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

In 1671, Milton published his “Paradise Regained,” written on the suggestion of Elwood, the quaker, who had been one of his amanuenses. Elwood, after reading the “Paradise Lost,” happened to say, “Thou hast said much here on Paradise Lost, but what hast thou to say of Paradise Found” This poem was probably regarded by the author as the theological completion of the plan commenced in “Paradise Lost,” and he is said to have viewed it with strong preference; but in this last opinion few have been found to coincide. Its inferiority in point of grandeur and invention is very generally acknowledged, although it is not by any means unworthy of his genius. About the same time appeared his “Samson Agonistes,” a drama, composed upon the ancient model, and abounding in moral and descriptive beauties, but never intended or calculated for the stage.

In the July preceding- his death, Milton had requested the attendance of his brother Christopher, and in his presence made a disposition of his property by a formal declaration of his will. This mode of testament, which is called nuncupative, was set aside, on a suit instituted by his daughters. By this nuncupative will he had given all his property to his widow, assigning nothing to his daughters but their mother’s portion, which had not yet been paid. On this account* and from exacting from his children some irksome services, such as reading to him in languages which they did not understand, a necessity resulting from his blindness and his indigence, he has been branded as an unkind father. But the nuncupative will, discovered some years since, shews him to have been amiable, and injured in that private scene, in which alone he has generally been considered as liable to censure, or rather, perhaps, as not entitled to affection. In this will, published by Mr. Warton, and in the papers connected with it, we find the venerable parent complaining of “unkind children,” as he calls them, for leaving and neglecting him because he was blind; and we see him compelled, by their injurious conduct, to appeal against them even to his servants. By the deposition of one of those servants, it is certain, that his complaints were not extorted by slight wrongs, or uttered by capricious passion on trivial provocations: that his children, with the exception of the youngest, would occasionally sell his books to the dunghill women, as the witness calls them. That these daughters were capable of combining with the maid-servant, and of advising her to cheat her master, and their father, in her marketings; and that one of them, Mary, on being told that her father was married, replied, “that was no news 1; but if she could hear of his death, that would be something.”

Of the three daughters of Milton, Anne, the eldest, married a master-builder, and died with her first child in her lying-in. Mary, the second, died in a single state: and Deborah, the youngest, married Abraham Clarke, a weaver in Spitalfields. She had seven sons and three daughters; but of these she left, at her decease, only Caleb, who, marrying in the East Indies, had two sons, whose history cannot be traced; and Elizabeth, who married Thomas Foster, of the same business with her father, and had by him three sons and four daughters, who all died young and without issue.Mrs. Foster died in poverty and distress, on the ninth of May, 1754. This was the lady for whose benefit “Comus” was played in 1750, and she had so little acquaintance with diversion or gaiety, that she did not know what was intended when a benefit was offered her. The profits of the night were only 130l.; yet this, as Dr. Johnson remarks, was the greatest benefaction that “Paradise Lost” ever procured the author’s descendants.

Milton was in youth so eminently beautiful that he was called the lady of his college. His hair, which was of a light brown, parted at the foretop, and hung down upon his shoulders, according to the picture which he has given of Adam. He was rather below the middle size, but vigorous and active, fond of manly sports, and even skilful in the exercise of the sword. His domestic habits, as far as they are known, were those of a severe student. He was remarkably temperate both in eating and drinking. In his youth, as we have noticed, he studied late at night; but afterwards changed his hours, and became a very early riser. The course of his day was best known after he lost his sight. When he first rose, he heard a chapter in the Hebrew Bible, and then studied till twelve; then took some exercise for an hour then dined, then played on the organ, and sung or heard another sing studied to the hour of six, and entertained his visitors till eight then supped, and after a pipe of tobacco and a glass of water went to bed. To his personal character there seems to have been little to object. He was unfortunate in his family, but no part of the blame rested with him. His temper, conduct, morals, benevolence, were all such as ought to have procured him respect. His religion has been a fertile subject of contest among his biographers. He is said to have been in early life a Calvinist, and when he began to hate the presbyterians, to have leaned towards Arminianism. Whatever were his opinions, no sect could boast of his countenance; for after leaving the church he never joined in public worship with any of them.

, an ancient Greek poet, was born either at Colophon, according to Strabo, or according to others at Smyrna, some time in the sixth century B. C. Strabo informs us that he was a musician, as well as a writer of elegies, which was his chief pursuit: and Nanno, the lady who passes for his mistress, is recorded to have got her livelihood by the same profession. There are but few fragments of his poems remaining, yet enough to shew him an accomplished master in his own style. His temper seems to have been as truly poetical as his writings, wholly bent on love and pleasure, and averse to the cares of common business. He appears to have valued life only as it could afford the means of pleasure. By some he is said to have been the inventor of the pentameter, but various specimens of that verse of older date are still extant. Mimnermus’s fragments are printed by Brunck, in his “Analecta,” and in the “Gnomici Poetae.”

, a learned man, who held the place of perpetual secretary to the French academy, was born in Provence in 1674, and lived to the age of eighty-six. He is chiefly known, as an author, by 1. “A translation of Tasso’s Jerusalem delivered,” which has gone through several editions, but has since been superseded by a better, written by M. le Brun. Mirabauu took upon him, rather too boldly, to retrench or alter what he thought unpleasing in his author, 2. “A translation of the Orlando Furioso,” which has the same faults. He wrote also a little tract entitled “Alphabet de la Fee Gracieuse,” 1734, 12mo. His eulogium at the academy was drawn up by M. de Buffon, and is full of high encomiums.

Mirabeau was still at Berlin when he heard of the assembly of notables convened in France, and then foretold that it would soon be followed by a meeting of the states. At this period he published a volume against the stockjobbing, then carried to a great height, entitled, 10. “Denonciation de Pagiotage au roi, et a Passemblee des notables,” vo. A lettre de cachet was issued against him in consequence of this publication, but he eluded pursuit, and published a pamphlet as a sequel to the book. His next work was against M. Necker. 11. “Lettre a M. de Cretelle, sur Padministration de M. Necker,” a pamphlet in $vo. 12. A volume, in 8vo, against the Stadtholdership “Aux Bataves, sur le Stadthouderat.” 13. “Observations sur la maison de force appellee Bicetre,” an 8vo pamphlet. 14. Another tract, entitled “Conseils a un jeune prince qui sent la nécessite de refaire son education.” 15. He now proceeded to a larger and more arduous work than any he had yet published, on the Prussian monarchy under Frederic the Great, “De la Monarchic Prussienne sous Frederic le Grand,” 4 vols. 4to, or eight in 8vo. In this work he undertakes to define precisely how a monarchy should be constituted. When the orders were issued for convening the states-general, Mirabeau returned into Provence, and at the same time published, 16. “Histoire secrette de la cour de Berlin,” two volumes of letters on the secret history of the court of Berlin. This work was condemned by the parliament of Paris, for the unreserved manner in which it delivered the characters of many foreign princes. As the elections proceeded, he was chosen at once for Marseilles, and for Aix; but the former being a commercial town, which seemed to require a representative particularly conversant in such business, Mirabeau made his choice for Aix.

, a distinguished lawyer, whose pleadings before the parliament of Paris in favour of the reformers, bear genuine marks of eloquence and ability, retired into England after the repeal of the edict of Nantes, where he became a strenuous assertor of the protestant religion. In 1687 and 1688, he went on his travels into Italy, in quality of governor to an English nobleman. An account of the country, and of the occurrences of the time in which he remained in it, was published at the Hague, in 3 vols. 12mo, under the title of “A New Voyage to Italy.” L'abbe du Fresnoy, speaking of this performance, observes, “that it is well written but that the author has shewn himself too credulous, and as ready to believe every insinuation to the disadvantage of the Roman catholics, as they generally are to adopt whatever can reflect disgrace upon the protestants.” The translation of this work into the English language has been enlarged with many additions: the original has been several times reprinted. Addison, in his preface to his remarks on the different parts of Italy, says, that “Mons. Misson has written a more correct account of it, in general, than any before him, as he particularly excelled in the plan of the country, which he has given us in true and lively colours.” He published, after his arrival in England, “The Sacred Theatre at Cevennes, or an account of Prophecies and Miracles performed in that part of Languedoc:” this was- printed at London in 1707 and, according to the Roman catholic writers, is full of fanaticism and ridiculous stories, He also left behind him “The Observations and Remarks of a Traveller,” in 12mo, published at the Hague, by Vanderburen. He died at London, Jan. 16, 1721.

, was the son of a stone-cutter in North-Britain, and was born about 1684. Cibber tells us that he received an university education while he remained in that kingdom, but does not specify where. He quitted his own country, however, and repaired to London, with a view of improving his fortune. Here he got into favour with the earl of Stair and sir Robert Walpole; on the latter of whom he was for great part of his life almost entirely dependent. He received, indeed, so many obligations from that open-handed statesman, and, from a sense of gratitude which seems to have been strongly characteristic of his disposition, was so zealous in his interest, that he was distinguished by the title of “Sir Robert Walpole’s poet.” Notwithstanding this valuable patronage, his natural dissipation of temper, his fondness for pleasure, and eagerness in the gratification of every irregular appetite, threw him into perpetual distresses, and all those uneasy situations which are the inevitable consequences of extravagance. Nor does it appear that, after having experienced, more than once, the fatal effects of those dangerous follies, he thought of correcting his conduct at a time he had it in his power: for when, by the death of his wife’s uncle, several thousand pounds devolved to him, instead of discharging those debts which he had already contracted, he lavished the whole away, in the repetition of his former follies. As to the particulars of his history, there are not many on record, for his eminence in public character not rising to such an height as to make the transactions of his life important to strangers, and the follies of his private behaviour inducing those who were intimate with him, rather to conceal than publish his actions, there is a cloud of obscurity hanging over them, which is neither easy, nor indeed much worth while, to withdraw from them. His genius was of the third or fourth rate, yet he lived in good correspondence with most of the eminent wits of his time , particularly with Aaron Hill, who on a particular occasion finding himself unable to relieve him by pecuniary assistance, presented him with the profits and reputation also of a successful dramatic piece, in one act, entitled “The Fatal Extravagance.” It was acted and printed in Mitchell’s name; but he was ingenuous enough to undeceive the world with regard to its true author, and on every occasion acknowledged the obligations he lay under to Hill. The dramatic pieces, which appear under this gentleman’s name are, 1. “The Fatal Extravagance, a tragedy,” 1721, 8vo. 2. “The Fatal Extravagance, a tragedy, enlarged,” 1725, 12mo. 3. “The Highland Fair, ballad opera,” 1731, 8vo. The latter of these is really Mitchell’s, and is notwithout merit. This author died Feb. 6, 1738 and Gibber gives the following character of him “He seems to have been a poet of the third rate he has seldom reached the sublime his humour, in which he more succeeded, is not strong enough to last his versification holds a statd of mediocrity he possessed but little invention and if he was not a bad rhimester, he cannot be denominated a fine poet, for there are but few marks of genius in his writings.” His poems were printed 1729, in 2 vols. 8vo.

, warden of All Souls college, Oxford, was born in 1578 in Dorsetshire, and educated first at Brasenose college, whence in 1599 he was elected a fellow of All Souls, befng then four years standing in the degree of B. A. Afterwards he took his master’s degree, and entered into holy orders. He hecame domestic chaplain to archbishop Abbot, and in Dec. 1610 was instituted to the rectory of St. Clement’s, Eastcheap, which he resigned in December following. In 1611 he was made rector of St. Michael, Crooked-lane, but resigned it in June 1614, in consequence of having been in April preceding, elected warden of All Souls, on which occasion he took his degree of D. D. He held afterwards the rectory of Monks Risborow, in the county of Buckingham, and of Newington, near Dorchester, in Oxfordshire. He was one of the king' commissioners in ecclesiastical affairs, and died July 5, 1618, in the fortieth year of his age. Wood seems to insinuate that his death was hastened by the treatment his work received. This was a folio published at London in 1616, containing a Latin translation of the Liturgy, Catechisms, 39 articles, ordination book, and doctrinal points extracted from the homilies, to which he added, also in Latin, a treatise “de politia ecclesiae Anglicanac.” The design of this publication was to recommend the formularies and doctrines of the Church of England to foreign nations; but, according to Wood, there was such a leaning towards “Calvin’s Platform,” that the work was not only called in, but ordered to be publicly burnt. Heylin, who speaks highly of the author’s character and good intentions, thinks that the true cause of this work being so disgraced was, that in translating the 20th article, he omitted the first clause concerning the power of the church to decree rites and ceremonies, &c. His treatise “De Politia” was reprinted at London in 1683, 8vo, but the former edition we conceive is of rare occurrence, as we do not find it in the Bodleian or Museum catalogues.

, an eminent painter, was, according to some, born at Coldra, and to others, at Lugano, 1609. He was at first the disciple of Gesari d'Arpino, but formed a style of his own, selected from the principles of Albani and Guercino. He never indeed arrived at the grace of the former, but he excelled him in vigour of tint, in variety of invention, in spirited and resolute execution. He had studied colour with intense application at Venice, and excelled in fresco and in oil. Of the many pictures with which he enriched the churches and palaces of Rome, that of Joseph recognised by his brothers, on the Quirinal, is considered as the most eminent. If Mola possessed a considerable talent for history, he was a genius in landscape: his landscape every where exhibits in the most varied combination, and with the most vigorous touch, the sublime scenery of the territory in which he Was born. His predilection for landscape was such, that in his historic subjects it may often be doubted which is the principal, the actors or the scene; a fault which may be sometimes imputed to Titian himself. In many of Mola’s gallery-pictures, the figures have been ascribed to Albano. He reared three disciples, Antonio Gherardi of Rieti, who after his death entered the school of Cortona, and distinguished himself more by facility than elegance of execution Gia. Batista Boncuore of Rome, a painter at all times of great effect, though often somewhat heavy and Giovanni Bonati of Ferrara, called Giovannino del Pio, from the protection of that cardinal, who painted three altar-pieces of consideration at Rome, but died young. Mola died in 1665, aged fifty-six. He had a brother, John Baptist, who was born in 1620, and also learned the art of painting in the school of Albani. He proved a very good painter in history, as well as in landscape; but was far inferior to his brother, in style, dignity, taste, and colouring. In his manner he had more resemblance to the style of Albani, than to that of his brother; yet his figures are rather hard and dry, and want the mellowness of the master. However, there are four of his pictures in the Palazzo Salviati, at Rome, which are universally taken for the hand of Albani.

Besides his “History of Denmark,” he wrote an “Address to the House of Commons,” for the encouragement of agriculture; “Considerations for promoting Agriculture,” Dublin, 1723; and “A Letter relating to the Bill of Peerage,” 1719. He translated “Franco-Gallia,” a Latin treatise of the civilian Hottoman, giving an account of the free state of France, and other parts of Europe, before the loss of their liberties. The second edition of this work, with additions, and a new preface by the translator, came out in 1721, 8vo. He is likewise reputed the author of several tracts, written with great force of reason and masculine eloquence, in defence of his ideas of the constitution of his country, and the common rights of mankind: and it is certain, that few men of his fortune and quality were more learned, or more highly esteemed by men of learning. In the printed correspondence between Locke and Molyneux, there are letters which shew the high regard those gentlemen had for him.

, the celebrated comic writer of France, whose original name was Pocquelin, was born at Paris about 1620. He was both son and grandson to valets de chambres on one side, and tapissiers on the other, to Louis XIII. and was designed for the latter business, that of a domestic upholsterer, whose duty was to take care of the furniture of the royal apartments. But the grandfather being very fond of the boy, and at the same time a great lover of plays, used to take him often with him to the hotel de Bourgogne; which presently roused up Moliere’s natural genius and taste for dramatic representations, and created in him such a disgust to his intended employment, that at last his father consented to let him study under the Jesuits, at the college of Clermont. During the five years that he resided here, he made a rapid progress in the study of philosophy and polite literature, and, if we mistake not, acquired even now much insight into the varieties of human character. He had here also an opportunity of contracting an intimate friendship with Chapelle, Bernier, and Cyrano. Chapelle, with whom Bernier was an associate in his studies, had the famous Gassendi for his tutor, who willingly admitted Moliere to his lectures, as he afterwards also admitted Cyrano. When Louis XIII. went to Narbonne, in 1641, his studies were interrupted: for his infirm father, not being able to attend the court, Moliere was obliged to go there to supply his place. This, however, he quitted on his fathers death; and his passion for the stage, which had induced him first to study, revived more strongly than ever. Some have said, that he for a time studied the law, and was admitted an advocate. This seems doubtful, but, if true, he soon yielded to those more lively pursuits which made him the restorer of comedy in France, and the coadjutor of Corneille, who had rescued the tragic Muse from barbarism. The taste, indeed, for the drama, was much improved in France, after cardinal de Richelieu granted a peculiar protection to dramatic poets. Many little societies now made it a diversion to act plays in their own houses; in one of which, known by the name of “The illustrious Theatre,” Moliere entered himself; and it was then, in conformity to the example of the actors of that time, that he changed his name of Pocquelin for that of Moliere, which he retained ever after. What became of him from 1648 to 1652 we know not, this interval being the time of the civil wars, which caused disturbances in Paris; but it is probable, that he was employed in composing some of those pieces which were afterwards exhibited to the public. La Bejart, an actress of Champagne, waiting, as well as he, for a favourable time to display her talents, Moliere was particularly kind to her; and as their interests became mutual, they formed a company together, and went to Lyons in 1653, where Moliere produced his first play, called “L'Etourdi,” or the Blunderer, and appeared in the double character of author and actor. I his drew almo_st all the spectators from the other company of comedians, which was settled in that town; some of which company joined with Moliere, and followed him to Beziers in Languedoc, where he offered his services to the prince of Co'nti, who gladly accepted them, as he had known him at college, and was among the first to predict his brilliant career on the stage. He now received him as a friend; and not satisfied with confiding to him the management of the entertainments which he gave, he offered to make him his secretary, which the latter declined, saying, “I am a tolerable author, but I should make a very bad secretary.” About the latter end of 1657, Moliere departed with his company for Grenoble, and continued there during the carnival of 1658. After this he went and settled at Rouen, where he staid all the summer; and having made some journeys to Paris privately, he had the good fortune to please the king’s brother, who, granting him his protection, and making his company his own, introduced him in that quality to the king and queen-mother. That company began to appear before their majesties and the whole court, in Oct. 1658, upon a stage erected on purpose, in the hall of the guards of the Old Louvre; and “were so well approved, that his majesty gave orders for their settlement at Paris. The hall of the Petit Bourbon was granted them, to act by turns with the Italian players. In 1663, Moliere obtained a pension of a thousand livres: and, in 1665, his company was altogether in his majesty’s service. He continued all the remaining part of his life to give new plays, which were very much and very justly applauded: and if we consider the number of works which he composed in about the space of twenty years, while he was himself all the while an actor, and interrupted, as he must be, by perpetual avocations of one kind or other, we cannot fail to admire the quickness, as well as fertility of his genius; and we shall rather be apt to think with Boileau,” that rhime came to him,“than give credit to some others, who say he” wrote very slowly."

His last comedy was “Le malade imaginaire,” or The Hypochondriac and it was acted for the fourth time, Feb. 17, 1673. Upon this very day Moliere died and the manner of his death, as it was first reported, must have been extraordinary, if true. The chief person represented in “Le ma'iade imaginaire,” is a sick man, who, upon a certain occasion, pretends to be dead. Moliere represented that person, and consequently was obliged, in one of his scenes, to act the part of a dead man. The report, therefore, was that beexpired in that part of the play, and the poets took hold of this incident to show their wit, in a ^variety of jeux d'esprit, as if it had been a legitimate subject for jesting. The only decent lines on this occasion were the following, evidently written by some person of a graver character:

was permitted to have a long run. ridiculed; but Moliere, in the Tar‘­When Lows XIV. expressed to the tuftV,’ has attacked even the priests.“required the players also to bring their children to the rehearsals, that he might form his opinion of different passages from the natural expressions of their emotions. Moliere, who diverted himself on the theatre by laughing at the follies of mankind, could not guard against the effects of his own weakness. Seduced by a violent passion for the daughter of La Bejart, the actress, he married her, and was soon exposed to all the ridicule with which he had treated the husbands who were jealous of their wives. Happier in the society of his friends, he was beloved by his equals, and courted by the great. Marshal de Vivonne, the great Conde*, and even Lewis XIV. treated him with that familiarity which considers merit as on a level with birth. These flattering distinctions neither corrupted his understanding nor his heart. A poor man having returned him a piece of gold which he had given him by mistake,” In what a humble abode,“he exclaimed,” does Virtue dwell Here, my friend, take another.“When Baron informed him of one of his old theatrical companions whom extreme poverty prevented from appearing, Moliere sent for him, embraced him, and to words of consolation added a present of twenty pistoles and a rich theatrical dress.” When he was in the height of his reputation, Racine, who was just then come from Languedoc, and was scarcely known in Paris, went to see him, under pretence of consulting him about an ode which he had just finished. Moliere expressed such a favourable opinion of the ode, that Racine ventured to shew him his first tragedy, founded on the martyrdom of Theagenes and Chariclea, as he had read it in the Greek romance. Moliere, who had an honest consciousness of superiority, which exalted him above envy, was not sparing either of praise or of counsel. His liberality carried him still farther: he knew that Racine was not in easy circumstances, and therefore lent him a hundred louis-d'ors; thinking it a sufficient recompence to have the honour of producing a genius to the public, which, he foresaw, would one day be the glory of the stage. The French have very justly placed Moliere at the head of all their comic authors. There is, indeed, no author, in all the fruitful and distinguished age of Lewis XIV. who has attained a higher reputation, or who has more nearly reached the summit of perfection in his own art, according to the judgment of all the French critics. Voltaire boldly pronounces him to be the most eminent comic poet of any age or country nor, perhaps, is this the decision of mere partiality for, upon the whole, who deserves to be preferred to him When Louis XIV. insisted upon Boileau’s telling him who was the most original writer of his time, he answered, MoHere Moliere is always the satirist only of vice or folly. He has selected a great variety of ridiculous characters peculiar to the times in which he lived, and he has generally placed the ridicule justly. He possessed strong comic powers he is full of mirth and pleasantry and his pleasantry is always innocent. His comedies in verse, such as his “Misanthrope” and Tartuffe,“are a kind of dignified comedy, in which vice is exposed, in the style of elegant and polished satire. His verses have all the flow and freedom of conversation, yet he is said to have passed whole days’ in fixing upon a proper epithet or rhime. In his prose comedies, though there is abundance of ridicule, yet there is never any thing to offend a modest ear, or to throw contempt on sobriety and virtue. Together with those high qualities, Moliere has also some defects, which Voltaire, though his professed panegyrist, candidly admits. He is acknowledged not to be happy in the unravelling of his plots. Attentive more to the strong exhibition of characters, than to the conduct of the intrigue, his unravelling is frequently brought on with too little preparation, and in an improbable manner. In his verse comedies, he is sometimes not sufficiently interesting, and too full of long speeches; and in his risible pieces in prose, he is censured for being too farcical. Few writers, however, if any, ever possessed the spirit, or attained the true end of comedy, so perfectly, upon the whole, as Moliere. His” Tartuffe,“in the style of grave comedy, and his” Avare," in the gay, are accounted his two capital productions.

, born in 1677, of a noble and ancient family at Tarascon, entered among aie lathers of the oratory, and was pupil to Malebranche. Quitting the oratory, after that celebrated philosopher’s death, he devoted himself wholly to physic and mathematics, in which he acquired great skill, and was appointed professor of philosophy at the royal college in 1723, and afterwards member of the academy of sciences, in 1729. His principal work is “Philosophical Lectures,” 4 vols. 12mo, in which he explains the laws, mechanism, and motions of. the celestial vortices, in order to demonstrate the possibility and existence of them in the system of the Plenum; his system is that of Descartes, but corrected by Newton’s principles. He also left “Mathematical Lectures,” 12mo, very incorrectly printed; and “La premiere partie des Elemens de Geometric,” 12mo. In his temper he shewed very little of the philosopher. In the maintenance of his principles he could bear no contradiction; and when some of his positive assertions provoked the smiles of the academicians, he fell into violent passions, and on one occasion this irritation was so great, as to bring on a fever, of which he died, May 12, 1742. In other respects his character was amiable; but, like some other mathematicians, he was liable in his studies to such absence of mind, as to appear almost wholly insensible to surrounding objects, and this infirmity becoming known, he was made the subject of depredations. A shoe-black, once finding him profoundly absorbed in a reverie, contrived to steal the silver buckles from his shoes, replacing them with iron ones. At another time, while at his studies, a villain broke into the room in which he was sitting, and demanded his money; Molieres, without rising frogi his studies, or giving any alarm, coolly shewed him where it was, requesting him, as a great favour, that he would not derange his papers.

In order to put an end to these ‘contentions, pope Clement VIII. instituted the celebrated congregation ’De Auxiliis, in 1597; but after several assemblies of counsellors and cardinals, in which the Dominicans and Jesuits disputed contradictorily during nine years before the pope and the court of Rome, the affair was still undecided. Pope Paul V. under whom these disputes had been continued, at length published a decree, Aug. 31, 1607, forbidding the parties to defame or censure each other, and enjoining the superiors of both orders to punish those severely who should disregard this prohibition.

, a Spanish priest, and by some reckoned the founder of the sect of Quietists, was born in the diocese of Saragossa in 1627, and appears to have resided mostly at Rome, where his ardent piety and devotion procured him a considerable number of disciples of both sexes. In 1675 he published his “Spiritual Guide,” -written in Spanish, which was honoured with the encomiums of many eminent personages, and was republished in Italian in several places, and at last at Rome in 1681. It was afterwards translated into French, Dutch, and Latin (the last by professor Franke at Halle in 1687), and passed through several editions in France, Holland, and Italy. It was at Rome, however, where its publication in 1681 alarmed the doctors of the church. The principles of Molinos, which, Mosheim remarks, have been very differently interpreted by his friends and enemies, amount to this, that the whole of religion consists in the perfect tranquillity of a mind removed from all external and finite things, and centered in God, and in such a pure love of the Supreme Being, as is independent of all prospect of interest or reward; or, in other words, “the soul, in the pursuit of the supreme good, must retire from the reports and gratifications of sense, and, in general, from all corporeal objects, and, imposing silence upon all the motions of the understanding and will, must be absorbed in the Deity.” Hence the denomination of Quietists was given to the followers of Molinos; though that of Mystics, which was their vulgar title, was more applicable, and expressed their system with more propriety, the doctrine not being new, but rather a digest of what the ancient mystics had advanced in a more confused manner. For this, however, Molinos was first imprisoned in 1685, and notwithstanding he read a recantation about two years afterwards, was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment, from which he was released by death in 1696. Madame Guyon was among the most distinguished of his disciples, and herself no inconsiderable supporter of the sect of Quietists.

Harris, in his edition of Ware’s “Writers of Ireland,” mentions another Charles Molloy, a native of the King’s County, and a lawyer pf the Inner Temple, who wrote “De Jure Maritime et Naval i, or a Treatise of Affairs Maritime, and of Commerce,” first published at London in 1676, and still known by many republications, the last of which was in 1769, 2 vols. 8vo. He died under fifty years of age, in 1690, at his house in Cranes-court, Fleet-street. Harris gives some account also of a Francis Molloy, of King’s County, professor of divinity in the college of St. Isidore at Home, who wrote “Sacra Theologia,” Rome, 1666, 8vo “Grammatica Latino-Hibernica compendiata,” ibid. 1677, 12mo. Edward Lluyd, who has made an abn stract of this in his “Archeeologia Britannica,” says that it was the most complete Irish grammar then extant, although imperfect as to syntax, &c. He says also, what is less credible, that Molloy was not the author of it; although the latter puts his name to it, and speaks of it in the preface as his own work. Molloy’s other work is entitled “Lucerna Fidelium,” Rome, 1676, 8vo, which although the title is in Latin, is written in Irish, and contains an explanation of the Christian religion according to the faith of the church of Rome.

Before he left Chester, he lost his lady, who died soon after she had brought him a son. Illness had deprived her of her eye-sight twelve years before, that is, soon after she was married; from which time she had been very sickly, and afflicted with extreme pains of the head. As soon as the public tranquillity was settled in his native country, he returned home; and, upon the convening of a new parliament in 1692, was chosen one of the representatives for the city of Dublin. In the next parliament, in 1695, he was chosen to represent the university there, and continued to do so to the end of his life; that learned body having, before the end of the first session of the former, conferred on him the degree of doctor of laws. He was likewise nominated, by the lord-lieutenant, one of the commissioners for the forfeited estates, to which employment was annexed a salary of five hundred pounds a-year; but looking upon it as an invidious office, and not being a lover of money, he declined it. In 1698, he published “The Case of Ireland stated, in relation to its being bound by Acts of Parliament made imEngland” in which he is supposed to have delivered all, or most, that can be said upon this subject, with great clearness and strength of reasoning. This piece (a second edition of which, with additions and emendations, was printed in 1720, 8vo,) was answered by John Gary, merchant of Bristol, in a book called, “A Vindication of the Parliament of England, &c.” dedicated to the lord-chancellor Somers, and by Atwood, a lawyer. Of these Nicolson remarks that “the merchant argues like a counsellor at law, and the barrister strings his small wares together like a shop-keeper.” What occasioned Molyneux to write the above tract, was his conceiving the Irish woollen manufactory to be oppressed by the English government; on which account he could not forbear asserting his country’s independency. He had given Mr. Locke a hint of his thoughts upon this subject, before it was quite ready for the press, and desired his sentiments upon the fundamental principle on which his argument was grounded; in answer to which that gentleman, intimating that the business was of too large an extent for the subject of a letter, proposed to talk the matter over with him in England. This, together with a purpose which Molyneux had long formed, of paying that great man , whom he had never yet seen, a visit, prevailed with him to cross the water once more, although he was in a very infirm state of health, in July this year, 1698; and he remained in England till the middle of September. But the pleasure of this long-wished-for interview, which he intended to have repeated the following spring, seems to have been purchased at the expence of his life; for, shortly after, he was seized with a severe fit of his constitutional distemper, the stone, which occasioned such retchings as broke a blood-vessel, and two days after put a period to his life. He died October 11, 1698, and was buried at Sr. Audoen’s church, Dublin, where there is a monument and Latin inscription to his memory. Besides the “Sciotbericum telescopicum,” and the “Dioptrica nova,” already mentioned, he published the following pieces in the “Philosophical Transactions.” 1. “Why four convexglasses in a telescope shew objects erect,” No. 53. 2. “Description of Lough Neagh, in Ireland,” No. 158. 3. “On the Connaught worm,” No. 168. -4. “Description of a new hygrometer,” No. 172. 5. “On the cause of winds and the change of weather, c.” No. 177. 6. “Why bodies dissolved swim in menstrua specifically lighter than themselves,” No. 181. 7. “On the Tides,” No. 184. 8. “Observations of Eclipses.” No. 164 185. 9. “Why celestial objects appear greatest near the horizon.” No. 187. 10. “On the errors of Surveyors, arising from the variation of the Magnetic-needle,” No. 230.

, a native of Milan, who flourished in the fifteenth century, obtained considerable reputation for some Latin poems, particularly one on “The Passion,” but his most celebrated work was a collection of the “Lives of the Saints,” not a confused and credulous compilation, but which exceeded all preceding works of the kind, by the pains he took to distinguish truth from fable. This he was enabled to do by a judicious examination of all the existing authorities, and by availing himself of many Mss. which he discovered in public libraries, and carefully collated. In some instances he has admitted supposed for real facts, but in such a vast collection, a few mistakes of this kind are pardonable, especially as he brought to light much information not before made public. This work, which is of uncommon rarity and great price, is entitled “Sanctuarium, sive vitje Sanctorum,” 2 vols. fol. without date or place, but supposed to have been printed at Milan about 1479. Some copies want the last leaf of signature Nnnn, but even with that defect bear a very high price.

, a Spanish physician, was born at Seville in the early part of the sixteenth century. He received his education at the university of Alcala de Henarez, and settled in practice at Seville, where he died in 1578. The first of his writings related to a controverted question, and was entitled “Desecanda venain Pleuritide inter Graecos et Arabes concordia,” Hispal. 1539. This was followed by a tract, “De Rosa et partibus ejus; de succi Rosarum temperatura,” &c. But his reputation was chiefly extended by his work, in the Spanish language, concerning the medicinal substances imported from the new world, entitled “Dos Libros de las cosas que se traen de las Indias Occidentales, que sirven al uso de Medicina,” Sevilla, 1565. It was reprinted in 1569 and 1580, and to the latter edition a third book was added. Charles PEcluse, or Clusius, translated this work into Latin, with the title of “Simplicium Medicamentorum ex novo orbe delatorum, quorum in Medicina usus est, Historia,” Antw. 1574, and improved it by his annotations, and by the addition of figures. This work was also translated into Italian, French, and English, the latter by Frampton, 1580, 4to. Although the descriptions are inaccurate, the work had at least the merit of exciting the public attention to medicines heretofore little known. Monardes also published three works in Spanish, which were translated into Latin by l'Ecluse, with the title of “Nicolai Monardi Libri tres, magna Medicinae secreta et varia Experimenta continentes,” Lugd. 1601. The first of these relates to the lapis bezoardicus; the second, to the use and properties of steel, which he was the first after Rhazes to recommend as a deobstruent, according to Dr. Freind; and the third, to the efficacy of snow. His name is perpetuated by the botanical genus Monarda, in the class diandria of Linnæus.

, an ingenious and learned Frenchman, and one of the best writers of his time, was born at Paris in 1674. At sixteen he entered into the congregation of the fathers of the oratory, and was afterwards sent to Mans to learn philosophy. That of Aristotle then obtained in the schools, and was the only one which was permitted to be taught; nevertheless Mongault, with some of that original spirit which usually distinguishes men of uncommon abilities from the vulgar, ventured, in a public thesis, which he read at the end of the course of lectures, to oppose the opinions of Aristotle, and to maintain those of Des Cartes. Having studied theology with the same success, he quitted the oratory in 1699; and soon after went to Thoulouse, and lived with Colbert, archbishop of that place, who had procured him a priory in 1698. In 1710 the duke of Orleans, regent of the kingdom, committed to him the education of his son, the duke of Chartres; which important office he discharged so well that he acquired universal esteem. In 1714, he had the abbey Chartreuve given him, and that of Vilieneuve in 1719. The duke of Chartres, becoming colonel-general of the French infantry, chose the abbe* Mongault to fill the place of secretary-general made him also secretary of the province of Dauphiny and, after the death of the regent, his father, raised him to other considerable employments. All this while he was as assiduous as his engagements would permit in cultivating polite literature; and, in 1714, published at Paris;, in 6 vols. 12mo, an edition of “Tully’s Letters to Atticus,” with an excellent French translation, and judicious comment upon them. This work has been often reprinted, and is justly reckoned admirable; for, as Middleton has observed, in the preface to his “Life of Cicero,” the abbe Mongault “did not content himself with the retailing the remarks of other commentators, or out of the rubbish of their volumes with selecting the best, but entered upon his task with the spirit of a true critic, and, by the force of his own genius, has happily illustrated many passages which all the interpreters before him had given tip as inexplicable.” He published also a very good translation of “Herodian,” from the Greek, the best edition of which is that of 1745, in 12mo. He died at Paris, Aug. 15, 1746, aged almost seventy-two.

However, Monk made no scruple of discovering every step taken by the cavaliers which came to his knowledge, even to the sending the protector this letter; and joined in promoting addresses to him from the army, one of which was received by the protector March 19, 1657, in which year Monk received a summons to Oliver’s house of lords. Upon the death of Oliver, Monk joined in an address to the new protector Richard, whose power, nevertheless, he foresaw would be but short-lived; it having been his opinion, that Oliver, had he lived much longer, would scarce have been able to preserve himself in his station. And indeed Cromwell himself began to be apprehensive of that great alteration which happened after his death, and fearful that the general was deeply engaged in those measures which procured it; if we may judge from a letter written by him to general Monk a little before, to which was added the following remarkable postscript: “There be that tell me, that there is a certain cunning fellow in Scotland, called George Monk, who is said to lie in wait there to introduce Charles Stuart; I pray you, use your diligence to apprehend him, and send him up to me.” It belongs to history to relate all the steps which led to the restoration of Charles II. and which were ably conducted by Monk. Immediately after that event, he was loaded with pensions and honours; was made knight of the garter, one of the privycouncil, master of the horse, a gentleman of the bedehamber, first lord-commissioner of the treasury; and soon after created a peer, being made baron Monk of Potheridge, Beauchamp, and Tees, earl of Torrington, and duke of Albemarle, with a grant of 7000Z. per annum, estate of inheritance, besides other pensions. He received a very peculiar acknowledgment of regard on being thus called to the peerage; almost the whole house of commons attending him to the very door of the house of lords, while he behaved with great moderation, silence, and humility. This behaviour was really to be admired in a man, who, by his personal merit, had raised himself within the reach of a crown, which he had the prudence, or the virtue, to wave: yet he preserved it to the end of his life: insomuch, that the king, who used to call him his political father, said, very highly to his honour, “the duke of Albemarle demeaned himself in such a manner to the prince he had obliged, as never to seem to overvalue the services of general Monk.*‘ During tRe remainder of his life he was consulted and employed upon all great occasions by the king, and a.t the same time appears to have been esteemed and beloved by his fellow-subjects. In 1664, on the breaking out of the first Dutch war, he was, by the duke of York, who commanded the fleet, intrusted with the care of the admiralty: and, the plague breaking out the same year in London, he was intrusted likewise, with the care of the city by the king, who retired to Oxford. He was, at the latter end of the year, appointed joint-admiral of the fleet with prince Rupert, and distinguished himself with great bravery against the Dutch. In September 1666, the fire of London occasioned the Duke of Albemarle to be recalled from the fleet, to assist in quieting the minds of the people; who expressed their affection and esteem for him, by crying out publicly, as he passed through the ruine’d streets, that,” if his grace had been there, the city had not been burned." The many hardships and fatigues he had undergone in a military life began to shake his constitution somewhat early; so that about his 60th year he was attacked with a dropsy; which, being too much neglected, perhaps on account of his having been hitherto remarkably healthy, advanced very rapidly, and put a period to his life, Jan. 3, 1669-7O, when he was entering his 62d year. He died in the esteem of his sovereign, and his brother the duke of York, as appears not only from the high posts he enjoyed, and. the great trust reposed in him by both, but also from the tender concern shewn by them, in a constant inquiry after his state during his last illness, and the public' and princely paid to his memory after his decease; for, his funeral was honoured with all imaginable pomp and solemnity, and his ashes admitted to mingle with those of the royal blood; he being interred, April 4, 1670, in Henry the Vllth’s chapel at Westminster, after his corpse had lain in state many weeks at Somerset-house.

Dr. Monro, who was indefatigable in the labours of his office, soon made himself known to the professional world by a variety of ingenious and valuable publications. His first and principal publication was his “Osteology, or Treatise on the Anatomy of the Bones,” which appeared in 1726, and passed through eight editions during his life, and was translated into most of the languages of Europe. To the later editions of this work he subjoined a concise neurology, or description of the nerves, and a very accurate account of the lacteal system and thoracic duct.

