A Paraphrase, with notes, upon the sixth Chapter of St. John, shewing that there is neither good reason, nor sufficient authority to suppose that the Eucharist is discoursed of in that chapter, much less to infer the doctrine of Transubstantiation from it.” Lond. 1686, 4to. Reprinted in 1689, 8vo, at the end of his second volume of sermons. 8. “Of the Humanity and Chanty of Christians. A Sermon preached at the Suffolk Feast, at St. Michael, Cornhill, London, November 30, 1686.” 9. “A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Unction, &.c.” in three parts. “With a letter to the Vindicator of the bishop of Condom,” Lond. 1687, 4to. 10. “A second letter to the Vindicator of the bishop of Condom,” Lond. 1637, 4to. 11. “Authority of Councils, and the Rule of Faith, with an answer to the Eight Theses laid down for the Trial of the English Reformation.” The first part, about Councils, by Hutchinson, esq. the rest by Dr. Clagett, 4to. 12. “Notion of Idolatry considered and confuted,” Lond. 1688. 13. “Cardinal Bellarmine’s seventh note, of the Union of the Members among themselves, and with the Head.” 14. “His twelfth note, Of the Light of Prophecy, examined and confuted.” 15. “A View of the whole Controversy between the Representer and the Answerer; in which are laid open some of the methods by which Protestants are misrepresented by Papists,” Lond. 1687, 4to. 16. “An Answer to the Representer’s Reflections upon the State and View of the Controversy. With a Reply to the Vindicator’s full Answer; shewing that the Vindicator has utterly ruined the new design of expounding and representing Popery,” London, 1688, 4to. 17. “Several captious Queries concerning the English Reformation, first in Latin, and afterwards by T. W. in English, briefly and fully answered,” Lond. 1688, 4to. 18. “A Preface concerning the Testimony of Miracles, prefixed to The School of the Eucharist established upon the miraculous respects and acknowledgements, which Beasts, Birds, and Insects, upon several occasions, have rendered to the Sacrament of the Altar.” Translated by another hand, from the original French of F. Toussain Bridoul, a Jesuit," Lond. 1687, 4to. Besides these, after his decease, his brother, Mr. Nicolas Clagett, published four volumes of his sermons: the first in 1689, contained seventeen sermons; one of which was greatly admired by queen Mary, who desired to have it read more than once during her last illness: Text, Job ii. 10. The second volume, printed in 1693, contained eleven sermons; a Paraphrase and Notes upon the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth Chapters of the Gospel of St. John. The Paraphrase, and Notes on the sixth Chapter, which had been published before: A Discourse of Church- Unity, with Directions now, in this divided State of Christendom, to keep within the Unity of the Church A Discourse of Humanity and Charity And a Letter concerning Protestants Charity to Papists published by Dr. Clagett. The third and fourth volumes did not come out till 1720, at so great a distance of tune from the two former volumes, that the booksellers would not call them the third and fourth volumes, but the first and second volumes, as well as the former; only notice was given, that they were never before published.

His printed works are few, consisting only of four occasional sermons, and an “Essay,” published in 1738, “towards the character of queen Caroline,” whom he highly reverenced, and with whom he had long been a considerable favourite. By some this Essay has been given to lord Hervey, but Mr. Masters was assured it was Dr. Clarke’s.

This same year also, bishop Moore procured for him the rectory of St. Bennet’s, Paul’s Wharf, London; and soon after carried him to court, and recommended him to the favour of queen Anne. She appointed him one of her chaplains in ordinary; and, in consideration of his great merit, and at the request of the bishop, presented him to the rectory of St. James’s Westminster, in 1709. From this time he left off preaching without notes, and wrote his sermons at length, with much care and fit for the press, in which state they were found at his death. Upon his advancement to St. James’s rectory, he took the degree of D. D.; when the public exercise which he performed for it at Cambridge was much admired. The questions which he maintained were these: 1. “Nullum fidei Christiana? dogma, in sacris scripturls traditum, est rectse rationi dissentaneum:” that is, No article of the Christian faith, delivered in the holy scriptures, is discordant to right reason. 2. “Sine action am humanarum libertate nulla potest esse religio:” that is, Without the liberty of hunpan actions there can be no religion. His thesis was upon the first of these questions; which being thoroughly sifted by that most acute disputant professor James, he made an extempore reply in a continued discourse for near half an hour, with so little hesitation, that many of the auditors declared, that if they had not been within sight of him, they should have supposed him to have read every word of it from a paper. After this, through the course of the syllogistical disputation, he guarded so well against the arts which the professor was a complete master of; replied so readily to the greatest difficulties such an objector could propose; and pressed him so close and hard with clear and intelligible ausvyers, that perhaps there never was such a flict heard in those schools. The professor, who was a man of humour as well as learning, said to him at the end of the disputation, “Profecto me probe exereuisti,' 7 that is,” On my word, you have worked me sufficiently;“and the members of the university expressed their astonishment that a man even of Clarke’s abilities, after an absence of so many years, should acquit himself as if this sort of academical exercise had been his constant employment; and with such fluency and purity of expression, as if he had been accustomed to no other language in conversation but Latin. The same year, 1709, he revised and corrected Whiston’s translation of the” Apostolical Constitutions" into English, at the author’s particular request.

The same year, 1712, he published his celebrated book entitled “The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, &c.” which is divided into three parts. The first is, a collection and explication of all the texts in the New Testament relating to the doctrine of the Trinity: in the second, the foregoing doctrine is set forth at large, and explained in particular and distinct propositions; and in the third, the principal passages in the liturgy of the church of England, relating to the doctrine of the Trinity, are considered. Whiston informs us, that some time before the publication of this book, there was a message sent to him from lord Godolphin, and others of queen Anne’s ministers, importing, “that the affairs of the public were with difficulty then kept in the hands of those that were for liberty that it was therefore an unseasonable time for the publication of a book that would make a great noise and disturbance; and that, therefore, they desired him to forbear till a fitter opportunity should offer itself.” Which message, says he, the doctor paid no regard to, but went on, according to the dictates of his own conscience, with the publication of his book. The ministers, however, were right in their conjectures; for the work occasioned a great number of books and pamphlets, written by himself and others . It also made its author obnoxious to the ecclesiastical power, and his book was complained of by the lower house of convocation. Their complaint being sent to the upper house June 2, 1714, the bishops returned in two days an answer, “that they approved the zeal of the lower house thought they had just cause of complaint, and would take it into their consideration:” and on the 12th sent a message to them directing an extract to be made of particulars out of the books complained of. On the 23d the said extract was laid before the bishops. The doctor drew up a reply to this extract, dated June 26, which, it seems, was presented to some of the bishops; but, for reasons unknown, not laid before the house. After this, there appearing in almost the whole upper house a great disposition to prevent dissensions and divisions, by some moderate step, Dr. Clarke was prevailed upon to lay before the house a paper, dated July 2, which concludes with these words “I am sorry that what I sincerely intended for the honour and glory of God, and so to explain this great mystery, as to avoid the heresies in both extremes, should have given any offence to this synod, and particularly to my lords the bishops. I hope my behaviour for the time to come, with relation hereunto, will be such as to prevent any future complaints against me.”

In 1715 and 1716 he had a dispute with the celebrated Leibnitz, relating to the principles of natural philosophy and religion: and a collection of the papers which passed between them was published in 1717; and remarks upon a book entitled “A philosophical enquiry concerning Human Liberty,” by Anthony Collins, 8vo. The letters from Cambridge, which Clarke answers in this volume, were written by Richard Bulkeley, esq. author of a poem in 12 books,entitled “The Last Day,” who died in 1718, at about twenty-four years of age. All the pieces contained in this volume were translated into French, and published by Des Maizeaux in the first volume of “Recueil de diverses pieces sur la philosophic, la religion naturelle, Phistoire, les mathematiques, &c. par Messrs. Leibnitz, Clarke, Newton, et autres auteurs celebres,” printed at Amsterdam in 1720, 2 vols. 12 mo. This book of the doctor’s is inscribed to her late majesty queen Caroline, then princess of Wales, who was. pleased to have the controversy pass through her hands, and was the witness and judge of every step of it. It related chiefly to the important and difficult subjects of liberty and necessity. Whiston says, “I confess, I look upon these letters of Dr. Clarke as among the most useful of his performances in natural philosophy.” He has also preserved an anecdote relating to this controversy^; which is, that sir Isaac Newton once pleasantly told Clarke, that “he had broke Leibnitz’s heart with his reply to him.”

Bishop Hoadly writes thus of Clarke: “He was a person of a natural genius, excellent enough to have placed him in the superior rank of men without the acquirements of learning; and of learning enough to have rendered a much less cdmprehensive genius very considerable in the ways of the world. But in him they were both united to such a degree, that those who were of his intimate acquaintance 'knew not which to admire most. The first strokes of knowledge, in some of its branches, seemed to be little less than natural to him: for they appeared to lie right in his mind, as soon as any thing could appear; and to be the very same, which afterwards grew up with him into perfection, as the strength and cultivation of his mind increased. He had one happiness very rarely known among the greatest men, that his memory was almost equal to his judgment, which is as great a character as can well be given of it.” Then, after observing how great the doctor was in “all branches of knowledge and learning, he goes on thus:” If in any one of these many branches he had excelled only so much as he did in all, this alone would justly have entitled him to the name of a great man. But there is something so very extraordinary, that the same person should excel, not only in those parts of knowledge which require the strongest judgment, but in those which want the help of the strongest memory also; and it is so seldom seen, that one who is a great master in theology, is at the same time skilfully fond of all critical and classical learning, or excellent in the physical and mathematical studies, or well framed for metaphysical and abstract reasonings; that it ought to be remarked, in how particular a manner, and to how high a degree, divinity and mathematics, experimental philosophy and classical learning, metaphysics and critical skill, all of them, various and different as they are amongst themselves, united in Dr. Clarke.“Afterwards the bishop informs us, how earnestly his acquaintance and friendship was sought after by the greatest lovers of virtue and knowledge; what regard was paid to him by the chief persons of the law; and, above all, what pleasure her late majesty queen Caroline took in his conversation and friendship: for” seldom a week passed, says he, “in which she did not receive some proof of the greatness of his genius, and of the force of his superior understanding.”

Dr. Clarke married Katherine, only daughter of the rev. Mr. Lockwood, rector of Little Massingham in Norfolk, by whom he had seven children, two of which died before him, and one a few weeks after him. His widow had a pension from queen Caroline of 105l. per annum. One of his sons was living in 1771; and in an article inserted in the London Evening Post, Dec. 7, of that year, positively contradicted "the report that his father had ever retracted his opinions on the Trinity.

Soon after Dr. Clayton’s marriage, he went with his lady to England, and while at London, a person in distressed circumstances applied to him for assistance, with the testimony of Dr. Samuel Clarke for a recommendation, upon which, instead of the usual donation on such occasions, he gave to the necessitous man the sum of three hundred pounds, which was the whole that he wanted to make him easy in the world. This circumstance introduced him to Dr. Clarke, and the result of their acquaintance was, Dr. Clayton’s embracing the Arian principles, to which he adhered during the remainder of his life. Dr. Clarke having carried to queen Caroline an account of Dr. Clayton’s remarkable beneficence, it made a powerful impression on her majesty’s mind in favour of his character; which impression was strongly enforced by her bed-chamber woman, Mrs. Clayton, afterwards lady Sundon. Such a powerful interest procured an immediate recommendation to lord Carteret, then chief governor of Ireland, for the very first bishopric tbat should become vacant, and accordingly, he was advanced to that of Killala, January 1729-30. In this situation he continued till November 1735, when he was translated to the see of Cork, and in 1745 to that of Clogher. Excepting a letter written to the royal society upon a subject of no great consequence, his first publication was an “Introduction to the History of the Jews,” which was afterwards translated into French, and printed at Leyden. His next work was “The Chronology of the Hebrew Bible vindicated: the facts compared with other ancient histories, and the difficulties explained, from the flood to the death of Moses; together with some conjectures in relation to Egypt during that period of time; also two maps, in which are attempted to be settled the journeyings of the children of Israel,” 1747, 4to, and containing a variety of observations which deserve the attention of the learned reader. In 1749 he published a “Dissertation on Prophecy,” in which he endeavoured to shew, from a joint comparison of the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Revelation of St. John, that the final end of the dispersion of the Jews will be coincident with the ruin of the popedom, and take place about 2000. This was followed by an “Impartial Enquiry into the time of the coming of the Messiah,” in two letters to an eminent Jew, printed first separately, and then together, in 1751. In the same year (1751), appeared the “Essay on Spirit,” a performance which excited very general attention, and was productive of a fruitful controversy. Its object was to recommend the Arian doctrine of the inferiority of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and to prepare the way for suitable alterations in the Liturgy. His biographer, who is at the same time his warm panegyrist, allows that in this performance he has indulged too freely in imagination and conjecture; and that he might have confined the question with greater advantage to the direct and simple standard of Scripture. The work, after all, was not Dr. Clayton’s, but one of his adoption, the real authoi being a young clergyman in his diocese, who shewed the manuscript to his lordship, but had not the courage to print it in his own name. The bishop, with what is called a romantic generosity, conveyed it to the press, and managed the affair in such a manner, that the treatise was universally ascribed to him in all the attacks to which it was exposed, and the sentiments certainly were his. One effect of this conduct was, his being prevented from rising higher in the church. In 1752, he was recommended by the duke of Dorset, then viceroy of Ireland, to the vacant archbishopric of Tuam, but this was refused, solely on account of his being regarded as the writer of the Essay.

, the celebrated queen of Egypt, was the daughter of Ptolemy Auletes, king of that country; who, dying in the year 51 B. C. bequeathed his crown to the eldest of his sons and the eldest of his daughters; ordering them to be joined to each other in marriage, according to the usage of their family, and jointly to govern. They were both of them very young, Cleopatra the eldest being only seventeen; and therefore he committed them to the tuition of the Roman senate. They, however, could not agree, either to be married, or to reign together, and Ptolemy, the brother, having deprived Cleopatra of that share in the government which was left her by Auletes’s will, and driven her out of the kingdom, she raised an army in Syria and Palestine, and commenced a war with him. At this time Julius Caesar, who was in pursuit of Pompey, came to Alexandria, and began to arbitrate between Ptolemy and his sister Cleopatra. But Cleopatra, considering that Cossar was extravagantly addicted to women, laid a plot to attach him first to her person, and next to her cause: and requested that she might be peiv mitted to plead her cause in person before him. This being granted, she came secretly into the port of Alexandria in a small skiff towards the dusk of the evening; and contrived to be carried to Caesar’s apartment, who was too sensible of the charms of beauty not to be touched with those of Cleopatra. She was then in the prime of her youth, about the twentieth year of her age; a perfect beauty, with a commanding address, and a voice harmonious and bewitching. All these charms she prostituted immediately to Caesar, who next morning sent for Ptolemy, and pressed him to receive his sister again upon her own terms: but Ptolemy appealed to the people, and a war commenced, in which Ptolemy lost a battle, and his life, in endeavouring to escape. Caesar then settled the kingdom upon Cleopatra, and the surviving Ptolemy, her younger brother, as king and queen. This Ptolemy, however, was at this time only eleven years old, and Cleopatra, when he was grown up, and capable of sharing the royal authority, causeu him to be poisoned, and thus reigned alone in Egypt. However, she followed Caesar to Rome, and was there when he was killed in the senatehouse; but being terrified by that accident, and the subsequent disorders of the city, she made her escape with great precipitation.

It would not be to our purpose to be particular in relating the war between Antony and Caesar; the battle of Actium, as is well known, determined the victory in favour of the latter, and Cleopatra flying first, Antony hastened after. He conceived however great displeasure against her upon this occasion, and continued three days without seeing her; but afterwards recovered his usual humour, and devoted himself to pleasure. Meanwhile, Cleopatra made trial of all sorts of poisons upon criminals, even to the biting of serpents; and finding, after many experiments, that the sting of an asp gave the quickest and the easiest death, it is believed she made choice of that kind of death, if she should be driven to despair. After they were returned to Egypt, and found themselves abandoned by all their allies, they sent to make proposals to Caesar. Cleopatra asked the kingdom of Egypt for her children; and Antony desired he might live as a private man at Athens, if Caesar was not willing he should remain in Egypt. Cuesar absolutely rejected Antony’s proposal, and sent to Cleopatra that he would refuse her nothing that was just and reasonable, if she would rid herself of Antony, or drive him out of her kingdom. She refused to act openly against Antony; but betrayed him in every effort that he made, till she obliged him to put an end to his own life, for fear of falling into Crcsar’s hands. When Antony was dead, Cleopatra could not forbear most passionately bemoaning the loss of him: however, upon Caesar’s approach to Alexandria, she began to consult her own security. Near the temple of Isis she had raised a stately building, which she designed for her sepulchre: into this she now retired; and into this was carried by her order all her treasure, as gold, jewels, pearls, ivory, ebony, cinnamon, and other precious woods. It was filled besides with torches, faggots, tow, and other combustible matter: so that Caesar, who had notice of it, was afraid lest out of despair she should burn herself in it, with all those vast riches and therefore contrived to give her hopes from time to time that she might expect all good usage, from the esteem he had for her. It was his secret wish to expose this queen in his triumph to the Romans; and with this view he sent Proculus to employ all his art and address in seizing her, which he at length accomplished, and Cassar, although extremely glad to have her in his possession, commanded her to be served in all respects like a queen. She became, however, inconsolable for the loss of her liberty, and fell into a fever, which gave her hopes that all her sorrows would soon end with her life. She had besides resolved to abstain from eating; but this being known, her children were threatened with death if she persisted in that. Caesar at length resolved to see her, and by his civilities endeavoured to reconcile her to life. He found her upon a low bed; but as soon as she saw Caesar, she rose up in her shift, and threw herself at his feet. Caesar civily raised her up, and sat down at her bed’s head. She began to justify herself; but the proofs against her being too notorious, she turned her justification into prayers, and put into his hand an inventory of all her treasure and jewels. Having private notice soon after, that she was to be carried to Rome within three days, to grace Caesar’s triumph, she caused herself to be bitten by an asp, which, it is said, was brought to her concealed in a basket of figs; and of this she died. Caesar, deprived as he was of the greatest ornament of his triumph, yet ordered her a very magnificent funeral; and her body, as she desired, was laid by that of Antony.

, the son of Stephen Le Clerc, a physician and Greek professor at Geneva, was born Feb. 4, 1652, at that place, and educated in his father’s profession. After studying at Montpellier and Paris, he took his doctor’s degree at Valentia in 1672, then returned to his own country, and practised physic with great success. He was also an excellent Greek and Latin scholar and antiquary, and distinguished for his knowledge of medals. He published a “Bibliotheque Anatomique” in conjunction with Manget, in 1681, 2 vols. fol. reprinted in 1699. His “History of Medicine,” which extends to the time of Galen, was published at Geneva in 1696, but the best edition is that of Amsterdam, 1723, 4to. This work is much praised by Dr. Freind, except the continuation to the sixteenth century. In 1704 he succeeded his father as counsellor of state in the republic of Geneva, after which he practised very little. In 1715, the king of Sardinia, then king of Sicily, being at Thonon in Savoy, consulted him on his own health and that of his queen. The same year he published his “Historia latorum lumbricorum,” which was afterwards published in English, 8vo. He died June 8, 1728.

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

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

, a painter who practised his art in England, was born at Osnaburgh in 1656, and with his countryman, one Tiburen, went to Paris in 1679, where he worked for De Troye. In 1681, they came to England, and Closterman at first painted draperies for Riley and afterwards they painted in conjunction, Riley still executing most of the heads. On his death Closterman finished several of his pictures, which recommended him to the duke of Somerset, who had employed Riley. He painted the duke’s children, but lost his favour on a dispute about a picture of Guercino, which he had bought for liis grace, and which was afterwards purchased by lord Hnlifax. Closterman, however, did nof want business. He drew Gibbons the carver and his wife in one piece, which pleased, and there is a mezzotinto from it. He was even set in competition with sir Godfrey Kneller, and there is a story, not very credible, that sir Godfrey refused to paint a picture with him for a wager. Closterman painted the duke and duchess of Marlborough and all their children in one picture, and the duke on horseback; on which subject, however, he had so many disputes with the duchess, that the duke said, “It has given me more trouble to reconcile my wife and you, than to fight a battle.” Closterman, who sought reputation, went by invitation to Spain in 1696, where he drew the king and queen, and from whence he wrote several letters on the pictures in that country to Mr, Richard Graham. He also went twice to Italy, anil brought over several good pictures. The whole length of queen Anne in Guildhall is by him, and another at Chatsworth of the first duke of Rutland; and in Painters’-hall, ti portrait of Mr. Sannders. Elsum has bestowed an epigram on his portrait of Dryden; yet Closterman was a very moderate performer: his colouring strong, but heavy; and his pictures without any idea of grace. Yet he might have enjoyed very affluent circumstances, had he not shewn a foolish and infatuated fondness (as Houbraken tells us) for a girl that he kept in his house. That insidious young woman, who had persuaded him that she was entirely attached to his person and interest, watched a proper opportunity, and robbed him of all his money, plate, jewels, and every costly moveable, and fled out of the kingdom. So sudden and so unexpected a misfortune, against which he was totally unprepared, affected Closterman so violently, that he pined away his life; not long surviving the loss of his effects, and the infidelity of his mistress, which even impaired his understanding. He died in 1713, and was buried in Cbvent-garden churchyard.

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

Her friend Mr. Burnet continued to keep up a correspondence with her during his travels; and upon his arrival at the court of Berlin, where he was received with great marks of respect by Sophia Charlotte, queen of Prussia, daughter to the princess Sophia, he took an opportunity of writing to that princess in such advantageous terms of Mrs. Trotter, that her royal highness, in her answer to him from Hanover, on the 29th of July, 1704, declared herself “charmed with the agreeable picture which he had drawn of the new Scots Sappho, who seemed to deserve all the great things which he had said of her.” Jn 1704, Mrs. Trotter addressed some verses to the duke of Marlborough, upon his return from Germany, after the battle of Blenheim; and in 1706, after the battle of Ramillies, she also addressed a second poem to the duke of Marlborough. The same year, her tragedy called “The Revolution of Sweden,” was acted at the queen’s theatre in the Haymarket, and printed at London in 4to. It is founded upon the revolution in Sweden under Gustavus Erickson.

In 1732, she wrote a poem on occasion of “the Busts set up in the Queen’s Hermitage,” which was afterwards printed in the Gentleman’s Magazine, for May 1737, with some alterations, which she thought to its disadvantage. About two years after, she wrote “Remarks upon some writers in the controversy concerning the foundation of Moral Duty and Moral Obligation; particularly the translator of archbishop King’s Origin of Moral Evil, and the author of the Divine Legation of Moses: to which are prefixed, some cursory thoughts on the controversies concerning necessary existence, the reality and infinity of space, the extension and place of spirits, and on Dr. Watts’s notion of substance.” These remarks continued in manuscript till the year 1743, when they were printed in “The History of the Works of the Learned.” She had the misfortune this year to lose a daughter; and it appears also, that she had at this time a son in Germany, in some office connected with the army, and who was afterwards clerk of the cheque at Chatham.

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

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

Sir Edward Coke was in his person well-proportioned, and his features regular. He was neat, but not nice, in his dress: and is reported to have said, “that the cleanness of a man’s clothes ought to put him in mind of keeping all clean within.” He had great quickness of parts, deep penetration, a faithful memory, and a solid judgment. He was wont to say, that “matter lay in a little room;” and in his pleadings he was concise, though in set speeches and in his writings too diffuse. He was certainly a great master of his profession, as even his enemies allow; had studied it regularly, and was perfectly acquainted with every thing relating to it. Hence he gained so high an esteem in Westminster-hall, and came to enjoy so large a share in the favour of the great lord Burleigh. He valued himself, and indeed not without reason, upon this, that he obtained all his preferments without employing either prayers or pence; and that he became the queen’s solicitor, speaker of the house of commons, attorney-general, chief justice of both benches, high-steward of Cambridge, and a member of the privy-council, without either begging or bribing. As he derived his fortune, his credit, and his greatness, from the law, so he loved it to a degree of intemperance. He committed every thing to writing with an industry beyond example, and, as we shall relate just now, published a great deal. He met with many changes of fortune; was sometimes in power, and sometimes in disgrace. He was, however, so excellent at making the best of a disgrace, that king James used to compare him to a cat, who always fell upon her legs. He was upon occasion a friend to the church and clergy: and thus, when he had lost his public employments, and a great peer was inclined to question the rights of the church of Norwich, he hindered it, by telling him plainly, that “if he proceeded, he would put on his cap and gown again, and follow the cause through Westminster-hall.” He had many benefices in his own patronage, which he is said to have given freely to men of merit; declaring in his law language, that he would have law livings pass by livery and seisin, and not by bargain and sale.

“His learned and laborious works on the laws,” says a certain author, “will be admired by judicious posterity, while Fame has a trumpetleft her, or any breath to blow therein.” This is indisputably a just character of his writings in general: the particulars of which are as follow. About 1600 were published, in folio, the first part of the “Reports of sir Edward Coke, knt. her majesty’s attorneygeneral, of divers resolutions and judgments given with great deliberation by the reverend judges and sages of the law, of cases and matters in law, which were never resolved or adjudged before: and the reasons and causes of the said resolutions and judgments during the most happy reign of the most illustrious and renowned queen Elizabeth, the fountain of all justice, and the life of the law.” The second, third, and so on to the eleventh part of the “Reports” were all published by himself in the reign of James I. The twelfth part of his Reports has a certificate printed before it, dated Feb. 2, 1655, and subscribed E. Bulstrod; signifying, that he conceives it to be the genuine work of sir Edward Goke. The title of the thirteenth part is, “Select cases in law, reported by sir Edward Coke;” and these are asserted to be his in a preface-signed with the initials J. G.

, marquis of Segnelai, one of the greatest statesmen that France ever had, was born at Paris in 1619, and descended from a family that lived at Rheirns in Champaigne, originally from Scotland (the Cuthberts), but at that time no way considerable for its splendour. His grandfather is said to have been a winejuerchant, and his father at first followed the same occupation but afterwards traded in cloth, and at last in silk. Our Colbert was instructed in the arts of merchandize, and afterwards became clerk to a notary. In 1648 his relation John Baptist Colbert, lord of S. Pouange, preferred him to the service of Michael le Tellier, secretary of state, whose sister he had married; and here he discovered such diligence and exactness in executing all the commissions that were entrusted to his care, that he quickly grew distinguished. One day his master sent him to cardinal Mazarine, who was then at Sedan, with a letter written by the queen mother; and ordered him to bring it back after that minister had seen it. Colbert carried the letter, and would not return without it, though the cardinal treated him roughly, used several arts to deceive him, and obliged him to wait for it several days. Some time after, the cardinal returning to court, and wanting one to write his agencte or memoranda, desired le Tellier to furnish him with a fit person for that employment; and Colbert being presented to him, the cardinal had some remembrance of him, and desired to know where he had seen him. Colbert was afraid of putting him in mind of Sedan, lest the remembrance of his behaviour in demanding the queen’s letter should renew his anger. But the cardinal was so far from disliking him for his faithfulness to his late master, that he received him on condition that he should serve him with the like zeal and fidelity.