From this time he confined his practice entirely to cases of insanity, in which branch of the medical art he attained to a higher degree of eminence than was possessed by any of his predecessors or contemporaries. In 1758, Dr. Battie having published “A Treatise on Madness,” wherein he spoke, as Dr. Monro conceived, disrespectfully of the former physicians of Bethlem hospital, he thought it incumbent upon him to take some notice of the publication; and, in the same year, published a small pamphlet, entitled, “Remarks on Dr. Baltic’s Treatise on Madness.” His ideas of this, dreadful malady, as well as the motives which induced him to compose these remarks, are very concisely and elegantly expressed in the advertisement which is prefixed to the work. “Madness is a distemper of such a nature, that very little of real use can be said concerning it; the immediate causes will for ever disappoint our search, and the cure of that disorder depends on management as much as medicine. My own inclination would never have led me to appear in print; but it was thought neces’sary for me, in my situation, to say something in answer to the undeserved censures which Dr. Battie has thrown upon my predecessors.”

, a brave English admiral, was the third son of sir John Monson, of South Carlton, in. Lincolnshire, and born in 1569. For about two years he studied at Baliol college, Oxford: but, being of an active and martial disposition, he soon grew weary of a contemplative life, and applied himself to the sea-service, in which he became very expert. In the beginning of queen Elizabeth’s war with Spain, he entered on board of ship without the knowledge of his parents; but in 1587 we find he went out commander of a vessel, and in 1588, he served in one of the queen’s ships, but had not the command of it. In 1589, he was vice-admiral to the earl of Cumberland, in his expedition to the Azores islands, and at the taking of Fayal; but, in their return, suffered such hardships, and contracted such a violent illness from them, as kept him at home the whole year 1590. “The extremity we endured,” says he, “was more terrible than befel any ship during the eighteen years’ war: for, laying aside the continual expectation of death by shipwreck, and the daily mortality of our men, I will speak of our famine, that exceeded all men and ships’ I have known in the course of my life. For sixteen days together we never tasted a drop of drink, either beer, wine, or water;and though we had plenty of beef and pork of a year’s saltirxg, yet did we forbear eating of it for making us the drier. Many drank salt water, and those that did, died suddenly, and the last words they usually spake, was, ‘drink, drink, drink’ And I dare boldly say, that, of five hundred men that were in that ship seven years before, at this day there is not a man alive but myself and one more.”

In 1591, he served a second time under the earl of Cumberland; and the commission was, as all the former were, to act against the Spaniards. They took several of their ships; and captain Monson, being sent to convoy one of them to England, was surrounded and taken by six Spanish gallies, after a long and bloody fight. On this occasion they detained him as an hostage for the performance of certain covenants, and carried him to Portugal, where he was kept prisoner two years at Cascais and Lisbon. Not discouraged by this ill-luck, he entered a third time into the earl’s service, in 1593; and he behaved himself in this, as in all other expeditions, like a brave and able seaman. In 1594, he was created master of arts at Oxford; in 151)5, he was married; in 1596, he served in the expedition to Cadiz, under Walter Devereux, earl of Essex, to whom he did great service by his wise and moderate counsel, and was deservedly knighted. He was employed in several other expeditions, and was highly honoured and esteemed during Elizabeth’s reign. Military men were not king James’s favourites: therefore, after the death of the queen, he never received either recompence or preferment, more than his ordinary entertainment or pay, according to the services he was employed in. However, in 1604-, he was appointed admiral of the Narrow Seas, in which station he continued till 1616: during which time he supported the honour of the English flag, against the insolence of the infant commonwealth of Holland, of which he frequently complains in his “Naval Tracts;” and protected our trade against the encroachments of France.

Notwithstanding his long and faithful services, he had the misfortune to fall into disgrace; and, through the resentment of some powerful courtiers, was imprisoned in the Tower in 1616: but, after having been examined by the chief justice Coke and secretary Winwood, he was discharged. He wrote a vindication of his conduct, entitled “Concerning the insolences of the Dutch, and a Justification of sir William Monson” and directed it to the lord chancellor Ellesmere, and sir Francis Bacon, attorneygeneral and counsellor. His zeal against the Dutch, and his promoting an inquiry into the state of the navy, contrary to the inclination of the earl of Nottingham, then lord high admiral, seems to have been the occasion of his troubles. He had also the misfortune to bring upon himself a general and popular odium, in retaking lady Arabella Steuart, after her escape out of England in June 1611, though it was acting agreeably to his orders and duty. This lady was confined to the Tower for her marriage with William Seymour, esq. as was pretended; but the true cause of her confinement was, her being too high allied, and having a title or claim to the crown of England. Sir William, however, soon recovered his credit at court: for, in 1617, he was called before the privy council, to give his opinion, how the pirates of Algiers might be suppressed, and the town attacked. He shewed the impossibility of taking Algiers, and was against the expedition; notwithstanding which, it was rashly undertaken by Villiers duke of Buckingham. He was also against two other undertakings, as ill-managed, in 1625 and 162$, namely, the expeditions to Cadiz and the isle of Rhee. He was not employed in these actions, because he objected to the minister’s measures; but, in 1635, it being found necessary to equip a large fleet, in order to break a confederacy that was forming between the French and the Dutch, he was appointed vice-admiral in that armament, and performed liis duty with great honour and bravery. After that he was employed no more, but spent the remainder of his days in peace and privacy, at ins seat at Kinnersley in Surrey, where he digested and finished his “Naval Tracts,” published in Churchill’s “Collection of Voyages.” He died there, Feb. 1642-3, in his seventy-third year, and left a numerous posterity, the ancestors of the present noble family of Monson, baron Monson of Burton, in the county of Lincoln.

, an eminent French historian, was descended of a noble family, but the names of his parents, and the period of his birth have not been discovered. The place of his birth was probably Picardy, and the time, prior to the close of the fourteenth century. No particulars of his 'early years are known, except that he evinced, when young, a love for application, and a dislike to indolence. The quotations also from Sallust, Livy, Vegetius, and other ancient authors, that occur in his Chronicles, shew that he must have made some progress in Latin literature. He appears to have been resident in Cambray when he composed his history, and passed there the remainder of his life. In 1436 he was nominated to the office of lieutenant du Gavenier of the Cambresis; the gavenier was the collector or receiver of the annual dues payable to the duke of Burgundy, by the subjects of the church in the Cambresis, for the protection of them as earl of Flanders. Monstrelet also held the office of bailiff to the chapter of Cambray from 1436 to 1440, when another was appointed. The respect and consideration which he had now acquired, gained him the dignity of governor of Cambray in 1444, and in the following year he was nominated bailiff of Wallaincourt. He retained both of those places until his death, which happened about the middle of July, in 1453. His character in the register of the Cordeliers, and by the abbot of St. Aubert, was that of “a very honourable and peaceable man;” expressions, says his biographer, that appear simple at first sight, but which contain a real eulogium, if we consider the troublesome times in which Monstrelet lived, the places he held, the interest he must have had sometimes to betray the truth in favour of one of the factions which then divided France, and caused the revolutions the history of which he has published during the life of the principal actors.

At the accession of queen Anne he was dismissed from the council: and in the first parliament of her reign was again attacked by the Commons, and again escaped by the protection of the Lords. In 1704, he wrote an answer to Bromley’s speech against occasional conformity. He headed the inquiry into the danger of the church. In 1706, he proposed and negociated the union with Scotland; and wheu the elector of Hanover had received the garter, after the act had passed for securing the protestant successipr, he was appointed to carry the ensigns of the order to the electoral court. He sat as one of the judges of Sacheverell; but voted for a mild sentence. Being now no longer in favour, he contrived to obtain a writ for summoning the electoral prince to parliament as duke of Cambridge. At the queen’s death he was appointed one of the regency, during her successor’s absence from his kingdoms; and, as soon as George I. had taken possession of the throne, he was created earl of Halifax, installed knight of the garter, and expected to have been appointed lord high treasurer; but as he was only created first commissioner, he was highly chagrined, nor was he pacified by the above honours, or by the transfer of the place of auditor of the exchequer to his nephew. Inflamed, says Mr. Coxe, by disappointed ambition, he entered into cabals with the tory leaders, for the removal of those with whom he had so long cordially acted; but his death put an end to his intrigues. While he appeared to be in a very vigorous state of health, he was suddenly taken ill, May 15, and died on the 19th, 1715.

As he was a patron of poets, his own works did not miss of celebration. Addison began to praise him early, and was followed or accompanied by other poets; perhaps by almost all, except Swift and Pope, who forbore to flatter him in his life, because he had disappointed their hopes; and after his death spoke of him, Swift with slight censure, and Pope in the character of Bufo with acrimonious contempt*.

highly of him, but they had not at that dinners.“time fallen out. The cause of their ”To charge all unmerited praise with the guilt of flattery, and to suppose that the encomiast always knows and feels the falsehoods of his assertions, is surely to discover great ignorance of human nature and human life. In determinations depending not on rules, but on experience and comparison, judgment is always in some degree subject to affection. Very near to admiration is the wish to admire. Every man willingly gives value to the praise which he receives, and considers the sentence passed in his favour as the sentence of discernment. We admire in a friend that understanding which selected us for confidence; we admire more, in a patron, that judgment which, instead of scattering bounty indiscriminately, directed it to us; and, if the patron be an author, those performances which gratitude forbids us to blame, affection will easily dispose us to exalt. To these prejudices, hardly culpable, interest adds a power always operating, though not always, because not willingly, perceived. The modesty of praise wears gradually away; and perhaps the pride of patronage may be in time so increased, that modest praise will no longer please.“The opinion of the same critic, on the poetry of Montague, may safely be quoted, as it seems to be the general one. <c It would now be esteemed no honour, by a contributor to the monthly bundle of verses, to be told, that, in strains either familiar or solemn, he sings like Montague.” His poems and speeches, with memoirs of his life, were published in 1715. The former were inserted in Dr. Johnson’s edition of the English Poets, but although they have served to make his name more familiar with the public, it is in political history that his character appears to greatest advantage.

“The earl of Sandwich,” says his biographer, “was rather to be considered as an able and intelligent speaker, then a brilliant and eloquent orator. In his early parliamentary career, he displayed uncommon knowledge of the sort of composition adapted to make an impression on a popular assembly; and from a happy choice of words, and a judicious arrangement of his argument, he seldom spoke without producing a sensible effect on the mind of every impartial auditor. In the latter part of his political life, and especially during the American war, his harangues were less remarkable for their grace and ornament, than for sound sense, and the valuable and appropriate information which they communicated. His speeches, therefore, were regarded as the lessons of experience and wisdom. He was never ambitious of obtruding himself upon the house. He had a peculiar delicacy of forbearance, arising from a sense of propriety; which, if more generally practised, would tend very much to expedite the public business by compressing the debates, now usually drawn out to an immeasurable and tiresome length, within more reasonable bounds. If, after having prepared himself on any important question, when he rose in the house any other lord first caught the chancellor’s eye, he sat down with the most accommodating patience; and, if the lord, who spoke before him, anticipated the sentiments which he meant to offer, he either did not speak at all, or only spoke to such points as had not been adverted to by the preceding speaker. Whenever, therefore, he rose, the House was assured that he had something material to communicate: he was accordingly listened to with attention, and seldom sat down without furnishing their lordships with facts at once important and interesting; of which no other peer was so perfectly master as himself. During the period of the American war he was frequently attacked in both houses for his official conduct or imputed malversation. When any such attempts were made in the House of Peers, he heard his accusers with patience, and with equal temper as firmness refuted their allegations, exposing their fallacy or their falsehood. On all such occasions, he met his opponents fairly and openly, in some instances concurring in their motions for papers, which his adversaries imagined would prove him a negligent minister; in others resisting their object, by shewing the inexpediency or the impolicy of complying with their requests. In the parliamentary contest, to which the unfortunate events of the American war gave rise, he is to be found more than once rising in reply to the late earl of Chatham; whose extraordinary powers of eloquence inspired sufficient awe to silence and intimidate even lords of acknowledged ability. Lord Sandwich never in such cases suffered himself to he dazzled by the splendor of oratorical talents; or ever spoke without affording proof that his reply was necessary and adequate. In fact, his lordship never rose without first satisfying himself, that the speaker he meant to reply to was in error; and that a plain statement of the facts in question would dissipate the delusion, and afford conviction to the house. By this judicious conduct his lordship secured the respect of those whom he addressed, and commanded at all times an attentive hearing.”

, an English lady of distinguished talent, by marriage related to the Sandwich family, was the eldest daughter of Evelyn Pierrepoint, duke of Kingston, and the laoy Mary Fielding, daughter of William earl of Denbigh. She was born about 1690, and lost her mother in 1694. Her capacity for literary attainments was such as induced her father to provide her with the same preceptors as viscount Newark, her brother; and under their tuition, she made great proficiency in the Greek, Latin, and French languages. Her studies were afterwards superintended by bishop Burnet, and that part of life which by females of her rank is usually devoted to trifling amusements, or more trifling “accomplishments,” xvas spent by her in studious retirement, principally at Thoresby and at Acton, near London. Her society was confined to a few friends, among whom the most confidential appears to have been Mrs. Anne Wortley, wife of the hon. Sidney Montagu, second son of the heroic earl of Sandwich. In this intimacy originated her connection with Edward Wortley Montagu, esq. the eldest son of this lady; and after a correspondence of about two years, they were privately married by special licence, which bears date August 12, 1712. Mr. Wortley was a man possessed of solid rather than of brilliant parts, but in parliament, where at different periods of his life he had represented the cities of Westminster and Peterborough, and the boroughs of Huntingdon and Bossiney, he acquired considerable distinction as a politician and a speaker. In 1714 he was appointed one of the lords commissioners of the treasury, and on this occasion his lady was introduced to-the court of George I. where her beauty, wit, and spirit were universally admired. She lived also in habits of familiar acquaintance with two of the greatest geniuses of the age, Addison and Pope; but it did not require their discernment to discover that, even at this time, she was a woman of very superior talents.

Mr. Wortley’s negociations at the Porte having failed, owing to the high demands of the Imperialists, he received letters of recall, Oct. 28, 1717, but did not commence his journey till June 1718; in October of the same year he arrived in England. Soon after, lady Mary was solicited by Mr. Pope to fix her summer residence at Twickenham, with which she complied, and mutual admiration seemed to knit these kindred geniuses in indissoluble bonds. A short time, however, proved that their friendship was not superhuman. Jealousy of her talents, and a difference in political sentiments, appear to have been the primary causes of that dislike which soon manifested itself without ceremony and without delicacy. Lady Mary was attached to the Walpole administration and principles. Pope hated the whigs, and was at no pains to conceal his aversion in conversation or writing. What was worse, lady Mary had for some time omitted to consult him upon any new poetical production, and even when he had been formerly very free with his emendations, was wont to say, “Come, no touching, Pope, for what is good, the world will give to you, and leave the bad for me;” and she was well aware that he disingenuously encouraged that idea. But the more immediate cause of their implacability, was a satire in the form of a pastoral, entitled “Town Eclogues.” These were some of lady Mary’s earliest poetical attempts, and had been written previously to her leaving England. After her return, they were communicated to a favoured few, and no doubt highly relished from their supposed, or real personal allusions. Both Pope and Gay suggested many additions and alterations, which were certainly not adopted by lady Mary; and as copies, including their corrections, were found among the papers of these poets, their editors have attributed three out of six to them. “The Basset Table,” and The Drawing Room,“are given to Pope and the” Toilet“to Gay. The publication, however, of these poems, in the name of Pope, by Curl, a bookseller who hesitated at nothing mean or infamous, appears to have put a final stop to all intercourse between Pope and lady Mary.” Irritated,“says her late biographer,” by Pope’s ceaseless petulance, and disgusted by his subterfuge, she now retired totally from his society, and certainly did not abstain from sarcastic observations, which were always repeated to him.“The angry bard retaliated in the most gross and public manner against her and her friend lord Hervey. Of this controversy, which is admirably detailed by Mr. Dallaway, we shall only add, that Dr. Warton and Dr. Johnson agree in condemning the prevarication with which Pope evaded every direct charge of his ungrateful behaviour to those whose patronage he had once servilely solicited; and even his panegyrical commentator, Dr. Warburton, confesses that there were allegations against him, which” he was not quite clear of."

The year following her death, appeared “Letters of Lady M y W y M” in 3 vols. 12mo, of which publication Mr. Dallaway has given a very curious history. By this it appears that after lady Mary had collected copies of the letters which she had written during Mr. Wortley’s embassy, she transcribed them in two small quarto volumes, and upon her return to England in 1761, gave them to Mr. Sowden, a clergyman at Rotterdam, to be disposed of as he thought proper. After her death, the late earl of Bute purchased them of Mr. Sowden, but they were scarcely landed in England when the above mentioned edition was published. On farther application to Mr. Sowden, it could only be gathered that two English gentlemen once called on him to see the letters, and contrived, during his being called away, to go off with them, although they returned them next morning with many apologies. Whoever will look at the three 12mo volumes, may perceive that with the help of a few amanuenses, there was sufficient time to transcribe them during this interval. Cleland was the editor of the publication, and probably one of the “gentlemen” concerned in the trick of obtaining the copies. The appearance of these letters, however, excited universal attention, nor on a re-perusal of them at this improved period of female literature, can any thing be deducted from Dr. Smollett’s opinion in the “Critical Review,” of which he was then conductor. “The publication of these letters will be an immortal monument to the memory of lady M. W. M. and will shew, as long as the English language endures, the sprightliness of her wit, the solidity of her judgment, the elegance of her taste, and the excellence of her real character. These letters are so bewitchingly entertaining, that we defy the most phlegmatic man on earth to read one without going through with them, or after finishing the third volume, not to wish there were twenty more of them.” Other critics were not so enraptured, and seemed to doubt their authenticity, which, however, is now placed beyond all question by the following- publication, “The Works of the right hon. lady M. W. M. including her correspondence, poems, and essays, published by permission (of the Earl of Bute) from her genuine papers,” London, 1803, 5 vols. 12mo, with Memoirs of her Life by Mr. Dallaway, drawn up with much taste and delicacy, and to which we are indebted for the preceding sketch. This edition, besides her poems, and a few miscellaneous essays, contains a great number of letters never before printed, perhaps of equal importance with those which have long been before the world, as they appear not to have been intended for publication, which the others certainly were, and we have in these new letters a more exact delineation of her character in advanced life. This if it be not always pleasing, will afford many instructive lessons. Her poetry, without being of the superior kind, is yet entitled to high praise, and had she cultivated the acquaintance of the muses with more earnestness, and had not disdained the scrupulous labour by which some of her contemporaries acquired fame, it is probable she might have attained a higher rank. She certainly was a woman of extraordinary talents, and acquired the honours of literary reputation at a time when they were not bestowed on the undeserving. It is, however, incumbent upon us to add, that the moral tendency of her letters may be justly questioned; many of the descriptions of Eastern luxuries and beauty are such as cannot be tolerated in an age of decency, and a prudent guardian will hesitate long before he can admit the letters from Constantinople among books fit for the perusal of the young. Her amiable relative, the late Mrs. Montague, represents Lady Mary as one who “neither thinks, speaks, acts, or dresses like any body;” and many traits qf her moral conduct were also, it is to be hoped, exclusively her own.

, only son of the preceding lady Mary, was born in October 1713, and in the early part of his life seems to have been the object of his mother’s tenderest regard, though he afterwards lost her favour. In 1716, he was taken by her on his father’s embassy to Constantinople, and while there, was, as we have noticed in her life, the first English child on whom the practice of inoculation was tried. Returning to England with his parents in 1719, he was placed at Westminsterschool, where he gave an* early sample of his wayward disposition, by running away, and eluding every possible search, until about a year after he was accidentally discovered at Blackwall, near London, in the character of a vender offish, a basket of which he had then on his head. He had bound himself, by regular indenture, to a poor fisherman, who said he had served him faithfully, making his bargains shrewdly, and paying his master the purchasemoney honestly. He was now again placed at Westminster-school, but in a short time escaped a second time, and bound himself to the master of a vessel which sailed for Oporto, who, supposing him a deserted friendless boy, treated him with great kindness and humanity. This treatment, however, produced no corresponding feelings; for the moment they landed at Oporto, Montague ran away up the country, and contrived to get employment for two or three years in the vintage. Here at length he was discovered, brought home, and pardoned but with no better effect than before. He ran away a third time after which, his father procured him a tutor, who made him so far regular that he had an appointment in one of the public offices and, in 1747, he was elected one of the knights of the shire for the county of Huntingdon but in his senatorial capacity he does not appear to have any way distinguished himself; nor did he long retain his seat, his expences so far exceeding his income, that he found it prudent once more to leave England, about the latter end of 1751. His first excursion was to Paris, where, in a short time, he was imprisoned in the Chatelet, for a fraudulent gambling transaction: how he escaped is not very clear, but he published a defence of himself, under the title of “Memorial of E. W. Montague, esq. written by himself, in French, and published lately at Paris, against Abraham Payba, a Jew by birth, who assumed the fictitious name of James Roberts. Translated into English from an authentick copy sent from Paris,” 1752, 8vo.

His father died in January 1761, at the advanced age of eighty, and by his will, made in 1755, bequeathed to his son an annuity of one thousand pounds a-year, to be paid to him during the joint lives of himself and his mother lady Mary; and after her death an annuity of two thousand pounds a-year, during the joint lives of himself and his sister lady Bute. By the same will he empowered Mr. Montague to make a settlement ou any woman he might marry, not exceeding eight hundred pounds a-year; and to any son of such marriage he devised a considerable estate in the West Riding of Yorkshire. It was this last clause which gave rise to a story that he had advertised for a wife, promising to marry “any widow or single lady, of genteel birth and polished manners, and five, six, seven, or eight months in her pregnancy.” Such an advertisement certainly appeared, but not sooner than 1776, within a few months of his death, and when he was abroad; all which render the story rather improbable.

She had early distinguished herself as an author first by “Three Dialogues of the Dead,” published along with lord Lyttelton’s afterwards by her classical and elegant “Essay on the Genius and Writings of Shakspeare,” ia which she amply vindicated our great poet from the gross, illiberal, and ignorant abuse, thrown out against him by Voltaire. This is indeed a wonderful performance, as all, who will examine it impartially, must admit. It is a ridiculous supposition that she was assisted by her husband, whose talent lay in mathematical pursuits, which indeed absorbed the whole of his attention. Many years after she bad received the approbation of all persons of critical taste on this performance, it fell into the hands of Cowper the poet, who, on reading it, says to his correspondent, “I no longer wonder that Mrs. Montague stands at the head of all that is called learned, and that every critic veils his bonnet to her superior judgment:” “The learning, the good sense, the sound judgment, and the wit displayed in it, fully justify, not only my compliment, but all compliments that either have been already paid to her talents, or shall be paid hereafter.”

Few persons had seen more of life than Mrs. Montague, and of that part of mankind, who were eminent either for their genius or their rank; and for many years her splendid house in Portman-square was open to the literary world. She had lived at the table of the second lord Oxford, the resort of Pope, and his contemporaries she was the intimate friend of Pulteney and Lyttelton and she survived to entertain Johnson and Goldsmith, and Burke and Reynolds, till their respective deaths*. Dr. Beattie was frequently her inmate, and for many years her correspondent; and Mrs. Carter was, from their youth, her intimate friend, correspondent, and visitor. For the most learned of these she was a suitable correspondent and companion, as is evident from her letters, and was acknowledged by all who heard her conversation. It was, however, her defect that she had too great a regard to the manners and habits of the world, and damped her transcendant talents by a sacrifice to the cold dictates of worldly wisdom. Her understanding was as sound as her fancy was lively her taste was correct and severe and she penetrated the human character with an almost unerring sagacity but her love of popularity, and her ambition of politeness, controuled her expressions, and concealed her real sentiments from superficial observers. Since her death four volumes of her epistolary correspondence have been published by her nephew and executor, Matthew Montague, esq.; and when the series shall be completed, a just idea may be formed of Mrs. Montague’s genius and character, and the result, we may venture to predict, will be highly favourable.

At the age of thirteen he had finished his course of studies, which he began at the college of Bourdeaux, under Grouchy, the celebrated Buchanan, and Muret, all learned and eminent teachers, and his progress bore proportion to their care. Being designed for the bar by his father, he married the daughter of a counsellor of parliament at Bourdeaux, when in his thirty-third year, and for some time himself sustained that character, but afterwards abandoned a profession to which he probably was never cordially attached. His favourite study was that of human nature, to pursue which he travelled through various parts of France, Germany, Swisserland, and Italy, making his observations on every thing curious or interesting in society, and receiving many marks of distinction. At Rome, in 1581, he was admitted a citizen; and the same year he was chosen mayor of Bourdeaux, and in this office gave such satisfaction to his fellow-citizens, that in 1582 they employed him in a special mission to courj; on important affairs, and after his mayoralty expired, they again elected him into the same office. In 1588 he appeared to advantage at the assembly of the states of Blois, and although not a deputy, took a share in their proceedings and cabals. During one of his visits at court, Charles IX. decorated him with the collar of the order of St. Michael, without any solicitation, which, when young, he is said to nave coveted above all things, it being at that time the highest mark of honour among the French nobility, and rarely bestowed.

Returning afterwards to his family residence, he devoted himself to study, from which be suffered some disturbance during the civil wars. On one occasion a stranger presented himself at the entrance of his house, pretending that while travelling with his friends, a troop of soldiers had attacked their party, taken away their baggage, killed all who made resistance, and dispersed the rest. Mon< taigne, unsuspectingly, admitted this man, who was the chief of a gang, and wanted admittance only to plunder the house. In a few minutes two or three more arrived, whom the first declared to be his friends that had made their escape, and Montaigne compassionately made them welcome. Soon after, however, he perceived the court of his chateau filled with more of the party, whose behaviour left him in no doubt as to their intentions. Montaigne preserved his countenance unaltered, and ordered them every refreshment the place afforded, and presented this with so nauch* kindness and politeness, that the captain of the troop had not the courage to give the signal for pillage.

His reputation is founded on his “Essays,” which were at one time extremely popular, and which are still read with pleasure by a numerous class of persons. La Harpe says of him, “As a writer, he has impressed on our language (the French) an energy which it did not before possess, and which has not become antiquated, because it is that of sentiments and ideas. As a philosopher he has painted man as he is; he praises without compliment, and blames without misanthropy.” In 1774 was published at Rome (Paris), “Memoirs of a Journey into Italy,” &c. by Montaigne, the editor of which has given us a few less known particulars of the author. He says that “with a large share of natural vivacity, passion, and spirit, Montaigne’s life was far from being that of a sedentary contemplatist, as those may be inclined to think, who view him only in the sphere of his library and in the composition of his essays. His early years by no means passed in the arms of leisure. The troubles and commotions whereof he had been an eye-witness during five reigns, which he had seen pass successively before that of Henry IV. had not in any degree contributed to relax that natural activity and restlessness of spirit. They had been sufficient to call it forth even from indolence itself. He had travelled a good deal in France, and what frequently answers a better purpose than any kind of travel, he was well acquainted with the metropolis, and knew the court. We see his attachment to Paris in the third book of his Essays. Thuanus likewise observes, that Montaigne was equally successful in making his court to the famous duke of Guise, Henry of Lorraine, and to the king of Navarre, afterwards Henry IV. king of France. He adds, that he was at his estate at Blois when the duke of Guise was assassinated, 1558. Montaigne foresaw, says he, that the troubles of the nation would only end with the life of that prince, or of the king of Navarre; and this instance we have of his political sagacity. He was so well acquainted with the character and disposition of those princes, so well read in their hearts and sentiments, that he told his friend Thuanus, the king of Navarre would certainly have returned to the religion of his ancestors (that of the Romish communion) if he had not been apprehensive of being abandoned by his party. Montaigne, in short, had talents for public business and negociation, but his philosophy kept him at a distance from political disturbances; and he had the address to conduct himself without offence to the contending parties, in the worst of times.”

More recently, in 1799, his memory has been revived in France by an extravagant eloge from the pen of a French lady, Henrietta Bourdic-viot, who assures us that it was in the works of Montaigne that she acquired the knowledge of her duties.“But we rather incline to the more judicious character given of this author by Dr. Joseph Warton.” That Montaigne,“says this excellent critic,” abounds in native wit, in quick penetration, in perfect knowledge of the human heart, and the various vanities and vices that lurk in it, cannot justly be denied. But a man who undertakes to transmit his thoughts on life and manners to posterity, with the hope of entertaining and amending future ages, must be either exceedingly vain or exceedingly careless, if he expects either of these effects can be produced by wanton sallies of the imagination, by useless and impertinent digressions, by never forming or following any regular plan, never classing or confining his thoughts, never changing or rejecting any sentiment that occurs to him. Yet this appears to have been the conduct of our celebrated essayist; and it has produced many awkward imitators, who, under the notion of writing with the fire and freedom of this lively old Gascon, have fallen into confused rhapsodies and uninteresting egotisms. But these blemishes of Montaigne are trifling and unimportant, compared with his vanity, his indecency, and his scepticism. That man must totally have suppressed the natural love of honest reputation, which is so powerfully felt by the truly wise and good, who can calmly sit down to give a catalogue of his private vices, publish his most secret infirmities, with the pretence of exhibiting a faithful picture of himself, and of exactly pourtraying the minutest features of his mind. Surely he deserves the censure Quintilian bestows on Demetrius, a celebrated Grecian statuary, that he was nimius in veritate, ct similitudinis quam pulchritudinis amantior; more studious of likeness than of beauty."

, senior member of the academy of sciences of France, was born July 16, 1714, at Angouleme. His family had been a long time rendered illustrious in arms by An. re* De Montalembert, count d'Esse“, lieutenant-general to the king, commander of his armies in Scotland, governor of Terouane near St. Omers, and who died on the breach, the 12th of June 1553. In 1732 the young Montalembert entered into the army, and distinguished himself at the sieges of Kehl and Philipsburg in 1736. He was afterwards captain of the guards to the prince of Conti. In peace he studied the mathematics and natural philosophy: he read a memoir to the academy of sciences, upon the evaporation of the water in the salt works at Turcheim, in the palatinate, which he had examined, and was made a member in 1747. There are in the volumes in the academy some memoirs from him upon the rotation of bullets, upon the substitution of stoves for fire-places, and upon a pool, in which were found pike purblind, and others wholly without sight. From 1750 to 1755 he established the forges at Angoumoisand Perigord. and there founded cannon for the navy. In 1777 three volumes were printed of the correspondence which he held with the generals and ministers, whilst he was employed by his country in the Swedish and Russian armies during the campaigns of 1757 and 1761, and afterwards in Britanny and the isle of Oleron, when fortifying it. He fortified also Stralsund, in Pomerania, against the Prussian troops, and gave an account to his court of the military operations in which it was concerned; and this in a manner which renders it an interesting part of the History of the Seven-years War. In 1776 he printed the first volume of an immense work upon Perpendicular Fortification, and the art of Defence; demonstrating the inconveniences of the old system, for which he substitutes that of casemates, which admit of such a kind of firing, that a place fortified after his manner appears to be impregnable. His system has been, however, uot always approved or adopted. His treatise was extended to ten volumes in quarto, with a great number of plates; the last volume was published in 1792, and will doubtless carry his name to posterity as an author as well as a general. He married, in 1770, Marie de Comarieu, who was an actress, and the owner of a theatre, for whom the general sometimes composed a dramatic piece. In 1784 and 1786 he printed three operatical pieces, set to music by Cambini and Tomeoni: they were,” La Statue,“” La Bergere qualite,“and” La Bohemienne." Alarmed at the progress of the revolution, he repaired to England in 1789 or 1790, and leaving his wife there, procured a divorce, and afterwards married Rosalie Louise Cadet, to whom he was under great obligation during the Robespierrian terror, and by whom he had a daughter born in July 1796. In his memoir published in 1790, it may be seen that he had been arbitrarily dispossessed of his iron forges, and that having a claim for six millions of livres clue to him, he was reduced to a pension, but ill paid, and was at last obliged to sell his estate at Maumer, in Angoumois, for which he was paid in assignats, and which were insufficient to take him out of that distress which accompanied him throughout his life. He was sometimes almost disposed to put an end to his existence, but had the courage to resume his former studies, and engaged a person to assist him in compleating some new models. His last public appearance was in the institute, where he read a new memoir upon the mountings (affect) of ship-guns. On this occasion he was received with veneration by the society, and attended to with religious silence: a man of eighty-six years of age had never been heard to read with so strong a voice. His memoir was thought of so much importance, that the institute wrote to the minister of marine, who sent orders to Brest for the adoption of the suggested change. He was upon the list for a place in the institute, and was even proposed as the first member for the section of mechanics, but learning that Bonaparte was spoken of for the institute, he wrote a letter, in which he expressed his desire to see the young conqueror of Italy honoured with this new crown. His strength of mind he possessed to the last, for not above a month before his death he wrote reflections upon the siege of St. John d'Acre, which contained further proofs of the solidity of his defensive system, but at last he fell ill of a catarrh, which degenerated into a dropsy, and carried him off March 22, 1802.

, an ancient heresiarch. among the Christians, founded a new sect in the second century of the church, which were called Montanists. They had also the name of Phrygians and Cataphrygians, because Montanus was either born, or at least first known, at Ardaba, a village of Mysia, which was situated upon the borders of Phrygia. Here he set up for a prophet, although it seems he had but lately embraced Christianity: but it is said that he had an immoderate desire to obtain a first place in the church, and that he thought this the most likely means of raising himself. In this assumed character he affected to appear inspired with the Holy Spirit, and to be seized and agitated with divine ecstacies; and, under these disguises he uttered prophecies, in which he laid down doctrines, and established rites and ceremonies, entirely new. This wild behaviour was attended with its natural consequences and effects upon the multitude some affirming him to be a true prophet others, that he was possessed with an evil spirit. To carry on his delusion the better, Montanus associated to himself Priscilla and Maximiila, two wealthy ladies, who acted the part “of prophetesses” and, it> by the power of whose geld,“as Jerome tells us,” he first seduced many churches, and then corrupted them with his abominable errors." He seems to have made Pepuza, a tawn in Phrygia, the place of his first residence; and he artfully called it Jerusalem, because he knew the charm there was in that name, and what a powerful temptation it would be in drawing from all parts the weaker and more credulous Christians. Here he employed himself in delivering obscure and enigmatical sayings, under the name of prophecies; and made no small advantage of his followers, who brought great sums of money and valuable presents, by way of offerings. Some of these prophecies of Montanus and his women are preserved by Epiphanius, in which they affected to consider themselves only as mere machines and organs, through which God spake unto his people.

The peculiarities of this sect of Christians are explicitly set forth by St. Jerome. They are said to have been very heterodox in regard to the Trinity; inclining to Sabellianism, “by crowding,” as Jerome expresses it, “the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, into the narrow limits of one person.” Epiphanius, however, contradicts this, and affirms them to have agreed with the church in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Montanists held all second marriages to be unlawful, asserting that although the apostle Paul permitted them, it was because he “only knew in part, and prophesied in part;” but tnat, since the Holy Spirit had been poured upon Montanus and his prophetesses, they were not to be permitted any longer. But the capital doctiines of the Montanists are these “God,” they say, “was first pleased to save the world, under the Old Testament, from eternal damnation by Moses and the prophets. When these agents proved ineffectual, he assumed flesb. and blood of the Virgin Mary, and died for us in Christ, under the person of the Son. When the salvation of the world was not effected yet, he descended lastly upon Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla, into whom he infused that fulness of his Holy Spirit*, which had not been vouchsafed to the apostle Paul; for, Paul only knew in part, and prophesied in part.” These doctrines gained ground very fast;, and Montanus soon found himself surrounded with a tribe of people, who would probably have been ready to acknowledge his pretensions, if they had been higher. To add to his influence over their minds, he observed a wonderful strictness and severity of discipline, was a man of mortification, and of an apparently most sanctified spirit. He disclaimed all innovations in the grand articles of faith; and only pretended to perfect what was left unfinished by the saints. By these means he supported for a long time the character of a most holy, mortified, and divine person, and the world became much interested in the visions and prophecies of him and his two damsels Priscilla and Maximilla; and thus the face of severity and saintship consecrated their reveries, and made real possession pass for inspiration. Several good men immediately embraced the delusion, particularly Tertullian, Alcibiades, and Theodotus, who, however, did not wholly approve of Montanus’s extravagancies; but the churches of Phrygia, and afterwards other churches, grew divided upon the account of these new revelations; and, for some time, even the bishop of Rome cherished the imposture. Of the time or manner of Montanus’s death we have no certain account. It has been asserted, but without proof, that he and his coadjutress Maximilla were suicides.

Montesquieu is said not to have been eager to shew himself to the public, but rather to wait for “an age ripe for writing.” It was not till 1721, when he was thirty-two years of age, that he published his “Persian Letters.” The description of oriental manners, real or supposed, of the prirle and phlegm of Asiatic love, is but the smallest object of these “Letters;” which were more particularly intended as a satire upon French manners, and treat of everai important subjects, which the author investigates rather fully, while he only seems to glance at them. Though this work was. exceedingly admired, yet he did not openly declare himself the author of it. He expresses himself sometimes freely about matters of religion, and therefore as soon as he was known to be the author, he had to encounter much censure and serious opposition, for at that time the philosophizing spirit was not tolerated in France. In 1725, he opened the parliament with a speech, the depth and eloquence of which were convincing proofs of his great abilities as an orator; and the year following he quitted his charge.

A place in the French academy becoming vacant by the death of monsieur de Sacy, in 1728, Montesquieu, by the advice of his friends, and supported also by the voice of the public, offered himself for it. Upon this, the minister, cardinal Fleury, wrote a letter to the academy, informing them, that his majesty would never agree to the election of the author of the “Persian Letters” that he had not himself read the book but that persons in whom he placed confidence, had informed him of its dangerous tendency. Montesquieu, thinking it prudent immediately to encounter this opposition, waited on the minister, and declared to him, that, for particular reasons, he had not owned the “Persian Letters,” but that he would be still farther from, disowning a work, for which he believed he had no reason to blush; and that he ought to be judged after a reading, and not upon information. At last, the minister did what he ought to have begun with; he read the book, loved the author, and learned to place his confidence better. The French academy, says D'Alembert, was not deprived of one of its greatest ornaments, nor France of a subject, of which superstition or calumny was ready to deprive her; for Montesquieu, it seems, had frankly declared to the government, that he could not think of continuing in France after the affront they were about to offer, but should seek among foreigners for that safety, repose, and honour, which he might have hoped in his own country. He was received into the academy, Jan. 24, 1728; and his discourse upon that occasion, which was reckoned a very fine one, is printed among his works. As before his admission into the academy, he had giveatip his civil employments, and devoted himself entirely to his genius and taste, he resolved to travel, and went first, in company with lord Waldegrave our ambassador, to Vienna, where he often saw prince Eugene; in whom he thought he could discover some remains of affection for his native country. He left Vienna to visit Hungary; and, passing thence through Venice, went to Rome. There he applied himself chiefly to examine the works of Raphael, of Titian, and of Michael Angelo, although he had not made the fine arts a particular study. After having travelled over Italy, he came to Switzerland, and carefully examined 1 those vast countries which are watered by the Rhine. He stopped afterwards some time in the United Provinces; and, at last, went to England, where he stayed three years, and contracted intimate friendships with many of the most distinguished characters of the day. He in particular received many marks of attention from queen Caroline. In the portrait of Montesquieu, written by himself, and published lately among some posthumous pieces, he gives the following proof of his gallantry in reply “Dining in England with the duke of Richmond, the French envoy there La Boine, who was at table, and was ill qualified for his situation, contended that England was not larger than the province of Guienne. I opposed the envoy. In the evening, the queen said to me, `I am informed, sir, that you undertook our defence against M. de la Boine.‘ `Madam,’ I replied, `I cannot persuade myself that a country over which you reign, is not a great kingdom.'”

Montesquieu was peaceably enjoying that esteem which his merits had procured him, when he fell sick at Paris in 1755. His health, naturally delicate, had begun to decay for some time, partly by the slow but sure effect of deep study, and partly by the way of life he was obliged to lead at Paris. He was oppressed with cruel pains soon after he fell sick, nor had he his family, or any relations, near him; yet he preserved to his last moments great firmness and tranquillity of mind. “In short,” says his elogist, " after having performed every duty which decency required, he died with the ease and well-grounded assurance of a man who had never employed his talents but in the cause of virtue and humanity.' 7 His last hours are said to have been disturbed by the Jesuits, who wished him to retract some of his opinions on religion; and some say he made a formal disavowal of these. He died February 10, 1755, aged 66.

To the personal character of Montesquieu, as given by his eulogists and biographers, we have never heard any objection. He was not less amiable, say they, for the qualities of his heart, than those of his mind. He ever appeared in the commerce of the world with good humour, cheerfulness, and gaiety. His conversation was easy, agreeable, and instructive, from the great number of men he had lived with, and the variety of manners he had studied. It was poignant like his style, full of salt and pleasant sallies, free from invective and satire. No one could relate a narration with more vivacity, readiness, grace, and propriety. He knew that the close of a pleasing story is always the chief object; he therefore hastened to reach it, and always produced a happy effect, without creating too great an expectation. His frequent flights were very entertaining; and he constantly recovered himself by some unexpected stroke, which revived a conversation when it was drooping; but they were neither theatrically played off, forced, or impertinent. The fire of his wit gave them birth; but his judgment suppressed them in the course of a serious conversation: the wish of pleasing always made him suit himself to his company, without affectation or the desire of being clever. The agreeableness of his company was not only owing to his disposition and genius, but also to the peculiar method he observed in his studies. Though capable of the deepest and most intricate meditations, he never exhausted his powers, but always quitted his lucubrations before he felt the impulse of fatigue. He had a sense of glory; but he was not desirous of obtaining without meriting it. He never attempted to increase his reputation by those obscure and shameful means which dishonour the man, without increasing the fame of the author. Worthy of the highest distinction and the greatest rewards, he required nothing, and was not astonished at being forgotten: but he dared, even in the most critical circumstances, to protect, at Court, men of letters who were persecuted, celebrated, and unhappy, and obtained them favour. Although he lived with the great, as well from his rank as a taste for society, their company was not essential to his happiness. He sequestered himself, whenever he could, in his villa: there with joy, he embraced philosophy, erudition, and ease. Surrounded in his leisure hours with rustics, after having studied man in the commerce of the world and the history of nations, he studied him even in those simple beings, whose sole instructor was nature, and in them he found information. He cheerfully conversed with them: like Socrates he traced their genius, and he was as much pleased with their unadorned narrations as with the polished harangues of the great, particularly when he terminated their differences, and alleviated their grievances by his benefactions. He was in general very kind to his servants: nevertheless, he was compelled one day to reprove them; when turning towards a visitor, he said with a smile, “These are clocks that must be occasionally wound up.” Nothing does greater honour to his memory than the ceconomy with which he lived; it has "indeed been deemed excessive in an avaricious and fastidious world, little formed to judge of the motive of his conduct, and still less to feel it. Beneficent and just, Montesquieu would not injure his family by the succours with which he aided the distressed, nor the extraordinary expence occasioned by his travels, the weakness of his sight, and the printing of his works. He transmitted to his children, without diminution or increase, the inheritance he received from his ancestors: he added nothing to it but his fame, and the example of his life.

, a Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, and one of the most learned antiquaries France has produced, was born Jan. 17, 1655, at Soulage in Langnedoc, whither his parents had removed on some business; and was educated at the castle of Roquetaillade in the diocese of Alet, where they ordinarily resided. His family was originally of Gascony, and of the ancient lords of Montfaucon-le-Vieux, first barons of the comte de Comminges. The pedigree of a man of learning is not of much importance, but Montfaucon was an antiquary, and has given us his genealogy in his “Bibl. Bibliothecarum manuscriptorum,” and it must not, therefore, be forgotten, that besides his honourable ancestors of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, he was the son of Timoleon de Montfaucon, lord of Roquetaillacle and Conillac in the diocrse of Alet, by Flora de Maignan, daughter of the baron d'Albieres. He was the second of four brothers. From his early studies in his father’s house he was removed to Limoux, where he continued them under the fathers of the Christian doctrine, and it is said that the reading of Plutarch’s Lives inspired him first with a love for history and criticism. A literary profession, however, was not his original destination, for we find that he set out with being a cadet in the regiment of Perpignan, and served one or two campaigns in Germany in the army of marshal Turenne. He also gave a proof of his courage by accepting a challenge from a brother bfficer who wished to put it to the tfcst. About two years after entering the army, the death of his parents, and of an officer of distinction under whom he served, with other circumstances that occurred about the same time, appear to have given him a dislike to the military life, and induced him to enter the congregation of St. Maur in 1675 at the age of twenty. In this learned society, for such it was for many years, he had every opportunity to improve his early education, and follow the literary pursuits most agreeable to him. The first fruits of his application appeared in a kind of supplement to Cottelerius, entitled “Analecta Graeca sive vuria opuscula, Gr. & Lat.” Paris, 4to, 1688, with notes by him, Antony Pouget and James Lopin. In 1690 he published a small volume 12mo, entitled “La verite de l'Histoire de Judith,” in which he attempts to vindicate the authenticity of that apocryphal book, and throws considerable light on the history of the Medes and Assyrians. His next publication of much importance was a new edition in Gr. & Lat. of the works of St. Athanasius, which came out in 1698, 3 vols. fol. This, which is generally known by the name of the Benedictine edition, gave the world the first favourable impression of Montfaucon’s extensive learning and judgment. He had some assistance in it from father Lopin, before-mentioned, who, however, died before the publication.

Montfaucon enjoyed during his long life the esteem of the learned world, and was not more regarded for the extensive learning than the amiable qualities of his private character. He was modest, polite, affable, and always ready to communicate the information with which his indefatigable studies and copious reading supplied him. Foreigners who sought to be introduced to him, returned from his conversation, equally delighted with his manners, and astonished at his stores of learning. The popes Benedict XIII. and Clement XL and the emperor Charles VI. honoured him with particular marks of their regard; but honours or praise, in no shape, appeared to affect the humility and simplicity of his manners.

, born in 1686, at Paris, was the son of Guy Carre“, maitre des requetes. He was but twenty-five when he purchased a counsellor’s place in the parliament, and acquired some degree of credit in that situation by his wit and exterior accomplishments. He had, by his own account, given himself up to all manner of licentiousness, for which his conscience frequently checked him, and although he endeavoured to console himself with the principles of infidelity, his mind was still harassed, when accident or design led him to visit the tomb of M. Paris the deacon, September 7, 1731, with the crowd which, from various motives, were assembled there. If we may believe his own account, he went merely to scrutinize, with the utmost severity, the (pretended) miracles wrought there, but felt himself, as he says, suddenly struck and overwhelmed by a thousand rays of light, which illuminated him, and, from an infidel, he immediately became a Christian, but in truth was devoted from that moment to fanaticism, with the same violence and impetuosity of temper which had before led him into the most scandalous excesses. In 1732 he was involved in a quarrel which the parliament had with the court, and was, with others, banished to Auvergne. Here he formed a plan for collecting the proofs of the miracles wrought at the tomb of the abbe Paris, making them clear to demonstration, as he called it, and presenting them to the king. At his return to Paris, he prepared to put this plan in execution, went to Versailles, July 29, 1737, and presented the king with a quarto volume magnificently bound, which he accompanied with a speech. In consequence of this step Montgeron was sent to thebastile, then confined some months in a Benedictine abbey belonging to the diocese of Avignon, removed soon after to Viviers, and carried from thence to be shut up in the citadel of Valence, where he died in 1754, aged sixty-eight. The work which he presented to the king is entitled” La Verite des Miracles operes par l'Intercession de M. de Paris,“&c. 4to. This first volume by M. Montgeron has been followed by two more, and he is said also to have left a work in ms. against the incredulous, written while he was a prisoner. De Montgeron would, however, have scarcely deserved a place here, if bishop Douglas, in his” Criterion," had not bestowed so much pains on examining the pretended miracles which he records, and thus rendered his history an object of some curiosity.

, an English poetical and miscellaneous writer, was the grandson of the rev. John Moore of Devonshire, one of the ejected non-conformists, who died Aug. 23, 1717, leaving two sons in the dissenting ministry. Of these, Thomas, the father of our poet, removed to Abingdon Hi Berkshire, where he died in 1721, and where Edward was born March 22,. 1711-12, and for some time brought up under the care of his uncle. He was afterwards placed at the school of East Orchard in Dorsetshire, where he probably received no higher education than would qualify him for trade. For some years he followed the business of a linen-draper, both in London and in Ireland, but with so little success that he became disgusted with his occupation, and, as he informs us in his preface, “more from necessity than inclination,” began to encounter the vicissitudes of a literary life. His first attempts were of the poetical kind, which still preserve his name among the minor poets of his country. In 174-4, he published his “Fables for the Female Sex,” which were so favourably received as tointroducehim into the society of some learned and some opulent contemporaries. The hon. Mr. Pelham was one of his early patrons; and, by his “Trial of Selim,” he gained the friendship of lord Lyttelton, who felt himself flattered by a compliment turned with much ingenuity, and decorated by wit and spirit. But as, for some time, Moore derived no substantial advantage from patronage, his chief dependance was on the stage, to which, within five years, he supplied three pieces of considerable, although unequal, merit. “The Foundling,” a comedy, which was first acted in 1748, was decried from a fancied resemblance to the “Conscious Lovers.” His “Gil Bias,” which appeared in 1751, met with a more severe fate, and, notwithstanding the sprightliness of the dialogue, not altogether unjustly. “The Gamester,” a tragedy, first acted Feb. 7, 1753, was our author’s most successful attempt, and is still a favourite. In this piece, however, he deviated from the custom of the modern stage, as Lilio had in his “George Barnwell,” by discarding blank verse; and perbaps nothing short of the power by which the catastrophe engages the feelings, could have reconciled the audience to this innovation. But hisobject was the misery of the life and death of a gamester, to which it would have been difficult to give a heroic colouring; and his language became what would be most impressive, that of truth and nature. Davies, in his Life of Garrick, seems inclined to share the reputation of the “Gamester” between Moore and Garrick. Moore acknowledges, in his preface, that he was indebted to that inimitable actor for “many popular passages,” and Davies believes that the scene between Lewson and Stukely, in the fourth act, was almost entirely his, because he expressed, during the time of action, uncommon pleasure at the applause given to it. Whatever may be in this conjecture, the play, after having been acted to crowded houses for eleven nights, was suddenly withdrawn. The report of the day attributed this to the intervention of the leading members of some gaming clubs. Davies thinks this a mere report “to give more consequence to those assemblies than they could really boast.” From a letter, in our possession, written by Moore to Dr. Warton, it appears that Garrick suffered so much from, the fatigue of acting the principal character as to require some repose. Yet this will not account for the total neglect, for some years afterwards, of a play, not only popular, but so obviously calculated to give the alarm to reclaimable gamesters, and perhaps bring the whole gang into discredit. The author mentions, in his letter to Dr. Warton, that he expected to clear about four hundred pounds by his tragedy, exclusive of the profits by the sale of the copy. It is asserted by Dr. Johnson, in his life of lord Lyttelton, that, in return for Moore’s elegant compliment, “The Trial of Selim,” his lordship paid him with “kind words, which, as is common, raised great hopes, that at last were disappointed.” It is possible, however, that these hopes were of another kind than it was in his lordship’s power to gratify*; and it is certain that he substituted a method of serving Moore, which was not only successful for a considerable time, but must have been agreeable to the feelings of a delicate and independent mind. Abouttheyears 175 1-2, periodical writing began to revive in its most pleasing form, but had hitherto been executed by men of learning only. Lord Lyttelton projected a paper, in concert with Dodsiey, which should unite the talents of certain men of rank, and receive such a tone and consequence from that circumstance, as mere scholars can seldom hope to command or attain. Such was the origin of the “World,” for every paper of which Dodsiey stipulated to pay Moore three guineas, whether the papers were written by him, or by the volunteer contributors. Lord Lyttelton, to render this bargain more productive to the editor, solicited and obtained the assistance of the earls of Chesterfield, Bath, and Corke, and of Messrs. Walpole, Cambridge, Jenyns, and other men of rank and taste, who gave their assistance, some with great regularity, and all so effectually as to render the “World” far more popular than any of its contemporaries.

During the publication of the World, and probably before, Moore wrote some lighter pieces and songs for the public gardens. What his other literary labours were, or whether he contributed regularly to any publications, is not known. A very few weeks before his death he projected a Magazine, in which Gataker and some other of his colleagues in the “World” were to be engaged. His acknowledged works are not numerous, consisting only of the poems here noticed, and of his three plays. These were published by him, fii a handsome quarto volume, in 1756, by subscription, dedicated to the duke of Newcastle, brother to his deceased patron Mr. Pelham. The subscribers were very numerous, and included many persons of the highest rank and talents, but he did not long enjoy the advantages of their liberality. He died Feb. 28, 1757, at his house at Lambeth, of an inflammation on his lungs, the consequence of a fever improperly treated.

, a medical and miscellaneous writer, was the son of the rev. Charles Moore, a minister of the English church at Stirling, in Scotland, where this, his only surviving son, was born in 1730. His lather dying in 1735, his mother, who was a native of Glasgow, and had some property there, removed to that city, and carefully superintended the early years of her son while at school and college. Being destined for the profession of medicine, he was placed under Mr. Gordon, a practitioner of pharmacy and surgery, and at the same time attended such medical lectures as the college of Glasgow at that time afforded, which were principally the anatomical lectures of Dr. Hamilton, and those on the practice of physic by Dr. Cullen, afterwards the great ornament of the medical school of Edinburgh. Mr. Moore’s application to his studies must have been more than ordinarily successful, as we find that in 1747, when only in his seventeenth year, he went to the continent, under the protection of the duke of Argyle, and was employed as a mate in one of the military hospitals at Maestricht, in Brabant, and afterwards at Flushing. Hence he was promoted to be assistant to the surgeon of the Coldstream regiment of foot guards, comman-ded by general Braddock, and after remaining during the winter of 1748 with this regiment at Breda, came to England at the conclusion of the peace. At London he resumed his medical studies under Dr. Hunter, and soon after set out for Paris, where he obtained the patronage of the earl of Albemarle, whom he had known in Flanders, and who was now English ambassador at the court of France, and immediately appointed Mr. Moore surgeon to his household. In this situation, although he had an opportunity of being with the ambassador, he preferred to lodge nearer the hospitals, and other sources of instruction, xvith which a more distant part of the capital abounded, and visited lord Albemarle’s family only when his assistance was required. After residing two years in Paris, it was proposed by Mr. Gordon, who was not insensible to the assiduity and improvements of his former pupil, that he should return to Glasgow, and enter into partnership with him. Mr. Moore, by the advice of his friends, accepted the invitation, but deemed it proper to take London in his way, and while there, went through a course under Dr. Smellie, then a celebrated accoucheur. On his return to Glasgow, he practised there during the space of two years, but when a diploma was granted by the university of that city to his partner, now Dr. Gordon, who chose to prescribe as a physician alone, Mr. Moore still continued to act as a surgeon; and, as a partner appeared to be necessary, he chose Mr. Hamilton, professor of anatomy, as his associate. Mr. Moore remained for a considerable period at Glasgow; but when he had attained his fortieth year, an incident occurred that gave a new turn to his ideas, and opeqed new pursuits and situations to a mind naturally active and inquisitive. James George, duke of Hamilton, a young nobleman of great promise, being affected with a consumptive disorder, in 1769, he was attended by Mr. Moore, who has always spoken of this youth in terms of the highest admiration; but, as his malady baffled all the efforts of medicine, he yielded to its pressure, after a lingering illness, in the fifteenth year of his age. This event, which Mr. Moore recorded, together with the extraordinary endowments of his patient, on his tomb in the buryingplace at Hamilton, led to a more intimate connection with this noble family. The late duke of Hamilton, being, like his brother, of a sickly constitution, his mother, the duchess f Argyle, determined that he should travel in company with some gentleman, who to a knowledge of medicine added an acquaintance with the continent. Both these qualities were united in the person of Dr. Moore, who by this time had obtained the degree of M. D. from the university of Glasgow. They accordingly set out together, and spent a period of no less than five years abroad, during which they visited France, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany. On their return, in 1778, Dr. Moore brought his family from Glasgow to London; and in the course of the next year appeared the fruits of his travels, in “A View of Society and Manners in France', Switzerland, and Germany,” in 2 vols. 8vo. Two years after, in 1781, he published a continuation of the same work, in two additional volumes, entitled “A View of Society and Manners in Italy.” Having spent s6 large a portion of his time either in Scotland or on the continent, he could not expect suddenly to attain an extensive practice in the capital; nor indeed was he much consulted, unless by his particular friends. With a view, however, to practice, he published in 1785, his “Medical Sketches,” a work which was favourably received, but made no great alteration in his engagements; and the next work he published was “Zeluco,” a novel, which abounds with many interesting events, arising from uncontrouled passion on the part of a darling son, and unconditional compliance on that of a fond mother. While enjoying the success of this novel, which was very considerable, the French revolution began to occupy the minds and writings of the literary world. Dr. Moore happened to reside in France in 1792, and witnessed many of the important scenes of that eventful year, but the massacres of September tending to render a residence in Paris highly disagreeable, he returned to England; and soon after his arrival, began to arrange his materials, and in 1795, published “A View of the Causes and Progress of the French Revolution,” in 2 vols. 8vo, dedicated to the Duke of Devonshire. He begins with the reign of Henry IV. and ends with the execution of the royal family. In 1796 appeared another novel, “Edward: various Views of Human Nature, taken from Life and Manners chiefly in England.” In 1800, Dr. Moore published his “Mordaunt,” being “Sketches of Life, Characters, and Manners in various Countries including the Memoirs of a French Lady of Quality,” in 2 vols. 8vo. This chiefly consists of a series of letters, written by “the honourable John Mordaunt,” while confined to his couch at Vevay, in Switzerland, giving an account of what he had seen in Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, &c. The work itself comes under no precise head, being neither a romance, nor a novel, nor travels: the most proper title would perhaps be that of “Recollections.” Dr. Moore was one of the first to notice the talents of his countryman the unfortunate Robert Burns, who, at his request, drew up an account of his life, and submitted it to his inspection.

After his return from his third and last journey to France, he resided the remainder of his days in his house in Clifford-street, where he died Feb. 20, 1802, leaving a daughter and five sons. Dr. Moore was a man of considederable general knowledge, but excelled in no particular branch of science. After he had once begun his travels as tutor, he assumed the character of a man of wit and humour, both which entered largely into the composition of his subsequent publications. His travels were at one time very popular, on account of the frequent recurrence of scenes of dry humour, but his constant attempts in this way made them be read, more for sprightliness of narrative than accuracy of information, or depth of remark. Of his novels, “Zeluco” only has stood its ground.

, a gallant English officer, was one of the sons of the preceding, and born at Glasgow, Nov. 13, 1761, and was educated principally on the continent, while his father travelled with the duke of Hamilton, who in 1776 obtained for him an ensigncy in the 51st regiment of foot, then quartered at Minorca. He afterwards obtained a lieutenancy in the 82d, in which he served in America during the war, and in 1783, at the peace, was reduced with his regiment. He was soon after brought into parliament for the boroughs of Lanerk, &c. by the interest of the duke of Hamilton. In 1787 or 1788 he obtained the majority of the 4th battalion of the 60th regiment, then quartered at Chatham, and very soon after negociated an exchange into his old regiment, the 51st. In 1790 he succeeded, by purchase, to the lieutenant-colonelcy, and went the following year with his regiment to Gibraltar. After some other movements he was sent to Corsica, where general Charles Stuart having succeeded to the command of the army in 1794, appointed colonel Moore to command the reserve. Here he particularly distinguished himself at the siege of Calvi, and received his first wound in storming the Mozzello fort. These operations made Moore’s character known to general Stuart, and a friendship commenced, which continued during the general’s life; and the situation of adjutant-general in the army in Corsica becoming vacant at this time, he bestowed it on his friend Moore, and ever after showed him every mark of confidence and esteem.

In consequence of a disagreement with the viceroy, who had occasioned the recall of general Stuart, colonel Moore arrived in England in Nov. 1795, and was immediately appointed a brigadier-general in the West Indies, and attached to a brigade of foreign corps, which consisted of Choiseul’s hussars, and two corps of emigrants. On Feb. 25, 1796, he received an order to take charge of, and embark with general Perryn’s brigade, going out with the expedition to the West Indies, under sir Ralph Abercrombie; that officer having unexpectedly sailed in the Vengeance, 74, and left his brigade behind. General Moore, although he had no previous intimation that he was to embark, hurried to Portsmouth, and having time only to prepare a few necessaries, sailed for the West Indies with the fleet at day-light on the 28th, with no other baggage than a small portmanteau, and not one regiment of his own brigade was in the fleet. On his arrival at Barbadoes, on the 13th of April, 1796, having had an opportunity of waiting on the commander-in-chief, sir Ralph Abercrombie, that sagacious and attentive observer very soon distinguished him, and in the course of the operations against St. LuciCj wjiich immediately followed, employed him in very arduous and difficult service which occurred. He had, in particular, opportunities, during the siege of Morne Fortunée at St. Lucie, which lasted from the 26th of April to the same day in May, of eminently distinguishing himself; and his conduct, as sir Ralph expressed in his public orders, was the admiration of the whole army. Sir Ralph, immediately on the capitulation, bestowed the command and government of the island on general Moore, who did all he could to induce sir Ralph to keep him with the army, and employ him in the reduction of the other islands, but without effect. Sir Ralph, in a manner, forced this important command upon him, at the same time giving him the most flattering reasons for wishing him to accept of it. The admiral and general sailed from St. Lucie on the 3d of June, leaving brigadier-general Moore in a situation which required, from what remained to be done in such a climate, perhaps more military talent, and a greater degree of exertion and personal risk, than even there had been occasion for during the reduction of the island; for, although the French commanding officer, and the principal post in the island, had surrendered, numerous bands of armed negroes remained in the woods; yet he at length succeeded in completely reducing these. Having, however, had two narrow escapes from violent attacks of yellovr fever, the last rendered it necessary that he should be relieved from the command of the island, and he returned to England in the month of July or August 1797. In Nov. following, sir Ralph Abercrombie having been appointed commander of the forces in Ireland, desired that brigadier-­general Moore might be put upon the staff in that country, which was done, and he accompanied sir Ralph to Dublin on the 2ddayof December 1797. During the period immediately preceding the rebellion in 1798, Moore had an important command in the south of Ireland, which was very disaffected, and was also the quarter where the enemy were expected to make a landing. His head-quarters were at Bandon, and his troops, amounting to 3000 men, were considered as the advanced corps of the south. When the rebellion broke out, he was employed first under major-general Johnstone, at New Ross, where the insurgents suffered much, and immediately afterwards was detached towards Wexford, at that time in the hands of the rebels. He had on this occasion only the 60th yagers, or sharp shooters, 900 light infantry, 50 of Hompesch’s cavalry, and six pieces of artillery. With these he had not marched above a mile before a large body of rebels appeared on the road, marching to attack him. He had examined the ground, as well as the short time would allow, in the morning, and thus was able to form his men to advantage. The rebels attacked with great spirit, but, after an obstinate contest, were driven from the field, and pursued with great loss. They amounted to about 6000 men, and were commanded by general Roche, a priest. After the action, the two regiments under lord Dalhousie arrived from Duncannon fort. It then being too late to proceed toTaghmone, which was his intention, the brigadier took post for the night on the ground where the action began. Next day on his march he was met by two men from Wexford with proposals from the rebels to lay down their arms, on certain conditions. As general Moore had no power to treat, he made no answer, but proceeded on to Wexford, which he delivered from the power of the rebels, who had piked or shot forty of their prisoners the day before, and intended to have murdered the rest if they had not been thus prevented.

Brigadier-general Moore continued to serve in Ireland, where he succeeded to the rank of major-general, and had a regiment given him, until the latter end of June 1799, when he was ordered to return to England to be employed in the expedition under sir Ralph Abercrombie, which sailed August 13, and was destined to rescue Holland from the tyranny of the French' government. The general result, owing to circumstances which could not be foreseen, was unfavourable; but the English troops had an opportunity of displaying the greatest valour, and none were more distinguished than those under the more immediate command of general Moore, who, after being twice wounded, in the hand, and in the thigh, received a musket-ball through his face, by which he was disabled, and was brought from the ground with some difficulty. He was now carried back to his quarters, a distance of ten miles, and as soon, as he could be moved, he was taken to the Helder, where he embarked on board the Amethyst frigate, and arrived at the Nore on the 24th; from thence he proceeded to London. Soon after his return to England from the Helder, a second battalion was added to the 52d regiment, of which the command was bestowed oa him by the king, in the most gracious manner. Being of an excellent constitution, and temperate habits, his wounds closed in the course of five or six weeks. He joined his brigade at Chelmsford on the 24th of December, 1799. In the early part of 1800 it had been intended to send a body of troops to the Mediterranean under sir Charles Stuart; he wrote to general Moore, and proposed to him to serve under him, which was accepted with the greatest pleasure. It was at first intended that sir Charles should take out of England 15,000 men, but it was afterwards found that the regiments allotted for this service, and which had been part of the expedition to Holland, were insufficient, and only amounted to 10,000 effective. About the middle of March, the first division, amounting to 5000 men, embarked under major-general Pigot. At this time a change took place in the plan of the expedition; sir Charles had some disagreement with ministers, and resigned his situation. Sir Ralph Ahercrombie was appointed to the command, and majorgeneral Moore was named as one of his major-generals, with Hutchinson and Pigot, who sailed about the end of April* with the 5000 men. There was little opportunity during this expedition, the success of which was prevented by various unforeseen occurrences, for any exertions in which general Moore could distinguish himself, until, the armies being ordered to separate, his troops were ordered to go to Egypt under sir Ralph Abercrombie. Having arrived at Malta, major-general Moore was sent to Jaffa to visit the Turkish army, and form a judgment as to what aid was to be expected from it; but the result being unfavourable, sir Ralph determined to land in the bay of Aboukir, and march immediately upon Alexandria. Any satisfactory detail of this memorable expedition would extend this article too far we shall therefore confine oui selves to that part in which major-general Moore was more particularly concerned. As soon as the landing was begun, he, at the head of the grenadiers and light infantry of th< 40th, with the 23d and 28th regiments in line, ascencle< the sand-hill. They did not fire a shot until they gained the summit, when they charged the enemy, drove ther and took four pieces of cannon, with part of their hor& The French retreated to the border of a plain, where g< neral Moore halted, as upon the left a heavy fire of mus quetry was kept up. Brigadier-general Oakes, with tl left of the reserve, consisting of the 42d Highlanders, tin 58th regiment, and the Corsican rangers, landed to th< left of the sand-hill, and were attacked by both infantn and cavalry, which they repulsed and followed into thi plain, taking three pieces of artillery. The guards an< part of general Coote’s brigade landed to the left of tl reserve; they were vigorously opposed, but repulsed tt tenerhy, and followed them into the plain. The want ol cavalry and artillery (for it was some time before the gui that were landed could be dragged through the sand) saved the enemy from being destroyed. This was one of the most splendid instances of British intrepidity that perhaps ever happened. The enemy had eight days to assemble and prepare, and the ground was extremely favourable to them. The loss of the enemy was considerable, that of the British amounted to 600 killed and wounded, of which the reserve lost 400. In the course of the afternoon the rest of the army landed, and the whole moved forward a couple of miles, where they took post for the night.

General Hutchinson had a considerable circuit to make to get to the ground where he was to make his attack, and the attack of the reserve was to be regulated by his. When he got to his ground, the position of the French was found to be so strongly defended by a numerous artillery, and covered besides by the guns on the fortified heights near Alexandria, that the attempt was given up, and as the army were in their present position exposed to the enemy’s cannon without being able to retaliate, a position on the height in the rear was marked out, to which the army fell back as the evening advanced. This severe action cost the British army 1300 in killed and wounded. The situation of the British army at this period was certainly a very critical one, as it was quite evident that government had been deceived in their estimate of the French forces. Sir Raiph, therefore, was well aware of the difficult task he had to perform. The camp of the British was about four or five miles from Alexandria. In front of the reserve, which, formed the right of the army, was a very extensive ancient ruin, which the French called Caesar’s camp; it was twenty or thirty yards retired from the right flank of the redoubt, and commanded the space between the redoubt and the sea. In this redoubt and ruin major-general Moore had posted the 28th and 58th regiments. On the 21st the attack was made by the French, who were driven back by his troops, but he received a shot in the leg. The result, however, was, that every attack the French made was repulsed with great slaughter. In the early part of the action, and in the dark, some confusion was unavoidable, but wherever the French appeared, the British went boldly up to them, even the cavalry breaking in had not in the least dismayed them. As the day broke, the foreign brU gaJe, under brigadier-general, afterwards sir John Stuart, who fought the battle of Maida, came to the second line to the support of the reserve, shared in the action, and behaved with great spirit. Day-light enabled major-general Moore to get the reserve into order, but there was a great want of ammunition. The guns could not be fired for a very considerable time, otherwise the French must have suffered much more severely, while retreating from their different unsuccessful attacks, than they did. The enemy’s artillery continued to gall the British severely with shot and shells, after the infantry and cavalry had been repulsed. The British could not return a shot. Had the French attacked again, the British had nothing but their bayonets, which they unquestionably would have used, as never was an army more determined to do their duty. But the enemy laad suffered so severely, that the men could not be got to make another attempt. They continued in front at a distant musket-shot, until the ammunition for the English guns was brought up to enable them to fire, when theyvery soon retreated. While the attacks were made on the British right, a column attacked the guards on the left of the reserve, but were repulsed with loss. The French general, Menou, had concentrated the greatest part of the force in Egypt for this attack; the prisoners stated his force in the field at about 13,000 men, of whom between three and four thousand were killed or wounded. The British army lost about 1300 men, of which upwards of 500 belonged to the reserve. This battle commenced at half past four in the morning, and terminated about nine. The French made three different attacks, with superior numbers, the advantage of cavalry, and a numerous and well-served artillery. The British infantry here gave a decided proof of their superior firmness and hardihood. Sir Ralph, who always exposed his person very much, in this last battle carried the practice perhaps farther than he bad e?er done before. Major-general Moore met hjnv early in the anion, close in the rear of the 42d, without any of the officeFS of his family; and afterwards, when the French cavalry charged the second time, and penetrated the 42d, major-general Moore saw him again and waved to him to retire, but he was instantly surrounded by the hussars; he received a cut from a sabre ou the breast, which penetrated his clothes and just grazed the flesh. He received a shot in the thigh, but remained in the field until the battle was over, when he was conveyed on board the Foudroyant. Major-general Moore, at the close of the action, had the horse killed under him that major Honeyroan had lent him. Wnen the battle was over, the wound in his leg became so stiff and painful, that as soon as he could get a hurse, he gave the command of the reserve to coloi ei Spencer, and retired with brigadier-general Oakes, who commanded the reserve under him, and who was wounded in the leg also, to their tents in the rear. Brigadier-general Oakes was wounded nearly at the same time, and in the same part of the leg that major-general Moore was, but they both continued to head the reserve until the battle was over. When the surgeon had dressed their wounds, finding that they must be some time incapable of action, they returned to the Diadem troop-ship. Sir Ralph Abercrombie died of his wound on board the Foudroyant on the 28th day of March, and the command devolved on major-general Hutchinson. It is unnecessary here to detail the operations in Egypt that followed the battle of the 2 1st, as major-general Moore was confined on hoard the Diadem with his wound until the I Oth of May, when he was removed to Rosetta for the benefit of a change of air. He suffered very severely the ball had passed between the two bones of his leg he endured a long confinement and much torment, from inflammation and surgical operations. When at length he could move on crutches, and was removed to Rosetta, where he got a house on the banks of the Nile, agreeably situated, he began to recover rapidly, and afterwards continued to serve in the army of Egypt until after the surrender of Alexandria, when he returned to England, where he received the honour of knighthood, and the order of the bath. On the renewal of the war, the talents and services of sir John Moore pointed him out as deserving of the most important command. It was not, however, until 1808 that he was appointed to the chief command of an army to be employed in Spain, and Gallicia or the borders of Leon were fixed upon as the place for assembling the troops. Sir John was ordered to send the cavalry by land, but it was left to his own discretion to transport the infantry and artillery either by sea or land. He was also assured, that 15,000 men were ordered to Corunna, and he was directed to give such orders to sir David Baird, their commander, as would most readily effect a junction of the whole force. Both, however, soon discovered that little reliance could be placed on the Spaniards; and they had not got far into the country before their hopes were completely disappointed. Sir John Moore soon began to anticipate the result which followed. In the mean time the French army had advanced, and taken possession of the city of Valladolid, which is but twenty leagues from Salamanca. Sir John had been positively informed that his entry into Spain would be covered by 60 or 70,000 men; and that Burgos was the city intended for the point of union for the different divisions of the British army. But already not only Burgos, but Valladolid, was in possession of the enemy; and he found himself with an advanced corps in an open town, at three marches distance only from the French army, without even a Spanish piquet to cover his front He had at this time only three brigades of infantry, without a gun, in Salamanca. The remainder, it is true, vyere moving up in succession, but the whole could not arrive in less than ten days. At this critical time the Spanish main armies, instead of being united either among themselves, or with the British, were divided from each other almost by the whole breadth of the peninsula. The fatal consequences of this want of union were but too soon made apparent; Blake was defeated, and a report reached sir David Baird that the French were advancing upon his division in two different directions, so as to threaten to surround him. He, consequently, prepared to retreat upon Corunna; but sir John Moore, having ascertained that the report was unfounded, ordered sir David to advance, in order, if possible, to form a junction with him. On the 28th of November he received information that there was now no army remaining, against which the whole French force might be directed, except the British; and it was in vain to expect that they, even if they had been united, could have resisted or checked the enemy. Sir John Moore, therefore, determined to fall back on Portugal, to hasten the junction of general Hope, who had gone towards Madrid, and he ordered sir David Baird to regain Corunna as expeditiously as possible; and when he had thus determined upon a retreat, he communicated his design to the general officers, who, with the exception of general Hope, seemed to doubt the wisdom of his decision; he would, however, have carried it into execution, if he had not been induced, by pressing solicitations, and representations of encouragement, to advance to Madrid, which he was told not only held out, but was capable of opposing the French for a considerable length of time. Sir John, therefore, anxious to meet the wishes of his troops, by leading them against the enemy, determined to attack Soult, the French general, who was posted at Saldanha, by which he thought he should draw off the French armies to the north of Spain, and thus afford an opportunity for the Spanish armies to rally and re-unite. Soult was probably posted in that spot with so small a body of men for the purpose of enticing the British army farther into Spain, while Bonaparte, in person, with his whole disposable force, endeavoured to place himself between the British army and the sea. At length the two armies met; and the superiority of the British cavalry was eminently displayed in a most brilliant and successful skirmish, in which 600 of the imperial guards of Bonaparte were driven off the field by half the number of British, Reaving 55 killed and wounded, and 70 prisoners, among whom was general Le Febre, the commander of the imperial guard.

, a very respectable mathematician, fellow of the royal society, and surveyor-general of the ordnance, was born at Whitlee, or Whitle, in Lancashire, Feb. 8, 1617. After enjoying the advantages of a liberal education, he bent his studies principally to the mathematics, to which he had always a strong inclination, and in the early part of his life taught that science in London for his support. In the expedition of king Charles the First into the northern parts of England, our author was introduced to him, as a person studious and learned in those sciences; and the king expressed much approbation of him, and promised him encouragement; which indeed laid the foundation of his fortune. He was afterwards, when the king was at Holdenby-house, in 1647, appointed mathematical master to the king’s second son James, to instruct him in arithmetic, geography, the use of the globes, &c. During Cromwell’s government he appears to have followed the profession of a public teacher of mathematics; for he is styled, in the title-page of some of his publications, “professor of the mathematics;” but his loyalty was a considerable prejudice to his fortune. In his greatest necessity, he was assisted by colonel Giles Strangeways, then a prisoner in the Tower of London, who likewise recommended him to the other eminent persons, his fellow- prisoners, and prosecuted his interest so far as to procure him to be chosen surveyor in the work of draining the great level of the fens’. Having observed in his survey that the sea made a curve line on the beach, he thence took the hint to keep it effectually out of Norfolk. This added much to his reputation. Aubrey informs us, that he made a model of a citadel for Oliver Cromwell “to bridle the city of London,” which was in the possession of Mr. Wild, one of the friends who procured him the surveyorship of the Fens. Aubrey adds, what we do not very clearly understand, that this citadel was to have been the crossbuilding of St. Paul’s church.

Having thus engaged himself in the prosecution of this general design, he next sketched out the plan of a course or system of mathematics for the use of the school, and then drew up and printed several parts of it himself, when death. put an end to his labours, before the work was completed. He died at Godalming, in his way from Portsmouth to London, August 27, 1679. Pieces of cannon, amounting to the number of his years, were discharged at the Tower, during his funeral. He was buried in the chapel of the Tower, where is a monument and inscription, which has enabled us to correct the mistakes 6f his biographers as to his age, place of birth, &c. In 1681, his great work was published by his sons-in-law, Mr. Hanway and Mr. Potinger. Of this work, the arithmetic, practical geometry, trigonometry, and cosmography, were written by sir Jonas himself, and printed before his death. The algebra, navigation, and the books of Euclid, were supplied by Mr. Perkins, the then master of the mathematical school. And the astronomy, or doctrine of the sphere, was written by Mr. Flamsteed, the astronomer royal. He always intended to have left his collection of mathematical books to the Royal Society, of which he was a fellow, but he died without a will. His only son, Jonas, had the honour of knighthood conferred on him, and the reversion of his father’s place of surveyor- general of the ordnance; “but,” adds Aubrey, “young sir Jonas, when he is old, will never be old sir Jonas, for all the gazette’s eulogie.”

, rector of Kirkbride, and chaplnin of Douglas in the Isle of Mann, a gentleman well known in the literary world, by his correspondence with men of genius in several parts of it, and by them eminently distinguished as the divine and scholar, was born in 1705. In the earlier part of a life industriously employed in promoting the present and future happiness of mankind, he served as chaplain to the right reverend Dr. Wilson, the venerable bishop of Mann, whose friend and companion he was for many years: at his funeral he was appointed to preach his sermon, which is affixed to the discourses of that prelate, in the edition of his works printed at Bath, 1781, in two volumes, quarto, and that in folio. At the request of the society for promoting Christian knowledge, he undertook the revision of the translation into Manks of the Holy Scriptures, the book of Common Prayer, bishop Wilson on the Sacrament, and other religious pieces, printed for the use of the diocese of Mann; and, during the execution of the first of these works, he was honoured with the advice of the tw*o greatest Hebrseans of the age, bishop Lowth and Dr. Kennicott. In the more private walks of life, he was not less beloved and admired; in his duty as a clergyman, he was active and exemplary, and pursued a conduct (as far as human nature is capable) “void of offence towards God and towards man.” His conversation, prompted by an uncommon quickness of parts, and refined by study, was at once lively, instructive, and entertaining; and his friendly correspondence (which was very extensive) breathes perhaps as much original humour as can, be met with in any writer who has appeared in public, Sterne not excepted, to whom he did not yield even in that vivid philanthropy, which the fictitious Sterne could so often assume. All the clergy in the island at the time of his death, had been (except four) educated by him, and by them he was always distinguished with peculiar respect and affection. His conduct operated in the same degree amongst all ranks of people, and it is hard to say, whether he won more by his doctrine or example; in both, religion appeared most amiable, and addressed herself to the judgments of men, clothed in that cheerfulness which is the result of firm conviction and a pure intention. It is unnecessary to add, that though his death, which happened at Douglas, Jan. 22, 1783, in his 78th year, was gentle, yet a retrospect of so useful and amiable a life made it deeply regretted. His remains were interred with great solemnity in Kirk Braddon church, attended by all the clergy of the island, and a great number of the most respectable inhabitants. In 1785, a monument was erected to his memory, at the expence of the rev. Dr. Thomas Wilson, son of the bishop, and prebendary of Westminster, &c.