, a person of considerable learning in the sixteenth century, was born at Godshill in the Isle of Wight, and educated in Wykeham’s school near Winchester. From thence he was chosen to New college, Oxford, of which he became perpetual fellow in 1523, and studying the civil law, took the degree of bachelor in that faculty, March 3, 1529-30. He then travelled into Italy, and improved himself in his studies at Padua, being a zealous Roman catholic, but upon his return to England, he acknowledged king Henry VIII. to be the supreme head of the church of England. In 1540, he took the degree of doctor of the civil law; and the same year resigned his fellowship, being then settled in London, an advocate in the court of arches, prebendary of Yatminster Secunda in the church of Sarum, and about the same time was made archdeacon of Ely. In September, 1540, he was admitted to the rectory of Chelmsford in Essex; and in October following, collated to the prebend of Holbora, which he resigned April 19, 1541; and was the same day collated to that of Sneating, which he voiding by cession in March ensuing, was collated to the prebend of Wenlakesbarne. In 1542 he was elected warden of New College; and in 1545 made rector of Newton Longville in Buckinghamshire. Soon after, when king Edward VI. came to the crown, Dr. Cole outwardly embraced, and preached up the reformation, but altering his mind, he resigned his rectory of Chelmsford in 1547; and in 1551 his wardenship of New College; and the year following, his rectory of Newton Longville. After queen Mary’s accession to the crown, he became again a zealous Roman catholic and in 1554 was made provost of Eton college, of which he had been fellow. The same year, June 20, he had the degree of D. D. conferred on him, and was one of the divines that disputed publicly at Oxford with archbishop Cranmer, and bishop Ridley. He also preached the funeral sermon before archbishop Cranmer' s execution. He was appointed one of the commissioners to visit the university of Cambridge; was elected dean of St. Paul’s the llth of December, 1556; made (August 8, 1557) vicar-general of the spiritualities under cardinal Pole, archbishop of Canterbury; and the first of October following, official of the arches, and dean of the peculiars; and in November ensuing, judge of the court of audience. In 1558 he was appointed one of the overseers of that cardinal’s will. In the first year of queen Elizabeth’s reign he was one of the eight catholic divines who disputed publicly at Westminster with the same number of protestants, and distinguished himself then and afterwards, by his writings in favour of popery, for which he was deprived of his deanery, fined five hundred marks, and imprisoned. He died in or near Wood -street compter, in London, in December, 1579. Leland has noticed him among other learned men of our nation. He is called by Strype “a person more earnest than wise,” but Ascham highly commends him for his learning and humanity. It is evident, however, that he accommodated his changes of opinions to the times, although in his heart he was among the most bigotted and implacable opponents of the reformed religion. His writings were, 1. “Disputation with archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley at Oxford,” in 1554. 2. “Funeral Sermon at the Burning of Dr. Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury.” Both these are in Fox’s Acts and Monuments. 3. “Letters to John Jewell, bishop of Salisbury, upon occasion of a Sermon that the said bishop preached before the queen’s majesty and her honourable council, anno 1560,” Lond.1560, 8vo, printed afterwards among Bishop Jewell’s works. 4. “Letters to bishop Jewell, upon occasion of a Sermon of his preached at Paul’s Cross on the second Sunday before Easter, in 1560.” 5. “An Answer to the first proposition of the Protestants, at the Disputation before the lords at Westminster.” These last are in Burnet’s History of the Reformation.

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

The next thing Collier undertook was a work of considerable industry, that of translating Moreri’s great “Historical, geographical, genealogical, and poetical Dictionary.” The two first volumes were printed in 1701, the third, under the title of a “Supplement,” in 1705, and the fourth, which is called “An Appendix,” in 1721. This was a work of great utility at the time it was published. It was the first of its kind in the English language, and many articles of biography in the Appendices may yet be consulted with advantage, as containing particulars which are not to be found elsewhere. About 1701, he published also, “An English translation of Antoninus’s Meditations, &c. to which is added, the Mythological Picture of Cebes, &c.” In the reign of queen Anne, some overtures were made to engage him to a compliance, and he was promised preferment, if he would acknowledge and submit to the government; but as he became a nonjuror upon a principle of conscience, he could not be prevailed upon to listen to any terms. Afterwards he published, in 2 vols. folio, “An Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain, chiefly of England, from the first planting of Christianity, to the end of the reign of Charles II. with a brief account of the affairs of religion in Ireland, collected from the best ancient historians, councils, and records.” The first volume, which comes down to Henry Vie was published in 1708, the second in 1714. This history, which contains, besides a relation of facts, many curious discourses upon ecclesiastical and religious subjects, was censured by bishop Burnet, bishop Nicolson, and doctor Kennet, afterwards bishop of Peterborough; but was defended by Collier in two pieces. The first was entitled “An Answer to some exceptions in bishop Burnet’s third part of the History of the Reformation, &c. against Mr. Collier’s Ecclesiastical History; together with a reply to some remarks in bishop Nicolson’s English Historical Library, &c. upon the same subject, 1715;” the second, “Some Remarks on Dr. Kennet’s second and third Letters; wherein his misrepresenta-. tions of Mr. Collier’s Ecclesiastical History are laid open, and his calumnies disproved, 1717.” Collier’s prejudices, however, in favour of the popish establishment, aud against the reformers, render it necessary to read this work with much caution: on the other hand, we cannot but observe, to Collier’s credit, an instance of his great impartiality in the second volume of his history; which is, that in disculpating the presbyterians from the imputation of their being consenting to the murder of Charles I. he has shewn, that as they only had it in their power to protest, so they did protest against that bloody act, both before and after it was committed.

, a laborious antiquary, whose name is familiar as the compiler of peerages and baronetages, was born in 1682. He was the son of William Collins, esq. gentleman to queen Catherine in 1669, but, as he himself informs us, the son of misfortune, his father having run through more than 30,000l. He received, however, a liberal education, and from a very early age culti­% T ated that branch of antiquities, to which he dedicated the remainder of a laborious life. The first edition of his Peerage was published as early as 1708, and we have seen another edition of 1715, 4 vols. 8vo. It afterwards by various additions, and under other editors, was extended to seven volumes, and with a supplement to nine. The last and most improved of all was published in 1812, under the care of sir Egerton Brydges, whose attention to the errors of the preceding editions cannot be too highly praised, and the additional articles more immediately from his pen are marked by elegance of style and sentiment and a just discrimination of character. Mr. Collins’s “Baronetage” was first published in 1720 in two volumes, extended in 1741 to five volumes, since when there has been no continuation under his name, but the loss is amply supplied by Mr. Betham’s very enlarged work. Mr. Collins’s other publications are, 1. “The Life of Cecil, Lord Burleigh,” 1732, 8vo. 2. “Life of Edward the Black Prince,” 1740, 8vo. 3. “Letters and Memorials of State, collected by Sir Henry Sidney and others,” 1746, 2 vols. folio. 4. “Historical Collections of the Noble Families of Cavendish, Holies, Vere, Harley, and Ogle,” 1752, folio. We know little of Mr. Collins’s private life, unless what is painful to re.cord, that he seldom received any substantial encouragement from the noble families on whose history he employed his time, that he frequently laboured under pecuniary embarrassments, and as frequently experienced the nullity of promises from his patrons among the great, until at length his majesty George II. granted him a pension of 400l. a year, which, however, he enjoyed but a few years. He died March 16, 1760, at Battersea, where he was buried on the 24th, He was father of major-general Arthur Tooker Collins, who died Jan. 4, 1793, leaving issue David Collins, esq. the subject of the next article.

, judge advocate and historian of the new settlement in South Wales, the son of gen. A. T. Collins, and of Harriet Frazer, of Pack, in the king’s county, Ireland, was born March 3, 1756, and received a liberal education at the grammar-school of Exeter, where his father then resided. In 1770 he was appointed lieutenant in the marines; and, in 1772, was with the late admiral M'Bride, in the Southampton frigate, when the unfortunate Matilda, queen of Denmark, was rescued from the dangers that awaited her by the energy of the British government, and conveyed to a place of safety in the king her brother’s Hanoverian dominions. On that occasion he commanded the guard that received her majesty, and had the honour of kissing her hand. In 1775, he was at the battle of Bunker’s-hill; in which the first battalion of marines, to which he belonged, so signally distinguished itself, having its commanding officer, the gallant major Pitcairne, and a great many officers and men, killed in storming the redoubt, besides a very large proportion of wounded. In 1777, he was adjutant of the Chatham division; and, in 1782, captain of marines on-board the Courageux, of 74 guns, commanded by the late lord Mulgrave, and participated in the partial action that took place with the enemy’s fleet, when lord Howe relieved Gibraltar. Reduced to half-pay at the peace of 1782, he resided at Rochester in Kent (having previously married an American lady, who survives him, but without issue); and on its being determined to found a colony, by sending convicts to Botany Bay, he was appointed judge advocate to the intended settlement, and in that capacity sailed with governor Philip in May 1787 (who also appointed him his secretary), which situation he filled with the greatest credit to himself and advantage to the colony, until his return to England in 1797. The History of the Settlement, which he soon after published, followed by a second volume, is a work abounding with information, highly interesting, and written with the utmost simplicity. The appointment of judge advocate, however, proved eventually injurious to his real interests. While absent, he had been passed over when it came to his turn to be put on full pay; nor was he permitted to return to England to reclaim his rank in the corps; nor could he ever obtain any effectual redress; but was afterwards compelled to come in as junior captain of the corps, though with his proper rank in the army, and died a captain instead of a colonel-commandant, his rank in the army being merely brevet. He had then the mortification of finding that, after ten years’ distinguished service in the infancy of a colony, and the sacrifice of every real comfort, his only reward had been the loss of many years’ rank, a vital injury to an officer. A remark which his wounded feelings wrung from him at the close of the second volume of his History of the Settlement, appears to have awakened the sympathy of those in power; and he was, almost immediately after its publication, offered the government of the projected settlement on Van Diemen’s land, which he accepted, and sailed once more for that quarter of the globe, where he founded his new colony; struggled with great difficulties, which he overcame; and, after remaining there eight years, was enjoying the flourishing state his exertions had produced, when he died suddenly, after a few days’ confinement from a slight cold, on, the 24rth of March, 1810.

, an unfortunate but excellent English poet, was born at Chichester, Dec. 25, about 1720, the son of a reputable hatter in that city. In 1733 he was admitted scholar of Winchester college under Dr. Burton, and at nineteen was elected upon the foundation to Newcollege in Oxford. He was first upon the list; and, in order to wait for a vacancy in that society, was admitted a commoner of Queen’s college in the same university; but no such vacancy occurring, his tutor, very sensible of his desert, recommended him to the society of Magdalen; and this recommendation, backed by an uncommon display of genius and learning in the exercises performed on the occasion, procured him to be elected a demy of that college in July 1741. During his residence in this place, which was till he had taken a bachelor’s degree, he applied himself to poetry, and published an epistle to sir Thomas Hanmer on his edition of Shakspeare, and the “Persian,” or, as they have been since entitled, “Oriental Eclogues,” which, notwithstanding their merit, were not attended with any great success; and it was objected to them, that though the scenery and subjects are oriental, the style and colouring are purely European. Of the force of this objection, Mr. Collins himself became sensible in the latter part of his life. Yet their poetical merit is very great and Dr. Langhorne has not scrupled to assert, “that in simplicity of description and expression, in delicacy and softness of numbers, and in natural and unaffected tenderness, they are not to be equalled by any thing of the pastoral kind in the English language.”

, a doctor of the Ambrosian college at Milan, and grand penitentiary of that diocese, who died in 1640, at a very advanced age, made himself famous by a treatise “De Animabus Paganorum,” published in two volumes 4to at Milan, in 1622 and 1623. He here examines into the final state in the world to come of several illustrious pagans, and hazards bold and ingenious conjectures on matters far beyond the reach of his intellect. He saves the Egyptian midwives, the queen of Sheba, Nebuchadnezzar, &c. and does not despair of the salvation of the seven sages of Greece, nor of that of Socrates; but condemns Pythagoras, Aristotle, and several others though he acknowledges that they knew the true God. This work, properly speaking, seems to be nothing more than a vehicle for the display of the author’s erudition, of which it doubtless contains a great deal. It is now ranked among the curious and rare. He also wrote “Conclusiones theologies,” 1609, 4to, and a treatise “De sanguine Christi,” full of profound disquisition and citations innumerable, Milan, 1617, 4to, but in less estimation than his treatise “de Animabus.”

, a famous Jesuit, born at St. Symphorien, two leagues from Lyons, in 1641, acquired great reputation among his order by his extraordinary talents in the pulpit. He was preacher for two years at the court of James II. of England, who listened to his sermons with great pleasure, and, as it is said by the Romanists, with edification; hut, falling under the suspicion, though not convicted, of being concerned in a conspiracy, he was banished England, and betook himself to Parai, in the Charolois, where he died, Feb. 15, 1682. In conjunction with Marie Alacoque, he recommended the celebration of the solemnity of the heart of Jesus, and composed an office for the occasion. The first inventor of this rite, however, was Thomas Goodwin, president of Magdalen college, Oxford, an Arminian, who excited great notice in England, in the middle of the seventeenth century, by his ascetical and theological writings. His book entitled “Cor Christi in ccelis erga peccatores in terris,” printed in 1649, comprises the whole system of this devotion and was intended to promote the spread of it in England. La Colombiere, who was sent to London as confessor and preacher to the duchess of York, afterwards queen, found there a numerous sect, who, after Goodwin’s example, paid adoration to the fleshly heart of Jesus, as the symbolical image of divine love. He was astonished at the novelty of so ravishing a devotion, which had so long escaped the fertile invention of his fraternity; and carried it in triumph back with him to France, where, under the influence of heavenly visions and miracles, it struck deep root, and was extensively propagated. Among other agents a nun of the name of Marie Alacoque, who, in her heavenly visions, pretended to have conversed familiarly with Christ, was employed by the Jesuits to aid the deception, and in one of her visions, asserted that she had received orders from heaven to acquaint father la Colombiere, that he should institute a yearly festival to the heart of Jesus, propagate this devotion with all his might, and announce to such as should dedicate themselves to it, the assurance of their predestination to eternal life. The Jesuits immediately and zealously complied with the celestial mandate. There appeared at once in all quarters of the world, and in all languages, an innumerable swarm of publications, manuals, copper-plates, and medals, with hearts decorated with crowns of thorns, with lambent flames, transpiercing swords, or other symbolical impresses. They distributed scapularies to be worn day and night upon the breast, and tickets to be swallowed for driving out fevers. In all Spain there was not a nun who had not a present from the Jesuits of a heart cut out of red cloth, to be worn next the skin. In every catholic city and town, in all parts of the world, fraternities were erected, passionmasses and nine-day devotions were instituted, to the honour of the heart of Jesus; and panegyrical sermons delivered, exhorting the faithful to augment their zeal. The proselytes must vow, before the holy sacrament of the altar, an eternal fidelity to the heart of Jesus; and every soul was made responsible for the increase and growth of this new devotion; nay, the display of a burning zeal for making proselytes was regarded as the peculiar characteristic of the true worshipper of the heart. This devotion was represented in their sermons and writings, as a necessary means to the enjoyment of a blissful hereafter: it was no wonder, then, that the partisans of this devotion were in a short time as numerous in all catholic Christendom as the sands of the sea. The bishops approved and confirmed the brotherhoods, and consecrated churches, altars, and chapels, erected to the promotion of this enthusiasm. Kings and queens preferred petitions to the papal throne, that a proper office might be appointed in the breviary and choir, and a peculiar mass for the solemnization of the anniversary; and even at Rome fraternities arose and flourished that devoted themselves to the worship of the heart of Jesus. In recommendation of it the Jesuits were not wanting either in prophecies or miracles; among the foremost of whom was la Colombiere, who had an excellent taste in his compositions, and a noble delivery in the pulpit. His masterly eloquence displays itself amidst the extreme simplicity ofhis style, as we are told by the abbe Trublet, speaking of his sermons, published at Lyons 1757, in 6 volumes 12mo. He had an impetuous and lively imagination, and the warmth of his heart appears through all his discourses: it is the unction of pere Che'minaisr, only more ardent and glowing. All his sermons breathe the most gentle, and at the same time the most fervent piety: he has been equalled by few in the art of affecting his hearers, and no enthusiast ever fell less into the familiar. The celebrated Patru, his friend, speaks of him as the best skilled of his time in the refinements and niceties of the French language. There are likewise by him, “Moral Reflections,” and “Spiritual Letters.”

, a person ever memorable for his benefactions and charities, was the eldest son of William Colston, esq. an eminent Spanish merchant in Bristol, and born in that city Nov. 2, 1636. He was brought up to trade, and resided some time in Spain with his brothers, two of whom were inhumanly murdered there by assassins*. He inherited a handsome fortune from his parents, which received continual additions from the fortunes of his brethren; all of whom, though numerous, he survived. This family substance he increased immensely by trade; and having no near relations, he disposed qf a great part of it in acts of charity and beneficence. In 1691 he built upon his own ground, at the charge of about 2500l. St. Michael’shilL alms-houses in Bristol; and endowed them with lands, of the yearly rent of 282 J. 3s. 4</. The same year he gave houses and lands, without Temple-gate in that city, to the society of merchants for ever, towards the maintenance of six poor old decayed sailors, to the yearly value of 24l. In 1696 he purchased a piece of ground in Temple-street in the same city, and built at his own charge a school and dwelling-house for a master, to instruct forty boys, who are also to be clothed, instructed in writing, arithmetic, and the church-catechism. The estate given for this cbarity amounted to 80l. yearly, clear of all charges. In 1702 he gave 500l. towards rebuilding queen Elizabeth’s hospital on the College-green in Bristol; and for the clothing and educating of six boys there, appropriated an

reply, that if it pleased God to bring by bandittis or bravoes. estate of 60l. a year, clear of charges, besides lOl. for placing out the boys apprentices. In 1708 he settled his great benefaction of the hospital of St. Augustine in Bristol, consisting of a master, two ushers, and one hundred boys; for the maintenance of which boys, he gave an estate of 138l. 155. 6fd. a year. The charge of first setting up this hospital, and making it convenient for the purpose, amounted, it is said, to about 11,000l. He gave also 6l. yearly to the minister of All- Saints in Bristol, for reading prayers every Monday and Tuesday morning throughout the year, and I/, a year to the clerk and sexton: also 6l. a year for ever, for a monthly sermon and prayers to the prisoners in Newgate there; and 20l. yearly for ever to the clergy beneficed in that city, for preaching fourteen sermons in the time of Lent, on subjects appointed by himself. The subjects are these the Lent fast against atheism and infidelity the catholic church the excellence of the church of England the powers of the church baptism confirmation confession and absolution the errors of the church of Rome; enthusiasm and superstition restitution frequenting the divine service frequent communion the passion of our blessed Saviour. He bestowed, lastly, upwards of 2000l. in occasional charities and benefactions to churches and charity-schools, all within the city of Bristol. Beyond that city his benefactions were equally liberal. He gave 6000l. for the augmentation of sixty small livings, on the following terms: Any living that was entitled to queen Anne’s bounty might have this too, on condition that every parish, which did receive this, should be obliged to raise 100l. to be added to the lOOl. raised by Colston: and many livings have had the grant of this bounty. He gave to St. Bartholomew’s hospital in London 2000l. with which was purchased an estate of 100l. a year, which is settled on that hospital and he left to the same, by will, 500l. To Christ’s hospital, at several times, 1000l. and 1000l. more by will. To the hospitals of St. Thomas and Bethlehem 500l. each. To the workhouse without Bishopsgate, 2001. To the society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts, 300l. He built an almshouse for six poor people at Shene in Surry, and left very handsome legacies to Mortlake in the same county, where he died: viz. 45l. yearly, to be continued for twelve years after his death, for clothing and educating twelve boys and twelve girls in that place; and also 85l. he being so many years old, to eighty- five poor men and women there, to each 1l. to be distributed at the time of his decease. He gave lOO/. per annum, to be continued for twelve years after his death, and to be distributed by the direction of his executors: either to place out every year ten boys apprentices, or to be given towards the setting up ten young tradesmen, to each 10l. He gave likewise to eighteen charity-schools in several parts of England, and to be continued to them for twelve years after his death, to each school yearly 5l. Finally, he gave towards building a church at Manchester in Lancashire 20l. and towards the building of a church at Tiverton in Devonshire 50l.

, another eminent missionary for the propagation of the Christian religion in the sixth century, was a native of Ireland according to Jonas, who wrote his life, sir James Ware, and others; but Mackenzie maintains that he was a North Briton. From either Scotland or. Ireland, however, he went into England, where he continued some time, and in 589 proceeded to France, and founded the monastery of Luxevil, near Besanon, which he governed during twenty years. In 598 we find him engaged in a controversy with pope Gregory concerning the proper time of keeping Easter, which was then a frequent object of dispute; but Columbanus at last submitted to the court of Rome. After so long residence in France, he was banished for censuring the immoralities of Theodoric and his queen. He then went to Switzerland, where he was kindly received by Theodebert, king of that country, and was successful in converting the pagans; but the Swiss army being defeated by the French, he was obliged to remove to Italy, where, under the protection of the king of the Lombards, he founded, in 613, the abbey of Bobio, near Naples. Over this monastery he presided but a short time, dying Nov. 21, 61S. Authors are not agreed as to the order of monks to which Columbanus belonged, but it is certain that his disciples conformed to the rules of the Benedictines. His works are printed in the Bibl. Patrum, and consist of monastic rules, sermons, poems, letters, &c.

After this disaster he went to Lisbon, where he married a daughter of Bartholomew Perestrello, one of the captains employed by Prince Henry in his early navigations, and who had discovered and planted the islands of Porto Santo and Madeira, and by getting possession of his journals and charts, Columbus was seized with an irresistible desire of visiting unknown countries. He first made a voyage to Madeira; and continued during several years to trade with that island, the Canaries, Azores, the settlements in Guinea, and all the other places which the Portuguese had discovered on the continent of Africa. By these means he soon became one of the most skilful navigators in Europe. At this time the great object of discovery was a passage by sea to the East Indies, which was at last accomplished by the Portuguese, by doubling the Cape of Good Hope. The danger and tediousness of the passage, however, induced Columbus to consider whether a shorter and more direct passage to these regions might not be found out; and at length he became convinced that, by sailing across the Atlantic Ocean, directly towards the West, new countries, which probably formed a part of the vast continent of India, must infallibly be discovered. In 1474, he communicated his ideas on this subject to one Paul, a physician in Florence, a man eminent for his knowledge in cosmography, who suggested several facts in confirmation of the plan, and warmly encouraged Columbus to persevere in an undertaking so laudable, and which must redound so much to the honour of his country and the benefit of Europe. Columbus, fully satisfied of the truth of his system, was impatient to set out on a voyage of discovery, and to secure the patronage of some of the considerable powers of Europe, capable of undertaking such an enterprize. He applied first to the republic of Genoa; afterwards to the courts of Portugal, Spain, and England, successively, but met with a variety of mortifying interruptions. At last his project was so far countenanced by Ferdinand of Spain and queen Isabella, that our adventurer set sail with three small ships, the whole expence of which did not exceed 4000l. During his voyage he met with many difficulties from the mutinous and timid disposition of his men. He was the first who observed the variation of the compass, which threw the sailors into the utmost terror. For this phenomenon Columbus was obliged to invent a reason, which, though it did not satisfy himself, yet served to dispel their fears, or silence their murmurs. At last, however, the sailors lost all patience; and the admiral was obliged to promise so r lemnly, that in case land was not discovered in three days, he should return to Europe. That very night, however, the island of San Salvador was discovered, and the sailors were then as extravagant in the praise of Columbus as they had before been insolent in reviling and threatening him. They threw themselves at his feet, implored his pardon, and pronounced him to be a person inspired by heaven with more than human sagacity and fortitude, in order to accomplish a design so far beyond the ideas and conception of all former ages. Having visited several of the West India islands, and settled a colony in Hispaniola, he again set sail for Spain; and after escaping great dangers from violent tempests, arrived at the port of Palos on the 15th of March 1493.

As soon as Columbus’ s ship was discovered approaching, all the inhabitants of Palos ran eagerly to the shore, where they received the admiral with royal honours. The court was then at Barcelona, and Columbus took care immediately to announce his arrival to the king and queen, who were no less delighted than astonished with this unexpected event, and gave orders for conducting him into the city with all imaginable pomp receiving him clad in their royal robes, and seated on a throne under a magnificent canopy. Notwithstanding all this respect, however, Columbus was no longer regarded than he was successful. The colonists he afterwards carried over were to the last degree unreasonable and unmanageable; so that he was obliged to use some severities with them; and complaints, were made to the court of Spain against him for cruelty. On this, Francis de Bovadilla, a knight of Calatrava, was appointed to inquire into the conduct of Columbus; with orders, in case he found the charge of mal-administration, proved, to supersede him, and assume the office of governor of Hispaniola. The consequence of this was, that Columbus was sent to Spain in chains. From these, however, he was freed immediately on his arrival, and had an opportunity granted him of vindicating his innocence. He was, however, deprived of all power; and notwithstanding his great services, and the solemnity of the agreement between him and Ferdinand, Columbus never could obtain the fulfilment of any part of that treaty. At last, disgusted with the ingratitude of a monarch whom he had served with such fidelity and success, and exhausted with fatigues, he died May 29th, 1506.