Besides the treatise on lithotomy above mentioned, he published other works concerning the same subject, or connected with his profession, and was author of several papers, published in the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, as well as that of Surgery; and wrote a history of the latter academy, for the second and third volumes of their memoirs.

, earl of Peterborough, was the son of John lord Mordaunt, of Reygate, in Surrey, and lord viscount Avalon, in the county of Somerset, by Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Carey, second son of Robert, earl of Monmouth. He was born about 1658; and, in 1675, succeeded his father in honours and estate. In his youth he served under the admirals Torrington and Narborough in the Mediterranean, during the war with the state of Algiers; and, in June 1680, embarked for Africa with the earl of Plymouth, and distinguished himself at Tangier, when it was besieged by the Moors. In the reign of James II. he was one of those lords who manifested their zeal against the repeal of the test-act; and, disliking the measures and designs of the court, obtained leave to go over into Holland, to accept the command of a Dutch squadron in the West-Indies. On his arrival, he pressed the prince of Orange to undertake an expedition into England, representing the matter as extremely easy; but, his scheme appearing too romantic, his highness only promised him in general, that he should have an eye on the affairs of England, and endeavour to put those of Holland in so good a posture as to be ready to act when it should be necessary: assuring him at the same time, that if the king should proceed to change the established religion, or to wrong the princess in her right, or to raise forged plots to destroy his friends, he would try what could possibly be done. The reason why the prince would not seem to enter too hastily into lord MordauntV ideas seems to have been, because, as Burnet* observes, his lordship was “a man of much heat, many notions, and full of discourse; and, tjiough brave and generous, had not true judgment, his thoughts being crude and indigested, and his secrets soon known.” However, he was one of those whom the prince chiefly trusted, and on whose advice he governed all his motions.

Lord Peterborough was a man of great courage and skill as a commander, and was successful in almost all his undertakings. As a politician, he appears also to much, advantage, being open, honest, and patriotic in the genuine sense. Lord Or ford has characterized him well in other respects, as “one of those men of careless wit and negligent grace, who scatter a thousand bon-mots and idle verses, which (such) painful compilers (as lord Orford) gather and hoard, till the owners stare to find themselves authors. Such was this lord of an advantageous figure, and enterprizing spirit as gallant as Amadis, and as brave, but a little more expeditious in his journeys; for he is said to have seen more kings and more postillions than any man in Europe.” He was indeed so active a traveller, according to Dean Swift, that queen Anne’s ministers used to say, they wrote at him, and not to him . What lord Peterborough wrote, however, seems scarcely worth notice, unless in such a publication as the “Royal and Noble Authors,” where the freedom of that illustrious company is bestowed on the smallest contributors to literary amusement. He is said to have produced “La Muse de Cavalier; or, an apology for such gentlemen as make poetry their diversion, and not their business,” in a letter inserted in the “Public Register,” a periodical work by Dodsley, 1741, 4to “A copy of verses on the duchess of Marl-' borough” <c Song, by a person of quality,“beginning” I said to my heart, between sleeping and waking, &c.“inserted in Swift’s Works.” Remarks on a pamphlet,“respecting the creation of peers, 1719, 8vo; but even for some of these trifles, the authority is doubtful. His correspondence with Pope is no little credit to that collection. He was the steady friend and correspondent of Pope, Swift, and other learned men of their time, as he had been of Pryden, who acknowledges his kindness and partiality. The” Account of the Earl of Peterborough’s conduct in Spain,“taken from his original letters and papers, was drawn up by Dr. Freind, and published in 1707, 8vo. Dr. Jf reind says, that” he never ordered off a detachment of a hundred men, without going with them himself.“Of his own courage his lordship used to say, that it proceeded from his not knowing his danger; agreeing in opinion with. Turenne, that a coward had only one of the three faculties of the mind apprehension. Of his liberality, we have this instance, that the remittances expected from England, not coming to his troops when he commanded in Spain, he is said to have supplied them for some time with money from his own pocket. In this he differed considerably from his great contemporary the duke of Marlborough, and the difference is stated in one of his best bon-mots. Being once taken by the mob for the duke, who was then in disgrace with them, he would probably have been roughly treated by these friends to summary justice, had he not addressed them in these words:” Gentlemen, I can convince you by two reasons that I am not the duke. In the first place, I have only five guineas in my pocket; and in the second, they are heartily at your service." So throwing his purse among them, he pursued his way amid loud acclamations. Many other witticisms may be seen in our authorities, which are less characteristic.

His lordship married Carey, daughter to sir Alexander Fraser, of Dotes, in the shire of Mearns, in Scotland, and by her (who died May 13, 1709) he had two sons, John and Henry, who both died before him, and a daughter, Henrietta, married to Alexander second duke of Gordon. He was succeeded in titles and estate by a grandson, Charles. He married as his second wife Mrs. Anastasia Robinson, a celebrated singer, of whom Dr. Burney has given a very particular account in vol. IV. of his “History of Music.” To this lady he was ardently attached, and behaved to her with great delicacy and propriety, but his pride revolted at the match, and he kept it secret until a very short period before his death. Of the lady herself he had, according to every account, no reason to be ashamed; but a connection of this kind had not then become so common as we have of late witnessed. How long he was married to her does not appear. She survived him fifteen years, residing in an exalted station, and visited by persons of the first rank, partly at Bevis Mount, his lordship’s seat near Southampton, and partly at Fulham, or perhaps at Peterborough-house at Parson’s green. Lord Peterborough had written his “Own Memoirs,” which this lady destroyed, from a regard to his reputation. Tradition says, that in these memoirs he confessed his having committed three capital crimes before he was twenty years of age. This we hope has been exaggerated; but it seems allowed that his morals were loose, and that he was a freethinker.

The pretensions, which such authors as we have just mentioned, make of arriving at extraordinary degrees of illumination by their institutes, entirely captivated More’s fancy who pursued their method with great seriousness and intense application and, in three or four years, had reduced himself to so thin a state of body, and began to talk in such a manner of experiences and communications, as brought him into a suspicion of being touched with enthusiasm. Ib 1640, he composed his “Psycho-Zoia, or the Life of the Soul;” which, with an addition of other poems, he republished in 1647, 8vo, under the title of “Philosophical Poems,” and dedicated to his father. He takes notice, in his dedication, that his father used to read to his children on winter nights “Spenser’s Fairy Queen,” with which our author was highly delighted, and which, he says in the dedication, “first turned his ears to poetry.” In 1639, he had taken his master of arts’ degree; and, being chosen fellow of his college, became tutor to several persons of great quality. One of these was sir John Finch, whose sister lady Con way was an enthusiast of his own stamp, and became at length a quaker, although he laboured for many years to reclaim her. He still, however, had a great esteem for her and drew up some of his “Treatises” at her particular request and she, in return, left him a legacy of 400l. He composed others of his works at Ragley, the seat of her lord in Warwickshire, where, at intervals, he spent a considerable part of his time. He met here with two extraordinary persons, the famous Van Helmont, and the no less famous Valentine Greatrakes; for, it seems, lady Conway was frequently afflicted with violent pains in her head, and these two persons were called in, at different times, to try their powers upon her; and, at last, Van Helmont lived in the family. There was once a design of printing some remains of this lady after her death; and the preface was actually written by our author under the person of Van Helmont; in which disguise he draws her character with so much address, that we are told the most rigid quaker would see every thing he could wish in it, and yet the soberest Christian be entirely satisfied with it. It is printed at large in his life.

The cause of the quarrel between More and Pope was this In a letter published in the Daily Journal, March 18, 1728, written by the former, there are the following words: “Upon reading the third volume of Pope’s Miscellanies, I found five lines, which I thought excellent and, happening to praise them, a gentleman produced a modern comedy, * The Rival Modes,' where were the same verses to a tittle. These gentlemen are undoubtedly the first plagiaries, who pretend to make a reputation by stealing from a man’s works in his own life-time, and out of a public print.” But it appears, from the notes to the Dunciad, that More himself borrowed the lines from Pope; for, in a letter to Pope, dated Jan. 27, 1726, he observes, that “these verses, which he had before given him leave to insert in ‘ The Rival Modes,’ would be known for his, some copies being got abroad. He desires nevertheless, that, since the lines in his comedy have been read to several, Pope would not deprive it of them.” As proofs of this circumstance, are brought the testimonies of lord Bolingbroke, and the lady of Hugh Bethel, esq. to whom the verses were originally addressed, who knew them to be Pope’s long before “The Rival Modes” was written. This gentleman died in 1734, at Whister, near Isleworth in Middlesex, for which county he was a justice of peace. Notwithstanding his quarrel with Pope, he was certainly a man of parts and politeness, or the poet would never have introduced him, as he did, to the earl of Peterborough’s acquaintance; but his misfortune was, as the commentator on the Dunciad observes, too inordinate a passion to be thought a wit.

When admitted to the bar, he had read a public lecture, in the church of St. Lawrence Jewry, upon St. Austin’s treatise “De civitate Dei,” in which, without attempting to discuss any points of divinity, he explained the precepts of moral philosophy, and cleared up difficulties in history, and that with such skill, eloquence, and ability, as to attract a large number of hearers among persons of note and learning; and Grocyn himself, who had been his master in Greek, also became one of his auditors. The reputation of this lecture, which appears to have been gratuitous, made him be appointed law-reader at FurnivaPs-inn, which place he held above three years. Some time after, the superstition which we lament in this illustrious man’s character, led him to take lodgings near the Charter-house, where he went through all the spiritual exercises of that society. He disciplined himself every Friday, and on high fasting days; he used also much fasting and watching, and often lay either upon the bare ground, or upon some bench, with a log under his head, and allowed himself but four or five hours’ sleep in the night. He was also a diligent attendant on the public preaching of dean Colet, whom he chose for his spiritual father, and once had a strong inclination to enter into the order of the Franciscans, as well as to take the priesthood. But rinding that all his austerities were of little avail in procuring him the gift of continence, he took Dr. Colet’s advice, and resolved to marry. Having some acquaintance with John Colt, esq. of Newhall in Essex, he now accepted an invitation to visit him. Mr. Colt had three accomplished and agreeable daughters, the eldest of whom Mr. More chose for a wife, although his inclination rather led him to the second, but he considered it “would be a grief and some blemish to the eldest,” should he act otherwise. Bringing his wife to town he took a house in Bucklersbury, and attended the business of his profession at his chambers in Lincoln’s inn, where he continued till he was called to the bench, and had read there twice. This was a very honourable post at that time: and some of these readings are quoted by lord Coke as uncontested authorities in the law. In the mean time he was appointed, in 1508, judge of the sheriff’s court in the city of London; made a justice of the peace; and became so eminent in the practice of the law, that there was scarcely a cause of importance tried at the bar in which he was not concerned. Sir Thomas told his son-in-law Roper, that be earned by his business at this time, with a good conscience, above 400l. a year, which is equal to six times that sum now. He was, however, uncommonly scrupulous in the causes he undertook. It was his constant method, before he took any cause in hand, to investigate the justice and equity of it; and if he thought it unjust, he refused it, at the same time endeavouring to reconcile the parties, and persuading them not to litigate the matter in dispute. Where not successful in this advice, he would direct his clients how to proceed in the least expensive and troublesome course. It may, indeed, be seen in his “Utopia,” that he satirizes the profession, as if he did not belong to it.

More cultivated an acquaintance and friendship with the most learned men of that age, and particularly with Erasmus, who, of all the foreigners, deservedly held the first place in his affections. After they had long carried on a correspondence by letters, Erasmus came to England, on purpose to see his friend; on which occasion it was contrived, that they should meet at the lord mayor’s table in London, before they were introduced to each other. At dinner, a dispute arose between them, in which Erasmus, for the sake of argument, took the wrong side of the question, but so sensibly felt 'the peculiar sharpness of his antagonist’s wit, that he could not help exclaiming, “You are either More, or nobody” to which More readily replied, “You are either Erasmus or the devil” which last coarse expression he is said to have used because Erasmus’s arguments had a tincture of irreligion. No two men, however, could be more attached to each other’s company, and after Erasmus returned home, a long correspondence took place between them. Both were wits, but Erasmus’s freedom from bigotry, gave him opportunities of displaying his humour, which More could not have embraced. We are told that when Erasmus was about to leave England, More lent him a horse to carry him to the sea-side; but, instead of returning it, he took it to Holland, and sent More the following epigram, alluding to some conversation they had had concerning the doctrine of the real presence in the sacrament

The fame of More’s learning, ability in the law, and dexterity in the management of business, having reached the ears of Henry VI II. he ordered cardinal Wolsey to engage him in the service of the court. With this view the cardinal ottered him a pension, which sir Thomas then refused, as not thinking it equivalent to his present advantages: but the king soon after insisted upon his entering into his service, and, for want of a better vacancy, obliged him, for the present, to accept the place of master of the requests. Within a month after, he was knighted, and appointed one of the privy council. In 1520, he was made treasurer of the exchequer; and soon after this bought a house by the river-side at Chelsea , where he settled with his family, having buried his first wife, and married a second, who was a widow and somewhat in years. With all his excellent endowments for public business, sir Thomas had far less relish for the bustle of a court, than for the calmer and more substantial pleasures of the domestic circle. He thought it therefore rather a misfortune tiiat the king at this time took an extraordinary liking to his company, and began to engross all his leisure time. The moment he had finished his devotions on holidays, he used to send for sir Thomas into his closet, and there confer with him, sometimes about astronomy, geometry, divinity, and other parts of learning, as well as about his own affairs. He would frequently in the night carry him up to his leads on the top of his house, and discourse with him about the motions of the planets; and, because sir Thomas was of a very pleasant disposition, the king and queen used to send for him after supper, or in supper-time, to be merry with them. Sir Thomas perceiving, by this fondness, that he could not once a month get leave to go home to his wife and children, or be absent from court two days together, without being sent for, is said to have had recourse to a singular expedient, suppressing his accustomed facetiousness, and assuming a dullness and gravity, which is said to have put an end to his invitations. It is, however, not improbable that he really felt the uneasiness which he displayed.

Before sir Thomas went on his last embassy, the king sounded him upon the subject of his divorce from Catharine of Arragon, as he did again after his return; but did not receive, either time, an answer agreeable to his inclinations. Yet, his majesty’s fixed resolution in that point did not hinder him, upon the disgrace of cardinal Wolsey, from intrusting the great seal with sir Thomas, which was delivered to him Oct. 25, 1530. His biographers have said that this favour was the more extraordinary, as he was the first layman who enjoyed it; but this is a mistake. There are at least four instances of laymen being chancellors before his time. Some have thought that the honour was conferred with a view of engaging him to approve the intended divorce. Accordingly, he entered upon it with just apprehensions of the danger to which it would expose him on that account, but determined to execute the duties of the office in a manner that might give dignity to it; and perhaps no chancellor has ever displayed more uprightness and integrity. His predecessor Wolsey was a man of unquestionable abilities, and incorrupt in his decisions: but he is said to have been proud and repulsive to the poorer suitors. Sir Thomas, on the contrary, made no distinctions; was nowise dazzled by superior rank and station, and considered the poor as especially entitled to his protection. He always spoke kindly to such, and heard them patiently. It was his general custom to sit every afternoon in his open hall, and if any person had a suit to prefer, he might state the case to him, without the aid of bills, solicitors, or petitions. And such was his impartiality, that he gave a decree against one of his sons-inlaw, Mr. Heron, whom he in vain urged to refer the matter to arbitration, and who presumed upon his relationship. So indefatigable was he also, that although he found the office filled with causes, some of which had been pending for twenty years, he dispatched the whole within two years, and calling for the next, was told that there was not one left, which circumstance he ordered to be entered on record.

Sir Thomas’s zeal for the Romish church led him, as we have noticed, to write some treatises in defence of popery. He was thought by these to have done great service to the church: and as it was well known that he had had few opportunities of amassing riches, and that the emoluments of his office were no adequate reward for his merit, the clergy, in convocation, voted him a present of five thousand pounds; a vast sum in those days, which was liberally contributed by the whole body of the clergy, superior and inferior. When, however, his friend bishop Tonstal, with two other prelates, waited on him with this present, he peremptorily declined accepting it, telling them, that “as it was no small comfort to him, that such wise and learned men so well accepted of his works, for which be never intended to receive any reward but at the hand of God, so he heartily thanked this honourable body for their bountiful consideration.” The prelates then requested, that he would allow them to present the money to his family but in this he was equally resolute—“Not so, indeed, my lords: I had rather see it all cast into the Thames, than that I or any of mine should have a penny of it. For though your lordships’ offer is very friendly and honourable to me, yet I set so much by my pleasure, and so little by my profit, that in good faith I would not for a much larger sum have lost the rest of so many nights’ sleep as was spent upon these writings. And yet, notwithstanding that, upon condition that all heresies were suppressed, I wish that all my books were burnt, and my labour entirely lost.” There was something new and peculiar in every expression of sir Thomas’s thoughts; and on one occasion, while conversing on public affairs, at Chelsea, he told his son-in-law Roper, that he would be content to be thrown into the river, provided three things were established in Christendom: “universal peace—uniformity of religion—and a safe conclusion of the king’s marriage,” at that time in agitation.

During his chancellorship, the king often importuned him to re-consider the subject of the divorce; and when he found him persisting in his unfavourable opinion of that measure, affected to be satisfied with his answers, and promised to molest his conscience no more on the subject. Sir Thomas, however, was not a man to be deceived in a point on which he knew Henry would not long bear any opposition, and determined to avoid having an official concern in the divorce, by resigning his place, which he had held about three years. Henry professed to accept his resignation with great reluctance, bestowed many thanks and much praise on him for his faithful discharge of the duties of that important trust, and made him the most liberal promises. But sir Thomas was too disinterested to claim these, and never asked a penny for himself or any of his family, in any part of his life. That he was perfectly satisfied in his own mind with the sacrifice he had made, appears from the jocular manner in which he announced his resignation to his lady. The morning after he returned the great seal, he went to Chelsea-church with his lady and family, where, during divine service, he sat, as was usual with him, in the quire, wearing a surplice , and because it had been a custom, after mass was done, for one of his gentlemen to go to his lady’s pew and say, “My lord is gone before;” he came now himself, and making a long bow, said, “Madam, my lord is gone.” She, thinking it to be no more than his usual humour, took no notice of it; but, in the way home, he unriddled the jest, by acquainting her with what he had done the preceding day. This, however, was no jest to lady More, who was of a worldly avaricious spirit, and by no means remarkable for pliability of temper, or submission to his will. She therefore discharged some of her vulgar eloquence on him: — “Tilly Vally, what will you do, Mr. More will you sit and make goslings in the ashes? Would to God, I were a man, and you should quickly see what I would do. What! why, go forward with the best for, as my mother was wont to say, It is ever better to rule, than to be ruled and, therefore, I would not be so foolish as to be ruled, where I might rule.” Sir Thomas contented himself with replying: “By my faith, wife, I dare say you speak truth; for I never found you willing to be ruled yet.”

He now resigned himself to that plan of retirement, study, and devotion, which had always been most agreeable to him; but he could no longer expect to enjoy this without interruption. He knew the capricious and arbitrary temper of his royal master, who had already divorced queen Catherine, married Anne Boleyn, and expected that what he had done should be approved with more than silent acquiescence. The coronation of the new queen being fixed for May 31, 1533, sir Thomas received an invitation to attend the ceremony; but this he declined, as he still retained his former opinions on the unlawfulness of the divorce. This, which Henry would naturally construe into an insult, provoked him extremely, conscious as he was that the opinions of sir Thomas would have great weight with the people. Various means were therefore tried to gain him over, and when these proved ineffectual, a more ^harsh, but in those days, not a very extraordinary proceeding took place. In the ensuing parliament a bill was : brought into the House of Lords, attainting sir Thomas, bishop Fisher, and some others, of misprision of treason, for countenancing and encouraging Elizabeth Barton, tlje maid of Kent (See Eliz. Barton, vol. IV.) in her treasonable practices. When this bill came to be read a third time, the House of Lords addressed the king to know his pleasure, whether sir Thomas might not be suffered to speak in his own defence; but Henry would not consent to this, nor when he desired to be admitted into the House of Commons, to defend himself there, would the king permit him: but he assigned a committee of the privycouncil to hear his justification. The affair of Barton, however, was a mere pretence, the object of this committee being to draw from him, either by fair words or threatenings, an assent to the divorce and the second marriage. When the commissioners, who were Cranmer, now archbishop of Canterbury, the lord chancellor Audley, the duke of Norfolk, and secretary Cromwell, found that their persuasions were of no avail, they told him, that their instructions were to charge him with ingratitude, and “to inform him, that his majesty thought there never was a servant so villainous, or a subject so traitorous to his prince, as he was;” and, ft in support of this heavy charge against him, they were to allege his subtle and sinister devices, in procuring his majesty to set forth a book to his great dishonour throughout all Christendom: by which he had put a sword into the pope’s hand to fight against himself."

The commissioners were probably conscious that these assertions were true; at least they could make no reply, and therefore dismissed sir Thomas, who feeling a considerable elation of mind on his return home, his son-in-law Roper asked him if his hi^h spirits were owing to his having succeeded in procuring his name to be struck out of the bill of attainder Sir Thomas’s answer showed that he had been more tenacious of his consistency than of his life: “In troth, son, I had forgotten that but if thou wouldst know why I am so joyful, in good faith it is this I rejoice that I have given the devil so foul a fall for I have gone so far with these lords, that without great shame I can never go back.” He had indeed gone so far as to exasperate the king beyond all hopes of forgiveness; and that monarch, who could forget friendship and attachment as hastily as he conferred them, irritated at having his former sentiments respecting the pope so unseasonably recalled, declared that the bill of attainder should proceed against him. And when the duke of Norfolk and secretary Cromwell hinted that the upper house would not pass the bill without hearing sir Thomas in his own defence, the king declared that he should be present himself, and he presumed that the house would not in that case dare to reject it. He was at length, however, diverted from this purpose on its being suggested that some better opportunity might be found to proceed against sir Thomas, and on being persuaded by his counsellors that, as to the present accusations, the public would think him more worthy of praise than blame. Sir Thomas’s name was accordingly struck out of the bill and although, taking advantage of the king’s displeasure, his enemies endeavoured to bring against him accusations of improper conduct in his office of judge, these served, only to demonstrate the strict integrity which guided all his decisions, and that when gifts were sometimes tendered to him by the clients of the court, he always refused, or returned them, and often with his characteristic^humouiv One lady, in whose favour he had given a decree, presented him, as a new year’s gift, with a pair of gloves, and in them forty pounds. He immediately returned the money, saying, “Since it would be contrary to good manners to refuse a new year’s gift from a lady, I am content to take your gloves; but as for the lining, I utterly refuse it.”

Soon after this Essay appeared, Louis XIV. gave him a place in his cabinet of antiques; which, though it brought him great honour, and some profit for the present, yet cost him very dear in the end: for, whether he spoke too freely of Mr. de Louvois, on account of his salary, which, it seems, was not very well paid, or for some private reason, of which we are ignorant, he was, by order of that minister, committed to the Bastile, where he lay for three years. He was released at the death of Louvois, which happened in 1691, but not till the canton of Bern solicited in his favour. He then returned to Switzerland, and resumed his grand design; and afterwards, in 1694, went to Arnstad in Germany, upon an invitation from the count of Schwartzburg, with whom he lived in quality of his antiquary. The count had a fine collection of medals, and furnished him with every thing necessary for carrying on his great work. Spanheim, who returned from France to Berlin in 1689, had a desire to see him again, and gave him also all the assistance and encouragement he could; yet some unforeseen accidents prevented him from completing it. He died of an apoplexy at Arnstad, April 10, 1703.

He was an early contributor to the Gentleman’s Magazine; assisted Hogarth in his “Analysis of Beauty,” and published some occasional sermons. His other publications followed in this order, 1. “The Life of Dr. Edward Littleton,” prefixed to the first volume of his sermons, in 1735. 2. “Poems on Divine Subjects; original and translated from the Latin of Marcus Hieronymus Vida, with large annotations, more particularly concerning the being and attributes of God,” Loud. 1732, 8vo, reprinted 1736. 3. “The Canterbury Tales of Chaucer, in the original, from the most authentic Mss. and as they are turned into modern language by the most eminent hands,” ibid. 1737. 4. “A copy of English congratulatory verses on the maryiage of the prince of Orange with the princess Anne,” 1737. 5. “Philalethes and Theophanes; or a summary view of the last controversy occasioned by a book entitled The Moral Philosopher,' parti.” Lond. 1739, 8vo, reprinted 1740. 6. “The Christian’s Epinikion, or Song of Triumph; a paraphrase on I Cor. xv. attempted in blank Terse; with annotations, explanatory and critical,” ibid. 1743, 4to. 7. “Hope, a poetical essay, in blank verse, on that Christian grace, in three books,” 1745. 8. “Spenser’s Works,” by subscription, 1747. 9. “Euripidis Hecnba, Orestes, et Phenissce, cum scholiis antiquis, &c.” 1748, 2 vols. 8vo. This is a reprint of King’s edition, with the Alcestes added by himself. In 1749, Dr. Morell published the “Hecuba,” translated from the Greek, with annotations. 10. A speciaien of his “Thesaurus,” 1757. 11. “Philoctetes,” 1757, 8vo. 12. “Thesaurus Graecse Poeseos, sive Lexicon Grreco-prosodiacum,” &c. 4to, with Hogarth’s portrait of the author. The value of this work has been so long and so often acknowledged, that it is only necessary to add that a much improved edition is now in the hands of an eminent scholar, and nearly ready for publication. 13. The “Prometheus” of jschylus/&e. 1767, 8vo; 1774, 4to. 14. “A Dissertation on the Corbridge altar now in the British Museum,” &c. in a Latin letter to the hon. Daines Barrington,“1774, printed in the Archasologia, vol. III. 15.” Sacred Annals; or the Life of Christ, as recorded by the Four Evangelists,“&c. 1776, 4to. He also published a corrected edition of Hederick’s Lexicon, and three editions of Ainsworth’s Dictionary; and compiled the words for Handel’s Oratorios. After his death was published a translation of” Seneca’s Epistles,“with annotations, 1786, 2 vols. 4to. This is a correct and faithful translation, but never attracted much public attention. In 1794 also was published” Notes and Annotations on Locke on the Human Understanding, written by order of the queen (Caroline), corresponding in section and page to the edition of 1793," 8vo. This, which was written by the author while in the prime of life, does great credit to his talents as a metaphysician, and has been judged a very necessary aid in the perusal of Locke.

The first edition of his “Dictionary” was comprized in one vol. folio, which he soon found very defective, and therefore applied himself with great vigour to enlarge it; which he did in two volumes, and the year after his death it was printed at Paris in 1681. The third edition, in 1683, is likewise in two volumes, and was copied from the second. The two following editions, of which the fourth was printed in 1687, and the fifth in 1683, were published at Lyons in two volumes, and were the same with that of 1683, except that some articles were added. It was afterwards thought proper to give a “Supplement or third Volume of the Historical Dictionary,” which was printed in 1689 in folio. The sixth edition, in which is inserted the Supplement in the same alphabetical order, corrected in a great number of places, and enlarged by many important articles and Remarks, was printed at Amsterdam in 1691 in four volumes in folio. Le Clerc had the care of this edition, in which the articles of the Supplement are incorporated, and made the additions, consisting either of new articles, or improvements of other articles. Three more editions followed, almost the same, in 1694, 1698, and 1699, all in 4 vols. folio. The tenth was printed from the edition revised by Le Clerc, at Amsterdam, 1702, in 4 vols. folio. The eleventh was published by Mons. Vaultier with new additions, at Paris, 1704, 4 vols. folio. It was preceded by a piece entitled “Projet pour la Correction du Dictionnaire Historique de M. Moreri, deja revu, corrigé, & angmenté dans le derniere Edition de Paris par M. Vaultier,” Paris, 1701, 4to. It was followed by a piece entitled “Remarques Critiques sur ia Nouvelle Edition du Dictionnaire Historique de Moreri, donneé en 1704.” The second edition of this piece, printed at Rotterdam in 1706, 12mo, is enlarged with a preface and a great many notes by another author, viz. Bayle, who published this edition. The twelfth edition of Moreri was printed at Paris in 1707, 4 vols. folio, and the thirteenth in 1712, in 5 vols. folio. Dupin had a considerable share in it, as also in the following editions. In 1714, there was printed separately in that city a large Supplement, composed, as is said in the advertisements, of new articles, corrected in the last edition of 1712, to serve as a supplement to the preceding editions. This supplement was reprinted with great additions by Bernard at Amsterdam in 1716 in two volumes, folio. The fourteenth edition of Moreri was printed at Amsterdam in 1717, in six volumes, folio, with the Supplement, which is not incorporated in the body of the work. The fifteenth edition was printed at Parisj 1718, 5 vols. fol. The articles of the Supplement published in Holland are inserted in their proper places, with some additions. This edition has been greatly criticised. The authors of the “Europe Sçavante” have inserted in their fourth volume, p. 230, a memoir, in which is shewn, that in the single letter Z, which is one of the shortest, there are a great many faults, and several articles omitted. The abbé Le Clerc also published “Remarks upon different Articles,” in the three first volumes, printed in three volumes 8vo; the first in 1719, the second in 1720, and the third in 1721. Father Francis Meri, a Benedictine Monk, published likewise upon this subject a pamphlet, entitled “Discussion Critique & Theologique des Remarques de M. sur le Dictionnaire de Moreri de 1718,” 1720, 8vo. It is a defence of some passages of the Dictionary against the criticism of the abbé Le Clerc. The sixteenth edition of Moreri was printed at Paris in 1724, in 6 vols. folio. Monsieur de la Barre had the care of it. What relates to genealogy was revised by Monsieur Vailly, an advocate; and the abbé Le Clerc furnished five or six thousand corrections, as he informs us in his “Bibliotheque de Richelet.” The seventeenth edition was printed at Basil in 1731; and the eighteenth at Paris, in 1732, 6 vols. folio, to which supplementary volumes were added. The last and best edition, in which all these were incorporated, is that of 1759, 10 vols. folio. This is still a work of great value and utility, particularly the biographical part, but much of the historical and geographical part has become almost obsolete, owing to the more correct information and improvements introduced in those branches.

In 1752 he was elected F. S. A. and two years after was one of a committee for examining the minute-books of that society, with a view to selecting thence papers proper for publication*. Being intended for orders by his father, he took the degrees of B. A. May 12, 1750, and M. A.Jan. 15, 1753; before which time he had formed considerable collections relative to the antiquities, &c. of Oxford, and particularly to those of his own college, whose archives he arranged, and made large extracts from, with a view to its history. He was at the expence of three plates of the Black Prince’s apartments there, since pulled down, which were drawn and engraved by that very ingenious artist B. Green. Twenty-eight drawings at his expence, by the same hand, of ancient gates, halls, &c. since ruined or taken down, were purchased by Mr. Gough, as also some collections for a “History of Godstow Nunnery,” by Mr. Mores, for which a plate of its ruins was engraved, and another of Iffley church. His Mss. relative to his own college, with his collections about All Souls’ college, fell after his death into the hands of Mr. Astle, who presented the former to Mr. Price of the Bodleian library.

gered till 1770, when the first volume early minute-books, offices; but it does not appear that he received ordination from the bishop of London. Thus much, however, is certain-, that in the letters of administration granted to his son, on his dying intestate, he is styled “the Reverend Edward-Rowe Mores, doctor in divinity,” but, at what time, or by which of the bishops, he received ordination, we have not yet discovered. Mr. Nichols was assured by a very intimate friend of Mr. Mores, that he received the honorary title of D. D. in consequence of a literary favour which he had conferred on some foreign Roman catholic ecclesiastics, who wished to repay him by a pecuniary acknowledgment, which he politely declined accepting. Mr. Mores was as ambitious of singularity in religion as in other pursuits and if he could.be said to be a member of any particular church, it was that of Erasmus, whom he endeavoured to imitate. He thought the Latin language peculiarly adapted to devotion, and wished, for the sake of unity, that it was universally in use. He composed a creed in it, with a kind of mass on the death of his wife, of which he printed a few copies, in his own house, under the disguised title of“Ordinale Quotidianum, 1685. Ordo Tngintalis.” Of his daughter’s education he was particularly careful. From her earliest infancy he talked to her principally in Latin. She was sent to Rouen, for education, but without the least view to her being a Roman catholic: on the contrary, he was much displeased when he found she had been perverted. Two original letters to the superior of the house under whose care she was placed, which are printed in the “Anecdotes of Bowyer,” contain a sufficient refutation of the report of his being himself a member of the church of Rome.

, physician and regius professor of mathematics at Paris, was born at Villefranche in Beaujolois, Feb. 23, 1583. After studying philosophy at Aix in Provence, and physic at Avignon, of which he commenced doctor in 1613, he went to Paris, and lived with Claude Dormi, bishop of Boulogne, who sent him to examine the nature of metals in the mines of Hungary. This gave occasion to his “Mundi sublunaris Anatomia,” which was his first production, published in 1619. Upon his return to his patron the bishop, he took a fancy to judicial astrology, and began to inquire, by the rules of that art, into the events of 1617. Among these he found, that the bishop of Boulogne was threatened with the loss of either liberty or life, of which he forewarned him. The bishop laughed at Morin’s prediction; but, engaging in state-intrigues, and taking the unfortunate side, he was treated as a rebel, and actually imprisoned that very year. After the fall of his prelate, he lived with the abbe de la Bretonniere, in quality of his physician, for four years; and, in 1621, was taken into the family of the duke of Luxemburg, where he lived eight years more, Jn 1630, he was chosen professor royal of mathematics.

His abilities in his profession gave him access to the great, even to cardinal Richelieu; and, under the administration of cardinal Mazarin, he obtained a pension of 2000 livres. Richelieu is said at first to have admitted him to his most secret councils, and to have consulted him about matters of the greatest importance; but during the greater part of his life, he appears to have gained most fame by his astrological predictions, which, right or wrong, were suited to the credulity of the times. He died at Paris, Nov. 6, 1656. He wrote a great number of books, not forgotten; but did not live to publish his favourite performance, his “Astrologia Gallica,” which had cost him thirty years’ labour. It was printed, however, at the Hague, 1661, in folio, with two epistles dedicatory; the one from the author to Jesus Christ; the other addressed to Louisa Maria de Gonzaga, queen c~f Poland. That princess encouraged Morin to undertake this great work, and paid the charges of the impression. At the time when it was said that she was to be married to the prince, Morin affirmed, that that marriage should never take place, and that she was destined to the bed of a monarch; and it is thought that she the more readily engaged to bear the expences of a work whose author had flattered her with the hopes of a crown, which she afterwards wore. Of his “Astrologia Gallica,” Guy Patin says, “I understand, that the” Astrologia Gallica“of the sieur Morin is at last finished at the Hague. I am told, that it abuses the Parisian and other physicians, who give no credit to judicial astrology; and I do riot wonder, that the author should behave in this manner, for he was a fool. The book is printed in one volume, folio. The queen of Poland gave 2000 crowns to carry on the edition, at the recommendation of one of her secretaries, who is a lover of astrology. You see in what manner crowned heads are imposed upon. If it had been a book which might have been of use to the public, the author would not have found one, either to print it, or to bear the charges of the press.” Morin, however, received several testimonies of esteem from the great Des Cartes. He became acquainted with this philosopher in 1626, and, some time after, maole him a present of his book upon the longitude, which was acknowledged by a very obliging letter. He sent him also, in 1638, some objections to his “Theory of Light,” which Des Cartes thought worthy of his consideration.

, a French physician and botanist, of singular character, was born at Mans, July 11, 1635, of parents eminent for their piety, who, although he was one of a numerous family of sixteen children, omitted nothing in his education which their fortune could supply. Botany was the study that appeared to have taken possession of his inclinations, as soon as the bent of his genius could be discovered. A country person who supplied the apothecaries of the place, was his first master, and was paid by him for his instructions with the little money that he could procure, but he soon made himself master of all this man knew, and was obliged to enlarge his acquaintance with plants, by observing them himself in the neighbourhood of Mans. Having finished his grammatical studies, he travelled on foot to Paris, and after going through the usual course of philosophy, was determined, by his love of botany, to the profession of physic. From this time he engaged in a course of life, which was never exceeded either by the ostentation of*a philosopher, or the severity t)f an anchoret, for he confined himself to bread and water, and at most allowed himself no indulgence beyond fruits. This regimen, extraordinary as it was, had many advantages it preserved his health it gave him an authority to preach diet and abstinence to his patients and it made him rich without the assistance of fortune.

This extraordinary regimen was but part of the daily regulation of his life, of which all the offices were carried on with the utmost regularity and exactness. He went to bed at seven, and rose at two, throughout the year. He spent in the morning three hours at his devotions, and went to the Hotel Dieu in the summer between five and six, and in the winter between six and seven, hearing mass for the most part at Notre Dame. After his return he read the holy scripture, dined at eleven, and when it was fair weather walked till two in the royal garden, where he examined the new plants, and gratified his earliest and strongest passion. For the remaining part of the day, if he had no poor to visit, he shut himself up, and read books of literature, or physic. This likewise was the time he received visits, if any were paid him, but with respect 'to visits, he often said, “Those that come to see me do me honour; and those that stay away do me a favour.” He left behind him no other property than a library, valued at nearly 20,000 crowns, a herbal, and a collection of medals. He published two papers in the Memoirs of the Academy; one, containing an hypothesis respecting the passage of the drink to the bladder, which shows him a very indifferent physiologist; and the other, a “Memoire sur les Eaux de Forges.” Among his papers were a very minute index, to Hippocrates, Greek and Latin; and a meteorological journal of more than forty years. The method of this is commodious and concise, and it exhibits, in a little room, a great train of curious observations, which would have escaped a man less uniform in his life.

, a distinguished botanist of the seventeenth century, was born at Aberdeen in 1620. Being designed for the church, he devoted himself to the study of mathematics in that university; but was diverted from such pursuits by a taste for physic, and especially botany, which, however, was interrupted, for a time at least, by his loyalty, which induced him to become a soldier in the service of king Charles. After receiving a dangerous wound in the head, in the battle near the bridge of Dee, about two miles from Aberdeen, which for a while disabled him, he retired, like many of his countrymen after the ruin of the royal cause, to Paris. Here he became tutor to a young man of some fortune, while he sedulously cultivated the studies necessary for his profession, and took the degree of doctor of physic at Angers, in 1648. Botany, however, was still his favourite pursuit; and by means of M. Robin, who had then the care of the royul garden at Paris, he acquired the patronage of Gaston, duke of Orleans, and was entrusted with the care of that prince’s garden at Blois, accompanied by a handsome salary. He held this charge from 1650 to 1660, when the duke dieil. During that period he devoted himself to the study of theoretical as well as practical botany. He began to plan a system, on the subject of which his royal patron is reported to have delighted to confer with him. He was also dispatched on several botanical expeditions, to various parts of France, for the purpose of enriching the garden. A catalogue of this garden was printed in 1653, by Abel Brunyer, physician to the duke; of which Morison afterwards published at London, in. 1669, a new and enlarged edition, accompanied by a regular and professed criticism of the works of “Caspar and John Bauhin, which Haller has blamed more than it deserves. Morison gives to these great men all the rank and honour which their eminent learning and industry deserve; and while he points out their mistakes or imperfections, he expresses a wish to have his own likewise pointed out. The” Hortus Blesensis" is disposed in alphabetical order, and accompanied by a double dedication, to king Charles II. and James duke of York, to whom its author had become known in France. On the restoration he refused the most liberal offers to settle in France, and on his arrival in London received the titles of king’s physician, and royal professor of botany, with a salary of 200l. a year, and a house, as superintendant of the royal gardens, He was also elected a fellow of the college of physicans.

In 1669 he received his doctor’s degree from the university of Oxford, and was, Dec. 16, appointed botanical professor, or more properly, keeper of the physic garden, in consequence of which he gave a course of lectures there for some years*. He had been for some time meditating a great universal work on botany, and published an excellent specimen in 1672, containing a methodical arrangement of umbelliferous plants, in folio, accompanied with palates. He takes the leading characters of these plants from the seeds, but admits under the same denomination a tribe totally different, which is surely as great an error as any he had detected in the Bauhins. In 1674, he edited at Oxford a thin 4to, from the Mss. of Boccone, describing a number of new plants from Sicily, Malta, France, and Italy, witji 52 plates, which are in general very ex­* Wood tells us that “he made his week for five weeks space, not xvithout entrance on this lecture in the medi- a considerable auditory.” He is, howcine school, Sept. 2, 1670, and the 5th ever, improperly styled professor, as of the same mouth translated himself the professorship was not founded unto the physic garden, where he read ia til Sherard’s time, who appointed Dil-. the middle of it, with a table before lenius first professor on his foundahim, ou herbs and plants, thrice a lion in 1728. pressive, and many of the plants are no where else represented. His great work, “Plantarum historia universalis Oxoniensis,” appeared in 1680, fol. comprizing five sections of herbaceous plants, with numerous plates. This was called the second part of the work, the first, consisting or trees and shrubs, having been postponed, as the most easily to be finished at any time; but it never appeared . In 1699, long after the author’s death, Jacob Bobart published a second volume, called the third part, which concludes the system, as far as regards herbaceous plants. The editor of the volume, in which there are many inaccuracies, claims for the author great honour as the inventor of a system. The outlines, however, of Morison’s system are evidently to be traced in the work of Csesalpinus, published in 1583, and in that of Conrad Gesner, and it is the opinion of sir J. E. Smith, whom we principally follow, that where he deviates from these writers, he has injured his own system. This great work could scarcely have been published at the expence of a private individual, had he not been liberally assisted by the contributions of his opulent Oxford friends, who took a patriotic interest in the performance. The original specimens, such at least as refer to Bobart’s share of the undertaking, are still preserved, and serve to remove every difficulty in case of an incomplete description or figure. Such assistance is very requisite, as to the cryptogamic part of the work, though authors have much commended those plates.

, an eminent but very unhappy artist, was born in 1764. He was the pupil of his father Henry Robert Morland, an indifferent painter of portraits, and subjects of domestic life, whom he very soon surpassed. This perhaps was at first his misfortune, for the father, finding what advantage he might reap from his talents, confined him to such work as might be readily brought to market, without endeavouring to give him any part of that education or polish which would have enabled him to appear with credit in society. The consequence of this was, that when patrons appeared they found him wayward, dissipated, and irreclaimable. Low habits and low company early got possession of his affections, and all means to recommend oeconomy, decency, and regularity, were employed in vain. At length his father was advised to send young Morland to Margate to paint small portraits; and although this scheme did not produce all the effect expected, it made him more known, and -he became independent of his father, and could now pursue his art when he pleased, and for his own emolument.

Success, however, made no difference in his conduct, which became irregular beyond all calculation and all powers of description; and while the vigour of his genius and the soundness of his judgment never forsook him in a picture, they scarcely ever accompanied him in any other employment, action, or sentiment of his life. Capable of the most regular and profound reflection on every thing connected with his art, capable even of the clearest distinctions of moral rectitude, he never appears to have dedicated a single leisure hour to sober conversation or innocent pleasantry, to any of the endearing intercourses of domestic or social life, or to any rational purpose whatever. He is generally acknowledged to have spent ali the time in which he did not paint, in drinking, and in the meanest dissipations, with persons the most eminent he could select for ignorance or brutality and a rabble of carters, hostlers, butchers’- men, smugglers, poachers, and postilions, were constantly in his company and frequently in his pay. He was found, at one time, we are told, in a lodging at Somers-town, in the following most extraordinary circumstances: his infant child, that had been dead nearly three weeks, lay in its coffin in one corner of the room an ass and foal stood munching barley -straw out of the cradle a sow and pigs were solacing in the recess of an old cupboard; and himself whistling over a beautiful picture that he was finishing at his easel, with a bottle of gin hung up on one side, and a live mouse sitting (or rather kicking) for his portrait, on the other

Of his particular merits in imitative art, it may be observed that he was the first (or at least, among our countrymen, by far the most eminent) of those who have given the true spirit and character of our great palladium the British Oak as well as the form and action of all our most familiar animals, in all their subtleties and varieties nor does he appear to have undertaken any subject that he did not treat with equal success. Among his other rare qualifications, he appears to have been thoroughly and impartially acquainted with the Complexion and bias of his own genius from his very boyhood; since, after that period, he is never found “out of his element.” No sooner had he described the scrawls and daubings of puerility, than, anticipating his future success, and conscious of his present powers, he retreated in silence to the free walks of Nature; contemplated deeply, reasoned accurately, and practised diligently. A few years brought him back to public notice, a finished painter of English scenery, nature, sentiments, and manners; an artist, who, having sagaciously prescribed the limits of his pursuits, and effected whatever, in knowledge or in practice, was essential to the purpose of filling up those limits, had now nothing more to learn. He shrunk from no difficulty, for his choice of subject left him no difficulty to encounter. He disdained nothing that was natural and picturesque, consistently with that decorum which he has inviolably observed in all his public works. He would never risk truth, but would rather give 20 guineas to have a cat stolen for him, than presume to paint one from an uncertain remembrance. He sometimes leaves the truth unfinished, but never violated. He affected none of those whimsies that are for ever setting amateurs by the ears on the subject of colouring, or light and shadow. His characters affect no graces nor anti-graces that do not belong to them. His lights and shadows are mild, moderate, and diffusive. The whole together rests easy upon the eye, and pleases a correct taste as much as it would had it surprised a vicious one more. His choice is always good; for he chuses that in which there is nothing essential to reject. He never gives us too much of a thing. The character of Morland, therefore, as a painter, appears to be remarkably equal and consistent. His pictures never make a mistake never insult by falsehood, disgust by affectation, disappoint by error, or teize by mystery. His early productions were landscapes, and he painted one or two small conversation-pieces; but his favourite subjects were animals, chiefly of the domestic kind horses, dogs, pigs, and other cattle, which he painted in a very masterly manner. At the Exhibition of the Royal Academy, in 1791, he produced a picture representing the inside of a stable, with horses and draymen, &c. larger than a half-length canvas an excellent performance, and perhaps his master-piece.

Edwafds observes, that “his low and vulgar propensities led him into society little calculated to improve either his mind or manners; that he readily stooped to an intimacy with any associates with whom he could gratify the despicable ambition of being at the head of his company.” “But,” says Fuseli, “it is surely one of the favourite paradoxes of the age, to wonder at the association of a man’s favourite objects of amusement with his favourite objects of study. It would be a disgusting idea, were it a possible one, to suppose, that the man who, with congenial satisfaction, spends the day in penciling, to a degree of deception, a sow amid her litter, could long for the recreation of elegant society in the evening: or can it be wondered at, if he, who chooses his subjects among the patrons of a pot-house or gin-shop, the inhabitants of a stable or a hovel, and the usual victims and furniture of a prison, should court the first, frequent the next, or paint and perhaps rot in a jail”

By this unhappy conduct, steadily pursued for many years, he ruined his constitution, and at length diminished his powers, and sunk himself into general contempt. He had no society, nor did he wish for any other but the lowest of those beings whose only enjoyment is gin and ribaldry, and from which he was taken, a short time before his death, by a Marshalsea writ, for a small sum of money: when removed to a place of confinement, he drank a large quantity of spirits, and was soon afterwards taken ill. The man in whose custody he was, being alarmed at his situation, applied to several of his 'friends for relief; but that relief, if it was afforded, came too late. The powers of life were exhausted, and he died, Oct. 29, 1804, before he had attained the age of forty years. His wife, whose life had been like his own, died a day or two after him.

a man of very considerable celebrity in his day, but whose history has been almost totally neglected where we might have expected an account of him as a machinist, was the son of the rev. Thomas Morland, rector of Sulhamstead in Berkshire, and was born about 1625, as we learn from one of his works, dated 1695, in which he says he had then passed the seventieth year of his age. He was educated at Winchester school, whence he was removed to Cambridge, and, according to Cole, to Magdalen college. He says himself, that, after passing nine or ten years at the university, he was solicited by some friends to take orders; but, not thinking himself “fitly qualified,” he devoted his time to the study of mathematics, which appears, in one shape or other, to have been his first and last pursuit, a few years only of the interval being employed on political affairs. That he was thought qualified for such, appears by his being sent, in 1653, with Whitelock and a retinue of other gentlemen, on the famous embassy to the queen of Sweden, the purpose of which was to conclude an offensive and defensive alliance with that princess. Of their success an ample account may be seen in Whitelocke’s “Journal,” published in 1772 by Dr. Morton, 2 vols. 4to. In this work we are told that few of the ambassador’s train were rewarded as they expected. Morland, however, according to his own account, was recommended, on his return in 1654, as an assistant to secretary Thurloe; and in a few months after was sent by Cromwell to the duke of Savoy on that business which first brought him into public notice, and has principally conveyed his name to posterity.

In the month of May, 1655, an account arrived in England of the barbarous cruelties inflicted on the protestants, or Waldenses, by the duke of Savoy; and, as Morland informs us, it no sooner came to the ears of Cromwell, than he “arose like a lion out of his place,” and by the most pathetic appeals to the protestant princes on the Continent endeavoured to excite their pity and interference. Milton was at this time Cromwell’s Latin secretary, and drew up these remonstrances and letters with uncommon spirit and elegance. Never indeed did Cromwell or his secretary appear in a more becoming light, as politicians. After appointing a day of fasting and prayer to mark the impression these massacres had made upon the public mind, Cromwell issued an account of the state and sufferings of the Waldenses, and solicited the contributions of the benevolent towards their immediate support. This he began with a subscription from himself of 2000l.; and in a very short time, the city of London taking the lead, the sum of 3l,241l. was collected, equivalent, if we consider the difference in the value of money, to the highest sum ever subscribed for any charitable purpose in our own days. But that more effectual measures might accompany this testimony of good will, Mr. Morland received immediate orders to set off with a message from the English government to the duke of Savoy, beseeching him to recall his murderous edicts, and restore his subjects to their homes and liberties; for it appears that all who had escaped being massacred had fled to the mountains, whence they sent agents to Cromwell for relief. This business Mr. Morland conducted with great address; and although he did not finally prevail in securing their freedom and the exercise of their religion to these poor people, a stop at least was put to the more outrageous acts of persecution. Mr. Morland remained for some time at Geneva, as the English resident, to manage the affairs of the Waldenses with other foreign ministers, to distribute the money contributed by the English nation, and also to prepare minutes, and to procure records, vouchers, and attestations, from which he might compile a correct history of the Waldenses. This was a suggestion of Thurloe’s.

On his return in 1658 he received the thanks of a select committee appointed by Cromwell to inspect into his transactions; and a minute, highly in his praise, was entered on the council books. Having arranged all his papers and vouchers, he published in the same year, in one volume folio, “The History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont; containing a most exact geographical description of the place, and a faithful account of the doctrine, life, and persecutions of the ancient inhabitants. Together with a most naked and punctual relation of the late bloody Massacre, 1655. And a narrative of all the following transactions, to the year of our Lord 1658. All which are justified, partly by divers ancient manuscripts written many hundred years before Calvin or Luther, and partly by the most authentic attestations: the true originals of the greatest part whereof are to be seen in their proper languages by all the curious, in the Public Library of the famous University of Cambridge.” These very interesting documents of ecclesiastical history are illustrated, according to the custom of the times, by a set of prints of the sufferings of the poor people; which, says Warton, “operated like Fox’s Book of Martyrs*.” Prefixed is a fine portrait of Morland, engraved by Lombart, from Lely; and an epistle dedicatory to Cromwell, in a higher strain of compliment than agrees with Morland’s subsequent opinion of the usurper. In “Hollis’s Memoirs” we are told that Morland afterwards withdrew this dedication from as many copies of his book as he could see. This may be true; but of many copies which we have seen in libraries and shops, we have never met with one without it.

Morland’s own sentiments we shall copy nearly literally: he concludes his account of the plot, with saying, that the horror of this and such like designs, to support an usurped government, and “fearing to have the king’s blood laid another day, inforo divino, to his charge (there being no person but myself, and the contrivers, and the chief of those who were to act it, privy to it), and calling to remembrance Hushai’s behaviour towards Absalom, which I found not at all blamed in holy writ (and yet his was a larger step than mine, I having never taken any kind of oath, or made any formal promise that I ever remember to any of those governments). As likewise seriously reflecting upon those oaths of supremacy and allegiance, which I had taken during the reign of Charles I. at Winchester college, I took at last a firm resolution, to do my native prince and the rightful heir of the crown, all the service that lay in my power.” To this he adds, that avarice could not be his object, as he was at this time living in greater

These promises, Morland tells us, were not fulfilled, and he supposes that the chancellor Hyde was his enemy, for what reason is not known; as in his History, Hyde seems to do justice to Morland’s discoveries. Morland, however, was created a baronet in 1660, and is described as of Sulhamstead Bannister, although it does not appear very clearly whether he was possessed of the manor, or of any considerable property in the parish. He was also made a gentleman of the privy- chamber but this, he says, was rather expensive than profitable, as he was obliged to spend 450l. in two days on the coronation. He got, indeed, a pension of 500l. on the post-office, but some embarassments in his affairs obliged him to sell it; and after this he returned to his mathematical studies, and endeavoured by various experiments, and the construction of machines, to make up for the loss of that more certain provision he had expected from the new government.

Even in this, however, he encountered many difficulties, owing to the expensive nature of some of his experiments on hydrostatics, or hydraulics. These experiments, he says, pleased the king’s fancy; but when he had spent 500l. or [OQOl. upon them, he received sometimes but half and sometimes only a third of what he had expended; but it would appear, that at length he got some pensions, of what value he does not say, which he enjoyed in 1689, the

although the name be different from divorced from one in 168$. in it, dated March 5, 1695. He died Jan. 1696, probably in a weak condition, as he was unable to sign the will, by which he disinherited his only son, or the same name, who was the second and last baronet of the family, and bequeathed his property to Mrs. Zenobia Hough. According to the representation he made of his affairs to archbishop Tenison, this could not have been much. The reason of his disinheriting his son, appears from a passage in his letter to the archbishop, in which he is confessing the sins of iiis past life. “I have been, in my youthful days, very undutiful to my parents, for which God has given me a son, altogether void of filial respect or natural affection.” The errors of sir Samuel’s life were probably considerable, as he speaks of having* been at one time excommunicated, but some of his writings shew that he was a sincere penitent, particularly his “Urim of Conscience,” which he published a little before his death, written, as the titlfc says, “in blindness and retirement.” It consists of a rhapsody of meditations on the fall of man, the wonderful structure and powers of the human body, with allusions to his machines, cautions to those who are in quest of the perpetual motion, or the philosopher’s stone, and pious advice to men of all ranks and professions.

As a machinist, however, sir Samuel Morland deserves more respect than has hitherto been paid to him. Granger refers to the account of his life in a letter to archbishop Tenison, but had never seen it, else he could not have divided him into two persons, sir Samuel, who wrote the history of the churches of Piedmont, and a son who was master of mechanics to Charles II. yet in this he is followed in our Cyclopædias. They allow, however, that he invented the speaking-trumpet, although Kircher laid claim to it; the fire engine a capstan, to heave up anchors; and two arithmetical machines, of which he published a description, under the title of “The description and use of two Arithmetic Instruments together with a short Treatise, explaining the ordinary operations of Arithmetic, &c. presented to his most excellent majesty, Charles II. by S. Morland, in 1662.” This work, which is exceedingly rare, but of which there is a copy in the Bodleian, which bears date, 1673, 8vo, is illustrated with twelve plates, in which the different parts of the machine are exhibited; and whence it appears that the four fundamental rules in arithmetic are very readily worked, and, to use the author’s own words, “without charging the memory, disturbing the mind, or exposing the operations to any uncertainty.” That these machines were at the time brought into practice, there seems no reason to doubt, as by an advertisement prefixed to the work, it appears that they were manufactured for sale by Humphry Adanson, who lived with Jonas Moore, esq. in the Tower of London.

But there appears very good reason to give him the merit of an invention of much greater importance, that of the steam-engine; a contrivance which, assisted by modern improvements, is now performing what a century ago would have seemed miraculous or impossible. Yet it appears that he has been hitherto entirely unknown to the world at large. In 1699, captain Savery obtained a paten for this invention; aud he has consequently occupied al the honour of the discovery. But in that noble assemblage of Mss. the Harleian collection, now in the British Museum, the strongest testimony appears that the real inventor was Samuel Morland. That the first hint of the idnd was thrown out by the marquis of Worcester, in his “Century of Inventions,” is allowed; but obscurely, like the rest of his hints. But Morland wrote a book upon the subject; in which he not only shewed the practicability of the plan, but went so far as to calculate the power of different cylinders. This book is now extant in manuscript, in the above collection. It was presented to the French king in 1683, at which time experiments were actually shewn at St. Germain’s. The author dates his invention in 1682; consequently seventeen years prior to Savery’s patent. It seems, however, to have remained obscure both in France and England, till 1699, when Savery, who probably knew more of Morland’s invention than he owned, obtained a patent; and in the very same year, M. Amontons proposed something similar to the French academy, probably as his own.

This book, which contains only thirty-four pages, is written in elegant and ornamented characters; but after this our author printed a book at Paris, with partly the same title, as far as “a la balance” after which it runs thus, “par le moyen d‘un nouveau piston, et corps de pompe, et d’un nouveau movement cyclo-elliptique, &c. avec huit problemes de rnechanique proposez aux plus babiles etaux plus s^avans du siecle, pour le bien public,” 4to. In the dedication to the king of France, he says, that as his majesty was pleased with the models and ocular demonstrations he had the honour to exhibit at St. Germains, he thought himself obliged to present this book as a tribute due to so great a monarch. He states that it contains an. abridged account of the best experiments he had made for the last thirty years respecting the raising of water, with figures, in profile and perspective, calculated to throw light on the mysteries of hydrostatics. It begins with a perpetual almanack, shewing the day of the month or week for the time past, present, and to come, and has various mathematical problems, tables, &c. but nothing respecting the action of fire. In the Phil. Trans, however, vol. IX. (1674), is a paper by him on a new method of raising water, which is not there explained, but was probably effected by some application of stearn similar to that which is described by Bradley in his book on gardening, p. 316. It appears that here also he was followed by Mr. Savery, to whom Bradley attributes the apparatus which he-describes, and illustrates by a plate. It contains evidently the principles of the steam-engine.

How far all this may be conclusive in sir Samuel Morland’s favour, as the inventor of the steam-engine, we must leave to be determined by those who have made the history of inventions their study. It only remains that we notice the titles of such of his works as have not been mentioned already. These are, 1. “The Count of Pagan’s Method of delineating all manner of Fortifications from the exterior Polygon, reduced to English measure, and converted into Hercotectonick lines,” Lond. 1672. 2. te A new and most useful Instrument for Addition and Subtraction, &c. with a perpetual Almanack,“ibid. 1672, 8vo. This appears to have preceded his description of the two arithmetical instruments mentioned above. 3.” The Doctrine of Interest, both simple and compound, explained,“&c. ibid. 1679, 8vo. 4.” Description of the Tuba Stentorophonica,“or speaking trumpet, ibid. 1671, folio. 5.” Hydrostatics, or Instructions concerning Water-works," 1697, 12mo. This appears to have been a posthumous work. By one of his letters, dated July 28, 1688, it appears that he had an intention of publishing the first six books of Euclid, for the use of public schools.

We learn from Mr. Lysons, that in 1675, sir Samuel Morland obtained a lease of Vauxhall house (now a distillery), made it his residence, and considerably improved the premises, every part of which shewed the invention of the owner; the side-table in the dining-room was supplied with a large fountain, and the glasses stood under little streams of water. His coach had a moveable kitchen, with clockwork machinery, with which he could make soup, broil steaks, or roast a joint of meat. About 1684 he purchased a house at Hammersmith, near the water-side; and all the letters we have seen in the Lambeth library or Museum, are dated from this place. He gave a pump and well, adjoining to his house, for the use of the public, which benefaction was thus recorded upon a tablet fixed in the wall “Sir Samuel Morland’s well, the use of which he freely gives to all persons hoping that none who shall come after him, will adventure to incur God’s displeasure by denying a cup of cold water (provided at another’s cost and not their own) to either neighbour, stranger, passenger, or poor thirsty beggar. July 8, 1695.” This pump has been removed; but the stone tablet is preserved in tha garden belonging to the house, which is now an academy, and known by the name of Walbrough-house, in the tenure of Messrs. Aiken and Bathie.

, a learned English bishop, first of Worcester and afterwards of Winchester, was sou of Francis Morley, esq. by a sister of sir John Denham, one of the barons of the Exchequer, and born in Cheapside, London, Feb. 27, 1597. He lost his parents when very young, and also his patrimony, by his father being engaged for other people’s debts. However, at fourteen, he was elected a king’s scholar at Westminster-school, and became a student of Christ-church, Oxford, in 1615; where he took the first degree in arts in 1618, and that of M. A. in 1621. After a residence of seven years in this college, he was invited to be chaplain to Robert earl of Carnarvon and his lady, with whom he lived till 1640, without seeking any preferment in the church. At the end of that time, and in his forty-third year, he was presented to the rectory of Hartfield in Sussex, which being a sinecure, he exchanged for the rectory of Mildenhall in Wiltshire; but, before this exchange, Charles I. to whom he was chaplain in ordinary, had given him a canonry of Christ-church, Oxford, in 1641, the only preferment he ever desired; and of which he gave the first year’s profit to his majesty, towards the charge of the war, then begun. In 1642 he took his degree of D. D. and preached one of the first solemn sermons before the House of Commons; but so little to their liking, that he was not commanded to print it, as all the preachers had been. Yet he was nominated one or the assembly of divines, but never appeared among them, as he preferred to remain with the king, and promote his majesty’s interest. Among other services the king employed him to engage the university of Oxford not to submit to the parliamentary visitation; and such was his success, that the convocation had the spirit to pass an act for that purpose, with only one dissenting voice, although they were then under the power of the enemy. Afterwards he was appointed by the university, with other assistants named by himself, to negociate the surrender of the Oxford garrison to the parliamentary forces, which he managed with great address. Such a decided part, however, could not fail to render him obnoxious; and accordingly in 1647, the committee for reforming the university voted his cauonry vacant. He was offered at the same time to hold it and what else he had, if he would give his word not to appear openly against them and their proceedings; but he preferred suffering with his celebrated colleagues Fell, Sanderson, Hammond, &c. Accordingly in 1648 he was deprived of all his preferments, and imprisoned for some little time. Some months before, he ha been permitted to attend upon the king at Newmarket, a one of his chaplains, and he was one of the divines who as sisted the king at the treaty of Newport in the Isle of Wight. In March 1648-9, he prepared the brave lord Capel for death, and accompanied him to the scaffold on Tower-hill. In 1649 he left England, and waited upon king Charles II. at the Hague, who received him very graciously, and carried him first into France, and afterwards to Breda, with him. But, the king not being permitted to take his own divines with him, when he set out upon his expedition to Scotland, in June 1650, Morley withdrew to the Hague; and, after a short stay there, went and lived with his friend Dr. John Earle at Antwerp, in the house of sir Charles Cotterel. After they had thus continued about a year together, sir Charles being invited to be steward to the queen of Bohemia, and Dr. Earle to attend upon James duke of York in France, Morley then removed into the family of the lady Frances Hyde, wife of sir Edward Hyde, in the same city of Antwerp; and during his residence there, which was three or four years, he read the service of the Church of England twice every day, catechised once a week, and administered the communion once a month, to all the English in that city who would attend; as he did afterwards at Breda, for four years together, in the same family. But, betwixt his going from Antwerp and his coming to Breda, he officiated at the Hague about two years, as chaplain to the queen of Bohemia, without expecting or receiving any reward. As he had been happy at home in the acquaintance and friendship of many eminent men, such as lord Falkland, sir Edward Hyde, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Sanderson, Mr. Chillingworth, Dr. Sheldon, Waller, with whom he had resided at Beaconsfield, &c. so he was also abroad, in that of Bochart, Salmasius, Daniel Heinsius, Rivet, &c.

, lord of Plessis Marly, an illustrious French protestunt, privy-counsellor of Henry IV. and governor of Saumur, was born at Buhi or Bishuy, in the French Vexin, in 1549. He was descended from an ancient and noble family, which had, in course of time, divided itself into several brandies, and produced many great aiKi eminent men. His father, James de Morn ay, had done great services to the royal family in the wars; but in the time of peace led a very retired life, and was much attacnecl to the religion of his country He designed Philip for the church, as he was a younger son, with a view to succeed his uncle Bertin de Mornay, who was dean of Beauvais and abbe of Saumur, and who had promised to resign those preferments to him; but this plan was rendered abortive by the death of the uncle. In the mean time his mother, who was the daughter of Charles du Bee Cre^pin, vice-admiral of France, and chamberlain to Francis II. was secretly a protestant, and had taken care to inspire her son insensibly with her own principles. His father died when he was not more than ten years of age; and his mother, making open profession of the protestant religion in 1561, set up a lecture in her own house, xvhich confirmed hirn in it. His literary education was all the while carrying on with the utmost care and circumspection he had masters provided for him in all languages and sciences and the progress he made in all was what might be expected from his very uncommon parts and application.

In 1567, he was obliged to retire from Paris, where he was pursuing his studies, on account of the commotions which were breaking out, and soon after took up arms, and served a campaign or two. But, having the misfortune to break one of his legs, he quitted the profession of a soldier, and began to entertain thoughts of travelling into foreign countries, for the improvement of his mind, and for the sake of some baths, which he hoped would restore to him the free use of his leg. He arrived at Geneva in 1568, not without the greatest danger and peril to himself; for, all places were so full of soldiers, and the passages so guarded, that it was difficult for one of his religion to pass with safety. He made but a short stay at Geneva, on account of the plague which was there; but, taking his way through Switzerland, went to Heidelberg in Germany. Here he became acquainted with Tremellius, and other learned men, and entered upon the study of the civil law. In 1569 he went to Francfort, where he was affectionately received by the celebrated Languet, who gave him instructions for his future travels, and recommendatory letters to several great men. He stayed some time afterwards at Padua, for the farther prosecution of the study of civil law, and then proceeded to Venice. He had a great desire to make the tour of the East; but, as the Venetians and Turks were then at war about the Isle of Cyprus, it was impossible for him to pass the coasts of Istria and Dalmatia with any degree of safety. From Venice, in 1571, he went to Rome, where his religion had like to have brought him into danger. He had experienced something of this sort at Venice, owing to the zeal of an officer of the inquisition, but he escaped in both places, and from Rome he returned to Venice, from Venice to Vienna; and thence, after taking a round through Hungary, Bohemia, Misnia, Saxony, Hesse, Franconia, to Francfort, where he arrived in Sept. 1551. Though he was very young when he set out upon his travels, yet he never suffered the man of pleasure to get the better of the philosopher; but made that profitable use of them, which a wise man will always make. He examined every thing that was curious in every place; and, that nothing might escape him, attentively perused not only the general history of the countries, but also the histories of each particular town and province through which he passed. Nor was he only attentive to their antiquities, but remarked also whatever was worth notice in the manners, customs, policy, and constitution, of each.

In 1596 he published a piece entitled “The just Procedures of those of the Reformed Religion;” in which he removes the imputation of the present troubles and dissentions from the protestants, and throws the blame on those who injuriously denied them that liberty, which their great services had deserved. In 1598 he published his treatise “upon the Eucharist;” which occasioned the conference at Fontainbleau in 1600, between Du Perron, then bishop of Evreux, afterwards cardinal, and M. du Plessis; and raised his reputation and credit among the protestants to so great a height, that he was called by man)* “the Protestant Pope.” In 1607 he published a work entitled “The Mystery of Iniquity, or the History of the Papacy;” which was written, as most of his other works were, first in French, and then translated into Latin. Here he shews by what gradual progress the popes have risen to that ecclesiastical tyranny, which was foretold by the apostles; and what opposition from time to time all nations have given them. This seems to have been a work of prodigious labour; yet it is said, that he was not above nine months in composing it. About this time, also, he published “An Exhortation to the Jews concerning the Messiah,” in which he applies a great deal of Hebrew learning very judiciously; and for this he was complimented by the elder Buxtorf. There are several other lesser pieces of his writing; but his capital work, and for which he has been most distinguished, is his book “Upon the Truth of the Christian Religion;” in which he employs the weapons of reason and learning with great force and skill against Atheists, Epicureans, Heathens, Jews, Mahometans, and other Infidels, as he tells us in his title. This book was dedicated to Henry IV. while he was king of Navarre only, in 1582; and, the year after, was translated by himself into Latin. “As a Frenchman,” says he, in his preface tp the reader, “I have endeavoured to serve my own country first; and, as a Christian, the universal kingdom of Christ next.” Baillet observes, with justness, that “the Protestants of France had great reason to be proud of having such a man as Mornay du Plessis of their party; a gentleman, who, besides the nobleness of his birth, was distinguished by many fine qualities both natural and acquired.”

He had hitherto been a member of the society of artists of Great Britain, who exhibited at the room now called the Lyceum in the Strand, but, in the year 1779, without expectation or solicitation, he was, by the especial grant of his majesty, created a royal academician, but did not live to see the diploma for, on the 4th of February 1779, deeply regretted by all who had the honour and happiness of his friendship, after an illness of only twelve days, he died at his house in Norfolk-street. His fame has been thought to rest on his picture of king John granting Magna Charta to the Barons, Battle of Agincourt, Vortigern and Rowena, the Incantation, the Series of the Progress of Vice, and the Sir Arthegull from' Spenser. His favourite subjects were of the grotesque or horrible kind; incantations, monsters, or representations of banditti and soldiers in violent actions. The attempts at real character which he made (and of which he has left us etchings) from some of Shakspeare’s most celebrated heroes, are weak and untrue; they leave us nothing to regret in his not having indulged himself in more of the like kind, except for the freedom, with which they are executed. They were very highly extolled in his time, but the improvement in art and taste which the country has since experienced, has given us more accurate ideas of art, and more just discrimination between character and caricature.

Dr. Morton published in 1759 an improved edition of Dr. Barnard’s engraved “Table of Alphabets,” and Bulstrode Whitlock’s “Journal of the Swedish Embassy in 1653 and 1654,” 1772, 2 vols. 4to. He communicated to the Royal Society a paper on muscular motion, and another on the supposed connexion between the hieroglyphic writing of Egypt and the modern Chinese character; both of which were published in the Philosophical Transactions, vols. XLVII. and LIX. This last communication originated from an inquiry addressed to the Jesuits at Pekin, relative to certain characters on a bust discovered by Mr. Needham at Turin, whose conjectures concerning them were controverted by Desguignes, Bartoli, Winkleman, and Wortley Montague. The Jesuits, assisted by the Chinese literati, decided that the characters in question, though four or five have a sensible resemblance to as many Chinese ones, are not genuine Chinese characters, having no connected sense nor proper resemblance to any of the different forms of writing, and that the whole inscription had nothing Chinese in the face of it; but, in order to promote discoveries, they sent an actual collation of the Egyptian with the Chinese hieroglyphics, engraved on twenty-six plates. In 1768 Dr. Morton was appointed, jointly with Mr. Farley, to superintend the publication of the Domesday Book, but soon relinquished the task. At this time it was proposed to have been carried into execution by types; and Mr. Gough says, Dr. Morton had 500l. for doing little or nothing, and nearly 200l. more for types that were of no use.

On this account, however, he was considered in no very favourable light by the protector, afterwards Richard III. who had no hopes of alluring him to his interests. When bishop Morton and others were assembled in the Tower on June 13, 1483, to consult about the coronation of Edward V. the protector came among them, and after some general discourse turned to the bishop of Ely, and said, “My lord, you have very good strawberries in your garden at Holborn, I require you let me have a mess of them.” “Gladly, my lord,” the bishop answered; “I wish I had some better thing as ready to your pleasure as that.” Yet, notwithstanding this apparent civility, Morton, with archbishop Rotheram, lord Stanley, and others, were the same day taken into custody, as known enemies to the measures then in agitation. As soon as this was known, the university of Oxford, to which Morton had been a benefactor, sent a petition in Latin to Richard, pleading for his liberty; whether with effect does not appear; but it is certain that for this or some other reason he was soon released from prison, and given in ward to the duke of Buckingham, then a warm partizan of Richard, but completely brought over to the other side by conversation with the bishop. He was sent to th.e duke’s castle at Brecknock, whence he escaped to the isle of Ely, and soon after, disguising himself, went to the Continent to Henry earl of Richmond; and it was agreed among the friends of the late king’s family and the well-wishers to the peace and harmony of the kingdom, that king Edward’s eldest daughter, Elizabeth, should be pnited to Henry by marriage; and thus, by joining the interests of the white and red rose in one, a coalition might be formed between the jarring parties of York and Lancaster. All this is said to have been the plan recommended by Morton, and he lived to see it happily accomplished. It is indeed that transactiou of his life which gives him a very honourable place in English history. Horace Walpole only, in his “Historic Doubts,” has obliquely accused him. of violating his allegiance to Richard III.; but to Richard III. no allegiance was either due, or paid. As Morton was imprisoned before Richard was crowned, and never set at liberty until he made his escape, it seems highly probable that no oath of allegiance was ever tendered to him. by the usurper.

Among the public-spirited schemes which his liberality induced him to execute, was the famous cut or drain from Peterborough to Wisbeche, a track of upwards of twelve miles across a fenny country, which proved of great benefit to his diocese and to the public, and was completed entirely at his expence. This still is known by the name of Morton’s Leame, As soon as Henry VII. was seated on the throne, after the death of Richard III. he sent for Morton, who was still abroad, and immediately on his arrival made him one of his privy council; and on the death of cardinal Bourchier, in 1486, he was, probably on the king’s recommendation, elected by the prior and convent of Canterbury to be archbishop. In the mean time the king granted him. the whole profits of the see, until the pope’s confirmation could be obtained, and the disposal of all the preferments annexed to it; and having received the pope’s bull, dated Oct. 6, 1436, he was, by the king, admitted to the temporalities on Dec. 6 following In August 1487 he was constituted lord chancellor of England, which office he retained to his death. In a ms. in the British Museum, (Mss. Harl. 6100. fol. 54.) he is said to have been made chancellor in 1485, which was the first year of Henry VII.; and we have already mentioned, from another authority, that he filled that office while bishop of Ely. In 1493 he was creiited a cardinal by pope Alexander VI. by the title of St. Anastasia. In Hall’s Chronicle this promotion is placed in 1489, which is a mistake.

Leland informs us, that, while archbishop, he employed his fortune in building and repairing his houses at Canterbury, Lambeth, Maidstone, Allington park, and Charing; and at Ford he almost built the whole house. At Oxford, too, it is said that he repaired the canon- law school, completed the building of the divinity school, and the rebuilding of St. Mary’s church; in all which places his arms were formerly to be seen, as they are at this day on the stone tower of Wisbeche church, five or six times, either because he built it, which is not improbable, or because he was a benefactor to the tower which thus commemorated his services. In February 1494 he was elected chancellor of the university of Oxford; in which year Fuller says he greatly promoted the re-building of Rochester bridge. One of the last acts of his life was to procure the canonization of Anselm archbishop of Canterbury; and he also endeavoured, but without effect, to procure the same honour for his old master Henry VI. He died, according to the Canterbury obituary, Tuesday 16 kal. Oct.; but, according to the register of Ely, Sept. 15, 1500, and in his ninetieth year. As he had provided for his relations in his life-time, he bequeathed all his remaining wealth to pious uses, or to be distributed among such of his servants as had not yet tasted of his bounty. He founded a chauntry at Bere, his native place, with a chaplain, who was to officiate for twenty years; and for th'e same space of time he bequeathed exhibitions for poor scholars at both the universities, twenty for Oxford and ten for Cambridge. He was interred in Canterbury cathedral, where a heavy but sumptuous monument was erected to his memory. His remains were afterwards disturbed by the falling-in of the pavement upon his coffin, and some of them, wrapt up in cerecloths, were carried away; and the head being almost the only part remaining, it was begged of archbishop Sheldon in 1670, by Ralph Sheldon of Beolie in Worcestershire, esq. who, after preserving it with great reverence till his death, bequeathed it to his niece, Mrs. Frances Sheldon, one of the maids of honour to Catherine of Portugal, wife to king Charles II. What became of this relic afterwards is not known.

While Morton sat in the see of Coventry and Lichfield, which was above fourteen years, he educated, ordained, and presented to a living, a youth of excellent talents and memory, who was born blind . He also acquired no little reputation by detecting the imposture of the famous boy of Bilson in Staffordshire, who pretended to be possessed with a devil; but who, in reality, was only suborned by some Romish priests, to assume the appearance of possession, according to the common notions of it, for the sake of promoting their own private purposes. In 1632, he was translated to the bishopric of Durham, which he held with great reputation till the opening of the Long-parliament, when he met with great insults from the common people, and was once in extreme hazard of his life at Westminster, some crying, “Pirll him out of his coach” others, “Nay, he is a good man” others, “But for all that he is a bishop.” He used often to say that he believed he should not have escaped alive, if a ringleader among the rabble had not cried out, “let him go and hang himself.” He was then committed to the custody of the usher of the black rod; and, as Whitlocke tells us, “April 1645, was brought before the Commons for christening a child in the old way, and signing it with the sign of the cross, contrary to the directory; and, because he refused to deliver up the seal of the county-palatine of Durham, he was committed to the Tower.” Here he continued six months, and then returned to his lodgings at Durham-house; the parliament, upon the dissolution of the bishoprics, voted him an annuity. Whitlocke informs us, that, in May 1649, an ordinance passed for 800l. per annum to bishop Morton; but Barwick observes, that, while he^vas able to subsist without it, he never troubled himself with looking after it; and, at last, when he had no alternative but to claim this, or be burthcnsome to his friends, he determined upon the former, and procured a copy of the vote, but found it to contain no more than that such a sum should be paid, but no mention either by whom or whence. And before he could obtain an explanation of the order to make the pension payable out of the revenues of his own bishopric, all the lands and revenues of it were sold or divided among members of parliament themselves. Only by the importunity of his friends he procured an order to have a thousand pounds out of their treasury at Goldsmitbs’-hall, with which he paid his debts, and purchased to himself an annuity of 200l. per annum, during life; which annuity was

out of the Old and New Testament, he over to him. He died at about twentycotnmitted them perfectly to memory, six years of a$e, iipon his uncle’s twice reading them granted at first by the lady Saville, in the minority of her son sir George, and afterwards confirmed by himself when he came to be of age. At last he was obliged to quit Durham-yard, by the soldiers who came to garrison it, a little before the death of Charles I.; and then went to Exeter-house in the Strand, at the invitation of the earl of Rutland, where he continued but a short time. After several removals, he took up his abode with sir Henry Yelverton, at Easton Mauduit in Northamptonshire, where he died Sept. 22, 1659, in his ninety-fifth year. His funeral sermon was preached by Dr. John Barwick, afterwards dean of St. Paul’s, and printed at London, in 1660, under this title, “Ιερονικησ: or, The Fight, Victory, and Triumph, of St. Paul, accommodated to the Right Rev. Father in God, Thomas, late Lord Bishop of Duresme.”