Besides the works already noticed, Dr. Comber wrote, 1. “A Scholastical History of the primitive and general use of Liturgies in the Christian Church; together with an Answer to Mr. David Clarkson’s late Discourse concerning Liturgies,” Lond. 1690, dedicated to king William and queen Mary. 2. “A Companion to the Altar; or, an Help to the worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper, by Discourses and Meditations upon the whole Communionoffice.” 3. “A brief Discourse upon the Offices of Baptism, Catechism, and Confirmation,” printed at the end of the Companion to the Altar.“4.” A Discourse on the occasional Offices in the Common Prayer, viz. Matrimony, Visitation of the Sick, Burial of the Dead, Churching of Women, and the Commination.“5.” A Discourse upon the Manner and Form of making Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,“London, 1699, 8vo, dedicated to archbishop Tenison. 6.” Short Discourses upon the whole Common Prayer, designed to inform the judgment, and excite the devotion of such as daily use the same;“chiefly byway of paraphrase, London, 1684, 8vo, dedicated to Anne, princess of Denmark, to whom the author was chaplain. 7. f Roman Forgeries in the Councils during the first four Centuries; together with an Appendix, concerning the forgeries and errors in the annals of Baronius,” ibid. 1689, 4to. It seems doubtful whether the edition of Fox’s “Christus Triumphans,” which appeared in 1672, was published by him. From his correspondence, and from a ms account of his life left in his family, his great grandson, the rev. T. Comber of Jesus college, Cambridge, published in 1799, an interesting volume, entitled “Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Thomas Comber, D. D. some time dean of Durham; in which is introduced a candid view of the scope and execution of the -several works of Dr. Comber, as well printed as ms.; also a fair account of his literary correspondence.” Of this we have availed ourselves as to the preceding facts, and must still refer to it for a more satisfactory detail of Dr. Comber’s public services and private character. He was unquestionably a pious, learned, and indefatigable supporter of the doctrine and discipline of the church of England; and his private character added a very striking lustre to his public professions. His principal works, not of the controversial kind, are those he wrote on the various parts of the liturgy, which, although in less reputation now than formerly, unquestionably were the first of the kind, and rendered the labours of his successors Nichols, Wheatley, &c. more easy. His style is in general perspicuous, although void of ornament, and the phraseology, somewhat peculiar; but these liturgical commentaries are chiefly valuable for the accumulation of learned references and authorities. As to his private character, his biographer assures us, that “his modesty and inambition were singularly remarkable. Content with a moderate fortune, he was desirous of continuing in a private station, though possessed of abilities and integrity capable of adorning the most exalted and splendid rank. Insensible equally to the calls of ambition and the allurements of wealth, we behold him declining situations of honour and emolument, to obtain which thousands have made shipwreck of their honour and conscience. When the importunity of his friends had at last prevailed on him to lay aside his thoughts of continuing in obscurity, and induced him to step forward into a more public life, we see him respected by all the great and good men of his time, and frequently receiving public marks of esteem from the lips of royalty itself. The same modesty which had made him desirous of continuing in a private station, still adhered to him when preferred to an eminent dignity in the church: unassuming and humble in private life, in public he was dignified without pride, and generous without ostentation.”

, doctor of physic, king’s botanist, and member of the faculty of Montpelier, was born at Chatilon les Dombes near Bourgin Bresse, in 1727, He discovered an early propensity to botany and other branches of natural history, which he pursued with unremitting ardour, and, as it is said, with very little delicacy, performing the same tricks in a garden, which coin and print collectors have been known to perform in museums and libraries. When at Montpelier, he made no scruple to pluck the rarest and most precious plants in the king’s botanic garden there, to enrich his herbal; and when on this account the directors of the garden refused him admittance, he scaled the walls by night to continue his depredations. The reputation, however, of a better kind, which he gained during a residence of four years at Montpelier, induced Linnæus to recommend him as a proper person to form the queen of Sweden’s collection of the rarest fishes in the Mediterranean, and to compose accurate descriptions of them; which undertaking he executed with great labour and dexterity, producing a complete Ichthyology, 2 vols. 4to, with a Dictionary and Bibliography, containing accounts of all the authors who had treated that branch of natural history. Among his various productions, is a dissertation entitled “The Martyrology of Botany,” containing accounts of all the authors who lost their lives by the fatigues and accidents incident to the zeal for acquiring natural curiosities; a list, in which his own name was destined to be enrolled. Sometimes he has been found in his closet with a candle burning long after sunrise, with his head bent over his herbal, unconscious of its being day-light; and used frequently to return from his botanical excursions torn with briars, bruised with falls from rocks, and emaciated with hunger and fatigue, after many narrow escapes from precipices and torrents. These ardent occupations did not, however, extinguish sentiments of a more tender nature. M. Commerson married in 1760 a wife who died in childbed two years after, and whose memory he preserved by naming a new kind of plant, whose fruit seemed to contain two united hearts, “Pulcheria Commersonia.” He arrived at Paris in 1764, where he became connected with all the learned botanists, particularly the celebrated Jussieu; and was recommended to the duke de Praslin, minister for the marine department, to accompany M. Bougainville in his voyage round the world. The duke conceived the highest idea of his merit from the skdch he drew of the observations that might be made relative to natural history in such a voyage; and he sailed accordingly, in 1766, making the most industrious use of every opportunity to fulfil his engagements! He died at the Isle of France in 1773, and by his will left to the king’s cabinet all his botanical collections, which, before he engaged in this voyage, amounted to above 200 volumes in folio; those made during the voyage, together with his papers and herbal, were sent home in 32 cases, containing an inestimable treasure of hitherto unknown materials for natural history, and Messrs. Jussieu, D'Aubenton, and Thouin, were commissioned to examine and arrange them.

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

* We learn from Mr. Ray and Plu- fore in England. This repository was kenet, that he jwined to his taste for ever open to the inspection of the cugardening, a real and scientific know- rious and scientific and we find Ray, led^e of plants; an attainment not Petiver, and Plukenet, in numerous usual among the great in those days, instances, acknowledging the assistHe collected a greater variety of green- ance they received from the free cornhouse rarities, and planted a greater munication of rare and new plants out variety of hardy exotic trees and shrubs, of the garden at FulUam. Pulteaey'5 than had been seen in any garden be* Sketches. At his return to London, he discovered his zeal for the revolution, and first set his hand to the association begun at Exeter. He waited on the prince of Orange, Dec. 21, at the head of his clergy; and, in their names and his own, thanked his highness fur his very great and hazardous undertaking for their deliverance, and the preservation of the protcstant religion, with the anc; ent laws and liberties of this nation. He gave his royal highness the sacrament, Dec. 30; and upon Jan. 29 following, when the house of lords, in a grand committee, debated the important question, “Whether the throne, being vacant, ou^ht to be filled by a regent or a king?” Compton was one of the two bisiiops, sir Jonathan Trelawny bishop of Bristol being the other, who made the majority for filling up the throne by a king. On February 14, he was again appointed of the privy-council, and made dean of the royal chapel; from both which places king James had removed him: and was afterwards chosen by king William, to perform the ceremony of his and queen Mary’s coronation, upon April 11, 1689. The same year he was constituted one of the commissioners for revising the liturgy, in which he laboured with much zeal to reconcile the dissenters to the church; and also in the convocation, that met Nov. 21, 1689, of which he was president. But the intended comprehension met with insuperable difficulties, the majority of the lower house being resolved not to enter into any terms of accommodation with the dissenters; and his lordship’s not complying so far as the dissenters liked, is supposed to have been the reason of Burnet’s calling him “a weak man, wilful, and strangely wedded to a party.” This however must seem extraordinary to those who consider, that those who are usually called high churchmen have spoken very coolly of him ever since, on that very account: and that even his opposing, as he did, the prosecution against Sacheverell in 1710, declaring him not guilty, and also protesting against several steps taken in that affair, has not been sufficient to reconcile them to his complying so far with the dissenters as he did. The fact appears to have been that the bishop endeavoured to act with moderation, for which no allowance is made in times of violent party- spirit.

King William having soon after named commissioners of trade and plantations, his lordship was made one of them; and the bishop of London, for the time being, is always to be one, in virtue of his being superintendent of all the churches in the plantations. In the beginning of 1690-1, at his own charge, he attended king William to the famous congress at the Hague, where the grand alliance against France was concluded. But notwithstanding the zealous part he acted in the revolution, and his subsequent services, no sooner was the storm over, but jealousies were infused, and calumnies dispersed, to supplant and undermine him; insomuch, that though the metropolitan see of Canterbury was twice vacant in that reign, yet he still continued bishop of London . However, he went on consistently, and like himself, despising all other rewards but the quiet and the applause of his own conscience, and the high esteem and intimacy of queen Mary, which he preserved to her dying day. At the accession of queen Anne to the throne, he seemed to stand fairest for the royal favour; and though many things were said to disparage him at court, yet nothing could discourage him from paying his duty and attendance there. About the beginning of May 1702, he was sworn of her majesty’s privy-council. The same year, he was put in the commission for the union of England and Scotland, but was left out in the new commission issued out in April 1706. Two years before, he very much promoted the “Act for making effectual her majesty’s intention for the augmentation of the maintenance of the poor clergy, by enabling her majesty to grant the revenues of the first fruits and tenths.”

Queen Mary dying at the close of this year, Congreve wrote a pastoral on that occasion, entitled “The Mourning Muse of Alexis;” which, for simplicity, elegance, and correctness, was long admired, and for which the king gave him a gratuity of 100l. In 1695 he produced his comedy called “Love for Love,” which gained him much applause; and the same year addressed to king William an ode “Upon the taking of Namiir;” which was very successful. After having established his reputation as a comic writer, he attempted a tragedy; and, in 1697, his “Mourning Bride” was acted at the new theatre in Lincoln' s-inn-fields, which completely answered the very high expectations of the public and of his friends. His attention, however, was now called off from the theatre to another species of composition, which was wholly new, and in which he was not so successful. His four plays were attacked with great sharpness by that zealous reformer of the stage, Jeremy Collier; who, having made his general attack on the immorality of the stage, included Congreve among the writers who had largely contributed to that effect. The consequence of the dispute which arose between Collier and the dramatic writers we have related in Collier’s article. It may be sufficient in this place to add, that although this controversy is believed to have created in Congreve some distaste to the stage, yet he afterwards brought on another comedy, entitled “The Way of the World;” of which it gave so just a picture, that the world seemed resolved not to bear it. This completed the disgust of our author to the theatre; upon which the celebrated critic Dennis, though not very famous for either, said with equal wit and taste, “That Mr. Congreve quitted the stage early, and that comedy left it with him.” This play, however, recovered its rank, and is still a favourite with the town. He amused himself afterwards with composing original poems and translations, which he collected in a volume, and published in 1710, when Swift describes him as “never free from the gout,” and “almost blind,” yet amusing himself with writing a “Taller.” He had a taste for music as well as poetry; as appears from his “Hymn to Harmony in honour of St. Cecilia’s day, 1701,” set by Mr. John Eccles, his great friend, to whom he was also obliged for composing several of his songs. His early acquaintance with the great had procured him an easy and independent station in life, and this freed him from all obligations of courting the public favour any longer. He was still under the tie of gratitude to his illustrious patrons; and as he never missed an opportunity of paying his compliments to them, so on the other hand he always shewed great regard to persons of a less exalted station, who had been serviceable to him on his entrance into public life. He wrote an epilogue for his old friend Southerne’s tragedy of Oroonoko; and we learn from Dryden himself, how much he was obliged to his assistance in the translation of Virgil. He contributed also the eleventh satire to the translation of “Juvenal,” published by that great poet, and wrote some excellent verses on the translation of Persius, written by Dryden alone.

Conon had some disputes with Nicoteles, who wrote against him, and treated him with too much contempt. Apollonius confesses it; though he acknowledges that Colion was not fortunate in his demonstrations. Conon invented a kind of volute, or spiral, different from that of Dynostratus; but because Archimedes explained the properties of it more clearly, the name of the inventor was forgotten, and it was hence called Archimedes’s volute or spiral. As to Conon’s astrological or astronomical knowledge, it may in some measure be gathered from the poem of Catullus, who describes it in the beginning of his. verses on the hair of Berenice, the sister and wife of Ptolomy Euergetes, upon the occasion of Conou having given out that it was changed into a constellation among the stars, to console the queen for the loss, when it was stolen out of the temple, where she had consecrated it to the gods.

, one of the eminent publicists of Germany, and one of the most illustrious ornaments of the German schools, was born at Embden Nov. 3, 1606, and was educated at Leyden, where he made himself acquainted with the whole circle of sciences, but chiefly applied to theology and medicine; and during his residence here, is said to have been supported by Matthias Overbek, a Dutch merchant, and by G. Calixtus, one of the professors. His eminent attainments soon procured him distinction; and he was appointed professor, first of natural philosophy, and afterwards of medicine, in the university of Brunswick. Turning his attention to the study of history and policy, he became so famous in these branches of knowledge, as to attract the attention of princes. Christina, queen of Sweden, who professed to be a general patroness of learned men, invited Conringius to her court, and upon his arrival received him with the highest marks of respect. The offer of a liberal appointment could not, however, induce him to relinquish the academic life, and after a short time he returned to Juliers. But his uncommon talents for deciding intricate questions on policy were not long suffered to lie dormant. The elector Palatine, the elector of Mentz, the duke of Brunswick, the emperor of Germany, and Louis XIV. of France, all consulted and conferred upon him honours and rewards. And, if universal learning, sound judgment, and indefatigable application, can entitle a man to respect, Conringius merited all the distinction he obtained. The great extent of his abilities and learning appears from the number and variety of his literary productions. His polemic writings prove him to have been deeply read in theology. His medical knowledge appears from his “Introduction to the medical art,” and his “Comparison of the medical practice of the ancient Egyptians, and the modern Paracelsians.” The numerous treatises which he has left on the Germanic institution, and other subjects of policy and law, evince the depth and accuracy of his juridical learning. His book, “De hermerica Medicina,” and his “Antiquitates academicae,” discover a correct acquaintance with the history of philosophy. It is to be regretted, that this great man was never able wholly to disengage himself from the prepossession in favour of the Aristotelian philosophy, which he imbibed in his youth. Although he had the good sense to correct the more barren parts of his philosophy, and was not ignorant that his system was in some particulars defective, he still looked up to the Stagyrite as the best guide in the pursuit of truth. It was owing to his partiality for ancient philosophy, particularly for that of Aristotle, that Conringius was a violent opponent of the Cartesian system. He died Dec. 12, 1681. His works were published entire in six volumes folio, Brunswick, 1730, which renders it unnecessary to specify his separate publications. Bibliographers place a considerable value on his “Bibliotheca Augusta,” Helmstadt, 1661, 4to, an account of the library of the duke of Brunswick, in the castle of Wolfenbuttle, which then contained 2000 Mss. and 116,000 printed volumes. The history of literature is yet more illustrated by his “De antiquitatibus academicis dissertationes septem,” the best edition of which is that of Gottingen, 1739, 4to, edited by Heuman, in all respects a most valuable work. Of Conringius’s enthusiasm in the cause of learning, and his love of eminent literary characters, we have a singular instance, quoted by Dr, Douglas, from Pechlinus’s “Observationes Physico-mediciK.” It is there said, on the authority of his son-in-law, that Conringius, when labouring under an ague, was cured, without the help of medicines, merely by the joy he felt from a conversation with the learned Meibomius.

, an English poet of the 16th century, is said to have been born, or at least descended from a family of that name, in Yorkshire, and was for some time educated at Oxford, but took his bachelor’s degree at St. John’s college, Cambridge, in 1579. Edmund Bolton, in his “Hypercritica,” says, “Noble Henry Constable was a great master of the English tongue; nor had any gentleman of our nation a more pure, quick, or higher delivery of conceit: witness, among all other, that sonnet of his before his Majesty’s Lepanto.” He was the author of “Diana, or the excellent conceitful sonnets of H. C. augmented with divers quatorzains of honorable and learned personages, divided into eight decads,” 1594, 8vo. Of these sonnets Mr. Ellis has given three specimens, but which he thinks can hardly entitle him to be denominated “the first sonneteer of his time.” The most striking of his productions is that entitled “The Shepheard’s song of Venus and Adonis,” which is elegantly and harmoniously expressed. Mr. Malone, who reprinted it in the notes to the 10th volume of his Shakspeare, p. 74, thinks it preceded Shakspeare’s poem on the same subject, which it far excels, at least in taste and natural touches. Of his life, no memorials have been discovered. Dr. Birch, in his Memoirs of queen Elizabeth, thought him to be the same Henry Constable, who was a zealous Roman Catholic, and whose religion seems to have obliged him to live in a state of banishment from England. Sir E. Brydges is inclined to the same opinion. Constable afterwards came privately to London, but was soon discovered, and imprisoned in the Tower of London, whence he was released in the latter end of the year 1604. There was another of the name in the early part of the 16th century, a John Constable, the son of Roger Constable, who was born in London, and educated under the celebrated William Lilye. From thence he was sent to Byham Hall, opposite Merlon college, Oxford, where, in 1515, he took the degree of M.A. and was accounted at that time an excellent poet and rhetorician. He obtained some preferment, but of that, or of his subsequent history, we have no account. He published, in Latin, “Querela veritatis,”and “Epigrammata,” 1520, 4to. Like Henry Constable, he was of the Roman Catholic persuasion.

Though Dr. Conybeare, by his promotion to the headship of Exeter college, had obtained a considerable rank in the university, he did not, by the change of his situation, make any addition to his fortune. Indeed, the emoluments of his new place were so small, that he was much richer as a private fellow and tutor, than as the governor of his college. It may be presumed that this circumstance in part, and still more the reputation he had acquired by his answer to Tindal, induced the bishop of London, who at that time had great influence in the disposal of ecclesiastical preferments, to exert himself more vigorously in our author’s behalf. This the good prelate so effectually did, that on the death of Dr. Bradshaw, bishop of Bristol, and dean Of Christ church, Oxford, in December, 1732, Dr. Conybeare was appointed to succeed him in the latter dignity. Accordingly the doctor was installed dean of that cathedral in the month of January following. On this occasion, he resigned the headship of Exeter college; and not long after, he gave up likewise the rectory of St. Clement’s, in favour of a friend, the rev. Mr. Webber, one of the fellows of Exeter. On the 6th of June, 1733, dean Conybeare married Miss Jemima Juckes, daughter of Mr. William Juckes, of Hoxton-square, near London; and in the same year he published a sermon, which he had preached in the cathedral of St. Peter, Exon, in August 1732, from 2 Peter iii. 16, on the subject of scripturedifficulties. In the beginning of the next year, he had the honour of entertaining the prince of Orange at the deanery of Christ church. The prince, who had come into England to marry the princess royal, being desirous of visiting Oxford, and some of the places adjacent, took up his residence at Dr. Conybeare’s apartments; and how solicitous the dean was to treat his illustrious guest with a proper splendour and dignity, appears from his having received, by the hands of one of her servants, the especial thanks of queen Caroline on the occasion.

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

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

, the fourth daughter of sir Anthony Cooke, was born about the year 1530, and like her sisters became famous for her knowledge in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin tongues, and for her skill in poetry. A short specimen of her talent in. that art has been preserved by sir John Harrington and Dr. Thomas Fuller; but there is some difficulty in determining the occasion upon which the verses were written. Sir John Harrington says, that her design in writing them was to get a kinsman of hers sent to Cornwall, where she inhabited, and to prevent his going beyond sea. Mr. Phillips, in his “Theatrum Poetarum,” asserts that it was her lover. Dr. Fuller, however, with greater appearance of reason, informs us, that her husband being designed by queen Elizabeth ambassador to France in troublesome times, when the employment, always difficult, was then apparently dangerous, his lady wrote these lines to her sister Mildred Cecil, to engage her interest with lord Burleigh for preventing the appointment.

Upon the accession of queen Anne to the throne, lord Shaftesbury returned to his retired manner of life, being removed from the vice-admiralty of the county of Dorset, which had been in the family for three successive generations. This slight, though it was a matter of little consequence, was the only one that could have been shewn him, as it was the single thing which he had ever held under the crown. The measure of taking it from him was supposed to have originated in certain statesmen who resented his services to another party in the preceding reign.

, an eminent English painter, was born in London in 1609, and bred under the care and discipline of Mr. Hoskins, his uncle: but derived the most considerable advantages from his observations on the works of Van Dyck, insomuch that he was commonly styled the Van Dyck in miniature. His pencil was generally confined to ahead only; and indeed below that part he was not always so successful as could be wished. But for a face, and all the dependencies of it, namely the graceful and becoming air, the strength, relievo, and noble spirit, the softness and tender liveliness of flesh and blood, and the looseness and gentle management of the hair, his talent was so extraordinary, that, for the honour of our nation, it may without vanity be affirmed, he was at least equal to the most famous Italians; and that hardly any one of his predecessors has ever been able to shew so much perfection in so narrow a compass. The high prices of his works, and the great esteem in which they were held at Rome, Venice, and in France, were abundant proofs of their great worth, and extended the fame of this master throughout Europe. He so far exceeded his master and uncle Hoskins, that the latter became jealous of him; and finding that the court was better pleased with his nephew’s performances than with his, he took him into partnership with him, but his jealousy increasing, he dissolved it; leaving our artist to set up for himself, and to carry, as he did, most of the business of that time before him. He drew Charles II. and his queen, the duchess of Cleveland, the duke of York, and most of the court: but the two most famous pieces of his were those of Oliver Cromwell, and of one Swingfield. The French king offered Iso/, for the former, but was refused; and Cooper carrying the latter with him to France, it was much admired there, and introduced him into the favour of that court. *He likewise did several large limnings in an unusual size for the court of England; for which his widow received a pension during her life from the crown. This widow was sister to the mother of the celebrated Pope. Answerable to Cooper’s abilities in painting, was his skill in music; and he was reckoned one of the best lutenists, as well as the most excellent limner, of his time. He spent several years of his life abroad, was personally acquainted with the greatest men of France, Holland, and his own country, and by his works was universally known in all parts of Europe. He died at London May 5, 1612, aged 63, and was buried in Pancras church in the fields; where there is a fine marble monument set over him, with a Latin inscription.

He had an elder brother, Alexander Cooper, who was also brought up to limning by Hoskins, their uncle. Alexander performed well in miniature; and going beyond sea, became limner to Christina, queen of Sweden, yet was far exceeded by his brother Samuel. He also painted landscapes in water-colours extremely well, and was accounted an admirable draughtsman.

, a learned English bishop, was born at Oxford about 1517, and educated in the school adjoining to Magdalen college; and, having made great progress in grammar learning, and gained high reputation, he was there elected first demy, then probationer in 1539, and perpetual fellow the year after. He quitted his fellowship in 1546, being then married, as it is supposed; and when queen Mary came to the crown, applied himself to the study of physic, and, faking a bachelor’s degree, practised it at Oxford, because he was secretly inclined to the Protestant religion; but upon the death of that queen, he returned to his former study of divinity. March 156,7, he took the degree of D.D. and about that time was made dean of Christ-church. In 1569 he was made dean of Gloucester, and the year after bishop of Lincoln. July 1572, he preached a sermon at St. Paul’s cross, in vindication of the church of England and its liturgy; to which an answer was sent him by a disaffected person, which answer Strype has printed at length in his “Annals of the Reformation.” In 1577 the queen sent him a letter to put a stop to those public exercises called prophesyings, in his diocese. These prophesyings were grounded upon 1 Cor. xiv. 31. “Ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.” They were set on foot in several parts of the kingdom about 1571; and consisted of conferences among the clergy, for the better improving of themselves, and one another, in the knowledge of scripture and divinity; but in 1577 were generally suppressed, on account of their being thought seminaries of puritanism. In 1584 he was translated to the bishopric of Winchester; which diocese abounding greatly with papists, he petitioned the privy-council to suppress them; and among other methods proposed, “that an hundred or two of obstinate recusants, lusty men, well able to labour, might by some convenient commission be taken up, and be sent into Flanders as pioneers and labourers, whereby the country should be disburdened of a company of dangerous people, and the rest that remained be put in some fear.”

This reverend and holy bishop, as Wood calls him, upon the discovery of William Parry’s treason, issued an order of prayer and thanksgiving for the preservation of the queen’s life and safety, to be used in the diocese of Winchester; and, Nov. 17, 1588, preached at St. Paul’s cross, that being a day of public thanksgiving, as well for the queen’s accession, as for the victory obtained over the Spanish armada. He died at Winchester in April 1594, and was buried in the cathedral there. Over his grave, which is on the south side of the choir, was soon after laid a flat marble, with a Latin inscription in prose and verse, which was probably defaced at the new paving of the choir.

His writings were: 1. “The epitome of Chronicles from the 17th year after Christ to 1540, and thence to 1560.” The two first parts of this chronicle, and the beginning of the third, as far as the 17th year after Christ, were composed by Thomas Lanquet, a young man of 24 years old: but he dying immaturely, Cooper finished the work, and published it under the title of “Cooper’s Chronicle,” though the running-title of the first and second partis “Lanquet’s Chronicle.” A faulty edition of this work was published surreptitiously in 1559; but that of 1560, in 4to, was revised and corrected by Cooper. 2. “Thesaurus Linguae Romanae & Britannicse,” &c. and, “Dictionarium historicum & poeticum,” 1565, folio. This dictionary was so much esteemed by queen Elizabeth, that she endeavoured, as Wood tells us, to promote the author for it in the church as high as she could. It is an improvement of “Bibliotheca Eliotae,” Eliot’s library or dictionary, printed in 1541; or, as some think, it is taken out of Robert Stephens’s “Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, and” Frisii Lexicon Latino-Teutonicum.“3.” A brief exposition of such chapters of the Old Testament as usually are read in the church at common prayer, on the Sundays throughout the year,“1573, 3to. 4.” A sermon at Lincoln,“1575, 8vo. 5. ”Twelve Sermons,“1580, 4to. 6.” An admonition to the people of England, wherein are answered not only the slanderous untruths reproachfully uttered by Martin the libeller, but also many other crimes by some of his brood, objected generally against all bishops and the chief of the clergy, purposely to deface and discredit the present state of the church,“1589, 4to, This was an answer to John ap Henry’s books against the established church, published under the name of Martin Mar-Prelate. Ap Henry, or his accomplices, replied to the bishop’s book, in two ludicrous pamphlets, entitled,” Ha' ye any work for a Cooper?“and” More work for a Cooper."

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

, a man of wit and learning of the sixteenth century, was born of an illustrious family at Florence. He went into France in the reign of Catherine de Medicis; and that queen, to whom he had the honour of being allied, placed him with her son, the duke of Anjou, as a man of learning, and a good counsellor. Corbinelli paid his court without servility, and was compared to those ancient Romans who were full of integrity, and incapable of baseness. Chancellor de l'Hospital had a high esteem for him. He was a professed friend and patron of the learned, and frequently printed their works at his own expence, adding notes to them, as he did to Fra. Paolo del Rosso’s poem, entitled “La Fisica,” Paris, 1578, 8vo; and to Dante, “De Vulgari Eloquentia,” 1577, 8vo. Corbinelli was also a man of great courage and resolution, address and intrigue. He wrote down every thing which he heard, while Henry IV. was at the gates of Paris, and carried the paper to him openly, as if it had contained only common affairs, or causes. His easy and confident appearance deceived the guard^ who were placed at the gates; and, as he seemed to trust every body, no body mistrusted him. Raphael Corbinelli, his son, was secretary to queen Mary de Medicis, and father of M. Corbinelli, who died at Paris, June 19, 1716. This last was one of the most distinguished beaux esprits of France; and a man of strict honour and integrity, who was a welcome guest in the best companies. A report prevailing that at one of those social suppers which were given by the princes and princesses, who were Mad. de Maintenon’s enemies, all the other party had been lampooned, it was thought that some particulars might be known from Corbinelli, who was present. M. d'Argenson, lieutenant of the police, accordingly visited the gouty epicurean, and asked him “where he supped such a day” “I think I do not remember,” replied Corbinelli, yawning. “Are you not acquainted with such and such princes” “I forget.” “Have you not supped with them” “I remember nothing of it.” “But I think such a man as you ought to remember things of this kind.” “Yes, sir; but in the presence of such a man as you, I am not such a man as myself.” He left “Les anciens Historiens Latins reduits en Maximes,” with a preface, which was attributed to P. Bouhours, printed 1694, 12mb; “Hist, genealogique de la Maison de Gondi,” Paris, 1705, 2 vols. 4to, and other works.

His talents for dramatic poetry became known when he was thirty years of age, by an allegoric drama, entitled “The death of Nice,” in honour of the princess Clementina, queen of the titular James III. who died in 1735. By this he highly ingratiated himself with the abdicated royal family established at Rome, and his production was also much admired by the public, and went through several editions. In his riper years, however, he distinguished himself by performances of higher importance, particularly in 1737, by his excellent satires on the literary spirit of the age published under the name of L. Sectanus, “L. Sectani Q. Fil. de tota Graculorum hujus aetatis litteratura.” The object of this was to satirize a class of halflearned men in Italy and in other countries, who, with an insolent and dogmatic spirit, and with the most assuming and disgusting manners, thought themselves authorized to ppndenm the existing literary institutions, the classification of sciences, the methods of teaching, and even the principles of taste. This work went rapidly through seven editions.

Of Corregio’s best oil-pictures, Italy has been deprived by purchase or by spoil. Dresden possesses the celebrated “Night,” or rather “Dawn” the “Magdalen reading” and a few more of less excellence, or less authentic character. The two allegoric pictures, called “Leda and Danae,” once in the possession of queen Christina, migrated to France, and with the picture of lo, were mangled or destroyed by bigotry. A duplicate of the lo, and a “Rape of Ganymede” are at Vienna. Spain possesses “Christ praying in the Garden,” and “Mercury teaching Cupid to. read in the presence of Venus.” To the “Sposalizio of St. Catharine,” which France possessed before, the spoils of the revolution have added the “St. Jerome with the Magdalen,” the “Madonna della Scudella,” the “Descent from the Cross,” and the “Martyrdom of St. Placido,” from Parma.

, a Latin poet of some note in his day, was born in the parish of St. Thomas, in Salisbury. He received his education at Winchester-school, and in the year 1562 was admitted perpetual fellow of New college, Oxford. In the year 1566, on queen Elizabeth’s visiting the university, he, together with W. Reynolds, bachelor of arts, received her majesty and her train at New college; on which occasion he pronounced an oration, for which he received great praises and a handsome purse of gold. He afterwards took his degree in arts, and, in June 1570, became rector of Odcombe on the death of Thomas Reade, and some time after, bachelor of divinity. In the year 1594, he was appointed prebendary of Warthill, in the cathedral church of York, and also held some other dignity, but what we are not informed. He died at the parsonage-house at Odcombe, on the 4th of March, 1606. It is asserted that his son, the celebrated traveller, agreeably to his whimsical character, entertained a design of preserving his body from stench and putrefaction, and with that view caused it to be kept above ground until the 14th of April following, when it was buried in the chancel of the church of Odcombe. George Cory ate was much commended in his time for his fine fancy in Latin poetry; and for certain pieces which he had written was honourably quoted by several eminent writers. The only pieces Mr. Wood had seen of his composition were, 1. “Poemata varia Latina,” London, 1611, 4to, published by his son after his death, and by him entitled “Posthuxna fragmenta Poematum Georgii Coryate.” 2. “Descriptio Anglise, Scotiæ, et Hiberniæ,” written in Latin verse, and dedicated to queen Elizabeth, but it does not appear that this piece was ever printed. In 1763, James Liunley Kingston, esq. of Dorchester, published, from a ms. found amongst the papers belonging to a considerable family in one of the western counties, a Latin poem, which appears to have been written in the reign of queen Elizabeth, entitled “Descriptio Angli.se et Descriptio Londini,” being two poems in Latin verse, supposed to be written in the fifteenth century. This pamphlet Mr. Gough thinks may be part of the poem noticed by Mr. Wood. The mention of only fifteen colleges at Oxford, fixes the date of the verses before the year 1571. Mr. Coryate’s wife, Gertrude, outlived her husband and son many years, and resided at Odcombe or near it until her death. Dr. Humphry Hody, a native of that place, informed Mr. Wood, that she was buried near the remains of her husband on the 3d of April, 1645. It appears that after her husband’s death she married a second time.

, an English prelate, was the son of Giles Cosin, a rich citizen of Norwich, and born in that city Nov. 30, 1594. He was educated in the free-school there, till 14 years of age; and then removed to Caius college in Cambridge, of which he was successively scholar and fellow. Being at length distinguished for his ingenuity and learning, he had, in 1616, an offer of a librarian’s place from Overall bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and Andrews bishop of Ely, and accepted the invitation of the former; who dying in 1619, he became domestic chaplain to Neil bishop of Durham. He was made a prebendary of Durham in 1624; and the year following collated to the archdeaconry of the east riding in the church of York, vacant by the resignation of Marmaduke Blakestone, whose daughter he had married that year. July 1626, Neil presented him to the rich rectory of Branspeth, in the diocese of Durham; the parochial church of which he beautified in an extraordinary manner. About that time, having frequent meetings at the bishop of Durham’s house in London, with Laud and other divines of that party, he began to be obnoxious to the puritans, who suspected him to be popishly affected; grounding their suspicion on his “Collection of Private Devotions,” published in 1627. This collection, according to one of his biographers, was drawn up at the command of Charles I. for the use of those protestants who attended upon the queen; and, by way of preserving them from the taint of certain popish books of devotion, supposed to be thrown, on purpose, about the royal apartments. Collier, however, says that it was written at the request of the countess of Denbigh, the duke of Buckingham’s sister. This lady being then somewhat unsettled in her religion, and inclining towards popery, these devotions were drawn up to recommend the Church of England farther to her esteem, and preserve her in that communion. This book, though furnished with a great deal of good matter, was not altogether acceptable in the contexture; although the title-page sets forth, that it was formed npon the model of a book of private Prayers, authorized by queen Elizabeth, in 1560. The top of the frontispiece had the name of Jesus in three capital letters, I. H. 8. Upon these there was a cross, encircled with the sun supported by two angels, with two devout women praying towards it. Burton, Prynne, and other celebrated puritans, attacked it very severely; and there is no doubt but it greatly contributed to draw upon him all that persecution which he afterwards underwent.

Here, by the king’s order, he officiated as chaplain to such of the queen’s household as were protestants; and with them, and other exiles daily resorting thither, he formed a congregation, which was held first in a private house, and afterwards at the English ambassador’s chapel. Not long after, he had lodgings assigned him in the Louvre, with a small pension, on account of his relation to queen Henrietta. During his residence in this place, he continued firm in the protestant religion; reclaimed some who had gone over to popery, and confirmed others who were wavering about going; had disputes and controversies with Jesuits and Romish priests, and about the same time employed himself in writing several learned pieces against them. One accident befel him abroad, which he often spoke of as the most sensible affliction in his whole life; and that was, his only son’s turning papist. This son was educated in grammar learning in a Jesuit’s school, as were! many others of our youths during the civil war; and occasion was thence taken of inveigling him into popery. He was prevailed upon, not only to embrace popery, but also to take religious orders in the church of Rome: and though his father used all the ways imaginable, and even the authority of the French king, which by interest he had procured, to regain him out of their power, and from their persuasion, yet all proved ineffectual. Upon this he disinherited him, allowing him only an annuity of 100l. He pretended indeed to turn protestant again, but relapsed before his father’s decease.

He died, Jan. 15, 1672, of a pectoral dropsy, in his 78th year, after having been much afflicted with the stone for some time before; and his body was conveyed from his house in Westminster to Bishop’s Aukland, where it was buried in the chapel belonging to the palace, under a tomb of black marble, with a plain inscription prepared by the bishop in his life-time. Besides the son already mentioned, he had four daughters. By his will he bequeathed considerable sums of money to charitable purposes: to be distributed among the poor in several places, a sum amounting to near 400l.; towards rebuilding St. Paul’s cathedral, when it should be raised five yards from the ground, 1001.; to the cathedral at Norwich, whereof the one half to be bestowed on a marble tablet, with an inscription in memory of Dr. John Overall, some time bishop there, whose chaplain he had been, the rest for providing some useful ornaments for the altar, 40l.; towards repairing the south and north side of Peter-house chapel in Cambridge, suitable to the east and west sides, already by him perfected, 200l.; towards the new building of a chapel at Emanuel college in Cambridge, 50l.; to the children of r. John Hayward, late prebendary of Lichfield, as a stimony of his gratitude to their deceased father, who in his younger years placed him with his uncle bishop Overall, 20l. each; to some of his domestic servants 100 marks, to some 50l. and to the rest half a year’s wages, over and above their last quarter’s pay. In his will also, he made a large and open declaration of his faith, and was particularly explicit and emphatical in vindicating himself from the imputation of popery: “I do profess,” says he, “with holy observation, and from my very heart, that I am now, and ever have been from my youth, altogether free and averse from the corruptions, and impertinent, new-fangled, or papistical superstitions and doctrines, long since introduced, contrary to the holy scripture, and the rules and customs of the ancient fathers.” In the third volume of the Clarendon State Papers, lately published, we find a letter, written, in 1658, to the lord chancellor Hyde, by Dr. Cosin, which affords a farther proof that, notwithstanding his superstition and his fondness for the pomp of external worship, he was steadily attached to the protestant religion. In this letter, speaking of the queen dowager Henrietta and lord Jermyn, he says, “They hold it for a mortal sin to give one penny towards the maintenance of such heretics as Dr. Cosin is.” The accusation of popery, however, answered the purposes of his persecutors, and his minute attention to the decorations and repairs of churches and cathedrals afforded some ground of suspicion even with those of more honest and candid minds.

, was a native of Uzez, who fled to England on account of religion in the time of queen Anne, and after residing many years in London, where he was employed in literary pursuits, returned to Paris some time before his death, which happened in 1746. His principal works were: l. Translations into French of Locke’s Essay on human understanding, Amsterdam, 1736, 4to, and Trevoux, 4 vols. 12mo; of Newton’s Optics, 4to, and of the Reasonableness of Christianity, by Locke, 2 vols. 8vo. 2. An edition of Montaigne’s Essays, 3 vols. 4to, and 10 vols. 12mo, with remarks and annotations. 3. An edition of Fontaine’s Fables, 12mo, with cursory notes at the bottom of the pages. He ventured to add a fable of his own, which served to prove that it was far more easy to comment on Fontaine than to imitate him. 4. The defence of la Bruyere, against the Carthusian d'Argonne, who assumed the name of Vigneul Marville: which is prefixed to OzelPs English translation of Bruyere’s works, 1713, 2 vols. 8vo, 5. The life of the Grand Conde, 4to and 12mo. Coste, as an editor, was often tediously minute, and, as an original author, not above mediocrity; but he bestowed great attention on whatever he did. He was an excellent corrector of the press, thoroughly versed in his own language, well acquainted with the foreign tongues, and had a general knowledge of the sciences. In this country he must have been highly respected, as, although he died in France, a monument was erected to his memory in the old church of Paddington, in which parish he probably resided. This monument is now in a light vault under the present church

, an English artist, was one of the founders of the Royal Academy, he and three others (Moser, West, and Chambers) being the only persons who signed the petition presented to his Majesty, to solicit that establishment. He was the son of an apothecary, who resided in Cork-street, Burlington-gardens, and was born in 1726. He was the pupil of Knapton, but in the sequel much excelled his master. He was particularly eminent for his portraits in crayons, in which branch of the art he surpassed all his predecessors; though it must be confessed that he owed something of his excellence to the study of the portraits of Rosalba. He also painted with considerable ability in oil colours; and at one time Hogarth declared him to be superior to sir Joshua Reynolds; an opinion, however, which must have arisen from some prejudice, for sir Joshua had then produced some of his best portraits. But though those of Cotes deserve not this high character, they were very pleasing, well finished, coloured with great spirit, and, by the aid of Mr. Toms’s draperies (who generally supplied him with these), were justly ranked with the best portraits of the time. Yet his greatest excellence was in crayons, which were much improved under his hands, both in their preparation and application. Lord Orford says, that his pictures of the queen holding the princess royal, then an infant, in her lap; of his own wife; of Polly Jones, a woman of pleasure; of Mr. Obryen, the comedian; of Mrs. Child, of Osterley-park; and of Miss Wilton, afterwards lady Chambers; are portraits which, if they yield to Rosalba’s in softness, excel hers in vivacity and invention.

, was the son of sir Clement Cotterel of Wylsford in Lincolnshire, groom porter to James I. He was in the interregnum steward to the queen of Bohemia; and in 1670, when he was created LL. D. in the university of Oxford, it appears that he was master of the requests to Charles II. He possessed in an extraordinary degree the various accomplishments of a gentleman, and particularly excelled in the knowledge of modern languages. During the exile of his royal master, he translated from the French “Cassandra the famed romance,” which has been several times printed; and had a principal hand in translating “Davila’s History of the civil wars of France” from the Italian, and several pieces of less note from the Spanish. In 1686 he resigned his place of master of the ceremonies, and was succeeded by his son Charles Lodowick Cotterel, esq. He is celebrated by Mrs. Catherine Phillips under the name of Poliarchus, and to one of his descendants, colonel Cotterel of Rousham near Oxford, Pope addressed his second epistle in imitation of Horace. It is unnecessary to add that the office of master of the ceremonies has long been in this family.

, an eminent English antiquary, “whose name,” says Dr. Johnson, “must always be mentioned with honour, and whose memory cannot fail of exciting the warmest sentiments of gratitude, whilst the smallest regard for learning subsists among us,” was son of Thomas Cotton, esq. descended from a very ancient family, and born at Denton in Huntingdonshire, Jan. 22, 1570; admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. 1585; and went to London, where he soon made himself known, and was admitted into a society of antiquaries, who met at stated seasons for their own amusement. Here he indulged his taste in the prosecution of that study for which he afterwards became so famous; and in his 18th year began to collect ancient records, charters, and other Mss. In 1600 he accompanied Camden to Carlisle, who acknowledges himself not a little obliged to him for the assistance he received from him in carrying on and completing his “Britannia;” and the same year he wrote “A brief abstract of the question of Precedency between England and Spain.” This was occasioned by queen Elizabeth’s desiring the thoughts of the society of antiquaries upon that point, and is still extant in the Cotton library. Upon the accession of James I. he was created a knight; and during this reign was very much courted and esteemed by the great men of the nation, and consulted as an oracle by the privy counsellors and ministers of state, upon very difficult points relating to the constitution. In 1608 he was appointed one of the commissioners to inquire into the state of the navy, which had lain neglected ever since the death of queen Elizabeth; and drew up a memorial of their proceedings, to be presented to the king, which memorial is still in his library. In 1609 he wrote “A discourse of the lawfulness of Combats to be performed in the presence of the king, or the constable and marshal of England,” which was printed in 1651 and in 1672. He drew up also, the same year, “An answer to such motives as were offered by certain military men to prince Henry, to incite him to affect arms more than peace.” This was composed by order of that prince, and the original ms. remains in the Cotton library. New projects being contrived to repair the royal revenue, which had been prodigally squandered, none pleased the king so much as the creating a new. order of knights, called baronets; and sir Robert Cotton, who had been the principal suggester of this scheme, was in 1611 chosen to be one, being the thirty-sixth on the list. His principal residence was then at Great Connington, in Huntingdonshire; which he soon exchanged for Hatley St. George, in the county of Cambridge.

He was afterwards employed by king James to vindicate the conduct of Mary queen of Scots, from the supposed misrepresentations of Buchanan and Thuanus; and what he wrote upon this subject is thought to be interwoven in Camden’s “Annals of queen Elizabeth,”“or else printed at the end of Camden’s” Epistles.“In 1616 the king ordered him to examine, whether the papists, whose numbers then made the nation uneasy, ought by the laws of the land to be put to death, or to be imprisoned? This task he performed with great learning, and produced upon that occasion twenty- four arguments, which were published afterwards in 1672, among” Cotton! Posthuina.“It was probably then that he composed a piece, still preserved in ms. in the royal library, entitled,” Considerations for the repressinge of the encrease of preests, Jesuits, and recrusants, without drawinge of blood.“He was also employed by the house of commons, when the match between prince Charles and the infanta of Spain was in agitation, to shew, by a short examination of the treaties between England and the house of Austria, the unfaithfulness and insincerity of the latter; and to prove that in all their transactions they aimed at nothing but universal monarchy. This piece is printed among” Cottoni Posthuma,“under the title of” A remonstrance of the treaties of amity,“&c. He wrote likewise a vindication of our ecclesiastical constitution against the innovations attempted to be brought in by the puritans, entitled,” An answer to certain arguments raised from supposed antiquity, and urged by some members of the lower house of parliament, to prove that ecclesiastical laws ought to be enacted by temporal men.“In 1621 he compiled” A relation to prove, that the kings of England have been pleased to consult with their peeres, in the great councel and commons of parliament, of marriadge, peace, and war;“printed first in 1651, then in 1672 among” Cottoni Posthuma,“and then in 1679 under the title of” The antiquity and dignity of Parliaments." Being a member of the first parliament of Charles I. he joined in complaii: -g of the grievances which the nation was said in 1628 to groan under'; but was always for mild remedies, zealous for the honour and safety of the king, and had no views but the nation’s advantage.

But, without intending to derogate from the just merits of this learned and knowing man as an author, it may reasonably be questioned, whether he has not done more service to learning by securing, as he did, his valuable library for the use of posterity, than by all his writings. This library consists wholly of Mss. many of which being in loose skins, small tracts, or very thin volumes, when they were purchased, sir Robert caused several of them to be bound up in one cover. They relate chiefly to the history and antiquities of Great Britain and Ireland, though the ingenious collector refused nothing that was curious or valuable in any point of learning. He lived indeed at a time when he had great opportunities of making such a fine collection: when there were many valuable books yet remaining in private hands, which had been taken from the monasteries at their dissolution, and from our universities and colleges, at their visitations when several learned antiquaries, such as Joceline, Noel, Allen, Lambarde, Bowyer, Elsinge, Camden, and others, died, who had made it their chief business to scrape up the ^scattered remains of our monastical libraries: and, either by legacy or purchase, he became possessed of all he thought valuable in their studies. This library was placed in his own house at Westminster, near the house of commons; and very much augmented by his son sir Thomas Cotton, and his grandson sir John (who died in 1702, aged 71). In 1700 an act of parliament was made for the better securing and preserving that library in the name and family of th\ Cottons, for the benefit of the public; that it might not be sold, or otherwise disposed of and embezzled Sir John, great grandson of sir Robert, having sold Cotton -house to queen Anne, about 1706, to be a repository for the royal as well as the Cottonian library, an act was ma le for the better securing of her Majesty’s purchase of that house; and botli house and library were settled and vested in trustees. The books were then removed into a more convenient room, the former being very damp; and Cotton-house was set apart for the use of the king’s library-keeper, who had there the royal and Cottonian libraries under his care. In 1712 the Cottonian library was removed to Essex house, in Essexstreet; and in 1730 to a house in Little DeanVyard, Westminster, purchased by the crown of the lord Ashburnham; where a fire happening, Oct. 23, 1731, 111 books were lost, burnt, or entirely defaced, and 99 rendered imperfect. It was thereupon removed to the Old Dormitory belonging to Westminster-school; and finally, in 1753, to the British Museum, where they still remain.

It is almost incredible how much we are indebted to this library for what we know of our own country: witness the works of sir H. Spelman, sir W. Dugdale, the “Decem Scriptores,” dean Gale, Burnet’s History of the Reformation, Strype’s works, Rymer’s F cetera, several pieces published by Hearne, and almost every book that has appeared since, relating to the history and antiquities of Great Britain and Ireland. Nor was sir Robert Cotton less communicative of his library and other collections in his lifetime. Speed’s History of England is said to owe most of its value and ornaments to it; and Camden acknowledges, that he received the coins in the Britannia from this collection. To Knolles, author of the “Turkish History,” he communicated authentic letters of the masters of the knights of Rhodes, and the dispatches of Edward Barton, ambassador from queen Elizabeth to the Porte; to sir Walter Raleigh, books and materials for the second volume of his history, never published; and the same to sir K. Bacon, lord Vernlam, for his History of Henry VII. Selden was highly indebted to the books and instructions of sir Robert Cotton, as he thankfully acknowledges in more places than one. In a word, this great and worthy man was the generous patron of all lovers of antiquities, and his house and library were always open to ingenious and inquisitive persons.

, a very learned English divine, was born at Horningsheath in Suffolk, in 1638, and educated in classical learning in the school of St. Edmund’s Bury. March 31, 1654, he was admitted of Christ’s college, in Cambridge; of which, after taking his degrees in arts, he was elected fellow. Some time after he went into orders, and in 1670 went as chaplain to sir Daniel Harvey, ambassador from Charles II. to the Porte; where he served, in that quality, both him and his successor, sir John Finch, for the space of seven years. Upon his return to England in 1679, he was created D. D. and the same year chosen lady Margaret’s preacher in the university of Cambridge. March 15, 1680, he had institution to the sinecure rectory of Littlebury in Essex', to which he was presented by Gunning, bishop of Ely. In 1681 he got the college living of Kegworth in Leicestershire, and was also made one of the chaplains to the Princess of Orange, afterwards queen Mary, and oil that account resided at that court, till, for some cause or other, which he never would mention to his most intimate friends, he was dismissed his attendance at three hours warning, and came over to England. On Nov. 9, 1687, he was installed into the chancellorship of York, conferred upon him by the king during the vacancy of that see. July 7, 1688, he was elected master of Christ’s college, in Cambridge, and the same year he was made vice-chancellor of the university. In October, 1689, king William being at Newmarket, came to Cambridge; and it being commonly known that Dr. Covel was in disgrace with his Majesty, it was asked his Majesty whether he would be pleased to see the vice-chancellor; to which he replied, that he knew how to distinguish Dr. Covel from the vice-chancellor of Cambridge; and it was remarked, that the royal visitor was more than usually gracious and affable with him. In 1708 he again served the office of vice-chancellor; and in 1722, just before his death, published his account of the Greek church.

, youngest son of the preceding, was born in 1626, and in 1642 became a gentlemancommoner of Queen’s college in Oxford; and after he had continued there some time, he travelled on the continent, and at his return, adhering to Charles II. was made secretary to the duke of York, also secretary to the admiralty; and elected a burgess for the town of Great Yarmouth in Norfolk, in the parliament which met at Westminster, May 8, 1661; and also to that which was summoned in 1678. In 1663 he was created doctor of the civil law at the university of Oxford. He was sworn of the privy-council, and received the honour of knighthood June 26, 1665, and was made one of the commissioners of the treasury on May 24, 1667 being, as bishop Burnet relates, “a man of great notions and eminent virtues the best speaker in the house of commons, and capable of bearing the chief ministry, as it was once thought he was very near it, and deserved it more than all the rest did.” Yet, as he was too honest to engage in the designs of that reign, and quarrellt d with the duke of Buckingham, a challenge passed between them upon which he was forbid the court, and retired to Minster- Lovel, near Whitney, in Oxfordshire, where he gave himself up to a religious and private course of life, without accepting of any employment, though he was afterwards offered more than once the best posts in the court. He died June 23, 1686, unmarried, at Somerhill, near Tunbridge-wells, in Kent (where he had went for the benefit of the waters, being afflicted with the gout in the stomach) and was buried at Penshurst, in the same county, under a monument erected to his memory. By his last will he gave 2000l. for the relief of the French protestants then lately come into England, and banished their country for the sake of their religion; and 3000l. for the redemption of captives from Algiers.

, the pious and learned bishop of Exeter in the reign of Edward VI. was born in Yorkshire in 1487, as appears by his age on his epitaph. He was educated at Cambridge, in the house of the Augustine friars, of which Dr. Barnes, afterwards one of the protestant martyrs, was then prior. One of his name took the degree of bachelor of law in 1530, but Lewis thinks this must have been too late for the subject of the present article; yet it is not improbable it was the same, as he appears to have been in Cambridge at that time. He afterwards, according to Godwin, who does not furnish the date, received the degree of D. D. from the university of Tubingen, and was, though late in life, admitted ad eundem at Cambridge. Being in his early years attached to the religion in which he was brought up, he became an Augustine monk. In 1514 he entered into holy orders, being ordained at Norwich; but afterwards changing his religious opinions, Bale says he was one of the first, who, together with Dr. Robert Barnes, his quondam prior, taught the purity of the gospel, and dedicated himself wholly to the service of the reformation. About this time, probably 1530, or 1531, the reformed religion began to dawn at Cambridge. Various eminent men, not only in the colleges, but monasteries, began to assemble for conference on those points which had been discussed by the reformers abroad, and their usual place of meeting was a house called the White Horse, which their enemies nicknamed Germany, in allusion to what was passing in that country; and this house being contiguous to King’s, Queen’s, and St. John’s colleges, many members of each could have access unobserved. Among the names on record of these early converts to protestantism, we find that of Coverdale. In 1532 he appears to have been abroad, and assisted Tyndale in his translation of the Bible, and in 1535 his own translation of the Bible appeared, with a dedication by him to king Henry VIII. It formed a folio volume, printed, as Humphrey Wanley thought, from the appearance of the types, at Zurich, by Christopher Froschover. If so, Coverdale must have resided there while it passed through the press, as his attention to it was unremitting. He thus had the honour of editing the first English Bible allowed by royal authority, and the first translation of the whole Bible printed in our language. It was called a special translation, because it was different from the former English translations, as Lewis shews by comparing itwithTyndale’s; and the psalms in it are those now used in the Book of Common Prayer. In 1538 a quarto New Testament, in the Vulgate Latin, and in Coverdale’s English, though it bore the name of Hollybushe, was printed with the king’s licence, and has a dedication by Coverdale, in which he says, “he does not doubt but such ignorant bodies as, having cure of souls, are very unlearned in the Latin tongue, shall, through this small labour, be occasioned to attain unto more knowledge, or at least be constrained to say well of the thing which heretofore they have blasphemed.”

It is highly probable also that Coverdale was held in estimation for piety or talents at court, for he was almoner to queen Catherine Parr, the last wife of Henry VIII. a lady who was a favourer of the reformed religion, and as such he officiated at her funeral in Sept. 1548, in the chapel at Sudeley castle in Gloucestershire, the seat of her third husband, Thomas, lord Seymour of Sudley; and took that opportunity of declaring his sentiments on religion in the sermon he preached, which, says our manuscript authority, “was very good and godlie, and in one place thereof he toke occasion to declare unto the people howe that there shulde none there thinke, seye nor spread abrode, that the offeringe which was there don, was don anye thing to proffytt the deade, but for the poore onlye; and also the lights which were caried and stode abowte the corps, were for the honnour of the parson, and for none other entente nor purpose; and so wente thorowghe with his Sermon de, and made a godly e Prayer, &c.”