Bishop Morton was of low stature, but of an excellent constitution, which he preserved to the last. Dr. Barwick represents him as a man of extensive learning, great piety, hospitality, and charity, and of great temperance and moderation in matters of controversy. He carried on an extensive correspondence with the learned men of his time, and was himself distinguished for his liberal patronage of such. He was particularly the friend and patron of the celebrated Dr. Donne. On one occasion he gave Donne a sum of money, saying, “Here Mr. Donne, take this, gold is restorative:” Donne replied, “Sir, I doubt I shall never restore it back again.” Bishop Morton! s greatest blemish seems to have been his acceding to, or, in truth, in some measure drawing up, king James’s declaration, usually called the "Book of Sports/' allowing and enjoining public amusements on Sunday, by way of counteracting the endeavours of the popish party, who countenanced such amusements in order to draw the people from the church, By this declaration, the appearing at church was made a qualification for the sports, an absurdity so gross, as to be equalled only by the injustice of compelling clergymen to proclaim it in the pulpit. The readers will find this curious law in the note*, and we are sorry to add, on the

* 1. " That all unlawful games coming: to church or divine service,

tpaen or women, as abstained from though conformists in religion, are not uthority of Dr. Barwick, that all the articles but one, which he thinks was the first, were originally drawn up by bishop Morton.

The works of this prelate were, 1. “Apologia Catholica,” parti. Lond. 1605, 4to, dedicated to Dr. Richard Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury. 2. “An exact Discovery of Romish Doctrine in the case of Conspiracy and Rebellion or Romish Positions and Practices,” &c. Lond. 1605, 4to, occasioned by the discovery of the gunpowdertreason-plot. 3. “Apologia Catholica,” part II. Lond. 1606, 4to. 4. “A full Satisfaction concerning a double Romish Iniquitie, hainous Rebellion, and more than heathenish Æquivocation containing three parts. The two former belong to the Reply upon the Moderate Answer: the first for confirmation of the discovery in these two points, treason and equivocation; the second is a justification of protestants touching the same points. The third part is a large discourse confuting the reasons and grounds of other priests, both in the case of rebellion and ^equivocation: published by authoritie,” Lond. 1606, 4to. Father Robert Parsons, the Jesuit, undertook to vindicate his friend, the writer of the “Moderate Answer:” in a book published under the name of P. R. and entitled “ATreatise, tending to Mitigation towards Catholic subjects in England, against Tho. Morton,” 1607, 4to. To this our author returned an answer, entitled, 5. “A Preamble unto an Incounter with, P. R. the author of the deceitful Treatise of Mitigation,” Lond. 1608, 4to. To this book and some others of our

pons should be carried or used in the declaration (taking it as it is still, and said times of recreation." Dr. Bar- ever was restrained by these limitawick, who shews as much want of tions and conditions), are grounded up.

restrictions, and compare them with is applied, or misapplied to the Lord’s

the temper of the people ia those parts Day“author, father Parsons having made a reply under the title of” A sober Reckoning with Mr. Tho. Morton,“printed in 160y, 4to; the latter wrote, 6.” The Encounter against Mr. Parsons,“Lond. 1609, 4to. 7.” An Answer to the scandalous Exceptions of Theophiltis Higgons,“London, 1609, 4to. 8.” A Catholike Appeale for Protestants out of the Confessions of the Romane Doctors, particularly answering the misnamed Catholike Apologie for the Romane Faith out of the Protestants, manifesting the antiquitie of our Religion, and satisfying all scrupulous objections, which have been urged against it,“Lond, 1610, fol. He was engaged in writing this work by archbishop Bancroft, as he observes in his dedication; and Dr. Thomas James took the pains to examine some of his quotations in the Bodleian library. It has never yet been answered. 9.” A Defence of the Innocencie of the three Ceremonies of the Church of England, viz. the Surplice, Crosse after Baptisme, and Kneeling at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament. Divided into two parts. In the former whereof the generall arguments urged by the nonconformists, and in the latter part their particular accusations against these three ceremonies, are severally answered and refuted. Published by authority.“Second edit. London, 1619, in 4to. This was attacked by an anonymous author, generally supposed to be Mr. William Ames; which occasioned a Defence of it, written by Dr. John Burges of Sutton Colefield in Warwickshire, and printed at London in 1631, 4to, under the title of” An Answer to a Pamphlet entitled A Reply to Dr. Morton’s general Defence of three innocent Ceremonies.“10.” Causa Regia,“London, 1620, 4to, written against cardinal Be) tannin’s book,” De Officio Principis Christiani.“11.” The Grand Imposture of the now Church of Rome, concerning this Article of their Creed, The holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.“The second edition enlarged was printed at London in 1628, 4to. There was an answer published to this, under the name of J. S. and entitled” Anti-Mortonns.“12.” Of the Institution of the Sacrament, &c. by some called the Mass,“&c. Lond. 1631, reprinted with additions in 1635, folio. As some strictures were published on the first edition by a Romish author, under the name of an English baron, Dr. Morton replied in, 13.” A Discharge of five Imputations of Mis- allegations charged upon the bishop of Duresme by an English baron,“London, 1633, 8vo. 14.” Antidotum adversus Ecclesiae Romans de Merito ex: Condigno Venenum,“Cambridge, 1637, 4to. 15.” Replica sive Refutatio Confutationis C. R.“Lond. 1638, 4to. This is an answer to a piece published by C. R. who was supposed to be the bishop of Chakedon, against the first part of our author’s Catholic Apology. 16. A Sermon preached before the king at Newcastle, upon Rom. xiii. 1. Lond. 1639, 4to. 17.” De Eucharistia Controversiae Decisio,“Cambridge, 1640, 4to. 18.” A Sermon on the Resurrection,“preached at the Spittle in London April 26. Lond. 1641, 8vo. 1.9. A Sermon preached at St. Paul’s June 19, 1642, upon 1 Cor. xi. 16. and entitled” The Presentment of a Schismatic.!*,“” Lond. 1642, 4to. 20. “Confessions and Proofs of Protestant Divines,” &c. Oxford, 1644, 4to, published without his name or knowledge of it, and written in defence of episcopal government, and sent to archbishop Usher, who committed it to the press with some other excellent collections of his own upon the same subject. 21. “Ezekiel’s Wheels,” &c. Lond. 1653, in 8vo. The subject of this book is meditations upon God’s Providence. Besides these printed works, he left a considerable number of manuscripts, “some in my custody,” says Dr. Barwick, “which 1 found by him at his death; and some (that I hear of) in the hands of others: all of them once intended for the press, whereof some have lost their first perfection by the carelessness and negligence of some that should have kept them others want his last hand and eye to perfect them and others only a seasonable time to publish them. And he might and would have left many more, considering how vigorous his parts were even in his extreme old age, if the iniquity of the times had not deprived him of most of his notes and papers.” Among these unpublished Mss. were: 1. “Tractatus de externo Judice iniallibili ad Doctores Pontificios, imprimis vero ad Sacerdotes Wisbicenses.” 2. “Tractatus de Justificatione.” Two copies, both imperfect. 3. “Some Papers written upon the Controversy between bishop Montague and the Gagger.” 4. “A Latin edition of his book called the Grand Imposture.” Imperfect. 5. Another edition of both the parts of his book called “Apologia Catholica.” 6. “An Answer to J. S. his Anti-Mortonus.” Imperfect. 7. His treatise concerning Episcopacy above mentioned, revised and enlarged. 8. A treatise concerning Prayer in art tinknown tongue. 9. A Defence of Infants 1 Baptism against Mr. Tombes and others. 10. Several Sermons. II. “A Kelation of the Conference held at York by our author, with Mr. Young and Mr. Stillington; and a further confutation of R. G. in defence of the Articles of the church of England.” Almost the last act of his life was to procure from the few remaining bishops in England, a refutation of the fable of the Nag’s Head ordination, which was revived by some of the popish persuasion in 1658. What he procured on the subject was afterwards published by bishop Uramhai.

, an artist of much reputation and amiable character, was born at Shafhausen, in Switzerland, in 1705. When young, he visited a distant Canton, where he met with one of his townsmen, and being inclined to travel, was soon persuaded to make a tour to England, and followed the profession of a chaser in gold, in which art he was always considered as holding the first rank. But his skill was not confined to this alone; he possessed an universal knowledge in all branches of painting and sculpture, which perfectly qualified him for the place of Keeper, to which he was appointed when the Royal Academy was first instituted in 1768, the business of which principally consists in superintending and instructing the students, who draw or model from the antique figures. He may be truly said to have been the father of the present race of artists; for long before the royal academy was established, he presided over the little societies which met. first in Salisbury court, and afterwards in St. Martin’s-lane, where they drew from living models. Perhaps nothing that can be said will more strongly imply his amiable disposition, than that all the different societies with which he was connected, always turned their eyes upon him for their treasurer and chief manager; when, perhaps, they would not have contentedly submitted to any other authority. His early society was composed of men whose names are well known in the world; such as Hogarth, Rysbrach, Roubiliac, Wills, Ellis, Vanderbank, &c.; and though he outlived all the companions of his youth, he might to the last have boasted of a succession equally numerous; for all that knew him were his friends.

When appointed keeper of the royal academy, his conduct was ex'emplary, and worthy to be imitated by whoever shall succeed him in that office. As he loved the employment of teaching, he could not fail of discharging that duty with diligence. By the propriety of his conduct he united the love and respect of the students; he kept order in the academy, and made himself respected, without the austerity or importance of office all noise and tumult immediately ceased on his appearance at the same time there was nothing forbidding in his manner, which might restrain the pupils from freely applying to him for advice or assistance. All this excellence, says sir Joshua Reynolds, had a firm foundation; he was a man of sincere and ardent piety, and has left an illustrious example of the exactness with which the subordinate duties may be expected to be discharged by him whose first care is to please God. Few men have passed a more inoffensive, or perhaps a more happy life; if happiness or enjoyment of life consists in having the mind always occupied, always intent upon some useful art, by which fame and distinction may be acquired. Mr. Moser’s whole attention was absorbed, either in practice, or something that related to the advancement of art.

, a learned English clergyman, the eldest son of Robert Moss, of Posswick, in Norfolk, was born at Gillingham in that county, in or about 1666. His father had an estate which enabled him to provide handsomely for his four sons; Robert, the subject of this article, Samuel, who was brought up- as a merchant William, who died possessed of his father’s estate at Posswick and Charles Moss, M. D. Robert, after being educated at the public school at Norwich, was entered as a sizar of Bene‘t college, Cambridge, in 1682, and distinguished himself so much in his academical studies, that, after having taken his bachelor’s degree, he was chosen to a Norfolk fellowship, and became eminent also as a successful tutor. H’e received deacon’s orders in 1688, and priest’s in 1690. In 1693 he was appointed one of the twelve university preachers. His sermons at St. Mary’s were always attended by a full audience, as well as his disputations in the schools, in which he shewed a clear and distinguishing head, reasoned justly and closely in defending a question, and urged his objections with great acuteness when he bore the part of the opponent, always expressing himself with great ease and fluency, and in elegant Latin. After he had kept a divinity-act in the schools, in 1696, for the degree of B. D. there being a public commencement that year, he voluntarily undertook another on that occasion in St. Mary’s, where the commencement was held before the erection of the new regent-house, and acquitted himself in both to the general satisfaction; particularly, in maintaining the necessity of believing our Saviour as the true God, against the doctrine of Episcopius.

In 1717 he is supposed to have been the author of “The Report vindicated from Misreports; being a defence of my lords the bishops, as well as the clergy of the lower house of convocation, in a letter from a member of that house to the prolocutor, concerning their late consultations about the bishop of Bangor’s writings; with a postscript, containing some few remarks upon the letter to Dr. Sherlock.” Dr. Moss did not meddle much in the controversies of the times, yet took some part in that which arose from the Ban'gorian dispute, and that on the validity or invalidity of lay-baptism. Concerning the latter he published a sermon entitled “The extent of Christ’s commission to baptize; with a preface, addressed to the dissenters.” Except these, we know not of any separate publications from his pen.

This “promising youth” was afterwards a fellow of his college, B. A. 1731, M. A. 1735, and D. D. 1747. He became archdeacon of Colchester, prebendary of Salisbury, rector of St. Andrew Under.shaft, of St. James’s, Westminster, 1750, and of St. George’s, Hanover-square, in 1759. He was elected bishop of St. David’s in 1766, and translated to Bath and Wells in 1774. He died April 13, 1802. Besides four or five sermons preached on public occasions, he printed “A Charge to the Clergy of the archdeaconry of Colchester, occasioned by the uncommon Mortality and quick succession of Bishops in the see of London, at a visitation holden in May 1764;” and twenty years before, an admirable tract in defence of bishop Sherlock’s celebrated “Tryal of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus.” This tract was entitled, “The Evidence of the Resurrection cleared from the exceptions of a late pamphlet, entitled * The Resurrection of Jesus considered by a moral philosopher, in answer to the Tryal of the Witnesses,'” &c. Lond. 1744. It afterwards appeared with the following title “The Sequel of the Tryal of the Witnesses of the Resurrection being an answer to the exceptions of a late pamphlet, &c. &c. revised by the author of the Tryal of the Witnesses,” ibid. 1749. “The title-page, however, alone is new; as the impression is identically the same as in 1744; but the inscription signed” C. M." is omitted in 1749. It was to Sherlock he owed his promotions, to whom he had been chaplain. His son, Dr. Charles Moss, to whom he left a vast property, was educated at Christ Chnrch, Oxford, of which diocese he became bishop in 1807, and died in 1811.

Dr. Robert Moss was buried, agreeably to his will, without much ostentation or expence, in the presbytery of the cathedral church of Ely, where the bishops, deans, and prebendaries are usually interred. After his death, Dr. Snape, provost of King’s college, published eight volumes of his sermons, the first four in 1736, with this character of him, “that he was of so open and generous a disposition, and such a stranger to all artificial disguise, that he affirmed, and you believed him he promised, and you trusted him you knew him, and you loved him that he was very communicative both of his substance and his knowledge, and a man of so much honour and integrity, candour and humanity, as, joined with his other Christian virtues and intellectual endowments, as well as a graceful person, genteel address, and engaging conversation, gained him universal respect;.” In his early college days he wrote some poetry. A Latin ode of his is printed in cc Moestissimae ac Iretissimse Academic Cantabrigiensis affectus decedente Carolo II. succedente Jacobo II.“and a Latin, poem and an English ode in the” Lacrymse Gantabrigienses in Obitum serenissimse Reginae Marix." Besides which he wrote several other poems, three of which were printed for the first time in the General Dictionary, 1Q vols. fol. Among his lesser legacies, it ought to be mentioned that he left a perpetual annuity of 5L issuing out of lands in Cheshire, to the master’s sizar of Caius college, as an augmentation of his salary. This sizar is to be of the name of Moss, if there be such an one of the college, otherwise of Norfolk, and of the free-school of Norwich, and may hold the place for seven years.

, an ingenious French writer, was born at Paris, Jan. 17, 1672. He was educated in a seminary of Jesuits, and afterwards entered on the study of the law, which he quitted for the stage, as in his opinion affording the more brilliant prospect. His first attempt, however, a comedy, miscarried, and he felt the disgrace so acutely as to throw himself into the celebrated monastery of La Trappe, where he fancied he could comply with its austerities; but after a few months he returned to the world, and produced some operas and pastorals, which had considerable success. His lyric efforts were particularly applauded, and he now published a volume of odes; but in these, says D'Alembert, “the images are scanty, the colouring feeble, and the harmony often neglected.” Dr. Warton had pronounced, long before, that these odes, although highly praised by Sanadon, and by Fontenelle, were fuller of delicate sentiment, and philosophical reflection, than of imagery, figures, and poetry. There are particular stanzas eminently good, but not one entire ode. So far the French and English critics seem to agree. We learn also, from D'Alembert, that La Motte’s odes were soon effaced by those of the celebrated Rousseau, who, with less wit, perhaps, than La Motte, had superior qualifications for the higher poetry. Yet, when these rivals became competitors for a seat in the academy in 1710, La Motte was preferred, from his having friends who loved him, while Rousseau, from his repulsive temper, did not possess one. La Motte succeeded Corneille in the academy, and, like him, was at this time nearly blind. He very ingeniously made use of this calamity, in his discourse at his reception, to interest his auditors. After having spoken of the merit of his predecessor, he proceeded “You have beheld him faithful to your duties till extreme old age, infirm as he was, and already deprived of sight. The mention of this circumstance makes rne feel the condition to which I am myself reduced. What age ravished from my predecessor, I have lost from my youth. I must, however, confess, that this privation of which I complain, will no longer serve me as an excuse for ignorance you, gentlemen, have restored me my sight you, by associating me with yourselves, have laid all books open to me; and, since I am able to hear you, I no longer envy the happiness of those who can read.” La Motte soon after became totally deprived of sight. He next ventured to appear on a theatre more worthy of a poet’s ambition, and produced the tragedy of the “Maccabees,” concealing his name. The critics found a great deal of merit in it while this concealment lasted and some went so far as to conceive it a posthumous work of Racine but when he discovered himself, they withdrew their praises, or changed them into censures; and the tragedy, being really of the mediocre kind, disappeared from the stage. It was followed by others, of which “Ines de Castro” obtained a permanent place on the stage, notwithstanding many attacks from wit, malice, and arrogance; all which he bore with good-humour. He was one day in a coffee-house, in the midst of a swarm of literary drones, who were abusing his work without knowing the author. He patiently heard them a long time in silence, and then called out to a friend who accompanied him, “Let us go and yawn at the fiftieth representation of this unfortunate piece.” At another time, when told of the numerous criticisms made on his tragedy, “It is true,” said he, “it has been much criticised, but with tears.”

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was the son of colonel Mottley, who was a great favourite with king James II. and followed the fortunes of that prince into France. James, not being able himself to provide for him so well as he desired, procured for him, by his interest, the command of a regiment in the service of Louis XIV. at the head of which he lost his life in the battle of Turin, in 1706. The colonel married a daughter of John Guise, esq. of Abload’s Court, in Gloucestershire, with whom, by the death of a brother, who left her his whole estate, he had a very considerable fortune. The family of the Guises, however, being of principles diametrically opposite to those of the colonel, and zealous friends to the revolution, Mrs. Mottley, notwithstanding the tenderest affection for her husband, and repeated invitations from the king and queen, then at St. Germains, preferred living at home on the scanty remains of what he had left behind. The colonel was sent over to England three or four years after the revolution, on a secret commission from king James; and during his stay our author was born, in 1692. Mr. Mottley received the first rudiments of his education at St. Martin’s library-school, founded by archbishop Tenison; but was placed in the excise-office at sixteen years of age, under the comptroller, lord viscount Howe, whose brother and sister were both related by marriage to his mother. This situation he retained till 1720, when, in consequence of an unhappy contract he had made, probably in pursuit of some of the bubbles of that infatuated year, he was obliged to resign it. Soon after the accession of George I. Mr. Mottley had been promised by the lord Halifax, at that time first lord of the treasury, the place of one of the commissioners of the wine-licence office; but when the day came that his name should have been inserted in the patent, a more powerful interest, to his great surprize, had stepped in between him and the preferment, of which he had so positive a promise. This, however, was not the only disappointment of that kind which this gentleman met with; for, at the period above mentioned, when he parted with his place in the excise, he had one in the exchequer absolutely given to him by sir Robert Walpole, to whom he lay under many other obligations; but in this case as well as the preceding, he found that the minister had made a prior promise of it to another, and he was obliged to relinquish it. Other domestic embarrassments induced him to employ his pen, which had hitherto been only his amusement, for the means of immediate support; and he wrote his first play, “The Imperial Captives,” which met witU tolerable success. From that time he depended chiefly on his literary abilities for a maintenance, and wrote five dramatic pieces, with various success. He had also a hand in the composition of that many-fathered piece, “The Devil to Pay.” He published in 1739 a “Life of the great Czar Peter,” 3 vols. 8vo, by subscription, in which he met with the I sanction of some of the royal family, and great numbers of the nobility and gentry; and, on occasion of one of his benefits, which happened Nov. 3, queen Caroline, on the 30th of the preceding month (being the prince of Wales’s birth-day), did the author the singular honour of disposing of a great number of his tickets, with her own hand, in the drawing-room, most of which were paid for in gold, into the hands of colonel Schutz, his royal highness’s privypurse, from whom Mr. Mottley received it, with the addition of a very liberal present from the prince himself. Jn 1744 he published in 2 vols. 8vo, “The History of the Life and Reign of the empress Catherine of Russia.” Both this and the preceding are compilations from the journals and annals of the day, but are now valuable from the scarcity of those authorities. He died Oct. 30, 1750. It has been surmised, with some appearance of reason, that Mr. Mottley was the compiler of the lives of the dramatic writers, published at the end of Whincop’s “Scanderbeg.” It is certain that the life of Mr. Mottley, in that work, is rendered one of the most important in it, and is particularized by such a number of various incidents, as it seems improbable should be known by any but either himself or some one nearly related to him. Among others he relates the following humourous anecdote. When colonel Mottley, our author’s father, came over, as has been before related, on a secret commission from the abdicated monarch, the government, who had by some means intelligence of it, were very diligent in their endeavours to have him seized. The colonel, however, was happy enough to elude their search; but several other persons were, at different times, seized through mistake for him. Among the rest, it being very well known that he frequently supped at the Blue Posts tavern, in the Hay-Market, with one Mr. Tredenhatn, a Cornish gentleman, particular directions were given for searching that house. Colonel Mottley, however, happening not to be there, the messengers found Mr. Tredenham alone, and with a heap of papers before him, which being a suspicious circumstance, they immediately seized, and carried him before the earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state. His lordship, who, however, could not avoid knowing him, as he was a member of the House of Commons, and nephew to the famous sir Edward Seymour, asked him what all those papers contained. Mr. Tredenham made answer, that they were only the several scenes of a play, which he had been scribbling for the amusement of a few leisure-hours. Lord Nottingham then only desired leave just to look over them, which having done for some little time, he returned them again to the author, assuring him that he was perfectly satisfied; “for, upon my word,” said he, “I can find no plot in them,”

, a physician and naturalist of the sixteenth century, was born in London, in or near St. Leonard’s-* parish, Shoreditch, as Wood conjectures, where he received his early education. He was then sent to Cambridge, as we learn from his “Health’s Improvement,” and not to Oxford, as Wood says; and afterwards travelled through several of the countries of Europe, contracting an acquaintance with many of the most eminent foreign physicians and chemists. Before his return he had taken the degree of M. D. in which he was incorporated at Cambridge in 1582, and settled in London, where he practised ph) sic with considerable reputation. It appears also, that he resided for some time at Ipswich. He was particularly patronized by Peregrine Bertie, lord Willoughby, and accompanied him on his embassy, to carry the ensigns of the order of the ganer to the king of Denmark. He likewise was in camp with the earl of Essex in Normandy, probably in 1591. He spent much of the latter part of his life at Bulbridge, near Wilton, in Wiltshire, as a retainer to the Pembroke family, from which he received an annual pension. He died in that retirement, about the end of queen Elizabeth’s reign.

Dr. Moufet appears to have been among the first physicians who introduced chemical medicines into practice in England. He published in 1584, at Francfort, an apology for the chemical seer, which was then beginning to prevail in Germany, though much opposed by the adherents of the school of the ancients: it was entitled “De jure et praestantia Chemicorum Medicamentorum, Dialogus Apologeticus.” The work, which displays a good deal of learning and skill in argumentation, was republished in the “Theatrum Chemicum,” in 1602, with the addition of “Epistolae quinque Medicinales, ab eodem Auctore conscript,” which are all dated from London in 1582, 3, and 4. These epistles contain a farther defence of the chemical doctrines, some keen remarks on the fanciful reasonings of the Galenists, and many sensible observations against absolute submission to the authority of great names. The last of these letters treats of the benefits of foreign travel to a physician, and describes Padua as the best medical school. His liberality, as well as his learning, was evinced in the publication of another work, “Nosomantica Hippocratica, sive Hippocratis Prognostica cuncta, ex omnibus ipsius scriptis, methodice digesta, Libri ix.” Franc. 1588; for the writings of the father of physic were treated with contempt by Paracelsus, and the majority of the chemical sect. The last medical work of Moufet’s is entitled “Health’s Improvement; or, rules comprising and discovering the nature, method, and manner of preparing all sorts of food used in this nation.” A corrected and enlarged edition of this book was printed by Christopher Bennet at London, 1655, 4to. It is a curious and entertaining performance, on account of the information which it contains respecting the diet used in this country at that time. He was, however, most particularly distinguished as a naturalist; and he enlarged and finished, with great labour and expence, a work entitled “Insectorum, sive minimorum Animalium Theatrum; olina ab Edw. Wottono, Conrado Gesnero, Thomaque Pennio inchoatum.” It was left in manuscript, and published in London, in 1634, by sir Theodore Mayerne, who complains of the difficulty he found in getting a printer to undertake it. An English translation of it was published in 1658. Though not free from the imperfections of an infant science, this was really. a respectable and valuable work; and Haller does not scruple to place the author above all other entomologists previous to Swammerdam.

, in Latin Molinæus, a celebrated lawyer, was born at Paris in 1500. His family was noble, and Papyrius mentions “that those of the family of Moulin were related to Elizabeth queen of England;” which she acknowledged herself in 1572, when conversing with Francis duke of Montmorency, marshal of France and ambassador to England. This relation probably came by Thomas Bullen, or Boleyn, viscount of Rochefort, the queen’s grandfather by the mother’s side; for Sanderus and others say, “that this Rochefort being ambassador to France, gave his daughter Anne of Bulloigne to a gentleman of Brie, a friend and relation of his, to take care of her education; and this gentleman is supposed to be the lord of Fontenay in Brie, of the family of du Moulin.” This branch came from Denys du Moulin, lord of Fontenay in Brie, archbishop of Thoulouse, patriarch of Antioch, and bishop of Paris, where he died in 1447. The subject of our memoir was at first educated at the university of Paris, and afterwards studied law at Poitiers and Orleans, at the latter of which cities he gave lectures on the subject in 1521. In the following year he was received as an advocate of parliament; but, owing to a defect in his speech, was obliged to give up pleading, and confine himself to chamber practice, and the composition of those works which gained him so much reputation. He was an indefatigable student, and set such a value on time, that, contrary to the custom of his age, he had his beard close shaven, that he might not lose any precious moments in dressing it; but in his latter days he permitted it again to grow. From the same love of study, he refused some valuable employments, and even took the resolution never to marry; and that he might be equally free from every other incumbrance, he gave the whole of his property to <rn elder brother, reserving only for his maintenance the profits of his studies. It was not long, however, before he had cause to repent of this uncommon liberality, as his brother behaved to him in a brutal and unnatural way. To revenge himself, he had recourse to an expedient suggested by his professional knowledge. He married, and having children, he resumed, according to the law, the possession of that property with which he had parted so freely when a bachelor. It was in 1538 that he married Louise de Beldon, daughter of the king’s secretary, a lady of a most amiable and affectionate temper, who, instead of being an incumbrance, as he once foolishly thought, proved the great comfort of his life, and in some respect, the promoter of his studies, by her prudent care of those domestic affairs of which literary men are generally very bad managers. She was also his consolation in the many difficulties in which he soon became embroiled. He was a man of an ardent mind and warm temper, totally incapable of concealing his sentiments, particularly in the cause of truth and justice, or regard to his country. Like many other eminent men of that age, he embraced the principles of the reformed religion, first according to the system of Calvin, but afterwards he adopted that of Luther, as contained in the Augsburgh confession. On this account it is said that the Calvinists endeavoured to make him feel their resentment, and even suspended their animosity against the Roman catholics, that they might join with the latter in attacking Du Moulin.

It was in 1552 that he first began to be involved in troubles, which lasted more or less during his whole life. Some years before, Henry II. had issued an edict to repress the frauds and abuses practised at Rome by the conveyancers of benefices, to the great detriment of the ecclesiastical order; and this having occasioned a dispute between his majesty and pope Julius II. he published a new edict forbidding money to be sent to Rome on any pretence. This gave great offence to the pope, who insisted that kings had no right to pass edicts which interfered with ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that the authority of the holy see was injured by such proceedings. Yet, says Thuanus, our kings always had such a right, and now Du Moulin maintained it with all the force of his profound legal knowledge, and produced not only arguments, but precedents for it; and in treating of the spiritual power of the pope, he traced it to foundations which were by no means of the most honourable kind. This was, in that age, a very bold attempt, and in fact so disconcerted the pope, as to make him willing to listen to the pacific overtures made by the king. It was on this occasion that the marshal de Montmorency (afterwards constable of France) introduced Du Moulin to the king, with these words, “Sire, what your majesty has not been able to do with 300,000 men, has been effected by this little man (Du Moulin was of short stature) with his little book.” The court of Rome, however, never forgot the injury: Clement VIII. ordered his works to be burnt, and they were placed in the “Index expurgatorius,” in the first class of prohibited books. In the permissions which used to be given to read certain works in the Index, those of Machiavel and the impious Du Moulin“were always excepted. Those, however, who in the countries where the Index of prohibited books was respected, were unwilling to be thus totally deprived of the benefit arising from Du Moulin’s able writings on jurisprudence, contrived to have them reprinted under the fictitious name of Gaspar Caballinus de Cingulo; and it was under that name that they used to be quoted for many years. But it was not only at Rome where Du Moulin had to encounter the prejudices of the times; even in France, although his” Observa-f tionssur TEdit du Roi Henry II." (for such was the title of the work) was dedicated to the king, and printed with the royal privilege, it did not fail to render him very obnoxious to such of his countrymen as preferred the interests of Rome to the independent rights of the kingdom; and the authority of parliament was scarcely sufficient to protect him from their vengeance, which proceeded to such acts of violence, that after the mob had pillaged his house, and attempted his life, he was obliged to seek an asylum in Germany, where he was very kindly received. After residing for some time at Tubingen, where people flocked from all quarters for the benefit of his advice, he was encouraged to return to Paris, but had scarcely resumed his accustomed pursuits, when the religious commotions which broke out in that city, obliged him again to leave it, after seeing his house a second time pillaged. He now retired to Orleans, and afterwards to Lyons, where his enemies procured him to be imprisoned. On being released, he returned to Paris, where new troubles awaited him. He first became obnoxious to the Jesuits, whose society was now rising into consequence, and who wanted to be permitted to establish a college for education. This was opposed by the university oY Paris, and Du Moulin supported their opposition. The Jesuits, however, backed by the ciL.nceilor Hospital, gained their point, as the parliament was induced to believe that the mode of education among the Jesuits would be an effectual check to the introduction of the new errors, i. e. the principles of the reformation.

, a very celebrated French protestant minister, and of the same family with Charles da Moulin, was born at Vexin Oct. 18, 1568. He imbibed the rudiments of literature at Sedan; and, when he arrived at twenty years of age, was sent to finish his education in England, where he became a member of Christ college in Cambridge. After a residence of four years in England, he went to Holland in the retinue of the duke of Wirtemberg, but was shipwrecked in his passage, and lost all his books and baggage. This occasioned his elegant poem entitled “Votiva Tabula,” which did him great credit, and procured him many friends. The French ambassador became one of his patrons (for Henry IV. at that time sent protestant ambassadors into protestant countries), and recommended him to the queen- mother, by whose interest he obtained the professorship of philosophy at Leyden, then vacant. This he held for five or six years; and among other disciples, who afterwards became celebrated, be had Hugo Grotius. He read lectures upon Aristotle, and disciplined his scholars in the art of disputing; of which he made himself so great a master, that he was enabled to enter with great spirit and success into the controversies with the catholics. Scaliger was very much his patron; and when Du Moulin published his Logic at Ley. den in 1596, said of the epistle prefatory, “haec epistola non est hujus sevi.” He taught Greek also in the divinity schools, in which he was extremely well skilled, as appears from his book entitled “Novitas Papismi,” where he exposes cardinal Perron’s ignorance of that language.

Though Henry IV. did not much relish Du Moulin’s endeavours to convert his sister, yet he had always a great regard for him, of which Du Moulin retained a very grateful remembrance; and after the death of Henry, in 1610, he publicly charged the murder of that monarch upon Cotton and the whole order of Jesuits. It had been said that Ravillac was excited to that desperate act by some opinions derived from the writings of the Jesuits, of Mariana in particular, touching the persons and authority of kings: upon which account father Cotton published an “Apologetical Piece,” to shew that the doctrine of the Jesuits was exactly conformable to the decrees of the council of Trent. This was answered by Du Moulin in a book entitled “Anticotton or, a Refutation of Father Cotton” in which he endeavoured to prove that the Jesuits were the real authors of that execrable parricide though some indeed have doubted whether he was the author of that book. In 1615, James I. who had long corresponded with Du Moulin by letters, invited him to England; but this invitation his church at Paris would not suffer him to accept till he had given a solemn promise, in the face of his congregation, that he would return to them at the end of three months. The king received him with great affection took him to Cambridge at the time of the commencement, where he was honoured with a doctor’s degree and, at his departure from England, presented him with a prebend in the church of Canterbury. Du Moulin had afterwards innumerable disputes with the Jesuits, who, when they found him deaf to their promises of great rewards, attempted more than once his life, so that he was obliged at length always to have a guard. In 1617, when the United Provinces desired the reformed churches of England, France, and Germany to send some of their ministers to the synod of Dort, Du Moulin and three others were deputed by the Gallican church, hut were forbidden to go by the king upon pain of death. In 1618 he had an invitation from Leyden to fill their divinity chair, which was vacant, but refused to accept of it. In 1620, when he was preparing to go to the national synod of the Gallican church, lord Herbert of Cherbury, then ambassador from Britain at the court of France, asked him to write to king James, and to urge him, if possible, to undertake the defence of his son-in-law the king of Bohemia, who then stood in need of it. Du Moulin at first declined the office; but the ambassador, knowing his interest with James, would not admit of any excuse. This brought him into trouble; for it was soon after decreed by an order of parliament, that he should be seized and imprisoned, for having solicited a foreign prince to take up arms for the protestant churches. Apprised of this, he secretly betook himself to the ambassador lord Herbert, who suspected that his letters to the king were intercepted; and who advised him to fly, as the only means of providing for his safety. He went to Sedan, where he accepted the divinity-professorship and the ministry of the church; both which he held to the time of his death, which happened March 10, 1658, in his ninetieth year. He took a journey into England in 1623, when cardinal Perron’s book was published against king James; and, at that king’s instigation, undertook to answer it. This answer was published at Sedan, after the death of James, under the title of “Novitas Papismi, sive Perronii confutatio, regisque Jacobi, sed magis sacrae veritatis de-< fensio.” He was the author of many other learned works, of whiph the principal are, “The Anatomy of Arminianism;” “A Treatise on the Keys of the Church” “The Capuchin, or History of the Monks” “A Defence of the Reformed Churches,” &c. &c.

, son of the preceding, and a clergyman of the church of England, was born at Paris, about 1600. He studied at Leyden, where he was admitted to the degree of doctor of divinity. He afterwards came to England, and was incorporated in the same degree at the university of Cambridge. He was patronized by Richard, earl of Cork, who appointed him governor to his sons, whom he afterwards accompanied to Oxford. Here Du Moulin remained two years or more, and preached frequently in the church of St. Peter in the East. After the restoration of Charles II. he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, and a prebendary of Canterbury, in which city he spent the remainder of his life. He died in 1684, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. He was author of several works, of which we may mention, 1. “The Peace of the Soul;” a translation of which was published by Dr. John Scrope, in 1765, 2 vols. 2. “A Defence of the, Protestant Religion.” Of this book the reader may see a curious account in Gent. Mag. vol. XLIII. p. 369. He was author of the famous work entitled “Regii Sanguinis Clamor ad Coelum,” which was published at the Hague, in 1652, by M. Alexander More. Anthony Wood gives him the character of an honest, zealous Calvinist. He had a younger brother, Lewis Du Moulin, who settled also in England, where he long distinguished himself by his violent and illiberal writings against the church of England, the titles of which are given by Wood; but he retracted many of his opinions in the presence of Dr. Burnet, at the time of his death, Oct. 20, 1683.

In 1624 he became involved in those controversies and imputations on his character as a divine, which, more or less, disturbed the tranquillity of the whole of his life. They were occasioned by the following circumstance:?. Some popish priests and Jesuits were executing their mission at Stamford -Rivers, in Essex, of which he was then rector; and to secure his flock against their attempts, he ]eft some propositions at the place of their meeting, with an intimation that, if any of those missionaries could give a satisfactory answer to the queries he had put, he would immediately become their proselyte. In these, he required of the papists to prove, that the present Roman church is either the catholic church, or a sound member of the catholic church that the present church of England is not a true member of the catholic church and that all those points, or any one of those points which the church of Rome maintains against the church of England, were, or was, the perpetual doctrine of the catholic church, the decided doctrine of the representative church in any general council, or national approved by a general council, or the dogmatical resolution of any one father for 500 years after Cnrist. On their proving all this in the affirmative, he promised to subscribe to their faith. Instead, however, of returning any answer, a small pamphlet was left at last for him, entitled “A new Gag for the old Gospel.” To this he replied, in “An Answer to the late Gagger of the Protestants,” 1624, 4to, which gave great offence to the Calvinists, at that time a very numerous and powerful party in the church, and thus drew upon him enemies from a quarter he did not expect: and their indignation against him ran so high, that Ward and Yates, two lecturers at Ipswich, collected out of his book some points, which they conceived to savour of popery and Arminianism, in order to have, them presented to the next parliament. Mountagu, having procured a copy of the information against him, applied to the king for protection, who gave him leave to appeal to himself, and to print his defence. Upon this, he wrote his book entitled “Appello Ccesarem a just Appeal against two unjust Informers” which, having the approbation of Dr. White, dean of Carlisle, whom king James ordered to read, and give his sense of it, was published in 1625, 4to, but addressed to Charles I. James dying before the book was printed off.