On the accession of queen Mary, and the consequent re-establishment of popery, he was ejected from the see and thrown into prison, out of which he was released after two years confinement, at the earnest request of the king of Denmark. Coverdale and Dr. John Machabseus, chap­* Dr. Weston does not occur in Le Neve’s List of Chancellors, bu.1 there can be no doubt of the fact. lain to that monarch, had married sisters, and it was at his chaplain’s request that the king interposed, but was obliged to send two or three letters be Core he could accomplish his purpose. By one of these, dated April 25, 1554, it would appear that Coverdale was imprisoned in consequence of being concerned in an insurrection against the queen, but this is not laid to his charge in the queen’s answer, who only pretended that he was indebted to her concerning his bishopric. As the first fruits had been forgiven by Edward VI. this must be supposed to allude to his tenths; and Coverdale’s plea, as appears by the king of Denmark’s second letter, was, that he had not enjoyed the bishopric long enough to be enabled to pay the queen. This second letter bears date Sept. 24, 1554, and, according to Strype, the queen’s grant of his request was not given till Feb. 18, 1555. Strype, therefore, from his own evidence, is erroneous in his assertion that in 1554 Coverdale was preacher to a congregation of exiled protestants at Wesel, until he was called by the duke of Deux Fonts, to be preacher at Bergzabern . On his release, which was on the condition of banishing himself, he repaired to the court of Denmark, where the king would fain have detained him, but as he was not so well acquainted with the language as to preach in Danish, he preferred going to the places above mentioned, where he could preach with facility in Dutch; and there and at Geneva he passed his time, partly in teaching and partly in preaching. He also, while here, joined some other English exiles, Goodman, Gilby, Whittingham, Sampson, Cole, &c. in that translation of the Bible usually called the “Geneva translation;” part of which, the New Testament, was printed at Geneva, by Conrad Badius, in 1557, and again in 1560, in which last year the whole Bible was printed in the same place by Rowland Harte. Of this translation, which had explanatory notes, and therefore was much used in private families, there were above thirty editions in folio, quarto, and octavo, mostly printed in England by the king’s and queen’s printers, from the year 1560 to 1616. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, he returned from his exile, but, unfortunately for the church, had imbibed the principles of the Geneva reformers, as far as respected the ecclesiastical habits and ceremonies. In 1559, however, we find him taking his turn as preacher at St. Paul’s Cross, and he assisted also at the consecration of archbishop Parker, in which ceremony, although he performed the functions of a bishop, he wore only a long black cloth gown. This avowed non-compliance with the habits and ceremonies prevented his resuming his bishopric, or any preferment being for some time offered to him. In 1563 bishop Grindal recommended him to the bishopric of Llandaff; and in 1564, Coverdale had the honour to admit that prelate to his doctor’s degree, by a mandate from the vicechancellor of Cambridge, a proof that he was still in high estimation. Grindal, particularly, had a great regard for him, and was very uneasy at his want of preferment. On one occasion he exclaimed, “I cannot excuse us bishops.” He also applied to the secretary of state, “telling him, that surely it was not well that father Coverdale,” as he styled him, “qui ante nos omnes fuit in Christo,” “who was in Christ before us all,” should be now in his age without stay of living.“It was on this occasion that Grindal recommended him to the bishopric of Llandaff, as already noticed, but it is supposed Coverdale’s age and infirmities, and the remains of the plague, from which he had just recovered, made him decline so great a charge. In lieu of it, however, the bishop collated him to the rectory of St. Magnus, London Bridge; and here again the good man’s poverty presented an obstruction, as appears from some affecting letters he wrote to be excused from the first fruits, amounting to 60l. which he was utterly incapable of paying: one of these letters, in which he mentions his age, and the probability of not enjoying the preferment long, he concludes with these words:” If poor old Miles might be thus provided for, he should think this enough to be as good as a feast." His request being granted, he entered upon his charge, and preached about two years; but resigned it in 1566, a little before his death. He was very much admired by the puritans, who flocked to him in great numbers while he officiated at St. Magnus’s church, which he did without the habits, and when he had resigned it, for it does not appear that he was deprived of it, as Neal asserts, his followers were obliged to send to his house on Saturdays, to know where they might hear him the next day, which he declined answering lest he should give offence to government. Yet, according to Strype, he had little to fear; for, Fox, Humphrey, Sampson, and others of the same way of thinking, were not only connived at, but allowed to hold preferments. He died, according to Richardson in his edition of Godwin, May 20, 1565 and according to Neal in his History of the Puritans, May 20, 1567 but both are wrong. The parish register proves that he was buried Feb. 19, 1568, in the chancel of the church of St. Bartholomew, Exchange, with the following inscription on his tombstone, which was destroyed at the great fire along with the church.

He was well received in England: the marquis of Blandford made him a present of fifty pounds, and he obtained a pension of one hundred pounds a year from the court. In 1729 he published, at Amsterdam, in two vols. 12mo, “Relation Historique et Apologetique des sentimens et de la conduite du P. le Courayer, chanoine regulier de Ste. Genevieve: avec les preuves justificatives des faits avancez dans l'ouvrage.” In this work he entered into a farther justification of his sentiments and of his conduct, and shewed the necessity that he was under of quitting France, from the virulence and power of his enemies. In 1733 he was at Oxford, and was present in the theatre at the public act that year, and made a speech there upon the occasion, which was afterwards printed both in Latin and English. In 1726 he published at London, in two vols. folio, a translation, in French, of “Father Paul’s History of the Council of Trent;” with notes critical, historical, and theological. He dedicated this work to queen Caroline, and speaks of it as having been undertaken by her command; and he expresses, in the strongest terms, his gratitude to her majesty for her patronage, and for the liberality which she liad manifested towards him. A list of subscribers is prefixed, in which are found the names of the prince of Wales, the duke of Cumberland, the prince and princess of Orange, the princesses Amelia and Caroline, the archbishop of Canterbury, the lord Chancellor, lord Hardwicke, then chief Justice of the King’s Bench, sir Robert Walpole, and many of the nobility, andother persons of distinction. By the sale of this work he is said to have gained fifteen hundred pounds, and the queen also raised his pension to two hundred pounds per annum. He gave sixteen hundred pounds to lord Feversham, for an annuity of one hundred pounds per annum, which he enjoyed forty years. By these means he came into very easy circumstances, which were rendered still more so by the reception which his agreeable and instructive conversation procured him, among persons of rank and fortune, with many of whom it was his custom to live for several months at a time. He wrote some other works in French, besides those that have been mentioned; and, in particular, he translated into that language Sleidan’s “History of the Reformation.” His exile from his own country was probably no diminution of his happiness upon the whole; for he appears to have passed his time in England very agreeably, and he lived to an uncommon age. Even in his latter years, he was distinguished for the cheerfulness of his temper and the sprightliness of his conversation. He died in Downingstreet, Westminster, after two days illness, on the 17th of October, 1776, at the age of ninety-five. Agreeably to his own desire, he was buried m the cloister of Westminsterabbey, by Dr. Bell, chaplain to the princess Amelia. In his will, which was dated Feb. 3, 1774,* he declared, “That he died a member of the Catholic church, but without approving of many of the opinions and superstitions which have been introduced into the Romish church, and taught in their schools and seminaries, and which they have insisted on as articles of faith, though to him they appeared to be not only not founded in truth, but also to be highly improbable.” It is said, that soon after he came to England, he went to a priest of the Romish church for confession, and acquainted him who he was. The priest would not venture to take his confession, because he was excommunicated, but advised him to consult his superior of Genevieve. Whether he made any such application, or what was the result, we are not informed bat it is certain that, when in London, he made it his practice to go to mass; and when in the country, at Ealing, he constantly attended the service of the parish-church, declaring, at all times, that he had great satisfaction in the prayers of the church of England. In discoursing on religious subjects he was reserved and cautious, avoiding controversy as much as possible. He left 500l. to the parish of St. Martin; and gave, in his life-time, his books to the library there, founded by archbishop Tenison. He bequeathed 200l. to the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, and a handsome sum of money to the poor of Vernon, in Normandy; and, after many legacies to his friends in England, the remainder to two nephews of his name at Vernon. During his lifetime, he was occasionally generous to some of his relations in France, and in England was very liberal to the poor. He had two sisters, who were nuns; and a brother at Paris, in the profession of the law, to whom he gave a handsome gold snuff-box, which had been presented to him by queen Caroline.

, the son of a tailor at Menin, was one of many who experienced the oppression of Olivarez duke of Alva, who, being appointed by Philip II. governor of the seventeen provinces, endeavoured, with execrable policy, to establish over all the Netherlands an irreligious and horrible court of judicature, on the model of the Spanish inquisition. By consequence, in 1567, great numbers of industrious, thriving, and worthy people were imprisoned by the rigorous orders of this petty tyrant, and treated with great injustice and cruelty. Courten had the good fortune to escape from prison; and in the year following, 1568, arrived safe in London, with his wife Margaret Casiere, a daughter named Margaret, her husband, son of a mercantile broker at Antwerp of the name of Boudean, and as much property as they could hastily collect under such disadvantages. Soon after their arrival, they took a house in Abchurch-lane, where they lived together, following for some time the business of making what were commonly called French hoods, much worn in those days and long after, which they vended in wholesale to the shopkeepers who sold them in retail. Encouraged by great success in this employment, they soon removed to a larger house in Pudding-lane or Love-lane, in the parish of St. Mary Hill, where they entered on a partnership trade, in silks, fine linens, and such articles as they had dealt in before when in Flanders. Michael Boudean, the daughter Margaret’s husband, died first, leaving behind him, unfortunately for the family, a son and only child, named Peter, after an uncle certainly not much older than himself. The widow married John Money, a merchant in London, who instantly became an inmate with the family, which was moreover increased by the parents themselves, with two sons, William, born in 1572, and Peter, born in 1581. The young men, being instructed in reading, writing, and arithmetic, were early initiated in business, and soon after sent abroad as factors for the family: William to Haerlem, Peter to Cologne, and Peter Boudean the grandchild to Middleburg. At what time William Courten and Margaret Casiere died is at present uncertain most probably their deaths happened about the end of queen Elizabeth’s, or in the beginning of king James’s reign; but it seems certain, that they left their descendants not only in easy, but even in affluent circumstances. At the following aera of this little history it does not appear clearly, whether the old people were actually dead, or had only declined all farther active, responsible concern in business: but, in 1606, William and Peter Courtens entered into partnership with John Money, their sister Margaret’s second husband, to trade in silks and fine linen. Two parts, or the moiety of the joint stock, belonged to William Courten, and to each of the others, Peter Courten and John Money, a fourth share. As for Peter Boudean, the son of Margaret Courten by her first husband, he seems to have been employed to negotiate for the partnership at Middleburg on some stipulated or discretionary salary; for it does not appear that he had any certain or determinate share in the trade, which was carried on prosperously till 1631, with a return, it is said, one year with another, of 150,000l. During the course of this copartnership, there is nothing upon record unfavourable to the character of John Money. The characters too of William and Peter Courtens appear unexceptionable, fair, and illustrious. They prospered, it seems, remarkably in all their undertakings, for twenty years and more; in the course of which time they were both dignified with the honours of knighthood.

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

, an eminent English poet, was born in London, 1618. His father, who was a grocer, dying before his birth, he was left to the care of his mother, who, by the interest of friends, procured him to be admitted a king’s scholar in Westminster school. The occasion of his first inclination to poetry, was his casual meeting with Spenser’s Fairy Queen. “I believe,” says he, in his essay on himself, “I can tell the particular little chance that filled my head first with such chimes of verses as have never since left ringing there. For I remember, when I began to read, and to take some pleasure in it, there was wont to lie in my mother’s parlour—I know not by what accident, for she herself never in her life read any book but of devotion; but there was wont to lie—Spenser’s Works. This I happened to fall upon, and was infinitely delighted with the stones of the knights and giants, and monsters, and brave houses, which I found every-where, though my understanding had little to do with all this, and by degrees with the tinkling of the rhyme, and dance of the numbers; so that I think I had read him all over before I was twelve years old.”

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

, earl Cowper, lord high chancellor of Great Britain, was descended from an ancient family, and son to sir William Cowper, baronet, and member of parliament for the town of Hertford in the reigns of Charles II. and William III. He is supposed to have been born in the castle of Hertford, of which his family had been a considerable time in possession; but of the place or time of his birth, or where he was educated, we have not been able to obtain any certain information. It appears, however, that he made so great a proficiency in the study of the law, that, soon after he was called to the bar, he was chosen recorder of Colchester, and in the reign of king William he was appointed one of his majesty’s council. In 1695 he was chosen one of the representatives in parliament for the town of Hertford, and on the day he took his seat had occasion to speak three times, with great applause. The following year he appeared as counsel for the crown on the trials of sir William Perkins, and others, who were convicted of high treason, for being concerned in the plot to assassinate king William. He was also counsel for the crown on the trial of captain Thomas Vaughan, for high treason on the high seas; and he likewise supported in parliament the bill of attainder against sir John Fenwick. In 1704, in a speech in the house of commons, in the famous case of Ashby and White, he maintained that an action did lie at common law, for an elector who had been denied his vote for members of parliament. His reputation continuing greatly to increase, on the accession of queen Anne he was again appointed one of the counsel to the crown; and on October 11, 1705, he was constituted lord keeper of the great seal of England. A few days after, queen Anne addressed both houses of parliament in a speech, which was well received, and which was said to be written by the new lord keeper.

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

As a public man, he continued to adhere steadfastly to the whigsj and when a debate took place relative to the Catalans, on the 2d of April, 1714, it was observed by lord Cowper, and others, that the crown of Great Britain having drawn in the Catalans to declare for the house of Austria, and engaged to succour and support them, those engagements ought to have been made good and lord Cowper moved for an address to her majesty, importing, “That her majesty’s endeavours for preserving to the Catalans the full enjoyment of their liberties, having proved ineffectual, their lordships made it their humble request to her majesty, that she would be pleased to continue her interposition, in the most pressing manner, in their behalf.” An address to this purpose, though with some alterations, was afterwards agreed to; but to which the queen returned a very evasive answer. Lord Cowper strongly opposed giving any parliamentary approbation to the peace of Utrecht, and in all respects endeavoured to thwart the measures of administration, which he did, however, with more ability than success. Among other occasions, he spoke warmly against the schism bill, and joined in a protest against it, with twenty-six other peers, and five bishops; yet in ths subsequent reign, when the act was repealed, he opposed the bill brought in on that occasion, because it contained some clauses, which in his opinion too much interfered with the test and corporation acts.

On the demise of queen Anne, lord Cowper was nominated one of the lords justices of the kingdom, till the arrival of king George I. from Hanover. On the 29th of August, 1714, he was appointed lord chancellor of Great Britain; and shortly after lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Hertford. When a new parliament was assembled, on the 27th of March, 1715, George I. declared from the throne, “That he had ordered the lord chancellor to declare the causes of calling this parliament in his majesty’s name and words.” He then delivered his speech into lord Cowper’s hands, who read it to both houses. On the 6th of February, 1716, his lordship was appointed lord high-steward for the trial of the rebel lords; as he was also, the following year, at the trial of the earl of Oxford, to whom he behaved on that occasion with great politeness. A change taking place in the ministry in the beginning of March 1718, lord Cowper resolved to resign the great seal; but, before his resignation, the king, on account of his great merit and services, on the 18th of that month, raised him to the dignity of a viscount and earl, by the title of viscount Fordwich, in the county of Kent, and earl Cowper. The preamble to his patent was drawn up by Mr. Hughes the poet, whom he had patronized. He resigned the great seal in the month of April, and was succeeded by lord Parker.

, a learned English bishop, was born at Whaddon in Buckinghamshire, of mean parentage, in the year 1499. He had probably his first education in the small priory of Snelshall, in the parish of Whaddon; but being afterwards sent to Eton-school, he was elected into a scholarship at King’s college in Cambridge, of which he became fellow in the year 1519. Having the same year taken his bachelor of arts degree, and being eminent for his piety and learning, he was invited to Oxford by cardinal Wolsey, to fill up his new foundation. He was accordingly preferred to be one of the junior canons of Cardinal college; and on the 7th of December, 1525, was incorporated bachelor of arts at Oxford, as he stood at Cambridge. Soon after, having performed his exercises, he took the degree of M. A. July 2, 1526, and at this time was reputed one of the greatest scholars of his age; and even his poetical compositions were in great esteem. His piety and virtue were not inferior to his learning, and commanded the respect of all impartial persons. But shewing himself averse to many of the popish superstitions, and declaring freely for some of Luther’s opinions, he incurred the displeasure of his superiors, who stripped him of his preferment, and threw him into prison on suspicion of heresy. When he was released from his confinement, he left Oxford; and, some time after, was chosen master of Eton-school, which flourished under his care. In 1537, he commenced doctor in divinity at Cambridge, and December 4, 1540, was made archdeacon of Ely; as he was also appointed in 1541, the first prebendary in the first stall of the same cathedral, upon its being new founded by king Henry VIII. September 10, 1541. He was likewise, June 3, 1542, presented by the same king to the prebend of Sutton with Buckingham in the church of Lincoln, and installed the llth of that month, but this he surrendered up in 1547. In the year 1543, he supplicated the university of Oxford, that he might take place among the doctors of divinity there, which was unusual, because he was not then incorporated in that degree, but this took place in June 1545. When a design was formed, of converting the collegiate church of Southwell into a bishopric, Dr. Cox was nominated bishop of it. On the 8th of January, 1543-4, he was made the second dean of the new-erected cathedral of Osney near Oxford; and in 1546, when that see was translated to Christ church, he was also made dean there. These promotions he obtained by the interest of archbishop Cranmer and bishop Goodrich, to the last of whom he had been chaplain; and, by their recommendation, he was chosen tutor to the young prince Edward, whom he instructed with great care in the true principles of religion, and formed his tender mind to an early sense of his duty, both as a Christian and a king. On that prince’s accession to the throne, he became a great favourite at court, and was made a privy-counsellor, and the king’s almoner. The 2 1st of May, 1547, he was elected chancellor of the university of Oxford; installed July 16, 1548, canon of Windsor; and the next year made dean of Westminster. About the same time he was appointed one of the commissioners to visit the university of Oxford, in which he and his brother commissioners destroyed some of the most valuable treasures in the libraries, from a notion that they encouraged popery and conjuration *. In 1550, he was ordered to go down into Sussex, and endeavour by his learned and affecting sermons, to quiet the minds of the people, who had been disturbed by the factious preaching of Day bishop of Chichester, a violent papist: and when the noble design of reforming the canon law was in agitation, he was appointed one of the commissioners. Both in this and the former reign, when an act passed for giving all chantries, colleges, &c. to the king, through Dr. Cox’s powerful intercession, the colleges in both universities were excepted out of that act. In November 1552, be resigned the office of chancellor of Oxford and soon after queen Mary’s accession to the crown, he was stripped of his preferments and on the 15th of August, 1553, committed to the Marshalsea. He was indeed soon discharged from this confinement; but foreseeing the inhuman persecution likely to ensue, he resolved to quit the realm, and withdraw to some place where he might enjoy the free exercise of his religion, according to the form established in the reign of king Edward. With this view he went first to Strasburgh in Germany, where he heard with great concern of some English exiles at Francfort having thrown aside the English Liturgy, and set up a form of their own, framed after the French and Geneva models. On the 13th of March 1555, he came to Francfort in order to oppose this innovation, and to have the Common- Prayer-Book settled among the English congregation there, which he had the satisfaction to accomplish. Then he returned to Strasburgh for the sake of conversing with Peter Martyr, with whom he had contracted an intimate friendship at Oxford, and whom he loved and honoured for his great learning and moderation. After the death of queen Mary he returned to England; and was one of those divines who were appointed to revise the Liturgy. When a disputation was to be held at Westminster between eight papists and eight of the reformed clergy, he was the chief champion on the protestants’ side. He preached often before queen Elizabeth in Lent; and, in his sermon at the opening of her first parliament, exhorted them in most affecting terms to restore religion to its primitive purity, and banish all the popish innovations and corruptions. These excellent discourses, and the great zeal he had shewn in support of the English liturgy at Francfort, so effectually recommended him to the queen’s esteem, that in June 1559, she nominated him to the bishopric of Norwich; but altering her mind, preferred him to the see of Ely in July 1559, in the room of Dr. Thirlby, who was deprived. Before his consecration (Dec. 19) he joined with Dr. Parker, elect archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishops elect of London, Chichester, and Hereford, in a petition to the queen, against an act lately passed for the alienating and exchanging the lands and revenues of the bishops; and sent her several arguments from scripture and reason against the lawfulness of it; observing withal, the many evils and inconveniencies both to church and state that would thence arise. In 1559 we find him again appointed one of the visitors of the university of Oxford, but this visitation was conducted so moderately as to obtain a letter of thanks to queen Elizabeth for the services of the commissioners. He enjoyed the episcopal dignity about twenty-one years and seven months, and was justly considered one of the chief pillars and ornaments of the church of England, having powerfully co-operated with archbishop Parker, and his successor Grindal, in restoring our church in the same beauty and good order it had enjoyed in king Edward’s reign. He indeed gave some offence to the queen by his zealous opposition to her retaining the crucifix and lights on the altar of the Chapel Royal, and his strenuous defence of the lawfulness of the marriage of the clergy, to which the queen was always an enemy. He was a liberal patron to all learned men whom he found well affected to the church; and shewed a singular esteem for Dr. Whitgift, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, made him his chaplain, and gave him the rectory of Teversham in Cambridgeshire, and a prebend of Ely. He did his utmost to get a body of ecclesiastical laws established by authority of parliament; but through the opposition of some of the chief courtiers, this design miscarried a third time. As he had, in his exile at Francfort, been the chief champion against the innovations of the puritans, he still continued, with some vigour and resolution, to oppose their attempts against the discipline and ceremonies of the established church. At first he tried to reclaim them by gentle means; but finding that they grew more audacious, and reviled both church and bishops in scurrilous libels, he wrote to archbishop Parker, to go on vigorously in reclaiming or punishing them, and not be disheartened at the frowns of those court-favourites who protected them; assuring him that he might expect the blessing of God on his pious labours to free the church from their dangerous attempts, and to establish uniformity. When the privycouncil interposed in favour of the puritans, and endeavoured to screen them from punishment, he wrote a bold letter to the lord- treasurer Burieigh in which he warmly expostulated with the council for meddling with the affairs of the church, which, as he said, ought to be left to the determination of the bishops; admonished them to keep within their own sphere; and told them he would appeal to the queen if they continued to interpose in matters not belonging to them. He is blamed by some for giving up several manors and other estates belonging to his see, while others thought he deserved commendation for his firmness in resolving to part with no more, and for being proof against the strongest solicitations and most violent attacks which he had to encounter, even from those who were most in favour at court, and who were backed by royal command and authority. In the years 1574- and 1575, sir Christopher Hatton, a noted favourite of the queen, endeavoured to wrest Ely-house in Holborn from him; and in order to preserve it to his see he was forced to have a long and chargeable suit in chancery, which was not determined in 1579. The lord North also attempted, in 1575, to oblige him to part with the manor of Somersham, in Huntingdonshire, one of the best belonging to his bishopric; and with Downham park; which he refusing to yield, that lord endeavoured to irritate the queen against him, and to have him deprived. For that purpose, North, and some others of the courtiers, examined and ransacked his whole conduct since his first coming to his see, and drew tip a large body of articles against him addressed to the privy-council. But the bishop, in his replies, so fully vindicated himself, that the queen was forced to acknowledge his innocence, though the lord North boasted he had found five prsemunires against him. Vexed, however, with the implacable malice of the lord North, and other his adversaries, he desired, in 1577, leave to resign his bishopric, which the queen refused. North, though disappointed in his former attempt, yet not discouraged, brought three actions against the poor old bishop for selling of wood, on which the bishop offered again, in 1579, to resign, provided he had a yearly pension of two hundred pounds out of his see, and Donnington (the least of five country houses belonging to Ely bishopric) for his residence during life. The lord- treasurer Burieigh, at the bishop’s earnest desire, obtained leave of the queen for him to resign; and in February 1579-80, upon the bishop’s repeated desires, forms of resignation were actually drawn up. But the court could not find any divine of note who would take that bishopric on their terms, of surrendering* up the best manors belonging to it. The first offer of it was made to Freak, bisbop of Norwich; and, on his refusal, it was proffered to several others; but the conditions still appeared so ignominious that they all rejected it; by which means bishop Cox enjoyed it till his death, which happened on the 22d of July 1581, in the eighty-second year of his arge. By his will he left several legacies, amounting in all to the sum of 945l.; and died worth, in good debts, 2,322l. He had several children. His body was interred in Ely cathedral, near bishop Goodrich’s monument, under a marble stone, with an inscription, now nearly effaced. His character is said to have been that of a man of a sound judgment and clear apprehension, and skilled in all polite and useful learning. He wanted no advantages of education, and improved them with such diligence and industry, that he soon became an excellent proficient both in divine and human literature. The holy scriptures were his chief study; and he was perfectly well versed in the original language of the New Testament. He was extremely zealous for the true interest of the reformed church, and a constant and vigorous defender of it against alj, the open, assaults of all its enemies. He is accused by some of having been a worldly and covetou’s person; and is said to have made a great havock and spoil of his woods and parks, feeding his family with powdered venison to save expences. Several complaints and long accusations were exhibited against him and his wife, in 1579, to queen Elizabeth upon these accounts, but the bishop fully vindicated himself, and shewed that all these complaints were malicious calumnies. It is likewise said, that he appears to have been of a vindictive spirit, by reason of his prosecution of, and severity to, the deprived catholics in his custody; and especially by his complaints against Dr. Feckenham, the last abbot of Westminster. But the bishop alleges in his own excuse, that these complaints were well founded; and that his endeavours to convert him were by order of the court. It must be remembered of this bishop, that he was the first who brought a wife to live in a college; and that he procured a new body of statutes for St, John’s college in Cambridge, of which, as bishop of Ely, he was, visitor.