In this work many of the acknowledged doctrines of the church of England are undoubtedly maintained with great force of argument, but there are other points in which he afforded just ground for the suspicions alleged against him; and that this was the opinion of many divines of that period appeared from the answers to his “Appeal” published by, It Dr. Matthew Sutcliffe, dean of Exeter. 2. Mr. Henry Burton in his “Plea to an Appeale,” Lond. 1626, 4to. 3. Mr. Francis Rous, afterwards provost of Eton college, in his “Testis Veritatis,” ibid. 1626, 4to. 4. Mr. John Yates, B. D. formerly fellow of Emanuel college in Cambridge, afterwards minister of St. Andrew’s in Norwich, in his book entitled “Ibis ad Caesarem,” ibid. 1626, 4to. 5. Mr. Anthony Wotton, professor of. divinity in Gresham college. 6. Dr. Daniel Featly, in his “Pelagius Redivivus; or, Pelagius raked out of the ashes by Arminius and his scholars,” ibid. 1626, 4to. This book contains two parallels, one between the Pelagians and Arminians; the other between the church of Rome, the appealer, Mr. Mountagu, and the church of England, in three columns; together with a writ of error sued against the appealer. 7. Dr. George Carleton, bishop of Chichester, in his “Examination of those things, wherein the author of the late Appeale holdeth the doctrines of the Pelagians and Arminians to be the doc-” trines of the church of England," ibid. 1626, 4to.

The controversy, however, was not to be left to divines, who may be supposed judges of the subject. The parliament which met June 18, 1625, thought proper to take up the subject, and Mr. Mountagu was ordered to appear before the House of Commons, and being brought to the bar July 17, the speaker told him, that it was the pleasure of the House, that the censure of his books hould be postponed for some time; but that in the interim he should be committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms. He was afterwards obliged to give the security of 2000l. for his appearance. The king, however, was displeased with the parliament’s proceedings against our author and bishop Laud applied to the duke of Buckingham in his favour Mr. Mountagu also wrote a letter to that duke, entreating him to represent his case to his majesty; and this application was seconded some few days after by a letter of the bishops of Oxford, Rochester, and St. David’s, to the duke. In the next parliament, in 1626, our author’s Appello Ca3sarem“was referred to the consideration of the committee for religion, from whom Mr. Pym brought a report on the 18th of April concerning several erroneous opinions contained in it. Upon this it was resolved by the House of Commons, 1.” That Mr. Mountagu had disturbed the peace of the church, by publishing doctrines, contrary to the articles of the church of England, and the book of homilies. 2. That there are clivers passages in his book, especially against those he calleth puritans, apt to move sedition betwixt the king and his subjects, and between subject and subject. 3. That the whole frame and scope of his books is to discourage the well-affected in religion from the true religion established in the church, and to incline them, and, as much as in him lay, to reconcile them to popery." And accordingly articles were exhibited against him; but it does not appear, that this impeachment was laid before the House of Lords, or in what manner the Commons intended to prosecute their charge, or how far they proceeded. Rush worth, after much inquiry, could not find that Mr. Mountagu was brought to his defence, or that he returned any answer to the articles.

This prosecution from the parliament seems to have recommended him more strongly to the court, for, in 1628, he was advanced to the bishopric of Chichester, on the death of one of his opponents, Dr. Carleton. On August 22, 1628, the day appointed for his confirmation, a singular scene took place. On such occasions it is usual to give a formal notice, that if any person can object either against the party elected, or the legality of the election, they are to come and offer their exceptions at the day prefixed. This intimation being given, one Mr. Humphreys, and William Jones, a stationer of London, excepted against Mountagu as a person unqualified for the episcopal function, charging him with popery, Arrninianism, and other heterodoxies, for which his books had been censured in the former parliament. Fuller tells us, “that exception was taken at Jones’s exceptions (which the record calls 4 prætensos Articulos)' as defective in some legal formalities. I have been informed,” continues he, “it was alledged against him for bringing in his objections viva vocc, and not by a proctor, that court adjudging all private persons effectually dumb, who speak not by one admitted to plead therein. Jones returned, that he could not get any proctor, though pressing them importunately,” and profering them their fee to present his exceptions, and therefore was necessitated ore tenus there to alledge them against Mr. Mountagu. The register mentioneth no particular defects in his exceptions; but Dr. Rives, substitute at that time for the vicar- general, declined to take any notice of and concludeth Jones amongst the contumacious, e quod nullo modo legitime comparuit, nee aliquid in hac partejuxta Juris exigentiam diceret, exciperet, vel opponeret.' Yet this good Jones did bishop Mountagu, that he caused his addresses to the king to procure a pardon, which was granted unto him, in form like those given at the coronation, save that some particulars were inserted therein, for the pardoning of all errors heretofore committed either in speaking, writing, or publishing, whereby he might hereafter be questioned."

Bishop Mountagu was allowed by his opponents to be a man of extensive learning, particularly in ecclesiastical history; but of a warm temper, and from his attachment to the writings of the fathers, holding some peculiar opinions, which were acceptable neither to churchmen or sectaries. Fuller says of him, that “his great parts were attended with a tartness of writing; very sharp the nib of his pen, and much gall in the ink, against such as opposed him. However, such the equability of this sharpness of his style, he was impartial therein: be he ancient or modern writer, papist or protestant, that stood in his way, they should equally taste thereof.” Selden was one of those against whom he exercised not a little of this sharpness of style; and yet, which is a considerable testimony in his favour, “he owns him to have been a man well skilled in ancient learning.”

, an English dramatic writer, but in much greater eminence as an actor, was born in 1659, in Staffordshire. It is probable, that he went early upon the stage, as it is certain that he died young; and Jacob informs us, that, after his attaining a degree of excellence in his profession, he was entertained for some time in the family of the lord-chancellor JerTeries, “who,” says sir John Reresby, “at an entertainment of the lordmayor and court of aldermen, in the year 1685, called for Mr. Mountfort to divert the company (as his lordship was pleased to term it): he being an excellent mimic, my lord made him plead before him in a feigned cause, in which he aped all the great lawyers of the age in their tone of voice, and in their action and gesture of body, to the very great ridicule not only of the lawyers, but of the law itself; which, to me (says the historian) did not seem altogether prudent in a man of his lofty station in the law: diverting it certainly was; but prudent in the lord high-chancellor I shall never think it. 7 ' After the fall of Jefferies, our author again returned to the stage, in which profession he continued till his death, in 1,692. Gibber, in his” Apology,“says that he was tall, well made, fair, and of an agreeable aspect; his voice clear, full, and melodious; a most affecting lover in tragedy, and in comedy gave the truest life to the real character of a fine gentleman. In scenes of gaiety, he never broke into that respect that was due to the presence of equal or superior characters, though inferior actors played them, nor sought to acquire any advantage over other performers by finesse, or stage-tricks, but only by surpassing them in true and masterly touches of nature. He might perhaps have attained a higher degree of excellence and fame, had he not been untimely cut off, by the hands of an assassin, in the thirty-third year of his age. His death is tlius related. Lord Mohun, a man of loose morals, and of a turbulent and rancorous spirit, had, from a kind of sympathy of disposition, contracted the closest, intimacy with one captain Hill, a still more worthless character, who had long entertained a passion for that celebrated actress Mrs. Bracegirdle. This lady, however, had rejected him, with the contemptuous disdain which his character justly deserved; and this treatment, Hill’s vanity would not suffer him to attribute to any other cause than a pre-engagement in favour of some other lover. Mountfort’s agreeable person, his frequently performing the counter-parts in love scenes with Mrs. Bracegirdle, and the respect which he used always to pay her, induced captain Hill to fix on him, though a married man, as the supposed bar to his own success. Grown desperate then of succeeding by fair means, he determined to attempt force: and, communicating his design to lord Mohun, whose attachment to him was so great as to render him the accomplice in all his schemes, and the promoter even of his most criminal pleasures, they determined on a plan for carrying her away from the play-house; but, not finding her there, they got intelligence where she was to sup, and, having hired a number of soldiers and a coach for the purpose, waited near the door for her coming out; and, on her so doing, the ruffians actually seized her, and were going to force her into the coach; but her mother, and the gentleman whose house she came out of, interposing till farther assistance could come up, she was rescued from them, and safely escorted to her own house. Lord Mohun and captain Hill, however, enraged at their disappointment in this attempt, immediately resolved on one of another kind, and, with violent imprecations, openly vowed revenge on Mr. Mountfort. Mrs. Bracegirdle’s mother, and a gentleman, who were earwitnesses to their threats, immediately sent to inform Mrs. Mountfort of her husband’s danger, with their opinion that she should warn him of it, and advise him not to come home that night; but, unfortunately, no messenger Mrs. Mountfort sent was able to find him. In the mean time, his lordship and the captain paraded the streets with their swords drawn, till about midnight, when Mr. Mountfort, on his return home, was met and saluted in a friendly manner by lord Mohun; but, while that scandal to the rank and title which he bore was treacherously holding him in a conversation, the assassin Hill, being at his back, first gave him a desperate blow on the head with his left hand, and immediately afterwards, before Mr Mountfort had time to draw and stand on his defence, he, with the sword he held ready in his right, ran him through the body. This last circumstance Mr. Mountfort declared, as a dying man, to Mr. Bancroft, the surgeon who attended him. Hill immediately made his escape; but lord Mohun was seized, and stood his trial: but as it did not appear that he immediately assisted Hill in the perpetrating this assassination, and that, although lord Mohun had joined with the captain in his threats of revenge, yet the actual mention of murder could not be proved, his lordship was acquitted by his peers. He afterwards, however, himself lost his life in a duel with duke Hamilton, in which it has been hinted that some of the same kind of treachery, which he had been an abettor of in the above-mentioned affair, was put in practice against himself. Mr. Mountfort’s death happened in Norfolk-street in the Strand, in the winter of 1692. His body was interred in the churchyard of St. Clement Danes. He left behind him six dramatic pieces, which are enumerated in the” Biographia Dramatica."

, or Moutier. See Desmoustier.

, an ingenious and learned English writer, was son of sir Walter Moyle, and born in Cornwall in 1672. After he had made a considerable progress in school-learning, he was sent to Oxford; and thence removed to the Temple, where he applied himself chiefly to such parts of the law as led to the knowledge of our constitution and government; “for there was a drudgery,” says Mr. Hammond, “in what he called law-lucrative, which he could never submit to.” He came into the world with a firm zeal for the protestant settlement, and a great contempt of those who imagined that the liberty of our constitution and the reformation could subsist under a popish king; nor did he ever vary from these sentiments. From the Temple he removed to Covent- Garden, in order to be nearer the polite and entertaining part or the town and here it was, as Dryden observes in his “Life of Lucian,” that “the learning and judgment above his age, which every one discovered in Mr. Moyle, were proofs of those abilities he has shewn in his country’s service, when he was chosen to serve it in the senate, as his father sir Walter had done.”

In 1697 he joined with Mr. Trenchard in writing a pamphlet entitled “An Argument, shewing that a standing Army is inconsistent with a free Government, and absolutely destructive to the constitution of the English Monarchy.” The same year, at the request of Dr. Davenant, he translated Xenophon’s “Discourse upon improving the Revenue of the State of Athens,” and sent it to him, to be annexed to his “Discourses on the public Revenues and Trade of England.” Moyle tells Davenant, in the dedication of this translation, that he “fancies it Will be no unwelcome entertainment to him, to find his own admirable observations upon these matters confirmed by the authority of one of the greatest men that ever antiquity produced, and the only ancient author upon this subject which is now extant. This admirable maxim, that the true wealth and greatness of a nation consists in numbers of people well-employed, is every where inculcated throughout the whole course of this treatise.” And I believe,“he adds,” Xenophon was the first author that ever argued by political arithmetic, or the art of reasoning upon things by figures; which has been improved by some able heads of our own nation, and carried to the highest perfection by your own successful inquiries.“As to the translation, Davenant has given the following account of it in the thirty-fourth page of his work:” It was made English by a young gentleman, whose learning and ripe parts promise greater matters hereafter; since, in his first essay, he has shewn himself so great a master, both in his own and the Greek language. And it is hoped this example will excite other persons of his age, rank, and fortune, to study the business of trade, and the revenues of their country. The original is highly esteemed by all the learned world; and the reader will find Xenophon has suffered nothing in this version."

, a political character, was born at Lanerk, in Scotland, 1573, and, while very young, became one of the pages to king James, and afterwards one of the gentlemen of his privy chamber. In that station he continued many years, and became well acquainted with most of the secrets at court. He was present with king James at Perth, 1600, when the famous conspiracy of the earl of Gowry took place; but the account he has given us of that problematical affair contains nothing either interesting or satisfactory. He accompanied king James into England, where he remained some years; but afterwards returned to Scotland, and spent his days in retirement. He kept a diary of what passed at court, the ms. of which is now in the advocates’ library in Edinburgh; and an edition of it was printed in 1753, under the title of “Memoirs of the affairs of Scotland from 1577 to 1603, with a discourse on the conspiracy of Cowrie,” Edin. 12mo. It contains many curious particulars, which have not been taken notice of by general historians. He died at Edinburgh, 1630, aged fifty-seven.

He went again to Paris soon after his return from Italy. But on the death of his father in 1778, he was called to Salzburg, and appointed principal concert-master to the prince archbishop, in his stead; but he resigned this office in 1780, and went to Vienna, where he settled, and was admired and patronized by the court and city; and in 1788 he was appointed chapel-master to the emperor Joseph. His first opera at Vienna was the “Rape of the Seraglio,” in 1782, to German words. The second, “Le Nozze di Figaro,” in four acts. The third, the “Schauspiel Director,” or the Manager at the Playhouse, in 1786. “II Don Giovanni,” in 1787. “La Clemenza di Tito,” a serious opera. “Cori Fantutti,” comic. “Flauto Magico.” “Idomeneo,” a serious opera, &c. It was not till 1782 that he began to compose at Vienna for the national theatre; at first chiefly instrumental music; but on its being discovered how well he could write for the voice, he was engaged by the nobility and gentry first to compose comic operas, sometimes to German words, and sometimes to Italian. His serious operas, we believe, were all originally composed to Italian words. There is a chronological list of his latter vocal compositions till the year 1790 in Gerber’s Musical Lexicon.

In England we know nothing of his studies or productions, but from his harpsichord lessons, which frequently came over from Vienna; and in these he seems to have been trying experiments. They were full of new passages, and new effects; but were wild, capricious, and not always pleasing. We were wholly unacquainted with his vocal music till after his decease, though it is manifest that by composing for the voice he first refined his taste, and gave way to his feelings, as in his latter compositions for the piano forte and other instruments his melody is exquisite, and cherished and enforced by the most judicious accompaniments, equally free from pedantry and caprice.

This transaction having by some means come to the knowledge of his Catholic majesty, who was passionately fond of all mechanical productions, and particularly of watches, that monarch immediately employed his agents in England to engage Mr. Mudge to work for him; and such was his approbation of his new artist’s performances, that he honoured him with an unlimited commission to make for him at his own price, whatever he might judge most worthy of attention. Accordingly, among the several productions of Mr. Madge’s genius which thus became the property of the king of Spain, was an equation watch, which not only shewed the sun’s time, and mean time, but was also a striking watch and a repeater; and what was very singular, and had hitherto been unattempted, it struck and repeated by solar, or apparent time. As a repeater, moreover, it struck the hours, quarters, and minutes. From a whim of the king’s this watch was made in the crutch end of a cane, in the sides of which were glasses covered with sliders, on the removal of which the work might be seen at any time; and his majesty being very fond of observing the motion of the wheels at the time the watch struck, it was his practice as he walked, to stop for that purpose. Those who have seen him on these occasions, observed that he ever showed signs of the most lively satisfaction. The price of this watch was 480 guineas, which, from the expensive materials and nature of the work, afforded Mr. Mudge but a moderate profit for his ingenuity; and he was strongly urged by several of his friends to charge 500 guineas for it, which the king would have readily paid. To this Mr. Mudge answered, that, “as 480 guineas gave him the profit to which he was fairly entitled, as an honest man, he could riot think of increasing it, and he saw no reason why a king should be charged more than a private gentleman.” Indeed the king of Spain had such a high opinion of his integrity, that he not only used to speak of him as by far the most ingenious watchmaker he had ever employed, but excelling also in his sense of honour and justice. Mr. Townsend, then secretary to the embassy at Madrid, once told Mr. Mudge that his Catholic majesty had often expressed to him his great admiration of his character, and would frequently ask his assistance to enable him to express the name of Mudge.

Two anecdotes deserve to be recorded, as striking proofs of Mr. Mudge’s great mental powers: count Bruhl, when he first came to England in his diplomatic capacity, brought an ingenious watch from Paris, made by the celebrated Bertoud, intending it as a present to his majesty. This watch, however, not performing its offices, was sent back to the inventor, in or$|er to be rectified. After its return, it still continued imperfect; and, on further applications to M. Bertoud, that artist acknowledged, with great candour, that, although he thought the principles on which his watch was constructed were good, he was himself unable to carry them into effect. The count then applied to Mr. Mudge, requesting him to undertake the task but, deeming it an indelicate circumstance to interfere with the inventions of another artist, Mr. Mudge expressed the greatest reluctance on the occasion. The importunity of the 'count, however, added to the gratitude which he feit for the distinguishing marks of esteem he had already received, induced Mr. Mudge, at last, to wave his objections; and he had the satisfaction to be completely successful. The other anecdote relates to a large and complicated watch belonging to his majesty, which had long gone so ill that it had been repeatedly put into the hands of the most distinguished watchmakers, to be repaired; all of whom, though confident in their abilities to give it the requisite perfection, had been obliged to abandon the watch as incapable of amendment. It was then put into the hands of Mr. Mudge, who happily succeeded. This circumstance gave his majesty a very high opinion of his superiority over every other watch maker. In 1777, he appointed him his watchmaker, and often honoured him with conferences on mechanical subjects. Her majesty likewise expressed a great esteem, not only for his talents as an artist, but for his character as a man. At one time, she presented him with fifty guineas for only cleaning a watch; and it was through her recommendation to the lord chancellor, that his second son obtained the living of Bramford Speke, as he did afterward that of Lustleigh through count BruhPs interest with the hon. Percy Charles Wyndham, brother to the earl of Egremont.

He appears to have been early addicted to dramatic composition, and occurs among those who assisted in the plays performed before queen Elizabeth in 1572 and 1576. Whether he was a student of the classic drama, or still adhered to the Gothic spectacles, is a desideratum; but it is highly probable that he united both. In 1575, when Elizabeth was on one of her progresses at Kenelworth, Mulcaster produced some Latin verses which were spoken before her, and have been printed in Gascoyne’s “Princely Pleasures at Kenelworth,” and in Mr. Nichols’s “Progresses of queen Elizabeth.” They are short and easy, but, as was usual with the court productions of the time, completely mythological. In 1580, he prefixed some commendatory verses to Ocland’s “Anglorum proelia,” and others, two years afterwards, to his “Eifwaf%ia” More, perhaps, may be found in the works of his contemporaries: but we must not omit to notice his verses to queen Elizabeth on her skill in music, printed in Tallis and Bird’s tf Discantus Cantiones," &c. 1575, 4to, and inserted by Bailard in his memoirs of queen Elizabeth.

His separate works were his “Positions, wherein those primitive circumstances be examined which are necessarie for the training up of children, either for skill in theire book, or health in their bodie,” Lond. 1581, 1587, 4to. To this a second part was promised, which seems to have been completed in 1582, by the publication of “the first part of the Elementarie, which entreateth chefely of the right writing of the English Tung.” These contain some peculiarities of spelling, and innumerable quaintnesses of writing, joined to many judicious crsticisms on the English language. By the spelling he seems frequently anxious to fix the pronounciation of his words, and in some parts we may be inclined to think he was desirous that his words should be written as they are spoken. In 1601, he published his “Catechismus Paulinus, in usum scholas Paulinae conscriptus, ad formam parvi illius Anglici catechismi qui pueris in comruuni precum Anglicarum libro ediscendus proponitur,” 8vo. This is in long and short verse, sometimes closely, and at others diffusely, translated; and, though now forgotten, was once in high esteem. Among the letters at Penshurst, is one from Mulcaster to sir Philip Sidney, in Latin, dated Nov. 3, 1575, the year sir Philip went upon his travels. In the Harleian Mss No. 6996, is a letter from Edward Heyborn to the lord-keeper, in behalf of Richard Mulcaster, who begged his interest to secure to him the prebend of Gatesbury, which, we have already noticed, he received. And in ms. Smith, in the Bodleian library, No. Ixxvii. p. 397, is one from Mulcaster to Peter Junius, in Latin, dated May 13, 1604.

, a celebrated German traveller and writer, was born in 1705, in Herforden, in Westphalia, and was educated at the age of seventeen at llinteln and Leipsic, at which last place he so distinguished himself, that professor Mencke obtained for him the place of adjunct in the historical class of the academy founded at Petersburgh by Peter the Great. In tbat city he was some time employed in teaching Latin, geography, and history, and as assistant secretary to the institution. In 1728, he was made under-keeper of the imperial library, and in 1730 he was chosen professor of history. He now applied for leave of absence, in order to gratify his wish of seeing foreign countries. In the year 1731 he visited London, and was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, and after his return to Petersburgh he was appointed to accompany Gmelin and De l'Isle de la Croyere on their travels through Siberia, which occupied ten years, during which they travelled 4480 German miles, or more than three times that number of English miles. An account of their travels was published by Gmelin, in four volumes, 8vo. After this, Mullef, who was not rewarded in any degree equal to the labours and sufferings which he had undergone, undertook, at the desire of prince Jusupof, “A Dissertation on the Trade of Siberia,” which, though written, or at least begun, in 1744, was not published till 1750, and then only the first part. In 1747, he was appointed historiographer of the Russian empire, and in 1754 he was nominated by the president to be the secretary of the Academy of Sciences, and was employed in superintending the publication of their transactions, and in other literary undertakings. In 1763, he was appointed director ^of the school for foundlings, established by Catherine at Moseow, and in 1766, he was appointed keeper of the archives in that city, with an additional salary of 1000 roubles. From this period till his death, which took place in 1783, he devoted himself entirely to the pursuits of literature, having been previously raised to the rank of counsellor of state, and invested with the order of Wladimir. Mr. Coxe, in his Travels, vol. I. in speaking of Muller, who was then living, says, “He collected during his travels the most ample materials for the history and geography of this extensive empire, which was scarcely known to the Russians themselves before his valuable researches were given to the world in various publications. His principal work is” A Collection of Russian Histories,“in nine volumes octavo, printed at different intervals at the press of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. The first part came out in 1732, and the last in 1764. This storehouse of information pnd literature in regard to the antiquities, history, geography, and commerce of Russia, and many of the neighbouring countries, conveys the most indisputable proofs of the author’s learning, diligence, and fidelity. To this work the accurate and indefatigable author has successively added many other valuable performances upon similar subjects, both in the German and Russian languages, which elucidate various parts in the history of this empire.” Mr. Coxe adds, that he spoke and wrote the German, Russian, French, and Latin tongues, with surprizing fluency; and read the English, Dutch, Swedish, Danisn, and Greek, with great facility His memory was surprising; and his accurate acquaintance with the minutest incidents of the Russian annals almost surpassed belief. His collection of state papers and manuscripts were all arranged in the exactest order, and classed into several volumes, distinguished by the names of those illustrious personages to whom they principally relate; such as Peter L, Catherine I. Menzikof, Osterman, &c."

, commonly called Regiomontanus, from his native place, Mons Regius, or Koningsberg, a town in Franconia, was born in 1436, and became the greatest astronomer and mathematician of his time. He was indeed a very prodigy for genius and learning. Having first acquired grammatical learning in his own country, he was admitted, while yet a boy, into the academy at Leipsic, where he formed a strong attachment to the mathematical sciences, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, &c. But not finding proper assistance in these studies at this place, he removed, at only fifteen years of age, to Vienna, to study under the famous Purbacb, the professor there, who read lectures in those sciences with the highest reputation. A strong and affectionate friendship soon took place between these two, and our author made such rapid improvement in the sciences, that he was able to be assisting to his master, and to become his companion in all his labours. In this manner they spent about ten years together, elucidating obscurities, observing the motions of the heavenly bodies, and comparing and correcting the tables of them, particularly those of Mars, which they found to disagree with the motions, sometimes as much as two degrees.

About this time the cardinal Bessarion arrived at Vienna, to negociate some affairs for the pope, and being a lover of astronomy, soon formed an acquaintance with Purbich and Regiomontanus. He had begun to form a Latin version of Ptolomy’s Almagest, or an Epitome of it; but not having time to go on with it himself, he requested Purbach to complete the work, and for that purpose to return with him into Italy, to make himself master of the Greek tongue, which he was as yet unacquainted with. To these proposals Purbach only assented, on condition that Regiomontanus would accompany him, and share in all the labours, which were, however, soon interrupted by the death of Purbach, which happened in 1461. The whole task then devolved upon Regiomontanus, who finished the work at Rome, to which city he accompanied the cardinal Bessarion, and applied himself diligently to the study of the Greek language; not neglecting, however, to make astronomical observations, and compose various works in that science, as his <f Dialogue against the Theories of Cremonensis.“The cardinal going to Greece soon after, Regiomontanus went to Ferrara, where he continued the study of the Greek language under Theodore Gaza; who explained to him the text of Ptolomy, with the commentaries of Theon; till at length he could compose verses in Greek, and read it critically. In 1463 he went to Padua, where he became a member of the university; and, at the request of the students, explained Alfraganus, an Arabian philosopher. In 1464 he removed to Venice, to meet and attend his patron Bessarion. Here he wrote, with great accuracy, his” Treatise of Triangles,“and a” Refutation of the Quadrature of the Circle," which Cardinal Cusan pretended he had demonstrated. The same year he returned with Bessarion to Rome where he made some stay, to procure the most curious books those he could not purchase, he took the pains to transcribe, for he wrote with great facility and elegance; and others he got copied at a great expence. For as he was certain that none of these books could be had in Germany, he intended, on his return thither, to translate and publish some of the best of them. During this time too he had a warm contest with George Trapezonde, whom he had greatly offended by animadverting on some passages in his translation of Theon’s Commentary.

Having now procured a great number of manuscripts, which was one great object of his travels, he returned to Vienna, and for some time read lectures; after which he went to Buda, on the invitation of Matthias king of Hungary, who was a patron of learned men, and had founded a rich and noble library there, from the purchase of the Greek books found on the sacking of Constantinople, and others brought from Athens, or wherever else they could be met with through the whole Turkish dominions. But a war breaking out in this country, he retired to Nuremberg, which he preferred, because the artists there were dextrous in fabricating his astronomical machines, and he could from thence easily transmit his letters by the merchants into foreign countries. Being now well versed in all parts of learning, and made the utmost proficiency in mathematics, he determined to occupy himself in publishing the best of the ancient authors, as well as his own lucubrations. For this purpose he set up a printing-house, and formed a nomenclature of the books he intended to publish, which still remains.

Here Bernard Walther, one of the principal citizens, who was well skilled in the sciences, especially astronomy, cultivated an intimacy with Regiomontanus; and as soon as he understood those laudable designs of his, he took upon himself the expence of constructing the astronomical instruments, and of erecting a printing-house. And first he ordered astronomical rules to be made of tin, for observing the altitudes of the sun, moon, and planets. He next constructed a rectangular, or astronomical radius, for taking the distances of those luminaries. Then an armillary astrolabe, such as was used by Ptolomy and Hipparchus, for observing the places and motions of the stars. Lastly, he made other smaller instruments, as the torquet, and Ptolomy’s meteoroscope, with some others which had more of curiosity than utility in them. From this apparatus it evidently appears, that Regiomontanus was a most diligent observer of the laws and motions of the celestial bodies, if there were not still stronger evidences of it in the accounts of the observations themselves which he made with them.

In 1474, pope Sixtus the 4th conceived a design of reforming the calendar; and sent for Regiomontanus to Rome, as the most proper person to accomplish his purpose, who, although much engaged in his studies, and printing, at length consented to go. He arrived at Rome in 1475, but died there the year after, at only forty years of age; not without a suspicion of being poisoned by the sons of George Trapezonde, or Trapezuntius, whose father is said to have been killed by the criticisms of Regiomontanus on his translation of Ptolomy’s Almagest.

, a celebrated German enthusiast, called sometimes Moncerus and Monetardus, was born at Stollberg in the Hartz, towards the end of the fifteenth century. His father is said to have been executed for some crime, and on this account the son was thought desirous of taking his revenge on the government of Stollberg. He studied probably at Wirtemberg, and acquired that knowledge in divinity which Melancthon praises, and which appears in his writings. By his own account he taught, in early life, in the schools of Aschersleben and Halle in Saxony; and most probably he was then in orders. It is certain, however, that he soon became attached to the mystics, and entertained the wildest notions of fanaticism, which pleased the lower classes of the people, while he preached at Stollberg and Zwickau, where he was settled as a preacher in 1520. Here, while he was violent against popery, he was as little contented with the progress of Luther’s reformation; the church, he maintained, was but half reformed, and a new and pure church of the true sons of God remained to be established. About this time he connected himself with Nicholas Storck, a leader among the baptists, who pretended to have communications with the Almighty, and to hold greater purity of doctrine than the r^st of the party. Muncer was a convert to his notions, and became ardent in making proselytes. He maintained that for men to avoid vice, they must practise perpetual mortification. They must put on a grave countenance, speak but little, wear a plain garb, and be serious in their whole deportment. Such as prepared their hearts in this manner, might expect that the Supreme Being would direct all their steps, and by visible signs discover his will to them; if that illumination be at any time withheld, he says we may expostulate with the Almighty, and remind him of his promises. This expostulation will be acceptable to God, and will at last prevail on him to guide us with the same unerring hand which conducted the patriarchs of old. He also maintained, that all men were equal in the sight of God, and that, therefore, they ought to have all things in common, and should on no account exhibit any marks of subordination or pre-eminence. With these sentiments he endeavoured to establish in Alstadt a new kingdom upon earth, or a society of pious, holy, and awakened people. With these people he was accused, in 1524, of having plundered a church in a neighbouring village, burnt a chapel, and committed many other outrages; and as the affair made a great noise, he was cited to answer to the charges at Weimar; but finding that the utmost severity was to be used against him, he remained at Alstadt, where his companions were so riotous, that he was under the necessity of removing to a distance. After some little time he settled at Nuremberg, where he published a vehement censure upon Luther, which, with some irregularities, occasioned his expulsion by the government. Taking then a journey into Swabia, he found every where numerous and attentive hearers. His stay in Swabia gave rise to the report that he was the author of the famous twelve articles of the peasants; but his biographer endeavours to prove that he had no part in the insurrection which broke out in that part of the country. In the beginning of 1525, he returned back into Saxony, and was received with great favour by the citizens of Muhlhausen, and, against the consent of their council, appointed their preacher. Here his influence soon became predominant: the old council was entirely set aside, and a new one chosen: the monks were driven away, and their estates sequestered. Muncer himself was elected into the council, and proposed an equal communication of property, and similar reforms, agreeable to the taste of the people. The tumults in Swabia and Franconia were the signal ta Muncer to attempt the same in Thuringia. Churches, monasteries, castles, were plundered and the success attending these first attempts increased the popular fury and the monks, the nuns, and the nooility, were the particular objects of their resentment. It is unnecessary to repeat here the history of these troubles; suffice it, that Muncer was at last overpowered in 1526, and put to death. At his execution he is said to have shewn signs of penitence.

, is celebrated by Meres, amongst the comic poets, as the best plotter; and a few of his dramatic pieces, enumerated in the Biog. Dramatica, are occasionally to be met with and purchased as curiosities. He appears to have been a writer through a very long period, there being works existing published by him for the booksellers, which are dated in 1580 and 1621, and probably both earlier and later than those years. He frequently employed his talents on the translation of romances, but with little spirit or fidelity. He rendered himself more celebrated in his day as the author of the city pageants, from 1605 to 1616. In 1582 he detected the treasonable practices of Edmund Campion, and his confederates, of which he published an account, wherein he is styled “some time the pope’s scholler allowed in the seminarie at Roome.” The publication of this pamphlet brought down upon him the vengeance of his opponents, one of whom, in an answer to him, has given his history in these words:

, or Mondino, a physician deservedly celebrated in the dark ages, was born at Milan, according to Freind and Douglas, and flourished early in the fourteenth century. He held the professorship of medicine at Bologna in 1316, and enjoyed an extensive reputation throughout Italy, principally for his anatomical pursuits, in which, however, Eloy thinks he shewed more zeal than success, although he was the first among the moderns who dissected human bodies. He was the author of a work, entitled “Anatomia omnium humani Corporis interiorum Membrorum,” first printed at Pavia in 1478, in fol. reprinted at least fourteen times, the last in 1638, 12mo, with various commentaries. It is a methodical treatise, very copious upon the subject of the viscera, in the description of which he introduced many original observations, but passes lightly over the subject of the nerves and blood-vessels. With all its errors, which are very copious, it conferred a real benefit on the infant science, and the statutes of Padua, and some other medical schools of Italy, prohibited the use of every other work, as a text-book for the students of anatomy. Mundinus died at Bologna, Aug. 30, 1318, and was buried in the church of St. Vital.

, a learned Italian antiquary, and one of the most voluminous writers of his age and country, was born at Vignola in the duchy of Modena, Oct. 21, 1672. He was educated at Modena, and his inclination leading him to the church, as a profession, he went through the regular courses of philosophy and divinity, but without neglecting polite literature, to which he was early attached. Bacchiiri recommended the ecclesiastical writers to his attention, and he at length became so devoted to general reading, as to pay little attention to his destined profession. In 1695, the knowledge of books which he had accumulated, procured him the place of one of the librarians of the celebrated Ambrosian collection at Milan; and although he had by this time received his doctor’s degree and been admitted into orders, it was now that he entered upon that course of study and research which distinguished him in future life. His first publication was vols. I and II. of his “Anecdota Latina,” printed at Milan in 1697 and 1698, 4to. In 1700 he went to Modena to take possession of the office of keeper of the archives of the house of Este, and that of librarian to the duke of Modena, his patron. Here he remained for some years, with the exception of an interruption occasioned by the war in 1702, when the French took possession of Modena. The same year that he came here he was editor of “Vita et Rime di Carlo M. Maggi,” printed at Milan, 5 vols. and in 1703 published his “Primi disegni della Republica Letteraria d'ltalia;” this was followed by “Prolegomena, &c. in librum, cui titulus, Elucidatio Augustiniange de divina gratia doctrinae,” Cologn, 1705; “Lettere ai generosi e cortesi Letterati d'ltalia,” Venice, 1705; “Delia Perfetta Poesia Italiana, &c.” 2 vols. a very ingenious dissertation on Italian poetry, which occasioned a prolonged controversy, now no longer interesting. Two editions, however, were afterwards published, with critical notes by Salvini, the one in 1724, 2 vols. 4to. and the other, which is esteemed the best, in 1748. He published also at Bologna in 1707, “Lettera in disesa del March. G. G. Orsi;” and “Introduzione alle paci private,” Modena, 1708. In the same year he first began to write tinder the assumed name of Lamindo Pritanio, “Riflessioni SDpra il buon gusto, &c.” of which a second part appeared at Naples in 1715. After this appeared, under his proper name, “Osservazioni sopra una lettera intitolata, II dominio temporale della sede Apostolica sopra la citta di Comacchio,” &c. Modena, 1708; and “Epistola ad Jo. Albert. Fabricium,” 1709. In this last year he published another of his valuable collections under the title of “Anecdota Grseca,” Gr. & Lat. 4to, which, as well as his “Anecdota Latina,” (completed in 4 vols. at Padua, 1713) were taken from Mss. in the Ambrosian library. He published also before 1715 some other works of lesser value, which, however, showed how intense his labours were, for he had accepted of some preferments in the church, the duties of which he performed with great assiduity, and wai particularly distinguished for his humane care of the poor, who indeed shared the greater part of the profits of his benefices, and the rest went to the repairs or furniture of the churches under his care.

In 1715 and 1716 he visited various libraries in Italy, in order to collect materials for a history of the house of Este, and that of Brunswick which arose from it. In Leibnitz’s works we find a Latin epistle which Muratori addressed to him about 1711, on the connection between the houses of Brunswick and Este; and. he was encouraged in his present inquiries by the duke of Modena, and by George I. king of Great Britain. The result of his labours appeared in 2 vols. fol. under the title of “Del I'Antichita Estense et Italiane,” Modena, 1717 1740. His publications on other subjects, in almost every branch of literature, were exceeding numerous; but referring to Fabroni’s copious catalogue, it may be sufficient in this place to notice only those on which his fame is chiefly founded, and which are still in demand by scholars and antiquaries. These are, 1. “Liturgia Romana vetus, tria Sacrarnentaria compiectens,” Venice, 1748, 2 vois. fol. 2. “De Paradise, regnique celestis gloria liber, ad versus Burnetii librum de statu mortuorum,” Verona, 1738, 4to. 3. “Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, post declinationem Romani imperii ad ann. 1500,” Milan, 1738—42, 6 vols. fol. Of this there is an edition printed at Arezzo, 1780, in 17 vols. 4to. It contains many curious dissertations on the manners, government, religion, &c. of the Italians of the darker ages, with a large supplement of charters, chronicles, &c. 4. “Rerum Italicarum Scriptores prsecipui ab anno aerae Christ. D. ad MD.” ibid. 1723 51, 25 vols. usually bound in 28 or 29, fol. Complete copies of this vast work are not easily met with. Tartini’s supplement, in 2 vols. fol. 1748 70, and Mittarelli’s “Accessiones ad script, rerum Italic.” 1771, are necessary to the collection. Gibbon remarks that a volume of chronological and alphabetical tables is still wanting, the work being in a disorderly and confused state. 5. “Novus Thesaurus veterum Inscriptionum,” Milan, 1739 42, 4 vols. fol. This requires Donati’s “Supplement” published at Lucca, 1765, 2 vols. fol. or, with the title of “Veterum Inscriptionum Gr. et Lat. novissimus thesaurus,” 1775, 2 vols. fol. 6. “Dissertazioni sopra le antichita Italiana, da Lod. Ant. Muratori, opera postuma data in luce da Gian. Fran. Soli Muratori,” (his nephew) Milan, 1751, 3 vols. 4to. This has been thrice reprinted, in 4to and 8vo. It is a free translation of the “Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi,” by the author. 7. “Annali d‘ Italia dal principio dell’ era volgare, sino all' anno 1749,” Milan, 1744 49, 12vols.-4to. Of this also there have been several editions and a continuation. The Venetian and Florentine catalogues mention an edition of Muratori’s whole works (we presume those only that are original) which was begun in 1790 at Venice, and extends to 43 vols. 8vo; and another printed at Arezzo, 1767 80, in 36 vols. 4to.