His works, chiefly published after his decease, are, 1. “An Oration at the beginning of the Disputation of Dr. Tresham and others with Peter Martyr.” 2. “An Oration at the conclusion of the same;” both in Latin, and printed in 1549, 4to, and afterwards among Peter Martyr’s works. The second is also printed in the Appendix to Strype’s Life, of Cranmer. 3. He had a great hand in compiling the first Liturgy of the Church of England: and was one of the chief persons employed in the review of it in 1559. 4. He turned into verse the Lord’s Prayer, commonly printed at the end of Sternhold and Hopkins’s Psalms, a composition which will not bear modern criticism. 5. When a new Translation of the Bible was made in the reign of queen Elizabeth, now commonly known by the name of the Bishop’s Bible, the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistle to the Romans, were allotted to him, for his portion. 6. He wrote, “Resolutions of some Questions concerning the Sacraments;” in the collection of records at the end of Dr. Burnet’s History of the Reformation. 7. He had a hand in the “Declaration concerning the functions and divine institution of Bishops and Priests,” and in the “Answers to the Queries concerning some abuses of the Mass.” 8. Several letters, and small pieces of his have been published by the industrious Strype, in his Annals of the Reformation, and Lives of the four Archbishops; and he is said to have had a hand in Lilly’s Grammar. A letter written by him in 1569, directed to the Parson of Downham, and found in the parish chest of that place, was some years ago published in the Gentleman’s Magazine. It relates chiefly to the state and condition of the poor, before the statutes of the 14th and 43d of queen Elizabeth were enacted and shews that the bishop was animated with a very laudable zeal for engaging persons of wealth and substance to contribute liberally, chearfully, and charitably, to their indigent neighbours.

, bart. lord chancellor of Ireland, and author of a history of that kingdom, was son to Richard Cox, esq. captain of a troop of horse, and was born at Bandon, in the county of Cork, on the 25th of March 1650. He had the misfortune to become an orphan before he was full three years of age and was then taken care of by his mother’s father, Walter Bird, esq. of Cloghnakilty. But his grandfather also dying when he was about nine years old^ he was then taken under the protection of his uncle, John Bird, esq. who placed him at an ordinary Latin school at Cloghnakiity, where he soon discovered a strong inclination to learning. In 1668, in his eighteenth year, he began to practise as an attorney in several manor courts where his uncle was seneschal, and continued it three years, and was entered of Gray’s Inn in 1671, with a view of being called to the bar. Here he was so much distinguished for his great assiduity and consequent improvement, that in the summer of 1673 he was made one of the surveyors at sir Robert Shaftoe’s reading. He soon after married a lady who had a right to a considerable fortune; but, being disappointed in obtaining it, he took a farm near Cloghnakiity, to which he retired for seven years. Being at length roused from his lethargy by a great increase of his family, he was, hy the interest of sir Robert Southwell, elected recorder of Kinsale in 1680. He now removed to Cork; where he practised the law with great success. But, foreseeing the storm that was going to fall on the protestants, he quitted his practice, and his estate, which at that time amounted to 300l. per ann. and removed with his wife and five children to England, and settled at Bristol. At this place he obtained sufficient practice to support his family genteelly, independently of his Irish estate; and at his leisure hours compiled the History of Ireland;“the first part of which he published soon after the revolution, in 1689, under the title of” Hibernia Anglicana; or the History of Ireland, from the conquest thereof by the English to the 'present time." When the prince of Orange arrived in London, Mr. Cox quitted Bristol, and repaired to the metropolis, where he was made undersecretary of state. Having given great satisfaction to the king in the discharge of this office, Mr. Cox was immediately after the surrender of Waterford made recorder of that city. On the 15th of September 1690, he was appointed second justice of the court of common pleas. In April 1691 Mr. Justice Cox was made governor of the county and city of Cork. His situation now, as a judge and a military governor, was somewhat singular; and he was certainly not deficient in zeal for the government, whatever objections may be made to his conduct on the principles of justice and humanity. During the time of Mr. Cox’s government, which continued till the reduction of Limerick, though he had a frontier of 80 railes to defend, and 20 places to garrison, besides Cork and the fort of Kinsale, yet he did not lose a single inch of ground. On the 5th of November 1692, Mr. justice Cox received the honour of knighthood; in July 1693 was nominated lord chancellor of Ireland, and in October 1706 was created a baronet. On the death of queen Anne, and the accession of king George I. sir Richard Cox, with the other principal Irish judges, was removed from his office, and also from the privy council. He then retired to his seat in the county of Cork, where he hoped to have ended his days in peace; hut his tranquillity was disturbed by several attacks which were made against him in the Irish parliament, but though several severe votes were passed against, him, they were not followed by any farther proceedings. He now divided his time between study, making improvements on his estate, and acts of beneficence. But in April 1733, he was seized by a fit of apoplexy, which ended in a palsy, under which he languished till the 3d of May that year, when he expired without pain, at the age of 83 years one month and a few days.

was admitted into the academy of painting in his twentieth year, where he had already executed several pictures of great merit; his son, who was born at Paris in 1694, and to whom he left his name, his talents, his knowledge, and virtues, enjoyed the same good fortune. in his 2ist year: he was first painter to the duke of Orleans, and in 1747 to the king. Though his peronal qualities and endowments had already made him a welcome guest with the princes and great men of the court, yet this last appointment increased his reputation; and the first use he made of his consequence, was to induce M. de Tourathem, who had fortitude of mind sufficient for such a sacrifice, to decline the title of a protector of the academy, which hitherto had always been connected with the office of superintendant of the buildings, in order that the academy of painting, like all the rest, might be under the immediate protection of the king. He also erected a preparatory school, at Paris, for the y^ung pupils, who went to Rome, where they studied history, and exercised themselves under able masters. To him likewise the public were indebted for the exhibition of the pictures in the Luxembourg gallery. Like all men of genius, he had his enviers and rivals; but his rivals were his friends, his modesty drew them to him, and he never refused them his esteem. His place as first painter to the king brought him to court, and made him more intimately acquainted with the queen and the dauphin. The queen often gave him, work to do, which chiefly consisted in pictures of the saints and other objects of devotion. On her return from Metz, finding over her chimney a picture which he had privately executed, representing France in the attitude of returning thanks to heaven for the deliverance of the king, she was so moved, that she exclaimed, “No one but my friend Coypel is capable of such. a piece of gallantry!” The dauphin had frequently private conversations with him. He himself executed the drawing for the last work of Coypel, the “Sultan in his seraglio.” His table was always strewed with the manuscripts of this artist, which he intended to publish at his own expence. The death of the author prevented his design, and on hearing of the event, the prince said publicly at supper: “I have in one year lost three of my friends!”

, an eminent benefactor to the taste, elegance, and literature of his time, was the son of col. Mordaunt Cracherode, who sailed with lord Anson, and in 1753 was appointed lieut. governor of Fort St. Philip, in Minorca. His mother was Mary, the daughter of Thomas Morice, esq. paymaster of the British forces in Portugal in queen Anne’s time, and brother to William Morice, esq. who married bishop Atterbury’s daughter. The colonel died June 20, 1773, and his widow Dec. 27, 1784, at their house in Queen’s-square, Westminster, which was afterwards inhabited by their son, the subject of the present article. Mr. Cracherode was born in 1729, and educated at Westminster school, where his contemporary the late Mr. Cumberland says, he was “as grave, studious, and reserved as he was through life; but correct in morals and elegant in manners, not courting a promiscuous acquaintance, but pleasant to those who knew him, beloved by many, and esteemed by all.” He was admitted a scholar at Westminster in 1742, and in 1746 was elected to Christ-church, Oxford, where he took his degree of B. A. and M.A. at the usual periods: the latter, April 5, 1753. He entered into holy orders, and atone time held the curacy of Binsey, a donative, near Oxford, but accepted no preferment afterwards. At the same time, he maintained that simplicity and purity in his appearance, manners, and sentiments, which belong to the character he professed. The tenor of Mr. Cracherode’s life, after he came to reside in London, that of a man of literary taste and research, was even and uniform: his principal object was the collection of a library and museum, and while his thoughts were confined to it, his associations were necessarily with men of similar pursuits. He employed a considerable part of a large revenue in making collections of what was best and most curious in literature, and certain branches of the arts. His library soon became unrivalled in its kind; and his cabinet of prints, drawings, and medals, was considered as among the most select and valuable in a country that possesses so many of them. He was an exquisite judge of art, both ancient and modern, particularly of sculpture, painting, and music, and collected the choicest'of early printed books, drawings, coins, and gems. Many of hisarticles were unique for their beauty, their preservation, or the rarity of their occurrence: such, for instance, as his cameo of a lion on a sardonyx, and intaglio of the discobolos; his Tyndale’s New Testament on vellum, that formerly belonged to Anne Boleyn; his lord Finch, with wings on his head, by Marshal; his Olbiopolis, and his Dichalcos, the first and smallest coin, being the fourth part of an obolus. Of these, and every other curiosity in his possession, he was, at all times, most obligingly communicative. His books, which he used modestly to call a specimen collection, particularly books of the fifteenth century, form perhaps the most perfect series ever brought together by one man. His passion for collecting was strong in death, and while he was at the last extremity, his agents were buying prints for him. In his farewell visit to Payne’s shop he put an Edinburgh Terence in one pocket, and a large paper Cebes in another, and expressed an earnest desire to carry away “Triveti Annales,” and Henry Stephens’s “Pindar” in old binding, both beautiful copies, and, as he thought, finer than his own, but which Mr. Payne had destined for lord Spencer.

The principal features of his face, which was a very fine one, were mildness, kindness, and goodness and though they could not well be described in one line, yet they might be expressed by the single epithet of // benevolo. He was an universal favourite, because he possessed those qualities of which mankind are seldom jealous, and which they are ever ready to commend. His judgment was sound, and his taste excellent: he was eager. to learn, and modest to decide. His general manner of life, though he occasionally mixed with the world, and lived with the first people, was quiet and recluse: and his excursions from Queen-square were, for the most part, terminated at Clapham. The greatest journey of his life was from London to Oxford, and he was never on horseback. He had an estate in Hertfordshire, on which grew a remarkable c-hcsnut-tree, which he never saw but in an etching. This property was the manor of great Wimondly, held of the crown in grand serjeantry by the service of presenting to the king the first cup he drinks at his coronation; the cup to be of silver gilt, and the king returns it as the fee of office. His father, colonel Cracherode, purchased this manor of the Grosvenor family, and officiated at the coronation of his present majesty. The apprehension of being called to perform this service occasioned no small uneasiness to his son. His fortune was large, which he received from his father. Possessing about 600l. a year in landed property, and nearly 100,000l. in three per cents, he was usually reckoned worth 5000l. a year, of which he made the best possible use, for his charities were as ample as his fortune, but secret.

, said to be brother to the preceding, was born in 1633, and was educated at Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he gained such esteem by his learning and piety, that Dr. Cudworth, in 1656, wrote in the strongest terms to secretary Thurloe, to recommend him to Oliver Cromwell, as a proper person for the chaplainship of the English factory at Lisbon. Some years after the restoration, he was made canon-residentiary of Chichester, and was elected fellow of Eton college in 1672. In 1680 he was chosen by the fellows provost of Eton in opposition to Waller the poet, who was twice disappointed of the same preferment, once in 1665, when the lord chancellor Clarendon refused to put the seal to the grant, because it could be held only by a clergyman, and now when the privy-council came to the same determination. Dr. Cradock, who was admired in his own time for his uncommon talents, great copiousness and vivacity in preaching, is scarce known to the present day, except by the high character given of him by his contemporaries, and two excellent sermons: one on Providence, preached before Charles II. by whose command it was printed: it has since passed through several editions: the other “On the great end and design of Christianity,” was printed some years after his death, which happened Oct. 16, 1695, when he was interred in the college chapel.

, was born at Edinburgh in 1548, and studied the civil law in the university of Paris. While very young, he was called to the bar as an advocate in the court of session: his practice at the bar was great, and he was treated with every mark of respect by his countrymen; and when on a visit to London, he was knighted by king James. Bering well skilled in British and European antiquities, he wrote a learned treatise on the feudal law, entitled “Jus Feudale,” which is still in very great esteem. In 1535 he wrote a treatise on the sovereignty of Scotland, which was translated into very bad English by Ridpath in 1675. In 1602 he wrote a large treatise in folio to prove the legality of James’s succession to the crown of England on the death of queen Elizabeth. His book on the feudal law is esteemed all over England and the continent of Europe, and often quoted both by historians and lawyers. If others have excelled him in general researches and abstract speculation, few have united such practical utility with a profound and comprehensive view of the feudal system. He died at Edinburgh 1608, aged 60.

, originated from a gentleman’s family at Strickland in Westmoreland, where he was born in 1567, and in 1583 was admitted in Queen’s college in Oxford, of which he obtained a fellowship in 1598. He was esteemed a celebrated preacher and a deep controversial divine, and was particularly admired by the puritans. When king James 1. sent the lord Evers ambassador to the emperor, Mr. Crakanthorpe went along with him in 1603 as chaplain; and upon his return he was chaplain to Dr. Ravis, bishop of London, and presented to the rectory of Black Notley, near Braintry in Essex. He had the reputation of a general scholar, was a considerable canonist, and perfectly acquainted with ecclesiastical antiquity and scholastic divinity. He died in 1624, at his rectory of Black-Notley. His works are, 1. “Justinian the emperor defended against cardinal Baronius,” 1616, 4to. 2. “Introductio in Metaphysicam, lib. 4.” Oxon. 1619, 8vo Lond. 1641, 4to. 3. “A Defence of Constanthie, with a treatise of the pope’s Temporal Monarchy,” Lond. 1621, 4to. 4. “Pefensio ecclesiae Anglicanse contra M. Anton, cle Dominis archiepisc. Spalatensis injurias,” Lond. 1625, 4to; this book has the character of a most exact piece of controversy. 5. “Vigilius dormitans; or, a treatise of the 5th general council held at Constantinople, ann. 553,” Lond. 1631, fol. 6. “Logicae libri quinque,” Lond. 1622; Ox. 1677, 4to. 7. “Tractatus de providentia,” Camb. 1622, 4to; with several sermons, and some controversial Mss. left behind him, a part of which are in Queen’s college library.

, the first Protestant archbishop of Canterbury, was the son of Thomas Cranmer, esq. and of Agnes, daughter of Laurence Hatfield, of Willoughby, in Nottinghamshire. He was born at Aslacton, in that county, July 2, 1489, and educated in grammar learning, under a rude and severe parish-clerk, of whom he learned little, and endured much. In 1503, at the age of fourteen, he was admitted into Jesus college, in Cambridge; of which he became fellow, and where he studied such learning as the times afforded, till the age of twenty-two, For the next four or five years he applied himself to polite literature; and for three years more, to the study of the Scriptures. After he was M. A. he married a gentleman’s daughter named Joan, living at the Dolphin, opposite Jesus-lane, and having by this match lost his fellowship, he took up his residence at the Dolphin, and became reader of the common lecture in Buckingham, now Magdalen college; but his wife dying in child-bed within a year, he was again admitted fellow of Jesus college. Upon cardinal Wolsey’s foundation of his new college at Oxford, Cranmer was nominated to be one of the fellows; but he refused the offer, or, as some say, was on the road to Oxford, when he was persuaded to return to Cambridge. In 1523, he was made D. D. reader of the theological lecture in his own college; and one of the examiners of those that took the degrees in divinity. The most immediate cause of his advancement to the greatest favour with king Henry VIII. and, in consequence of that, to the highest dignity in the church of England, was the opinion he gave in the matter of that king’s divorce. Having, on account of the plague at Cambridge, retired to Waltham-abbey, in Essex, to the house of one Mr. Cressy, to whose wife he was related, and whose sons were his pupils at the university; Edward Fox, the king’s almoner, and Stephen Gardiner, the secretary, happened accidentally to come to that house, and the conversation turning upon what then was a popular topic, the king’s divorce, Cranmer, whose opinion was asked, said, that “it would be much better to have this question, e whether a man may marry his brother’s wife, or no?' decided and discussed by the divines, and by the authority of the word of God, than thus from year to year prolong the time by having recourse to the pope; and that this might be done as well in England in the universities here, as at Rome, or elsewhere.” This opinion being communicate-d by Dr. Fox to the king, his majesty approved of it much; saying, in his coarse language, that Cranmer “had the sow by the right ear.” On this, Cranmer was sent for to court, made the king’s chaplain, ordered to write upon the subject of the divorce, furnished with books for that purpose, and placed in the family of Thomas Boleyn, earl of Wiltshire and Ormond. When he had finished his book, he went to Cambridge to dispute upon that point, and brought several over to his opinion, which was, that, according to the Scriptures, general councils, and ancient writers, the pope had no authority to dispense with the word of God. About this time he was presented to a living, and made archdeacon of Tauntpn. In 1530 he was sent, with some others, into France, Italy, and Germany, to discuss the affair of the king’s marriage. At Rome he got his book presented to the pope, and offered to dispute openly against the validity of king Henry’s marriage; but no one chose to engage him. While he was at Rome, the pope constituted him his pcenitentiary throughout England, Ireland, and Wales. In Germany he was sole embassador on the same affair; and in 1532 concluded a treaty of commerce between England and the Low Countries. He was also employed on an embassy to the duke of Saxony, and other Protestant princes. During his residence in Germany, he married at Nuremberg a second wife, named Anne, niece of Osiander’s wife. Upon the death of archbishop Warham, in August 1532, Cranmer was nominated for his successor; but, holding still to his opinion on the supremacy, he refused to accept of that dignity, unless he was to receive it immediately from the king, without the pope’s intervention Before his consecration, the king so far engaged him in the business of his divorce, that he made him a party and an actor almost in every step he took in that affair. He not only pronounced the sentence of divorce between king Henry and queen Catherine, at Dunstable, May the 23d, 1533, but, according to Parker, married him to Anne Boleyn; although lord Herbert says they were privately married by Rowland Lee, afterwards bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, in the presence of lady Anne’s father, mother, and brother, Dr. Cranmer, and the duke of Norfolk. However this may be, on March 30th, 1533, he was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury, by the bishops of Lincoln, Exeter, and St. Asaph, when he made an unusual protestation. His design was by this expedient to save his liberty, to renounce every clause in his oath which barred him doing his duty to God, the king, and his country. Collier, who often argues as if he were fee'd by the church of Rome, thinks there was something of human infirmity in this management, because it was not made at Koine to the pope, nor by Cranmer’s proxies there, before the obtaining of the bulls, not perceiving that Cranmer’s opposition to the power of the pope was as uniform as it had been early, and the effect of conviction. The temporalities of the archbishopric were restored to Cranmer the 29th of April following. Soon after, he forbad all preaching throughout his diocese, and visited it this year in December. The pope threatening him with excommunication, on account of his sentence against queen Catherine, he appealed from his holiness to a general council, and in the ensuing parliaments, strenuously disputed against the pope’s supremacy. All along he showed himself a zealous promoter of the reformation; and, as the first step towards it, procured the convocation to petition the king that the Bible might be translated into English. When that was obtained, he diligently encouraged the printing and publication of it, and caused it to be recommended by royal authority, and to be dispersed as much as he possibly could. Next, he forwarded the dissolution of the monasteries, which were one of the greatest obstacles to a reformation *. He endeavoured also to restore the church of England to its original purity. In 1535 he performed a provincial visitation, in order to recommend the king’s supremacy, and preached upon that subject in several parts of his diocese, urging that the bishop of Rome was not God’s vicar upon earth, as supposed, and that that see so much boasted of, and by which name popes affected to be styled, was but a holiness in name, and that there was no such holiness at Rome, as he easily proved from the vices of the court of Rome. In

After queen Mary’s accession to the throne, so obnoxious an enemy to popery could not long escape, and accordingly he was first ordered to appear before the council, and bring an inventory of his goods; which he did August the 27th, when he was commanded to keep his house, and be forth-coming. September the 13th, he was again summoned before the council, and enjoined to be at the Starchamber the next day, when he was committed to the Tower; partly, for setting his hand to the instrument of the lady Jane’s succession; and, partly, for the public offer he had made a little before, of justifying openly“the religious proceedings of the late king. Some of his friends, foreseeing the storm that was likely to fall upon him, advised him to fly, but he absolutely refused, as unworthy of his character and the station he held. In the ensuing parliament, on November the 3d, he was attainted, and at Guildhall found guilty of high treason; on which the fruits of his archbishopric were sequestered; yet, upon his humble and repeated application, he was pardoned the treason, but it was resolved he should be proceeded against for heresy. In April 1554, he, and Ridley and Latimer, were removed to Oxford, for a public disputation with the papists on the subject of the sacrament; which was accordingly held there towards the middle of the month, with great noise, triumph, and confidence on the papists’ side, and with as much gravity, learning, modesty, and argument on the side of the protestant bishops. The 20th of April, two days after the end of these disputations, Cranmer and the two others were brought before the commissioners, and asked, whether they would subscribe (to Popery)? which they unanimously refusing, were condemned as heretics. From this sentence the archbishop appealed to the just judgment of the Almighty; and wrote to the council, giving them an account of the disputation, and desiring the queen’s pardon for his treason, which it seems was not yet remitted. By the convocation, which met this year, his” Defence of the true and Catholic doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ," was ordered to be burnt. Some of his friends petitioned the queen in his behalf; putting her in mind, how he had once preserved her, by his earnest intercessions for her, when her father had determined to send her to the Tower, and make her suffer for disobedience to the laws; so that she had reason to believe he loved her, and would speak the truth to her, more than all the rest of the clergy. But all these endeavours were ineffectual. The sentence pronounced against him by Weston at Oxford being void in law, because the Pope’s authority was not yet re-established in England, a new commission was sent from Rome for his trial and conviction. Accordingly, on September the 12th, 1555, he appeared before the commissioners; viz. Brooks bishop of Gloucester, for the pope; and Drs. Martin and Story for the queen: the commission was opened at St. Mary’s church, Oxford, and Cranmer was accused of blasphemy and heresy, for his writings against popery; of perjury, for breaking his oath to the pope; and of incontinency, or adultery, on account of his being married: against all which he vindicated himself. At last, he was cited to appear *at Rome within eighty days, to answer in person; which he said he would do, if the king and queen would send him, but this was not done, and therefore the pope dispatched, on December the 14th, his letters executory to the king and queen, and to Bonner and Thirlby bishops of London and Ely, to degrade and deprive him. In these letters, Cranmer was declared contumacious, for not appearing at Rome within eighty days, according to his citation; as if he could have appeared at Rome, when he was all the while kept a prisoner. Upon the arrival of the letters, Bonner and Thirlby, with Dr. Martin and Dr. Story the king’s and queen’s proctors, went to Oxford to degrade him. They dressed him in all the garments and ornaments of an archbishop, only in mockery every thing was of canvass and old clouts: and then he was, piece by piece, stripped of all again. When they came to take the crosier gut of his hand, he refused to part with it, and appealed to the next general council. After he was degraded, they put him on a poor yeoman -beadle’s gown, thread- bare, and a towns-man’s cap, and remanded him to prison. From thence he wrote letters to the queen, to give her an impartial account of vyhat had passed at his degradation, to prevent mis-reports, and to justify himself in what he had said and done; and hitherto he manifested a great deal of courage and wisdom in his sufferings; but at last human frailty made him commit what he felt as the greatest blemish of his life. For, through flatteries, promises, importunities, threats, and the fear of death, he was prevailed upon to sign a recantation *, wherein he renounced the Protestant

* Strype informs us that archbishop have received the pope’s authority Cranmcr was subtilly drawn in by the within this realm, I am content to subpapists to subscribe six different pa- mit myself to their laws herein, and to pers the fust being expressed in am- take the pope for chief head of this biguous words, capable of a favoura- chuich of England, so far as God’s ble construction, tiVe five following were laws, and the laws and customs of thi| added as explanations of it. That first realm, will permit.“In the nrxt, he recantation was in these words,” For submitted himself to the Catholic as much as the king’s and queen’s ma- church of Clirist, and unto the pope, jesties, by consent of their parliament, supreme head of the same church. In religion, and embraced again all the errors of popery; which, recantation was immediately printed and dispersed about by his enemies. Notwithstanding that, the merciless queen, not satisfied with this conquest, resolved to glut her revenge, by committing Cranmer to the flames. Accordingly, she sent for Dr. Cole, provost of Eton, and gave him instructions to prepare a sermon for that mournful occasion; and on the 24th of February a writ was signed for the execution. The 2 1st day of March, the fatal day, he was brought to St. Mary’s church, and placed on a kind of stage over against the pulpit, where Dr. Cole was to preach. While Cole was haranguing, the unfortunate Cranmer expressed great inward confusion; often lifting up his hands and eyes to heaven; and frequently pouring out floods of tears. At the end of the sermon, when Cole desired him to make an open profession of his faith, as he had promised him he would; he, first, prayed in the most fervent manner; then made an exhortation to the people present, not to set their minds upon the world; to obey

the third, he submitted to the king and qii'vn, and to all their laws, as well concerning the pope’s supremacy, as others: and promised, that he would stir and move all others to live in quietness and obedience to their majesties. As for his book, he was content to submit to the judgment of the Catholic church, and the next general council. Tiiis was followed by a fourth, wherein be- professed firmly, stedfastly, and assnndly to believe in all articles and points of the Christian religion and Catholic faith, as the Catholic church doih believe. Moreover, as concerning the sacraments, he declared he believed uiiiVig-iiediy in all poinis as the said Catholic church did. In the fifth paper, which is that in Fox, and has been thought to be his only recantation, they required of him, to renounce and anathematize all Lutheran and Zumglian heresies and errors; to acknowledge the one only Catholic church, to be that whereof the pope is the head; and to declare him Christ’s vicar. Then followed an express acknowledgment of transubstantiation, the seven sacraments, and of all the doctrines of the church of Rome in general. A sixth was still required of him, which was drawn up in so strong terms, that nothing was capable of being added to it. For it contained a large acknowledgment of all the popish errors and corruptions, and a most grievous accusation of himself as a blasphemer, enemy of Christ, and murderer of souls, on account of his being the author of king Henry’s divorce, and of all the calamities, schisms, and heresies of which that was the fountain. This was subscribed on the 18lh of March. These six papers were, soon after his death, sent to the press by Bonner, and published with the addition of another, which they had prepared for him to speak at St. Mary’s, before his execution: and though he then spoke to a quite contrary effect, and revoked his former recantations, Bonner had the confidence to publish this to the world, as if it had been approved and made use of by the archbishop. In 1736, William Whiston, M. A. published a little book, entitled “An Enquiry into the Evidence of Archbishop Cranmer’s Recantation: or reasons for a suspicion that the pretended copy of it is not genuine.” In this he supposes, that what Cranmer signed, was only the first part of the Recantation printed in Fox’s “Acts and Monuments,” as far as the words -“without which there is no Salvation,” that the rest was added by the papists, but that Cranmer never set his hand to it. the king and queen; to love each other; and to be charitable. After this he made a confession of his faith, beg nning with the Creed, and concluding with these words, “And I believe every word and sentence taught by our Saviour Jesus Christ, his apostles and prophets, in the Old and New Testament. And now,” added he, “I come to the great thing, that so much troubleth my conscience more than any thing I ever did or said in my whole life-; and that is the setting abroad a writing contrary to the truth, which 1 here now renounce as things written with my hand contrary to the truth which 1 thought in my heart, and written for fear of death, and to save my life if it might be; that is, all such bills and papers which I have written or signed with my hand since my degradation, wherein I have written many things untrue. And forasmuch as my hand offended, writing contrary to my heart, my hand shall first be punished; for, may I come to the fire, it shall be first burned. As for the pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy and antichrist, with all his false doctrine. And as for the Sacrament, I believe as I have taught in my book against the bishop of Winchester.” Thunderstruck as it were with this unexpected declaration, the enraged popish crowd admonished him not to dissemble: “Ah,” replied he with tears, “since I lived hitherto, I have been a hater of falsehood, and a lover of simplicity, and never before this time have I dissembled.” On this, they pulled him off the stage with the utmost fury, and hurried him to the place of his martyrdom, over against Baliol-college; where he put off his clothes in haste, and standing in his shirt, and without shoes, was fastened with a chain to the stake. Some pressing him to agree to his former recantation, he answered, showing his hand, “This is the hand that wrote it, and therefore it shall first suffer punishment.” Fire being applied to him, he stretched out his right hand into the flame, and held it there unmoved (except that once with it he wiped his face) till it was consumed, crying with a loud voice, “This hand hath offended;” and often repeating, “This unworthy right hand.” At last, the fire getting up, he soon expired, never stirring or crying out all the while, only keeping his eyes fixed to heaven, and repeating more than once, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Such was the end of the renowned Thomas Cranmer, in the 67th year of his age, a man who deservedly ranks high among the most illustrious characters in ecclesiastical history, although his conduct was not in all respects free from blame. Of the two instances in which Cranmer has been accused of retaining the spirit of persecution, after he had got rid of every other attribute of popery, Mr. Gilpin gives the following account: “Joan Bocher and George Paris were accused, though at different times, one for denying the humanity of Christ the other for denying his divinity. They were both tried, and condemned to the stake: and the archbishop not only consented to these acts of blood; but even persuaded the aversion of the young king into a compliance.” Your majesty must distinguish (said he, informing his royal pupil’s conscience) between common opinions, and such as are the essential articles of faith. These latter we must on no account suffer to be opposed.“Mr. Gilpin justly observes, that” nothing even plausible can be suggested in defence of the archbishop on this occasion; except only that the spirit of popery was not yet wholly repressed." That he was not, however, a man of blood, and that in every case of personal injury he was the most placable of human beings, is amply confirmed by all authorities. The last act of Henry’s reign, says the same biographer, was an act of blood; and gave the archbishop a noble opportunity of shewing, how well he had learned that great Christian lesson of forgiving an enemy. Almost without the shadow of justice, Henry had given directions to have the duke of Norfolk attainted by an act of parliament. The king’s mandate stood in lieu of guilt; and the bill passed the house with great ease. No man, except the bishop of Winchester, had been so great an enemy to the archbishop as the duke of Norfolk. He had always thwarted the primate’s measures; and oftener than once had practised against his life. How many would have seen with secret pleasure the workings of Providence against so rancorous an enemy; satisfied in having themselves no hand in his unjust fate! But the archbishop saw the affair in another light; he saw it with horror: and although the king had in a particular manner interested himself in this business, the primate opposed the bill with all his might; and when his opposition was vain, he left the house with indignation, and retired to Croydon.

In 1646, the poet Cowley found Crashaw in France in great distress, and introduced him to the patronage of Charles the First’s queen, who gave him letters of recommendation to Italy. There he became secretary to one of the cardinals at Rome, and was made canon in the church of Loretto, where he died of a fever, soon after this last promotion, about the year 1650. Cowley’s very elegant and affectionate lines may be seen in the works of that poet. Mr. Hayley remarks, that “fine as they are, Cowley has sometimes fallen into the principal defect of the poet whom he is praising. He now and then speaks of sacred things with a vulgar and ludicrous familiarity of language, by which (to use a happy expression of Dr. Johnson’s), ` readers far short of sanctity, may be offended in the present age, when devotion, perhaps not more fervent, is more delicate. 1 Let us add, that if the poetical character of Crashaw seem not to answer this glowing panegyric; yet in his higher character of saint, he appears to have had the purest title to this affectionate eulogy.” It appears by a passage in Selden’s Table Talk, that Crashaw had at one time an intention of writing against the stage, and that Selden succeeded in diverting him from his purpose. He had not, however, to regret that the stage outlived the church.

was born at Drumsoy near Glasgow, 1665, and brought up to the law; but seldom went to the bar, his taste being confined to history and antiquities, in which he made very great progress. He was appointed historiographer-royal of Scotland by queen Anne, and it was at that time thought that no man ever deserved that place better. In 1706 he published, 8vo, “Memoirs of Scotland” during the times of the four regents, which has gone through two editions. The “Peerage,” and “History of the Stuart Family,” attributed to him in the last edition of this Dictionary, belong to George Crawfurd, of whom we have no account; but, perhaps, with more reason, the Biographia Dramatica attributes to him two plays, “Courtship Alamode,” 1700, and “Love at first Sight,” 1704. He is said to have died at Drumsoy, 1726.

Crawfurd’s “Memoirs” have hitherto been held in considerable estimation, and frequently quoted as authorities; but a discovery has lately been made which proves him to Jiave been in one instance at least, shamefully regardless of veracity, and has procured him the disgrace of being “the first Scotchman who published his own compositions as the genuine productions of a former age.” This discovery was made by Mr. Laing, the editor of “The Historic and Life of king James the sext,” published in 1804, 8vo. He informs us that in Crawfurd’s “Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland,” references occur to a ms. in support of certain positions, which includes nothing that in the least countenances them, and the above “Historic,” printed from that identical ms. amply confirms this heavy charge, “the earliest, if not the most impudent literary furgery ever practised in Scotland.” Every circumstance in the ms. unfavourable either to queen Mary or to Bothwell, or favourable to their adversaries, Crawford carefully suppressed; while every vague assertion in Camden, Spottiswood, Melvill, and others, or in the state papers which Crawfurd had transcribed from the Cotton Mss. is inserted in the Memoirs; and these writers are quoted on the margin as collateral authorities, confirming the evidence of some unknown contemporary. Fictions, invented by Crawfurd himself, are profusely intermixed: and even the illdigested form of the genuine narrative is a pretext for the transposition and alteration of facts. Crawfurd, having thus, on the narrow basis of the original ms. constructed spurious memoirs of his own, “declares solemnly that he has not wrested any of the words to add to one man’s credit, or to impair the honesty of another: that he has neither heightened nor diminished any particular character or action; but that he has kept as close as possible to the meaning and sense of his author;” and even in his titlepage professes that the work “is faithfully published from an authentic manuscript.” The Memoirs, adds the editor of the “Historic,” have been quoted as genuine by Hume and Robertson, and their authority has been re-echoed by disputants as a full confirmation of the most absolute fictions. Nor is it possible to acquit Goodall of connivance at the fraud: he had collated the memoirs with two copies of the original ms. and was conscious of the imposture, which, in the preface to the second edition, he endeavours partly to vindicate, and partly to conceal.

, an Italian poet, and poetical historian, the son of John Philip Crescimbeni, a lawyer, and Anna Virginia Barbo, was born Oct. 9, 1663, at Macerata in the marche ofAncona. Jerome Casanati, afterwards cardinal, was his godfather, and gave him the names of John-Maria-Ignatius-Xavier-Joseph-Antony, of which he retained only John Maria, and afterwards changed the latter into Mario. After receiving grammatical education at home, his uncle Antony-Francis, an advocate, invited him to Rome in 1674; hut the following year his father and mother recalled him to Macerata, where he engaged in a course of study among the Jesuits. His teacher of rhetoric was Charles d' Aquino, under whom he made great progress in eloquence and poetry. Among his early attempts, he wrote a tragedy in the style of Seneca, “The Defeat of Darius, king of Persia,” and translated the first two hooks of Lucan’s Pharsalia into Italian verse from which performances he derived so much reputation, as to be admitted a member of the academy of the Disposti, in the town of Jesi, although only in his fifteenth year. About that time he continued his classical studies for eight months under Nicolas Antony Raffaelli, and entered upon a course of philosophy. His father now recommending the law as a profession, Crescimbeni took his doctor’s degree Oct. 3, 167 y, and was appointed to lecture on the institutes, which he did for a year. His uncle before mentioned, aoain inviting him to Rome, he divided his time there between law and polite literature, and in 1685, the academy of the Infecondi admitted him a member. Hitherto his studies in Italian poetry had not been conducted so as to inspire him with a very pure taste; but about 1687, he entered on a course of reading of the best Italian poets, which not only enabled him to correct his own taste and style, but gave him hopes that tie might improve those of his countrymen. With this intention he endeavoured to form a new society, or, as they are called in Italy, academy, rindcr the name of Arcadia, the members to be called the shepherds of Arcadia, and each to take the name of a shepherd, and that of some place in ancient Arcadia, and his own name accordingly was Alfesibeo Cario. Such was the origin of this celebrated academy, and surely no origin was ever mure childishly romantic, or unpromising as to any beneficial e licet on solid or elegant literature, to which purposes, however, we are told it has eminently contributed. It was established Oct. 5, 1690. A short account of it, written in 1757, informs us that the first members were those itained persons chiefly who were about queen Christina of Sweden. (See Christina, vol. IX.) It admits all sciences, all arts, all nations, all ranks, and both sexes. The number of its members is not determined; they are said at present to be upwards of two thousand, but we have heard a much larger number assigned, for they sometimes aggregate whole academies. At Home, the academicians assemble in pastoral habits, in a most agreeable garden, called Bosco Parrhasia. The constitution of the society being democratic, they never chusje a prince for their protector. At the end of each olympiad, for that is the method of computing adopted by the Arcadians, they cbuse a custode, who is the speaker, and has the sole right of assembling the society, who are also represented by him alone, when they are not assembled. In order to be admitted a member, it is requisite that the person should be twenty-four years of age complete, of a reputable family, and to have given some specimen of abilities in one or more branches of education. As to the ladies, a poem, or a picture, is a testimony of genius that is held sufficient. The stated assemblies of this academy are fixed to seven different days, between the first of May and the seventh of October. In the first six they read the works of the Roman shepherds, the productions of strangers being reserved for the seventh and last. Each author reads his own compositions, except ladies and cardinals, who are allowed to employ others.

After this, he was much inclined to become a monk of the Carthusian order, and had thoughts of entering into the monastery of English Carthusians at Newport, in Flanders, but from this he was dissuaded by some of his zealous countrymen, who were desirous that he should continue to employ his pen in defence of their religion, for which the severe discipline of that order would have allowed him but little time; and therefore by their advice he laid aside that design, and being recommended to Henrietta-Maria, queen-dowager of England, he was taken under her protection, and being invited by the Benedictine college of English monks at Douay, in Flanders, he at length resolved to retire thither, and for the expence of his journey received one hundred crowns as a bounty from that princess, who could but ill spare even so small a sura at that time. Some time after his arrival at Douay he entered into the Benedictine order, and upon that occasion changed the name he received at his baptism, of Hugh Paulin, for that of Serenus de Cressey, by which he was afterwards known to the learned world. He remained about seven years or more in that college, and during his residence tnere published a large work, of the mystical kind, entitled “Sancta Sophia, or directions for the prayers of contemplation, &c. extracted out of more than XL treatises, written by the late reverend father Aug. Baker, a monk of the English congregation of the holy order of St. Benedict,” Douay, 1657, 2 vols. 8vo. To which are added, “Certain patterns of devout exercises of immediate acts and affections of the will.” This father Augustine Baker, whose true name was David Baker, who had studied the law in the Middle temple, and who from being little better than an atheist, became a convert to popery, and a very zealous devotionist, had once, it seems, some intention of writing the Ecclesiastical History of England, for which he had made very copious collections, that were of great service to Cressey, when he entered upon the execution of the same project.

After the restoration, and the marriage of king Charles II. queen Catharine appointed our author, who was then become one of the mission in England, her chaplain, and from that time he resided in Somerset-house, in the Strand. The great regularity of his life, his sincere and unaffected piety, his modest and mild behaviour, his respectful deportment to persons of distinction, with whom he was formerly acquainted when a protestant, and the care he took to avoid all concern in political affairs or intrigues of state, preserved him in quiet and safety, even in the most troublesome times- He was, however, a very zealous champion in the cause of the church of Rome, and was continually writing in defence of her doctrines, or in answer to the books of controversy written by protestants of distinguished learning or figure; and as this engaged him in a variety of disputes, he had the good fortune to acquire great reputation with both parties, the papists looking upon him to be one of their ablest advocates, and the protestants allowing that he was a grave, a sensible, and a candid writer. Among the works he published after his return to England, were: 1. “A non est inventus returned to Mr. Edward Bagshaw’s enquiry and vainly boasted discovery of weakness in the Grounds of the Church’s Infallibility,” 1662, 8vo. 2. “A Letter to an English gentleman, dated July 6th, 1662, wherein bishop Morley is concerned, printed amongst some of the treatises of that reverend prelate,” 3. “Roman Catholic Doctrines no Novelties; or, an answer to Dr. Pierce’s court-sermon, miscalled The primitive rule of Reformation,” 1663, 8vo; answered by Dr. Daniel Whitby. But that which contributed to make him most known, was his large and copious ecclesiastical history, entitled “The Church History of Britanny,” Roan, 1668, fol. which was indeed a work of great pains and labour, and executed with much accuracy and diligence. He had observed that nothing made a greater impression upon the people in general of his communion, than the reputation of the great antiquity of their church, and the fame of the old saints of both sexes, that had flourished in this island; and therefore he judged that nothing could be more serviceable in promoting what he styled the catholic interest, than to write such a history as might set these points in the fairest and fullest light possible. He had before him the example of a famous Jesuit, Michael Alford, alias Griffith, who had adjusted the same history under the years in which the principal events happened, in four large volumes, collected from our ancient historians; but, as this was written in Latin, he judged that it was less suited to the wants of common readers, and therefore he translated what suited his purpose into English, with such helps and improvements as he thought necessary. His history was very much approved by the most learned of his countrymen of the same religion, as appears by the testimonies prefixed to it. Much indeed may be said in favour of the order, regularity, and coherence of the facts, and the care and punctuality shewn in citing his authorities. On the other hand, he has too frequently adopted the superstitious notions of many of our old writers; transcribing from them such fabulous passages as have been long ago exploded by the inquisitive and impartial critics of his own faith. The book, however, long maintained its credit among the Romanists, as a most authentic ecclesiastical chronicle, and is frequently cited by their most considerable authors. He proposed to have published another volume of this history, which was to have carried it as low as the dissolution of monasteries by king Henry VIII. but he died before he had proceeded full three hundred years lower than the Norman conquest. Dodd, however, informs us that a considerable part of the second volume was preserved in ms. in the Benedictine monastery at Douay, and that it was never published “upon account of some nice controversies between the see of Rome, and some of our English kings, which might give offence.” While engaged on this work, he found leisure to interfere in all the controversies of the times, as will presently be noticed. His last dispute was in reference to a book written by the learned Dr. Stillingfleet, afterwards bishop of Worcester, to which, though several answers were given by the ablest of the popish writers, there was none that seemed to merit reply, excepting that penned by father Cressey, and this procured him the honour of a very illustrious antagonist, his old friend and acquaintance at Oxford, Edward earl of Clarendon. Being now grown far in years, and having no very promising scene before his eyes, from the warm spirit that appeared against popery amongst all ranks of people, and the many excellent books written to confute it by the most learned of the clergy, he was the more willing to seek for peace in the silence of a country retirement; and accordingly withdrew for some time to the house of Richard Caryll, esq. a gentleman of an ancient family and affluent fortune, at East Grinstead, co. Sussex, and dying upon the 10th of August 1674, being then near the seventieth year of his age, was buried in the parish church there. His loss was much regretted by those of his communion, as being one of their ablest champions, ready to draw his pen in their defence on every occasion, and sure of having his pieces read with singular favour and attention. His memory also was revered by the protestants, as well on account of the purity of his manners, and his mild and humble deportment, as for the plainness, candour, and decency with which he had managed all the controversies that he had been engaged in, and which had procured him, in return, much more of kindness and respect, than almost any other of his party had met with, or indeed deserved. It is very remarkable, however, that he thought it necessary to apologize to his popish readers for the respectful mention he made of the prelates of our church. Why this should require an apology, we shall not Inquire, but that his candour and politeness deserve the highest commendation will appear from what he says of archbishop Usher: “As for B. Usher, his admirable abilities in ‘chronological and historical erudition,’ as also his faithfulness and ingenuous sincerity in delivering without any provoking reflection*, what with great labour he has observed, ought certainly at least to exempt him from being treated by any one rudely and contemptuously, especially by me, who am moreover always obliged to preserve a just remembrance of very many kind effects of friendship, which I received from, him.” We have already taken notice of his inclination to the mystic divinity, which led him to take so much pains about the works of father Baker, and from the same disposition he also published “Sixteen revelations of divine love, shewed to a devout servant of our Lord, called mother Juliana, an anchorete of Norwich, who lived in the days of king Edward Hi.” He left also in ms. “An Abridgment of the book called The cloud of unknowing, and of the counsel referring to the same.” His next performance, was in answer to a famous treatise, written by Dr. Stillingfleet, against the church of Rome, which made a very great noise in those days, and put for some time a stop to the encroachments their missionaries were daily making, which highly provoked those of the Roman communion. This was entitled “Answer to part of Dr. Stillingfleet’s book, entitled Idolatry practised in the church of Rome,” 1672, 8vo, and was followed by “Fanaticism fanatically imputed to the Catholic Church by Dr. Stillingfleet, and the imputation refuted and retorted,” &c. 1672, 8vo, and “Question, Why are you a Catholic? Question, Why are you a Protestant?” 1673, 8vo. In support of Dr. Stillingfleet, the earl of Clarendon wrote “Animadversions” upon our author’s answer; in which he very plainly tells him and the world, that it was not devotion, but necessity and want of a subsistence, which drove him first out of the church of England, and then into a monastery. As this noble peer knew him well at Oxford, it may be very easily imagined that what he said made a very strong impression, and it was to efface this, that our author thought tit to send abroad an answer under the title of “Epistle apologetical to a person of honour, touching his vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet,' 1 1674, 8vo. In this work he gives a large relation of the state and condition of his affairs, at the time of what he styles his conversion, in order to remove the imputation of quitting his faith to obtain bread. The last work that he published was entitled” Remarks upon the Oath of Supremacy."

, bishop of Durham, the fifth sen of John lord Crewe, of Stean, co. Northampton, by Jemima, daughter and coheir of Edward Walgrave, of Lawford, in Essex, esq. was born at Stean, the 3 1st of January, 1633; and in 1652 admitted commoner of Lincoln college, in Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. Feb. 1, 1655-6; soon after which he was chosen fellow of that college. On June 29th, 1658, he took the degree of M. A. At the restoration he declared heartily in favour of the crown and hierarchy; and in 1663 was one of the proctors of the university. The year following, on the 2d of July, he took the degree of LL. D.; and soon after went into holy orders. August the 12th, 1668, he was elected rector of Lincoln -college, upon the decease of Dr. Paul Hood. On the 29th of April, 1669, he was installed dean of Chichester, and held with that dignity, the praecentorship, in which he had been installed the day before. He was also appointed clerk of the closet to king Charles II. In 1671, upon the translation of Dr. Blandford to the see of Worcester, he was elected hishop of Oxford in his room, on the 16th of June, confirmed June the ISth, consecrated July the 2d, and enthroned the 5th of the same month; being allowed to hold with it, in commendam, the living of Whitney, and the rectorship of Lincoln college, which last he resigned in October 1672. In 1673 he performed the ceremony of the marriage of James duke of York with Maria of Este; and through that prince’s interest, to whom he appears to have been subservient, he was translated, the 22d of October, 1674, to the bishopric of Durham. In the beginning of J6.75, he baptized Katharina- Laura, the new-born daughter of James duke of York. The 26th of April, 1676, he was sworn of the privy council to king Charles II. and upon the accession of king James II. to the crown, he was in great favour with that prince; he was made dean of his majesty’s royal chapel in 1685, in the room of Compton, bishop of London, who had been removed; and within a few days after, was admitted into the privy council. In 1686 he was appointed one of the commissioners in the new ecclesiastical commission erected by king James, an honoqr which he is said to have valued beyond its worth. By virtue of that commission, he appeared on the 9th of August, at the proceedings against Henry bishop of London, and was for suspending him during the king’s pleasure; though the earl and bishop of Rochester, and chief justice Herbert, were against it. Immediately after that bishop’s suspension, commissioners were appointed to exercise all manner of ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the diocese of London, of which bishop Crewe was one. The 20th of November following, he was present at, and consenting to, the degradation of Mr. Samuel Johnson, previously to the most severe punishment that was inflicted on that eminent divine; and countenanced with his presence a prosecution carried on, in May 1687, against Dr. Peachy, vice-chancellor of Cambridge, for refusing to admit one Alban Francis, a Benedictine monk, to the degree of master of arts in that university, without taking the oaths. In July the same year, he offered to attend the pope’s nuncio at his public entry into London; but we are told his coachman refused to "drive lijm that way. His name was put again in a new ecclesiastical commission issued out this year, in October; in which he acted, during the severe proceedings against Magdalen college in Oxford, for refusing to elect one Anthony Farmer their president, pursuant to the king’s mandate. The bishop continued acting as an ecclesiastical commissioner till October 1688; when that commission was abolished. Towards the end of the year 1687, he was employed, with the bishops of Rochester and Peterborough, to draw up a form of thanksgiving for the queen’s being with child. But finding that the prince of Orange’s party was likely to' prevail, he absented himself from the council-board, and told the archbishop of Canterbury, that he was sorry for having so long concurred with the courtand desired now to be reconciled to his grace, and the other bishops. Even in the convention that met January 22, 1688-9, to consider of filling the throne, he was one of those who voted, on the 6th of February, that king James II. had abdicated the kingdom. Yet his past conduct was too recent to be forgotten, and therefore he was excepted by name out of the pardon granted by king William and queen Mary, May 23, 1690, which so terrified him, that he went over to Holland, and returned just in time to take the oaths to the new government, and preserved his bishopric. But, in order to secure to himself the possession of that dignity, he was forced to permit the crown to dispose of, or at least to nominate to, his prebends of Durham, as they should become vacant. By the death of his two elder brothers, he became in 1691, baron Crewe of Stean; and, about the 21st of December the same year, he married, but left no issue. During the rest of king William’s reign, he remained quiet and unmolested; and in the year 1710, he was one of the lords that opposed the prosecution then carried on against Dr. Sacheverell, and declared him not guilty; and likewise protested against several steps taken in that affair. He applied himself chiefly, in the latter part of his life, to works of munificence and charity. Particularly, he was a very great benefactor to Lincoln college, of which he had been fellow and rector; and laid out large sums in beautifying the bishop’s palace at Durham; besides many other instances of generosity and munificence of a more private nature. At length, his lordship departed this life on Monday September 18, 1721, aged eighty-eight; and was buried in his chapel at Stean, the 30th of the same month, with an inscription on his monument. He held the see of Durham forty-seven years. Dying without issue, the title of Baron Crewe of Stean became extinct with him.

, was a Scotch gentleman, who lived in the sixteenth century, and has furnished a sort of biographical romance. His endowments both of body and mind were esteemed so great, that he obtained the appellation of “The admirable Crichton,” and by that title he has continued to be distinguished down to the present day. The accounts given of his abilities and attainments are indeed so wonderful, that they seem scarcely to be credible; and many persons have been disposed to consider them as almost entirely fabulous, though they have been delivered with the. utmost confidence, and without any degree of hesitation, by various writers. The time of Crichton’s birth is said, by the generality of authors, to have been in 1551; but according to lord Buchan, it appears from several circumstances, that he was born in the month of August, 1560. His father was Robert Crichton of Elliock in the county of Perth, and lord advocate of Scotland in queen Mary’s reign, from 1561 to 1573; part of which time he held that office in conjunction with Spens of Condie. The mother of James Crichton was Elizabeth Stuart, the only daughter of sir James Stuart of Beath, who was a descendant of Robert duke of Albany, the third son of king Robert II. by Elizabeth Muir, or More, as she is commonly called. It is hence evident, that when the admirable Crichton boasted, as he did abroad, that he was sprung from Scottish kings, he said nothing but what was agreeable to truth. Nevertheless, Thomas Dempster, who sufficiently amplifies his praises in other respects, passes a severe censure upon him on this account; which is the more remarkable, as Dempster lived so near the time, and was well acquainted with the genealogies of the great families of Scotland. James Crichton is said to have received his grammatical education at Perth, and to have studied philosophy in the university of St. Andrew. His tutor in that university was Mr. John Rutherford, a professor at that time famous for his learning, and who distinguished himself by writing four books on Aristotle’s Logic, and a commentary on his Poetics. But nothing, according to Mackenzie, can give us a higher idea of Rutherford’s worth and merit, than his being master of that wonder and prodigy of his age, the great and admirable Crichton. However, it is not to this professor alone that the honour is ascribed of having formed so extraordinary a character. There are others who may put in their claim to a share in the same glory; for Aldus Manutius, who calls Crichton first cousin to the king, says that he was educated, along with his majesty, under Buchanan, Hepburn, and Robertson, as well as Rutherford. Indeed, whatever might be the natural force of his genius, jnany masters must have been necessary, in order to his acquiring such a variety of attainments as he is represented to have possessed. For it is related, that he had scarcely reached the twentieth year of his age, when he had run through the whole circle of the sciences, and could speak and write to perfection in ten different languages. Nor was this all; for he had likewise improved himself to the highest degree in riding, dancing, and singing, and in playing upon all sorts of instruments. Crichton, being thus accomplished, went abroad upon his travels, and is said to have gone to Paris; of his transactions at which place the following account is given. He caused six placards to be fixed on the gates of the schools, halls, and colleges belonging to the university, and on the pillars and posts before the houses of the most renowned men for literature in the city, inviting all those who were well versed in any art or science to dispute with him in the college of Navarre, that day six weeks, by nine o'clock in the morning, where he would attend them, and be ready to answer to whatever should be proposed to him in any art or science, and in any of these twelve languages, Hebrew, Syrlac, Arabic, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, English, Dutch, Flemish, and Sclavonian; and this either in verse or prose, at the discretion of the disputant. During this whole time, instead of closely applying to his studies, he regarded nothing but hunting, hawking, tilting, vaulting, riding of a well-managed horse, tossing the pike, handling the musquet, and other military feats; or else he employed himself in domestic games, such as balls, concerts of music, vocal and instrumental; cards, dice, tennis, and other diversions of youth. This conduct so provoked the students of the university, that, beneath the placard that was fixed on the Navarre gate, they caused the following words to be written: “If you would meet with this monster of perfection, to search for him either in the tavern or t)ie brothel is the readiest way to find him.” Nevertheless, when the day appointed arrived, Crichton appeared in the college of Navarre, and acquitted himself beyond expression in the disputation, which lasted from nine in the morning till six at night. At length, the president, after extolling him highly for the many rare and excellent endowments which God and nature had bestowed upon him, rose from his chair; and, accompanied by four of the most eminent professors of the university, gave him a diamond ring and a purse full of gold, as a testimony of their approbation and favour. The whole ended with the repeated acclamations and huzzas of the spectators; and henceforward our young disputant was called “The admirable Crichton.” It is added, that he was so little fatigued with the dispute, that he went the very next day to the Louvre, where he had a match'at tilting, an exercise then in great vogue; and, in presence of some princes of the court of France, and a great many ladies, carried away the ring fifteen times successively, and broke as many lances on the Saracen, whatever that might be; probably a sort of mark.

, an eminent and loyal citizen in the reigns of king Charles the First, and king Charles the Second, the son of a very eminent merchant of London, was born in 1598, and bred, according to the custom of those times, in a thorough knowledge of business, though heir to a great estate. He made a considerable addition to this by marriage; and being a man of an enterprizing genius, ever active and solicitous about new inventions and discoveries, was soon taken notice of at court, was knighted, and became one of the farmers of the king’s customs. When the trade to Guinea was under great difficulties and discouragements, he framed a project for retrieving it, which required a large capital, but his reputation was so great, that many rich merchants willingly engaged with him in the prosecution of the design; and to give a good example, as well as to shew that he meant to adhere to the work that he had once taken in hand, he caused the castle of Cormantyn upon the Gold Coast, to be erected at his own expence. By this judicious precaution, and by his wise and wary management afterwards, himself and his associates carried their trade so successfully, as to divide amongst them fifty thousand pounds a year. When the rebellion began, and the king was in want of money, sir Nicholas Crispe, and his partners in the farming of the customs, upon very short warning, and when their refusing it would have been esteemed a merit with the parliament, raised him one hundred thousand pounds at once. After the war broke out, and in the midst of all the distractions with which it was attended, he continued to carry on a trade to Holland, France, Spain, Italy, Norwaj', Moscovy, and Turkey, which produced to the king nearly one hundred thousand pounds a year, besides keeping most of the ports open and ships in them constantly ready for his service. All the correspondence and supplies of arms which were procured by the queen in Holland, and by the king’s agents in Denmark, were consigned to his care, and by his prudence and vigilance safely landed in the north, and put into the hands of those for whom they were intended. In the management of so many nice and difficult affairs, he was obliged to keep up a very extensive correspondence, for which he hardly ever made use of cypher, but penned his letters in such a peculiar style, as removed entirely his intentions from the apprehension of his enemies, and yet left them very intelligible unto those with whom he transacted. He had also great address in bringing any thing to bear that he had once contrived, to which it contributed not a little, that in matters of secrecy and danger he seldom trusted to any hands but his own, and made use of all kinds of disguises. Sometimes, when he was believed to be in one place, he was actually at another; letters of consequence he carried in the disguise of a porter; when he wanted intelligence he would be at the water side, with a basket of flounders upon his head, and often passed between London and Oxford in the dress of a butter-woman on horseback, between a pair of panniers. He was the principal author of a well-laid design for publishing the king’s commission of array at London, in which there was nothing dishonourable, so far as sir Nicholas Crispe was concerned, which, however, Clarendon inadvertently confounds with another design, superinduced by Mr. Waller, of surprizing the parliament, in bringing which to bear he proceeded very vigorously at first, till, finding that he had engaged in a matter too big for his management, he suddenly lost his spirits, and some of the chief men in the house of commons gaining intelligence that something was in agitation to their prejudice, May 31st, 1643, they presently seized Mr. Waller, and drew from him a complete discovery, which, from the account they published, plainly distinguished these two projects. By the discovery of this business, sir Nicholas Crispe found himself obliged to declare openly the course he meant to take; and having at his own expence raised a regiment of horse for the king’s service, he distinguished himself at the head of it as remarkably in his military, as he had ever done in his civil capacity. When the siege of Gloucester was resolved on, sir Nicholas Crispe was charged with his regiment of horse to escort the king’s train of artillery from Oxford, which important service he very gallantly performed; but in the month of September following, a very unlucky accident occurred, and though the circumstances attending it clearly justified his conduct to the world, yet the concern it gave him was such as he could not shake off so long as he lived. He happened to be quartered at Rouslidge, in Gloucestershire, where one sir James Ennyon, bart. of Northamptonshire, and some friends of his took up a great part of the house, though none of them had any commands in the army, which, however, sir Nicholas bore with the utmost patience, notwithstanding he was much incommoded by it. Some time after, certain horses belonging to those gentlemen were missing, and sir James Ennyon, though he had lost none himself, insinuating that some of sir Nicholas’s troopers must have taken them, insisted that he should immediately draw out his regiment, that search might be made for them. Sir Nicholas answered him with mildness, and offered him as full satisfaction as it was in his power to give, but excused himself from drawing out his regiment, as a thing improper and inconvenient at that juncture, for reasons which he assigned. Not content, however, sir James left him abruptly, and presently after sent him a challenge, accompanied with a message to this effect, that if he did not comply with it, he would pistol him against the wall. Upon this, sir Nicholas Crispe taking a friend of his with him, went to the place appointed, and finding sir James Ennyon and the person who brought him the challenge, sir Nicholas used his utmost endeavours to pacify him; but he being determined to receive no satisfaction, unless by the sword, they engaged, and sir James received a wound in the rim of the belly, of which he died in two days. Before this, however, he sent for sir Nicholas Crispe, and was sincerely reconciled to him. Upon the 2d of October following, sir Nicholas was brought to a court-martial for this unfortunate affair, and upon a full examination of every thing relating to it, was most honourably acquitted. He continued to serve with the same zeal and fidelity during 1644, and in the spring following; but when the treaty of Uxbridge commenced, the parliament thought fit to mark him, as they afterwards did in the Isle of Wight treaty, by insisting that he should be removed from his majesty’s presence; and a few months after, on April 16th, 1645, they ordered his large house in Breadstreet to be sold, which for many years belonged to his family. Neither was this stroke of their vengeance judged a sufficient punishment for his offences, since having resolved to grant the elector palatine a pension of eight thousand pounds a year, they directed that two thousand should be applied out of the king’s revenue, and the remainder made up out of the estates of lord Culpeper and sir Nicholas Crispe, Sir Nicholas finding himself no lon^ev in a capacity to render his majesty any service, thought it expedient to preserve himself; and in April 1646 embarked with lord Culpeper and colonel Monk for France, but as he had many rich relations who had interest with those in power, they interposed in his favour; and as sir Nicholas perceived that he could be of no service to the royal cause abroad, h did not look upon it as any deviation from his duty, to return and live quietly at home. Accordingly, having submitted to a composition, he came back to London, to retrieve his shattered fortunes, and very soon engaged again in business, with the same spirit and success as before. In this season of prosperity he was not unmindful of the wants of Charles II. but contributed cheerfully to his relief, when his affairs seemed to be in the most desperate condition. After the death of Oliver Cromwell, he was instrumental in reconciling many to their duty, and so well were his principles known, and so much his influence apprehended, that when it was proposed that the royalists in and about London should sign an instrument signifying their inclination to preserve the public tranquillity, he was called upon, and very readily subscribed it. He was also principally concerned in bringing the city of London, in her corporate capacity, to give the encouragement that was requisite to leave general Monk without any difficulties or suspicion as to the sincerity and unanimity of their inclinations. It was therefore very natural, after reading the king’s letter and declaration in common-council, May 3d, 1660, to think of sending some members of their own body to preSent their duty to his majesty; and having appointed nine aldermen and their recorder, they added sir Nicholas Crispe, with several other worthy persons, to the committee, that the king might receive the more satisfaction from their sentiments being delivered by several of those who had suffered deeply in his own and in his father’s cause. His majesty accordingly received these gentlemen very graciously, as a committee, and afterwards testified to them separately the sense he had of their past services, and upon his return, sir Nicholas Crispe and sir John Wolstenholme, were re-instated as farmers of the customs. Sir Nicholas was now in years, and somewhat infirm, spent a great part of his time at his noble country seat near Hammersmith, where he was in some measure the founder of the chapel, and having an opportunity of returning the tbligation he had received from some of his relations, he procured for them that indemnity from the king, gratis, for which he had so dearly paid during the rebellion. The last testimony he received of his royal master’s favour, was his being created a baronet, April 16th, 1665, which he did not long survive, dying February 26th, the next year, in the sixty-seventh year of his age, leaving a very large estate to his grandson, sir Nicholas Crispe. His corpse was interred with his ancestors, in the parish church of St. Mildred, in Bread-street, and his funeral sermon was preached by his reverend and learned kinsman Mr. Crispe, of Christ-church, Oxford. But his heart was sent to the chapel at Hammersmith, where there is a short and plain inscription upon a cenotaph erected to his memory; or rather upon that monument which himself erected in grateful commemoration of king Charles I. as the inscription placed there in sir Nicholas’s life-time tells us, under which, after his decease, was placed a small white marble urn, upon a black pedestal, containing his heart.

, the son of Edward Croft, esq. of a very ancient family at Croft-castle in Herefordshire, was educated at Christ-church, Oxford, and became a member of parliament in the latter end of queen Elizabeth’s reign. On the accession of James I. he waited on him at Theobalds, and his majesty being informed of his family and personal merits, he was honoured with knighthood. After he had lived fifty-two years as a protestant, he became a member of the Roman catholic church, and going over to Doway, had an apartment in the monastery of the English Benedictines, and, as some say, became a lay brother of the order. After residing here about five years he died April 10, 1622, a rare example, says his popish biographer, of piety and resolution. He left four sons: William, also knighted and a colonel in the civil wars, who was killed in battle in 1645; James and Robert, both colonels; and Herbert, the subject of the following article. He wrote, 1. “Letters persuasive to his wife and children, to take upon them the Catholic religion,” Doway, 1619, 12mo, 2. “Arguments to show that the church in communion with the see of Rome, is the true church; against Dr. Field’s four books of the church,” 1619. 3. “Reply to the answer of his daughter (Mary) which she made to a paper of his, sent to her concerning the Roman church,” 1619, 12mo, 255 pages. This must be a very rare book if, according to Wood, eight copies only were printed.

On his return to England, the university of Oxford invited him to settle there, with which he complied in 1532, and taught Greek in Peckwater school (on the site of which Peckwater quadrangle is built), and soon after he was made a canon of Cardinal Wolsey’s college, which he held until 1545, when he removed to Exeter college on a pension of 26l. 135. 6d. per annum, from the smallness of which it has been inferred that he had not now the same interest at court as formerly but long before this, in 1532 f when, upon the death of dean Higden, the canons supplicated his majesty, through lord Cromwell, that he might be appointed to that office, the request was denied, nor was he afterwards made a canon of the college upon the new foundation by Henry VIII. when it had the name of the King’s college. It appears by his will that he had only the living of Long Buckby, in Northamptonshire, which Dodd supposes was conferred upon him in queen Mary’s time. The same historian thinks that in king Edward’s reign he did not go all the lengths of the reformers, and gives as a proof some reflections against Leland on account of his inconstancy in religion. There can be no doubt, however, of Dr. Croke’s remaining Jinn in the popish religion, for we find him enumerated among the witnesses appointed to discover heresy in archbishop Cranmer’s writings. Dr. Croke died at London in 1558, but where buried is not known. His writings are, 1. “Oratio de Groecarum disciplinarum laudibus,” dated July 1519, and probably printed about that time, 4to. It is dedicated to his fellow collegian, Nicholas West, bishop of Ely; and the date shows the error of those biographers who inform us that he was not chosen Greek professor at Cambridge until 1522. With this is printed “Oratio qua Cantabrigienses est hortatus, ne Grascarum literarum desertores essent.” Before, and at the end of these orations, Gilbert Ducher wrote an epistle in praise of Croke’s learning. 2. “Introductiones ad Grascam linguam,” Cologn, 1520, 4to. 3. “In Ausonium annotationes.” 4. “Elementa Gr. Gram.” 5. “De Verborum constructione.” His Letters from Italy to Henry VIII. on the subject of the divorce may be seen in Burnet’s History of the Reformation, with a full account of his proceedings there, which gives us no very favourable notion of the liberality of his royal employer, and proves that Collier’s accusation of bribery has not much foundation. Croke is also said to have made some translations from the Greek of Theodore Gaza and Elysius Calentinus. Hody says that he and Erasmus translated Gaza’s Greek Grammar in 1518, which may be the same mentioned above; and we suspect that the work “De Verborum constructione” is also from Gaza. Bale and Pits are seldom to be depended on in the titles of books. The fame of Croke has been recently revived on the continent by John Gott. Boehmius, in his “Specimen Literature Lipsicae Saeculo XVI.” 1761, 4to, in which he notices Croke as the reviver of Greek literature in that university. The same author, in his “Opuscula Academica de Litteratura Lipsiensi,” has published Croke’s “Encomium Academic Lipsiensis.”

, earl of Essex, an eminent statesman in the sixteenth century, was the son of Walter Cromwell, a blacksmith, at Putney, near London, and in his latter days a brewer; after whose decease, his mother was married to a sheerman in London. What education he had, was In a private school: and all the learning he attained to, was (according to the standard of those times), only reading and writing, and a little Latin. When he grew up, having a very great inclination for travelling, he went into foreign countries, though at whose expence is not known; and by that means he had an opportunity of seeing the world, of gaining experience, and of learning several languages, which proved of great service to him afterwards. Coming to Antwerp, where was then a very considerable English factory, he was by them retained to be their clerk, or secretary. But that office being too great a confinement, he embraced an opportunity that offered in 1510, of taking a journey to Rome. Whilst he remained in Italy he served for some time as a soldier under the duke of Bourbon, and was at the sacking of Rome: and at Bologna he assisted John Russel, esq. afterwards earl of Bedford, in making his escape, when he had like to be betrayed into the hands of the French, being secretly in those parts about our king’s affairs. It is also much to his credit, as an early convert to the reformation, that, in his journey to and from Rome, he learned by heart Erasmus’s translation of the New Testament. After his return from his travels he was taken into the family and service of cardinal Wolsey, who is said to have first discovered him in France, and who made him his solicitor, and often employed him in business of great importance. Among other things, he had the chief hand in the foundation of the two colleges begun at Oxford and Ipswich by that magnificent prelate; and upon the cardinal’s disgrace in 1529, he used his utmost endeavours and interest to have him restored to the king’s favour: even when articles of high-treason against him were sent down to the house of commons, of which Cromwell was then a member, he defended his master with so much wit and eloquence, that no treason cauld be laid to his charge: which honest beginning procured Cromwell great reputation, and made his parts and abilities to be much taken notice of. After the cardinal’s household was dissolved, Cromwell was taken into the king’s service (upon the recommendation of sir Christopher Hales, afterwards master of the rolls, and sir John Russel, knt. above-mentioned) as the fittest person to manage the disputes the king then had with the pope; though some endeavoured to hinder his promotion, and to prejudice his majesty against him, on account of his defacing the small monasteries that were dissolved for endowing Wolsey’s colleges. But he discovering to the king some particulars that were very acceptable to him respecting the submission of the clergy to the pope, in derogation of his majesty’s authority, he took him into the highest degree of favour, and soon after he was sent to the convocation, then sitting, to acquaint the clergy, that they were all fallen into a praemunire on the above account, and the provinces of Canterbury and York were glad to compromise by a present to the king of above 100,000l. In 1531 he was knighted; made master of the king’s jewel-house, with a salary of 50l. per annum; and constituted a privy-counsellor. The next year he was made clerk of the Hanaper, an office of profit and repute in chancery; and, before the end of the same year, chancellor of the exchequer, and in 1534, principal secretary of state, and master of the rolls. About the same time he was chosen chancellor of the university of Cambridge; soon after which followed a general visitation of that university, when the several colleges delivered up their charters, and other instruments, to sir Thomas Cromwell. The year before, he assessed the fines laid upon those who having 40l. per annum estate, refused to take the order of knighthood. In 1535 he was appointed visitor-general of the monasteries throughout England, in order for their suppression; and in that office is accused of having acted with much violence, although in other cases promises and pensions were employed to obtain the compliance of the monks and nuns. But the mode, whatever it might be, gave satisfaction to the king and his courtiers, and Cromwell was, on July 2, 1536, constituted lord keeper of the privy seal, when he resigned his mastership of the rolls . On the 9th of the same month he was advanced to the dignity of a baron of this realm, by the title of lord Cromwell of Okeham in Rutlandshire; and, six days after, took his place in the house of lords. The pope’s supremacy being now abolished in England, lord Cromwell was made, on the 18th of July, vicar-general, and vicegerent, over all the spirituality, under the king, who was declared supreme head of the church. In that quality his lordship satin the convocation holden this year, above the archbishops, as the king’s representative. Being-invested with such extensive power, he employed it in discouraging popery, and promoting the reformation. For that purpose he caused certain articles to be enjoined by the king’s authority, differing in many essential points from the established system of the Roman-catholic religion; and in September, this same year, he published some injunctions to the clergy, in which they were ordered to preach up the king’s supremacy; not to lay out their rhetoric in extolling images, relics, miracle*, or pilgrimages, but rather to exhort their people to serve God, and make provision for their families: to put parents and other directors of youth in mind to teach their children the Lord’s-prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments in their mother-tongue, and to provide a Bible in Latin and English, to be laid in the churches for every one to read at their pleasure. He likewise encouraged the translation of the Bible into English; and, when finished, enjoined that one of the largest volume should be provided for every parish church, at the joint charge of the parson and parishioners. These alterations, with the dissolution of the monasteries, and (notwithstanding the immense riches gotten from thence) his demanding at the same time for the king subsidies both from the clergy and laity, occasioned very great murmurs against him, and indeed with some reason. All this, however, rather served to establish him in the king’s esteem, who was as prodigal of money as he was rapacious and in 1537 his majesty constituted him chief justice itinerant of all the forests beyond Trent and on the 26th of August, the same year, he was elected knight of the garter, and dean of the cathedral church of Weils. The year following he obtained a grant of the castle and lordship of Okeham in the county of Rutland; and was also made constable of Carisbrook-castle in the Isle of Wight. In September he published new injunctions, directed to all bishops and curates, in which he ordered that a Bible, in English, should be set up in some convenient place in every church, where the parishioners might most commodiously resort to read the same: that the clergy should, every Sunday and holiday, openly and plainly recite to their parishioners, twice or thrice together, one article of the Lord’s Prayer, or Creed, in English, that they might learn the same by heart: that they should make, or cause to be made, in their churches, one sermon every quarter of a year at least, in which they should purely and sincerely declare the very gospel of Christ, and exhort their hearers to the works of charity, mercy, and faith not to pilgrimages, images, &c. that they should forthwith take clown all images to which pilgrimages or offerings were wont to be made: that in all such benefices upon which they were not themselves resident, they should appoint able curates: that they, and every parson, vicar, or curate, should for every church keep one book of register, wherein they should write the day and year of every wedding, christening, and burying, within their parish; and therein set every person’s name that shall be so wedded, christened, or buried, &c. Having been thus highly instrumental in promoting the reformation, and in dissolving the monasteries, he was amply rewarded by the king in 1539, with many noble manors and large estates that had belonged to those dissolved houses. On the 17th of April, the same year, he was advanced to the dignity of earl of Essex; and soon after constituted lord high chamberlain of England. The same day he was created earl of Essex he procured Gregory his son to be made baron Cromwell of Okeham. On the 12th of March 1540, he was put in commission, with others, to sell the abbey-lands, at twenty years’ purchase: which was a thing he had advised the king to do, in order to stop the clamours of the people, to attach them to his interest, and to reconcile them to the dissolution of the monasteries. But as, like his old master Wolsey, he had risen rapidly, he was now doomed, like him, to exhibit as striking an example of the instability of human grandeur; and au unhappy precaution to secure (as he imagined) his greatness, proved his ruin. Observing that some of his most inveterate enemies, particularly Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, began to be more in favour at court than himself, he used his utmost endeavours to procure a marriage between king Henry and Anne of Cleves, expecting great support from a queen of his own making; and as her friends were Lutherans, he imagined it would bring down the popish party at court, and again recover the ground he and Cranmer had now lost. But this led immodiaieiy to his destruction; for the king, not liking the queen, began to hate Cromwell, the great promoter of the marriage, and soon found an opportunity to sacrifice him; nor was this difficult. Cromwell was odious to all the nobility by reason of his low binh: hated particularly by Gardiner, and the Roman catholics, for having been so busy in the dissolution of the abbies: the reformers themselves found he could not protect them from persecution; and the nation in general was highly incensed against him for his having lately obtained a subsidy of four shillings in the pound from the clergy, and one tenth and one fifteenth from the laity; notwithstanding the immense sums that had flowed into the treasury out of the monasteries. Henry, with his usual caprice, and without ever considering that Cromwell’s faults were his own, and committed, if we may use the expression, for his own gratification, caused him to be arrested at the council table, by the duke of Norfolk, on the 10th of June, when he least suspected it. Being committed to the Tower, he wrote a letter to the king, to vindicate himself from the guilt of treason; and another concerning his majesty’s marriage with Anne of Cleves; but we do not find that any notice was taken of these: yet, as his enemies knew if he were brought to the bar he would justify himself by producing the king’s orders and warrants for what he had done, they resolved to prosecute him by attainder; and the bill being brought into the house of lords the 17th of June, and read the first time, on the 19th was read the second and third times, and sent down to the commons. Here, however, it stuck ten days, and at last a new bill of attainder was sent up to the lords, framed in the house of commons: and they sent back at the same time the bill the lords had sent to them. The grounds of his condemnation were chieHy treason and heresy; the former very confusedly expressed. Like other falling favourites, he was deserted by most of his friends, except archbishop Cranmer, who wrote to the king in his behalf with great boldness and spirit. But the duke of Norfolk, and the rest of the popish party, prevailed; and, accordingly, in pursuance of his attainder, the lord Cromwell was brought to a scaffold erected on Tower-hill, where, after having made a speech, and prayed, he was beheaded, July 28, 1540. His death is solely to be attributed to the ingratitude and caprice of Henry, whom he had served with great faithfulness, courage, and resolution, in the most hazardous, difficult, and important undertakings. As for the lord Cromwell’s character, he is represented by popish historians as a crafty, cruel, ambitious, and covetous man, and a heretic; but their opponents, on better grounds, assert that he was a person of great wit, and excellent parts, joined to extraordinary diligence and industry; that his apprehension was quick and clear; his judgment methodical and solid; his memory strong and rational; his tongue fluent and pertinent; his presence stately and obliging; his heart large and noble; his temper patient and cautious; his correspondence well laid and constant; his conversation insinuating and close: none more dextrous in finding out the designs of men and courts; and none more reserved in keeping a secret. Though he was raised from the meanest condition to a high pitch of honour, he carried his greatness with wonderful temper; being noted in the exercise of his places of judicature, to have used much moderation, and in his greatest pomp to have taken notice of, and been thankful to mean persons of his old acquaintance. In his whole behaviour he was courteous and affable to all; a favourer in particular of the poor in their suits; and ready to relieve such as were in danger of being oppressed by powerful adversaries; and so very hospitable and bountiful, that about two hundred persons were served at the gate of his house in Throgmorton-strcet, London, twice every day, with bread, meat, and drink sufficient. He must be regarded as one of the chief instruments in the reformation; and though he could not prevent the promulgation, he stopped the execution, as far as he could, of the bloody act of the six articles. But when the king’s command pressed him close, he was not firm enough to refuse his concurrence to the condemnation and burning of John Lambert. In his domestic concerns he was very regular; calling upon his servants yearly, to give him an account of what they had got under him, and what they desired of him; warning them to improve their opportunities, because, he said, he was too great to stand long; providing for them as carefully, as for his own son, by his purse and credit, that they might live as handsomely when he was dead, as they did when he was alive. In a word, we are assured, that for piety towards God, fidelity to his king, prudence in the management of affairs, gratitude to his benefactors, dutifulness, charity, and benevolence, there was not any one then superior to him in England.

The opening of 1655 proved but cloudy: the dissolution of the parliament created much discontent in the kingdom; so that Cromwell found himself beset with conspiracies on all sides, and by all parties; but he had the good luck to discover them before they could be executed. Upon Feb. 13, he went to Guildhall; and declared, that the republicans and cavaliers had formed designs against his person. Of the former, major John Wildman, who had been an intimate friend of his, was seized while penning a paper, entitled “A declaration of the people of England against the tyrant Oliver Cromwell;” and other violent men of that party he imprisoned, but was afraid of doing more. As to the royalists, he suffered them to go on a little; for, by the help of one Manning, who was his spy in the court of Charles II. he was so well acquainted with their projects, as to put them upon measures which turned to his own account. And this is a true solution of that insurrection which broke out at Salisbury, where the king was proclaimed, and Cromwell’s judges seized; which act of open force left no doubt with the public, that there were designs against the protector. For this insurrection several persons suffered death; and hence the protector, who had hitherto shewn an inclination to govern as a lawful prince if he could, seemed to lay aside his disposition, and no longer to make any difficulty of supporting his authority in any manner and by any means; In the spring of this year was carried into execution that famous expedition, by which the protector hoped to make himself master of the Spanish West Indies; where, though his forces did not succeed in their main design, yet they made themselves masters of Jamaica, which island has remained ever since part of the British dominions. The alliance which had been so long in treaty with the crown of France, was signed Nov. 24, 1655, and proclaimed the 28th; by which it was stipulated, that Cromwell should send over a body of English troops, to act in conjunction with the French agaiust the Spaniards in the Low Countries; and that, on the other hand, the French king should oblige the royal family to quit his dominions. The new king of Sweden sent over an ambassador to compliment the protector. He was most graciously received; but the intended visit of queen Christina, who had just resigned the crown, he judged proper to avoid. The glorious successes of admiral Blake in the Mediterranean, and the great sums he recovered from several powers for depredations committed by their subjects on the English merchants, did much honour to the protector’s government; and to conclude the transactions of this year, it must be allowed, that how much soever Ire might be disliked at home, his reputation at this time was very great abroad.

For his conduct towards foreign courts, it is certain that he carried his authority very far; and perhaps the English honour never stood higher. The queen of Sweden paid great respect to him, who, to express his regard for her on the other side, hung her picture in his bed-chamber. He treated very haughtily the kings of Denmark and Portugal; and obliged the ambassador of the latter to come and sign the peace at Whitehall, the very morning his brother was executed on Tower-hill. He refused the title of cousin from the French king, expecting that of brother; and so artfully played the Spaniard with him at a critical conjuncture, that the two crowns contended for his friendship with an earnestness which made them both ridiculous. Their advances were so extraordinary, and their acts of submission so singular, that the Dutch struck a medal, with the bust of Cromwell and his titles on one side, with Britannia on the other, and Cromwell laying his head in her lap with his breeches down and his posteriors bare, the Spanish ambassador stooping to kiss them, while the French ambassador holds him by the arm, with these words inscribed, “Retire toi, l'honneur appartient au roi mon maitre:” that is, “Keep back; that honour belongs to the king my master.”