, one of the most pleasing painters Spain ever produced, was born at Pilas, near Seville, in 1613, and be.came a disciple of Juan del Castillo, whose favourite subjects were fairs and markets; of which Murillo painted many pictures before he left him to go to Madrid. There he studied and copied the works of Titian, Rubens, and Vandyke, in the royal palaces, and the houses of the nobility; and having very much advanced himself in the knowledge and practice of his art, returned to Seville, where he was employed to paint for most of the principal churches there, as well as at Granada, Cadiz, and Cordova. The style of Murillio is his own. He copied his objects from nature, but combined them ideally; that is, his back-grounds are generally confused and indistinct, and the parts very much blended together, with a loose pencil and indeterminate execution; but most of them have a very pleasing effect, and perhaps the principal objects acquire a degree of finish and beauty from this very circumstance. An instance may be recollected in his very pleasing picture of the good shepherd, an excellent copy of which is at the marquis of Stafford’s gallery. But it was in small pictures of familiar life that this artist most completely succeeded, for in his large pictures, skilfully wrought as they are, he does not appear to have penetrated the arcana of grandeur or style; but in the amiable and tender sentiments which are expressed by the silent actions of the human features, he was eminently successful. He died in 1685.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was born at Clooniquin, in the county of Roscommon, in Ireland, Dec. 27, 1727. His father, Richard Murphy, who was a merchant, perished in 1729, in one of his own trading-vessels for Philadelphia, probably in a violent storm, but no intelligence of the ship, or any of its passengers or crew, ever transpired. From this time the care of the subject of the present article devolved upon his mother, who, in 1735, removed, with her children, to London but Arthur was sent, at the age of ten, to the English college at St. Omer’s, where he remained six years and made very extraordinary proficiency in Greek and Latin, a love for which he retained all his life, and particularly improved his acquaintance with the Latin classics. On his return to England, in 1744, he resided with his mother till August 1747, when he was sent to Cork, to an uncle Jeffery French, in whose counting-house he was employed till April 1749. After this his uncle destined him to go to Jamaica to overlook a large estate which he possessed in that island; but his inclination was averse to business of every kind, and he returned to his mother in London, in 1751. Here he either first contracted, or began at least to indulge, his predominant passion for the theatre, although placed in the counting-house of Ironside and Belchier, bankers. In October 1752, he published the first number of “The Gray’s-Inn Journal,” a weekly paper, which he continued for two years, and which served to connect him much with dramatic performers and writers, as well as to make him known to the public as a wit and a critic. On the death of his uncle, he was much disappointed in not finding his name mentioned in his will, and the more so as he had contracted debts, in faith of a good legacy, to the amount of three hundred pounds. In this embarrassed state, by the advice of the celebrated Foote, he went on the stage, and appeared for the first time in the character of Othello. Jn one season, by the help of strict economy, he paid off his debts, and had at the end of the year four hundred pounds in his pocket. With this sum he determined to quit the stage, on which, as a performer, notwithstanding the advantages of a fine person, and good judgment, he made no very distinguished figure, and never used to be more offended than when reminded of this part of his career.

He now determined to study the law; but on his first application to the society of the Middle-Temple, he had the mortification to be refused admission, on the ground of his having acted on the stage; but was soon after, in 1757, received as a member of Lincoln’s-Inn. In this year he was engaged in a weekly paper, called “The Test,” undertaken chiefly in favour of Mr. Fox, afterwards lord Holland, which ceased on the overthrow of the administration to which his lordship was attached. This paper was answered by Owen Ruffhead, in the “Contest.” During his study of the law, the stage was, either from inclination or necessity, his resource; and in the beginning of 1758, he produced the farce of “The Upholsterer,” which was very successful; and before the end of the same year he finished “The Orphan of China,” which is founded on a dramatic piece, translated from this Chinese language, in Du Halde’s “History of China.” The muse, as he says, “still keeping possession of him,” he produced, in 1760 the “Desert Island,” a dramatic poem; and his “Way to keep Him,” a comedy of three acts, afterwards enlarged to five acts, the most popular of all his dramatic compositions. This was followed by the comedy of “All in the Wrong,” “The Citizen,” and “The Old Maid;” all of which were successful, and still retain their rank among acting-pieces. Having finished his preparatory law-studies, he was called to the bar in Trinity-Term, 1762. About this time, he engaged again in political controversy, by writing “The Auditor,” a periodical paper, intended to counteract the influence of Wilkes’s “North-Briton;” but in this he was peculiarly unfortunate, neither pleasing the public, nor deriving much support from those on whose behalf he wrote. Wilkes and Churchill, who were associated in politics, contrived to throw a degree of ridicule on Murphy’s labours, which was fatal. Murphy appearing to his antagonists to meddle with subjects which he did not understand, they laid a trap to make him discover his want of geographical knowledge, by sending him a letter signed “Viator,” boasting of the vast acquisition, by lord Bute’s treaty of peace, of Florida to this country, and representing that country as peculiarly rich in fuel for domestic uses, &c. This Arthur accordingly inserted, with a remark that “he gave it exactly as he received it, in order to throw all the lights in his power upon the solid value of the advantages procured by the late negociation.” Wilkes immediately reprinted this letter in his “North Britain;” and the “Auditor” found it impossible to bear up against the satires levelled at him from all quarters.

Mr. Murphy, in his better days, was a man of elegant manners, and of a well-informed mind, rich also in anecdotes of the literature of his period, which he related with great humour and accuracy, and there was a time when the company of few men was more courted, or was in itself more entertaining. As a dramatic writer he may be deemed both fortunate and unfortunate fortunate as he established a very high character, and produced more stock pieces than any man of his time; and unfortunate, as the stage detached him from a profession by which he might have attained ease and independence. The consciousness of this had visible effects on his temper in his last years. It was a painful recollection that he had lived to see the companions and familiar friends of his youth advanced to the highest ranks in the state, while he was left to derive a scanty support from talents now in their decay.

, a clergyman of Scotland, was born at Dunkeld in that country, in 1702, and educated in the Marishal college, Aberdeen, where he took his degrees, and was licensed as a probationer in the ministry. Being of a romantic turn of mind, although an excellent classical scholar, he refused a living in Scotland, and came to London, where, it is said, but we know not upon what authority, he was made choice of as an assistant-preacher to the congregation in Swallow-street, Westminster. But his pulpit-oratory did not acquire him popularity, and his sentiments were rather disgustful to his hearers. This induced him to solicit the protection of James late duke of Athol, who took him into his family, where he wrote a work, entitled “Aletheia, or a System of Moral Truths,” which has been published in the form of letters, in 2 vols. 12mo. He died in London in 1758, aged fifty-five.

On June 26, 1730, he took the degree of master of ar,ts, and soon after made a tour on the continent. On his return, he became a member of Lincoln’s-inn; and, in due time, was called to the bar. Mr. Murray is among those rare instances of persons who very 'early attained to reputation and practice in the profession. His talent was for public speaking, which gave him a superiority that enabled him to rival and excel those who were far beyond him in knowledge and experience. A reputation early attained gives a character which it is very difficult for time to change or eradicate. Mr. Murray’s premature success created an early impression that he was more of a speaker than a lawyer; and, while he was readily acknowledged to excel both old and young, in the one qualification, the world were long unwilling to allow him an ascendancy in the other. His attachment to the belles lettres, and society with Mr. Pope and other wits of his time, gave countenance to the idea, that little time was left for Coke, Plowden, and the Year-hooks. But time and experience, as they improved Mr. Murray, gradually convinced the world, that his mind was equally made for jurisprudence or oratory.

From the first of his coming upon the bench of that court, he set himself to introduce regularity, punctuality; and dispatch in business. On the fourth day after his appointment, he laid it down, that, where the court had no doubt, they ought not to put the parties to the delay and expence of a farther argument. Such was the general satisfaction during the time he presided there, that the business of the court increased in a way never before known, and yet was dispatched as had never before been seen, whether in bank, or at nisi prius. “At the sitting for London and Middlesex,” says sir James Burrow, in the preface to his Reports, “there are not so few as eight hundred causes set down in a year, and all disposed of.” Respecting the business in barjk, he says, “notwithstanding the immensity of business, it is notorious, that, in consequence of method, and a very few rules, which have been laid down to prevent delay (even where the parties themselves would willingly consent to it), nothing now hangs in court. Upon the last day of the very last term, if we exclude such motions of the term as by the desire of the parties went over of course, as peremptories; there was not a single matter of any kind that remained undetermined, excepting one case relating to the proprietary lordship of Maryland, which was professedly postponed on account of the present situation of America. One might speak to the same effect concerning the last day of any former term for some years backward.” The same reporter says, that, except in the c^se of Perrin and Blake, and the case of Literary Property, there had not been, from Nov. 6, 1756, to May 26, 1776, a final difference of opinion in the court in any case, or upon any point whatsoever; and it is remarkable too, that, excepting these two cases, no judgment given during the same period had been reversed, either in the exchequer chamber, or parliament; and even these two reversals were with great difference of opinion among the judges.

The affair of Mr. Wilkes’s outlawry was the next thing which brought upon this noble person the malicious attacks of party and faction. Whether this outlawry should be reversed or not, was a dry question of law, upon the wording of the record, and nothing could be more remote from considerations of expediency, and reasons of political moment; it was a matter wholly clerical, and better understood by the subordinate officers ol the court than by most on the bench. But this point of special pleading was made an object of much popular expectation; and, on the judgment was to be given, not only the court, but the whole of Westminster-hall, and Palace-yard, were crowded with anxious spectators. The court had made up their minds to reverse the outlawry, so that Mr. Wilkes was let in to receive judgment on the conviction. Upon this occasion lord Mansfield took notice of the unusual appearance of popular heat that had been discovered and directed against the judges of that court, and, more especially, against himself, with a manliness that will ever do honour to his character. He declared his contempt of all the threats that had been used to intimidate the court from doing its duty. He said that such attempts could have no effect but that which would be contrary to their intent; leaning against their impression might give a bias the other way; but he hoped, and knew, that he had fortitude enough to resist even that weakness. “No libels, no threats, nothing that has happened, nothing that can happen, will weigh a feather against allowing the defendant, upon this and every other question, not only the whole advantage he is entitled to from substantial law and justice, but every benefit from the most critical nicety of form, which any other defendant could claim under the like objection. The only effect I feel,” says he, “is an anxiety to be able to explain the grounds upon which we proceed, so as to satisfy all mankind, that a flaw of form given way to, in this case, could not have been got over in any other.” It was upon this occasion that he delivered the following striking sentiment “I honour the king, and respect the people; but many things acquired by the favour of either, are, in my account, objects not worth ambition. I wish popularity, but it is that popularity which follows, not that which is run after.”

In the month of June, 1780, when the metropolis of the kingdom was exposed, for several days, to the depredations of a banditti, that took advantage of the tumultuous assemblies brought together by the protestant association, lord Mansfield was made an object of popular fury, and his house in Bloomsbury-square, with every thing in it, was burnt. This attack was so unexpected, that no preparation was made against it and he escaped only with his life. This was on Tuesday night, June 7 and he did not appear in court till June 14, the last day of term. When he took his seat, Mr. Douglas informs us, in his Reports, “the reverential silence that was observed was expressive of sentiments of condolence and respect more affecting than the most eloquent address the occasion could have suggested.” His lordship was entitled, amongst others, to recover the amount of his loss against the hundred. There was also a vote of the House of Commons, in consequence of which the treasury directed the surveyor of the board of works to apply to lord Mansfield, as one of the principal sufferers, requesting him to state the nature and amount of -his loss: but he declined this offer of compensation. “It does not become me,” says he, in his answer to the surveyorgeneral, “however great the loss may be, to claim or expect reparation from the state.”

From this time, it seemed, as if popular odium had spent its fury, and had no longer any malice to direct against this noble person. Party rage seemed to be softened by this last act of mischief; and, during the remainder of his days, lord Mansfield seemed to unite all parties in one uniform sentiment of approbation and reverence for a tried and ancient servant of the public. The increase of years did not bring on such infirmities as to disable him from, discharging the duties of his station till about 1787: these, at length, bore so much upon him that he came to the resolution to resign his office, which he did in the month of June, 1788. Upon that occasion the gentlemen who practised at the bar of the court where he had so long presided, addressed to his lordship a letter, in which they lamented their loss, but remembered, with peculiar satisfaction, that his lordship was not cut off from them by the sudden stroke of painful distemper, or the more distressing of those extraordinary faculties which had so long disv tinguished him among men; but, that it had pleased God to allow to the evening of a useful and illustrious life the purest enjoyment that nature had ever allotted to it. The unclouded reflections of a superior and unfading wind over its varied events, and the happy consciousness that it had been faithfully and eminently devoted to the highest duties of human society, in the most distinguished nation upon, earth. They expressed a wish that the season of this high satisfaction might bear its proportion to the lengthened days of his rctivity and strength. This letter had many signatures, and was, atthe desire of Mr. Bearcroft, the senior counsel in that court, transmitted to the venerable peer by Mr. (now lord) Erskine. Lord Mansfield instantly returned an answer, in which he said, that, if he had given any satisfaction, it was owing to the learning and candour of the bar; the liberality and integrity of their practice freed the judicial investigation of truth and justice from difficulties. The memory of the assistance he had received from them, and the deep impression which the extraordinary mark they had no v given him of their approbation and affection, had made upon his mind, would be a source of perpetual consolation in his decline of life, under the pressure of bodily infirmities, which made it his duty to retire.

"Of his conduct in the House of Lords I can speak with the more confidence, because I speak from my own observation. Too goad to be the leader, and too able to be the dupe of any party, he was believed to speak his own sense of public measures; and the authority of his judgment was so high, that, in regular limes, the house was usually decided by it. He was no forward or frequent speaker, but reserved himself, as was fit, for occasions worthy of him. In debate he was eloquent as well as wise, or rather he became eloquent by his wisdom. His countenance and tone of voice imprinted the ideas of penetration, probity, and candour; but what secured yow attention and assent to all he said was his constant good sense, flowing in apt terms, and in the clearest method. He affected no sallies of the imagination, or bursts of passion; much less would he condescend to personal abuse, or to petulant altercation; All was clear candid reason, letting itself so easily into the minds of his hearers as to carry information and conviction with it. In a word, his public senatorial character very much resembled that of Messala, of whom Cicero says, addressing himself to Brutus, < Do not imagine, Brutus, that for worth, honour, and a warm love of his country, any one is comparable to Messala;' so that his eloquence, in which he wonderfully excels, is almost eclipsed by those virtues: and even in his display of that faculty his superior good sense shews itself most; with so much care and skill hath he formed himself to the truest manner of speaking His powers of genius and invention are confessedly of the first size, yet he almost owes less to them, than the diligent and studious cultivation of judgment.

, celebrated by ancient writers as a philosopher, astronomer, and poet, was, according to Plato and Diodorus Siculus, an Athenian, the son of Orpheus, and chief of the Eleusinian mysteries, instituted at Athens in honour of Ceres; or, according to others, he was only the disciple of Orpheus. He is allowed to have been one of the first poets who versified the oracles. He is placed in the Arundelian marbles, Epoch 15, 1426 B.C. at which time his hymns are there said to have been received in the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries. Laertius tells us, that Musæus not only composed a theogony, but formed the first sphere but he was probably misled by the title of a poem said to have been written by Mnsaeus, “de Sphaera.” The doctrine which he taught was, that all things are produced fiom one, and shall be resolved into the same; an Orphic doctrine, which is the first principle of the system of emanation, and the foundation of all the ancient theogonies. He is celebrated by Virgil in the character of Hierophant, or priest of Ceres, among the most illustrious mortals who have merited a place in Elysium, and is made the conductor of Æneus to the recess, where he meets the shade of his fatber Anchises.

He was a man of great application and deep learning, and a considerable master of the Greek and Hebrew languages, although he was at the least thirty-two when he began to study the latter, and forty when he first applied to the former. He published several books, the first of which were translations from the Greek into Latin, particularly the “Comment of St. Chrysostom upon St. Paul’s Epistles to the” Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians,“printed at Basil in 1536 the second volume of the” Works of St. Basil“the” Scholia of -the same father upon the Psalms;“several” Treatises of St. Athanasius and St. Cyril;“and the” Ecclesiastical History of Eusehius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Evagrius, and Polybius.“He published” Comments upon some parts of both the Old and New Testament;“and father Simon says, that” he was acquainted with the true way of explaining the Scriptures, but had not all the necessary accomplishments to enable him to succeed perfectly in it, because he was not sufficiently exercised in the study of the languages and of critical learning. However,“he adds,” Musculus examines the ancient Greek and Latin translations without prejudice; and he has shewn well enough, that the points which are now printed in the Hebrew text, were not used at the time of the Septuagint and St Jerome.“He was the author of some original works, both in Latin and German, particularly his” Loci Communes,“or” Common Places," which, with other tracts by him, were published in English during the reign of queen Elizabeth, along with the writings of the principal foreign reformers, and contributed not a little to strengthen, the principles of the reformation.

Being a man of very extensive learning, he composed, at his leisure-hours, several curious works, as, 1. “De Arthritide symptomatica Dissertatio, 1703,” 8vo. 2. “De Arthritide^anomala sive interna Dissertatio, 1707,” 8vo. Of these two books, one upon the regular, the other upon the irregular or inward gout, he gave an account in the “Philosophical Transactions.” 3. “Julii Vitalis Epitaphitim: cum Commentario, 1711,” 8vo, a work much praised by Mr. Moyle. 4. “De Legionibus Epistola.” This letter concerning the Roman legions was addressed to sir Hans Sloane. 5. “De Aquilis Romania Epistola, 1713,” 8vo, addressed to Gisbert Cuper, consul of Deventer, who had affirmed that the Roman eagles were of massy gold or silver; while Musgrave maintained, that they were only plated over, in which opinion he was joined by Moyle. 6. “Inscriptio Terraconensis; cum Commentario.” 7. “Geta Britannicus. Accedit Domus Severianae Synopsis chronologica; et de Icuncula quondam M. Regis jElfridi Dissertatio, 1715,” 8vo. That is, “Observations upon a fragment of an equestrian stone Statue, found near Bath, which Musgrave believes to have been set up in honour of Geta, after his arrival in Britain; together with a chronological Synopsis of the family of Severus; and a dissertation upon a piece of Saxon antiquity found at Athelney in Somersetshire, being king Alfred the Great’s Amulet.” 8. “Belgium Britannicum;” or, “An account of that part of South Britain which was anciently inhabited by a people called Belgae, and now comprehends Hampshire, Wiltshire, and Somersetshire,” 1719, 8vo. To this work is prefixed a dissertation, in which he endeavours to prove that Britain was formerly a peninsula, and joined to France about Calais. All the above tracts on antiquities were published together at Exeter, in 1720, 4 vols. 8vo. In 1776 a posthumous dissertation of his on the gout was published under the title of “De Arthritide primogenia et regulari,” 8vo. He had left the manuscript to his son William Musgrave, M. B. by whom it was committed to the press, but he dying when the work was nearly completed, the sheets remained in the warehouse of the Clarendon press until the above-mentioned period, when it was published by the author’s grandson, the late Dr. Samuel Musgrave, of Exeter, a gentleman once noted (about 1761) for his pretended political discoveries respecting the private history of the peace, and afterwards as a Greek scholar and critic. He studied at Leyden, where in 1762 he published “Exercitationum in Euripidem libri duo,” 8vo, and when he took his degree, “Apologia pro medicina Empirica,” 1763, 4to. After his return he practised physic at Exeter, and bestowed much time on collating various Mss. of Euripides, which collations, with his notes, were incorporated in an edition of that classic printed at Oxford in 1778, 4 vols. 8vo. Dr. Harwood gives a very unfavourable opinion of this edition, nor has it been in general much prized by foreign critics. Dr. Musgrave died July 3, 1782, greatly reduced in circumstances, and after his death was edited by Mr. Tyrwhitt, for the benefit of his family, “Two Dissertations,” on the Grecian mythology, and the chronology of the Olympiads.

After making a complete tour of Europe, which he began by going through France, and finished by returning through Switzerland and Holland, he arrived in London, with every possible testimonial of his talents, but without a friend or patron. At this time plans were requested by the city of London for constructing a bridge at Black Friars, and Mr. Mylne, among twenty others, became a candidate. It was well known that one of his rivals was befriended by lord Bute, who had then great influence, but Mr. Mylne succeeded by the impartial verdict of the judges appointed to examine the respective plans; and the first stone was laid in 1761, with a pomp becoming the vast undertaking. A writer of no common talents, in the supplement to the “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” after a very close examination of the details of this structure, pronounces it to be the most perfect of any that is upon record, and at large points out the great superiority of the centering employed by Mr. Mylne. The learned author seerns, however, to suppose that this ingenious architect made a secret of his mode of centering; but few men had a more liberal spirit, or more aversion to professional quackery of every kind, and therefore, he deposited in the British Museum, an exact model of the centering employed at Blackfriars bridge, which gives a most precise and satisfactory idea of the work. When the bridge was first proposed, Mr. Mylne engaged in a short controversy with Dr. Johnson, on the form of the arch; but they were afterwards intimate friends, and in conversation agreed in a certain sturdy independence of mind which perhaps cemented that friendship. It is much to the honour of Mr. Mylne’s accuracy, as well as integrity, that Blackfriars-bridge was completed in 1765, for the exact sum specified in his estimate, namely, one hundred and fifty-three thousand pounds. On his proposals being accepted, the city committee, in February 1760, voted him an annual salary of three hundred pounds; and his farther remuneration was to be five per cent, on the money laid out on the bridge. To obtain this, however, he hud a long struggle with the city, which he maintained with his characteristic firmness and spirit; and, in answer to a question several times put to him, with no great delicacy, uniformly declared, that what he claimed, he claimed as a matter of right, and not of favour. At length, but not until 1776, his claims were allowed; on which occasion he sent to the corporation a letter of thanks.

Immediately after completing the bridge, he was appointed surveyor of St. Paul’s cathedral, by the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of London, and the lord-mayor; and not only directed the repairs that have been found necessary in that noble fabrick, but those temporary erections required by the anniversaries of the sons of the clergy, and that most interesting spectacle, the annual assemblage of the charity-children of the metropolis, as well as those more elegant preparations made for the visits of the royal family and the two houses of parliament in 1789, 1797, &c. &c. It was by his suggestion that the noble inscription in honour of sir Christopher Wren, ending, “Si monumentum requiras,” &c. was placed over the entrance of the choir. Among the other edifices which Mr. Mylne erected, or was concerned in the repairs, we may enumerate Rochester cathedral, Greenwich hospital, of which he was clerk of the works for fifteen years Kings- Weston, the seat of lord De Clifford Blaze castle, near Bristol Addington, the seat of the archbishop of Canterbury; Wormlybury, sir Abraham Hume’s; Lying-in hospital, City road the duke of Northumberland’s pavillion, on the banks of the Thames at Sion general Skene’s house, in Fifeshire lord Frederic Campbell’s at Ardincaple; Inverary castle, the duke of Argyle’s; the embankment at the Temple gardens, &c. &c. He was also consulted on almost all the harbours in England. Mr. Milne died, May 5, 1811, at the New River Head, where he had long resided, as engineer to that company; an office to which he was appointed in 1762. He was interred, by his own desire, in St. Paul’s cathedral, near the tomb of his illustrious predecessor, Wren.

Mr. Mylne was a man of most extensive professional knowledge, and while his Blackfriars bridge, and many other structures shewed him an excellent practical builder, he was no less acute and eloquent on the theory of his art. His conversation, always entertaining and edifying, assumed a higher tone, when he was invited to speak on architectural subjects, the history of the Grecian or Gothic styles, or any disputed point respecting the origin of the art. On such, almost to the latest hour of his life, we have heard him dilate with a precision and copious flow of reasoning, that would have been astonishing in the ablest men in the prime of life. His personal character is said to have had some peculiarities. Such as we have observed seemed to arise from a consciousness of superior talent, and a lofty independent e of spirit. Placed often at the head of a tribe of inferior workmen, of contending interests and passions, his orders were peremptory, and were to be obeyed without a murmur; while he could vet listen with patience, if an objection was started on reasonable grounds. What he most disliked was that adherence to custom and practice which made every improvement be considered as a dangerous, impracticable, or inconvenient innovation. Against this he bent the whole force of his authority, and always endeavoured to introduce a more liberal spirit. The common workmen, who looked up to him with some degree of terror, and whom he certainly did not always address in the gentlest terms, were amply recompensed by the care he took that, whoever were his employers, these humble artisans should be paid their wages with the utmost punctuality. Dearly as he loved his profession, he was not avaricious of its emoluments, and after all his distinguished employments, he did not die rich.

, an historical writer, was born probably about 1638, and educated at Cambridge, of which he became LL. D. We have discovered very few particulars of his life. He appears to have been zealous in the royal cause during the usurpation, and became rector of Doddington cum March, in the Isle of Ely. He was also in 1684 collated to a prebend in that cathedral. Wood and Bentham say that he died March 24, 1685-6, aged fortyeight years, and was buried in Ely cathedral. If Bentham did not copy this date from Wood, but took it from the registers of Ely, we know not how to reconcile it with a letter from Dr. Nalson, printed in Gutch’s “Collectanea,” and dated 1688, at the time the bishops were sent to the Tower by the infatuated James II. Be this as it may, he published “An Impartial Collection of the Great Affairs of State, from the beginning of the Scotch rebellion in 1639, to the murder of king Charles I, &c.” Lond. 1682-3, 2 vols. fol. This collection was intended as an antidote to that of Rush worth, whose prejudices were in favour of the parliament; and contains many authentic and curious circumstances not to be found in other writers. Nalson’s statements are reviewed by Roger Coke, esq. in his *' Treatise of the Life of Man,“1685, fbl. Besides this historical collection, Dr. Nalson wrote, 1.” The Countermine: or, a short, but true discovery of the dangerous principles, and secret practices of the dissenting party, especially the presbyterians; shewing, that religion is pretended, but rebellion intended,“&c. Lond. 1677, 8vo. 2.” The Common Interest of King and People, shewing the original, antiquity, and excellency, of monarchy compared with aristocracy and democracy, and particularly of our English monarchy; and that absolute, papal, and presbyterian popular supremacy are utterly inconsistent with prerogative, property, and liberty;“ibid. 1678, 8vo. 3.” A True Copy of the Journal of the High Court of Justice, for the' trial of Charles I. as it was read in the House of Commons, and attested under the hand of Phelps, clerk to that infamous court,“with an introduction, ibid. 1684, fol. He also translated Maimbourg’s” History of the Crusade," &c. ibid. 1685, fol.

, or Nannius, or in his native language, Nanningh (Peter), a very learned philologer, and general scholar, was born at Alcmaer, in Holland, in 1500; he studied at Louvain, and then was employed in the private education of some young men until the death of Conrad Goclenius, when the university unanimously appointed him to pronounce a funeral oration on that eminent teacher, and to succeed him as Latin professor. In this office he gave such satisfaction, that all his scholars, who were exceedingly numerous, ever preserved the highest respect for him, and acknowledged that the care he took was the foundation of their future advancement and fame. He was also much esteemed by the cardinal de Granvelle, and by Nicholas Everard, president of the great council of Mechlin. The cardinal preferred him to a canonry in his church of ArraS, and the president placed his children under his care, and rewarded him munificently. With the patronage of these two personages, he was so satisfied as to refuse many liberal offers to remove to Italy, and remained the whole of his life at Louvain. He was a most industrious writer, as well as teacher, and in the numerous list given by Foppen of his publications, we find commentaries on Cicero, on Virgil, and Horace’s Art of Poetry; paraphrases on the Song of Solomon, and on the Proverbs; annotations on civil law, of which he acquired a profound knowledge; translations of some part of Demosthenes, Synesius, Apollonius, Plutarch, St. Athanasius, St. N Basil, Chrysostom; prefaces introductory and illustrative of Homer, and Demosthenes, &c. He also translated the Psalms into Latin verse, and, in the opinion of his contemporaries, with equal elegance and fidelity. Among his separate publications his “Miscellaoeorum decas,” a collection of critical remarks on ancient authors, and his “Dialogismi Heroinarum,” were much esteemed. This eminent scholar died at Louvain, July 21, 1557, and was buried in the church of St. Peter, where one of his scholars, Sigismond Frederic Fugger, placed a monument to his memory. He is mentioned in terms of the highest praise by Miræus, Thuanus, Melchior Adam, Gyraldus, Huet, and many other learned men.

, baron of Merchiston in Scotland, and the celebrated inventor of the Logarithms, was the eldest son of sir Archibald Napier of Merchiston, and born in 1550. After going through the ordinary course of education at the university of St. Andrew’s, he made the tour of France, Italy, and Germany. On his return he applied himself chiefly to the study of mathematics, to which he joined that of the Scriptures; and in both discovered the most extensive knowledge and profound penetration. His “Essay upon the book of the Apocalypse” indicates the most acute investigation; though time has discovered that his calculations concerning particular events had proceeded upon fallacious data. But what his fame now solely rests upon is his great and fortunate discovery of logarithms in trigonometry, by which the ease and expedition in calculation have so wonderfully assisted the science of astronomy and the arts of practical geometry and navigation. Napier, having much attachment to astronomy and spherical trigonometry, had occasion to make many numeral calculations of such triangles, with sines, tangents, &c. which being expressed in large numbers, occasioned a great deal of labour and trouble: To spare themselves part of this labour, Napier, and other authors about his time, endeavoured to find out certain short modes of calculation, as is evident from many of their writings. To this necessity, and these endeavours it is, that we owe several ingenious contrivances; particularly the computation by Napier’s Rods, or Bones, as they are called, and several other curious and short methods that are given in his “Rabdologia” and at length, after trials of many other means, the most complete one of logarithms, in the actual construction of a large table of numbers in arithmetical progression, adapted to a set of as many others in geometrical progression. The property of such numbers had been long known, viz. that the addition of the former answered to the multiplication of the latter, &c. but it wanted the necessity of such very troublesome calculations as those abovementioned, joined to an ardent disposition, to make such a use of that property. Perhaps also this disposition was urged into action by certain attempts of this kind which it seems were made elsewhere; such as the following, related by Wood 'in his “Athenae Oxonienses,” under the article Briggs, on the authority of Oughtred and Wingate, viz. “That one Dr. Craig, a Scotchman, coming out of Denmark into his own country, called upon John Neper baron of Marcheston near Edinburgh, and told him, among other discourses, of a new invention in Denmark, (by Longomontanus as ‘tis said) to save the tedious multiplication and division in astronomical calculations. Neper being solicitous to know farther of him concerning this matter, he could give no other account of it, than that it was by proportionable numbers. Which hint Neper taking, he desired him at his return to call upon him again. Craig, after some weeks had passed, did so, and Neper then shewed him a rude draught of that he called ’ Canon Mirabilis Logarithmorum.' Which draught, with some alterations, he printed in 1614; it came forthwith into the hands of our authorBriggs, and into thoseof William Oughtred, from whom the relation of this matter came.”

The following passage, from the life of Lilly the astrologer, contains a curious account of the meeting of those two illustrious men. “I will acquaint you,” says Lilly, “with one memorable story related unto me by John Marr, an excellent mathematician and geometrician, whom I conceive you remember. He was, servant to king James and Charles the First. At first when the lord Napier, or Marchiston, made public his logarithms, Mr. Briggs, then reader of the astronomy lectures at Gresham college in London, was so surprised with admiration of them, that he could have no quietness in himself until he had seen that noble person the lord Marchiston, whose only invention they were: he acquaints John Marr herewith, who went into Scotland before Mr. Briggs, purposely to be there when these two so learned persons should meet. Mr. Briggs appoints a certain day when to meet at Edinburgh; but failing thereof, the lord Napier was doubtful he would not come. It happened one day as John Marr and the lord Napier were speaking of Mr. Briggs; `Ah, John,‘ said Marchiston, `Mr. Briggs will not now come.’ At the very instant one knocks at the gate; John Marr hasted down, and it proved Mr. Briggs, to his great contentment. He brings Mr. Briggs up into my lord’s chamber, where almost one quarter of an hour was spent, each beholding other almost with admiration before one word was spoke. At last Mr. Briggs began: ‘My lord, I have undertaken this long journey purposely to see your person, and to know by what engine of wit or ingenuity you came first to think of this most excellent help into astronomy, viz. the logarithms; but, my lord, being by you found out, I wonder no body else found it out before, when now known it is so easy.’ He was nobly entertained by the lord Napier; and every summer after that, during the lord’s being alive, this venerable man Mr. Briggs went purposely into Scotland to visit him.”

Napier made also considerable improvements in spherical trigonometry, &c. particularly by his Catholic or Universal Rule, being a general theorem, by which he resolves all the cases of right-angled spherical triangles in a manner very simple, and easy to be remembered, namely, by what he calls the Five Circular Parts. His construction of Logarithms too, beside the labour of them, manifests the greatest ingenuity. Kepler dedicated his Ephemerides to Napier, which were published in 1617; and it appears from many passages in his letter about this time, that he accounted Napier to be the greatest man of his age in the particular department to which he applied his abilities.

The last literary exertion of this eminent person was the publication of his “Rabdology and Promptuary,” in 1617; soon after which he died at Marchiston, the 3d of April in the same year, in the 68th year of his age. The list of his works is as follows: 1. “A Plain Discovery of the Revelation of St. John,” 1593. 2. “Logarithmorum Canonis Descriptio,” 1614. 3. “Mirifici Logarithmorum Canonis Constructio; et eorum ad Naturales ipsorum nu*­meros habitudines; una cum appendice, de alia eaque praestantiore Logarithmorum specie condenda. Quibus accessere propositiones ad triangula sphserica faciliore calculo resolvenda. Una cum Annotationibus aliquot doctissimi D. Henrici Briggii in eas, et memoratam appendicem.” Published by the author’s son in 1619. 4. “Rabdologia, sen Numerations per Virgulas, libri duo,” 1617. This contains the description and use of the Bones or Rods; with several other short and ingenious modes of calculation. 5. His Letter to Anthony Bacon (the original of which is in the archbishop’s library at Lambeth), entitled, “Se­”cret Inventions, profitable and necessary in these days for the Defence of this Island, and withstanding strangers enemies to God’s truth and religion" dated June 2, 1596.

, an Italian historian, was born of a noble family of Florence, in 1476. Having espoused the cause of the liberties of his country, when the Medici family gained the ascendancy, he was banished, and his property confiscated. He then went to Venice, where he passed the rest of his days in composing his various works, particularly his history of Florence, “L'Istorie de Firenze, dal 1494 sino al 1531,” &c. 1532, 4to, which bears a great character for style; but, from his being the decided enemy of the house of Medici, must probably be read with some caution; nor was it published until fifty years after his death. He acquired great reputation also by his translation of Livy, which is considered as one of the best versions of the ancient authors in the Italian language. It was first printed in 1547; but the best editions are those of 1554 and 1575, in which last there is a supplement to the second decade by Turchi. Apostolo Zeno laments, that after Nardi had been banished his country, his works should also be banished from the vocabulary della Crusca. These academicians quote him but once, under the word pronunziare. He certainly deserved not such contempt, if it was out of contempt they neglected him. Nardi, in his youth, had distinguished himself as a soldier, and shows great knowledge and experience in military affairs, in a Life of the celebrated commander Malespini, printed at Florence, 1597, 4to. He was the author of several other works, both in prose and verse, and is supposed to have given the first example of the versi sciolti, or Italian blank verse. He is thought to have died about 1555, far advanced in age.

, doctor of music, an eminent composer and teacher in that science, under whom some of the first musicians of the present day received the whole or part of their education, was tfce son of Mr. Nares, who was, for many years, steward to Montague and Willoughby, earl* of Abingdon. He was born, as well as his brother, the late Mr. Justice Nares, at Stanwell in Middlesex; the former in 1715, the latter in 1716. His musical education he commenced under Mr. Gates, then master of the royal choristers; and completed it under the celebrated Dr. Pepusch. Thus prepared, he officiated, for some time, as deputy to Mr. Pigott, organist of Windsor; but, on the resignation of Mr. Salisbury, organist of York, in 1734, was chosen to succeed him, being then only nineteen. It is related, on undoubted authority, that, when the old musician first saw his intended successor, he said, rather angrily, “What! is that child to succeed me?” which being mentioned to the organist-elect, he took an early opportunity, on a difficult service being appointed, to play it throughout half a note below the pitch, which brought it into a key with seven sharps; and went through it without the slightest error. Being asked why he did so, he said, that “he only wished to shew Mr. Salisbury what a child could do.” His knowledge in all branches of his profession was equal to his practical skill in this instance; and, during his residence at York, where he was abundantly employed as a teacher, and where he married, Mr. Nares, by his good conduct, as well as professional merit, obtained many powerful friends. Among the foremost of these was Dr. Fontayne, the late venerable dean of York; who, when Dr. Green died, towards the latter end of 1755, exerted his interest so successfully, that he obtained for him the united places of organist and composer to his majesty. He removed, therefore, to London in the beginning of 1756; and, about the same time, was created doctor in music at Cambridge.

His printed works are these 1 “Eight sets of Lessons for the Harpsichord dedicated to the right honourable Willoughby earl of Abingdon printed in 1748, reprinted in 1757.” 2. “Five Lessons for the Harpsichord, with a sonata in score for the harpsichord or organ; dedicated to the right honourable the countess of Carlisle;” published in 1758 or 1759. 3. “A set of easy Lessons for the Harpsichord,” three in number; with a dedication to the public, signed J. N. 4. “A Treatise on Singing,” small size. 5. “II Principio” or “.A regular introductionto playing on the Harpsichord or Organ.” This was the first set of progressive lessons published on a regular plan. 6. “The Royal Pastoral, a dramatic ode; dedicated to his royal highness the prince of Wales; printed in score, with an overture and choruses. 7.” Catches, Canons, and Glees; dedicated to the late lord Mornington.“8.” Six Fugues, with introductory voluntaries forMhe Organ or Harpsichord.“9.” A concise and easy treatise on Singing, with a set of English Duets for beginners;“- a different work from the former small treatise. 10.” Twenty Anthems, in score, for one, two, three, four, and rive voices composed for the use of his majesty’s chapels royal,“1778. 11.” Six, easy Anthems, with a favourite Morning and Evening Service,“left for publication at his death, and published in 1738, with a portrait and a concise account of the author. Of these compositions the following short character is given by an eminent musician, to whom they are all well known.” The Lessons are composed in a masterly and pleasing style; free from those tricks and unmeaning successions of semitones, to which a good ear and sound judgment never can be reconciled. The treatises on singing contain duets composed for the use of the children of the royal chapels, superior to any thing yet published and such as every teacher ought to peruse. His catches, canons, and glees, are natural and pleasing especially the glee to all Lovers of Harmony, which gained the prize-medal at the catch-club in 1770. The Royal Pastoral is composed throughout in a very masterly manner; particularly the choruses, with which each part concludes. This ode, containing 108 pages, was written, and all the vocal and instrumental parts transcribed for performing, within twelve days. The six fugues, with introductory voluntaries for the organ, contain the strongest proofs of ingenuity and judgment; few, if any, have ever been written that can be preferred to them. In both sets of the anthems, the same characteristics appear; and the service in the latter very justly acquired the title of favourite; nor can there be any doubt that the works of this author will be admired as long as a taste for music shall subsist."

a very extraordinary personage, was born at Swansea, in Glamorganshire, Oct. 18, 1674. His father was a gentleman, whose principal income arose from a partnership in a glass-house: his mother was niece to colonel Poyer, who was killed by Oliver Cromwell, for defending Pembroke-castle against the rebels. He was educated at Carmarthen-school, and thence sent to Jesus college, Oxford, in order to prepare him for the study of the law. His father had strained his little income to give his son such an education; and from the boy’s natural vivacity, he hoped a recompence from his future preferment. In college, however, he soon shewed, that, though much might be expected from his genius, nothing could be hoped from his industry. The first method Nash took to distinguish himself at college was not by application to study, but by assiduity in intrigue. Our hero was quickly caught, and went through all the mazes and adventures of a college intrigue, before he was seventeen he offered marriage, the offer was accepted but, the affair coming to the knowledge of his tutors, his happiness, or perhaps misery, was prevented, and he was sent home from college, with necessary advice to him, and proper instructions to his father. He now purchased a pair of colours, commenced a professed admirer of the sex, and dressed to the very edge of his finances; but soon becoming disgusted with the life of a soldier, quitted the army, entered his name as a student in the Temple-books, and here went to the very summit of second-rate luxury. He spent some years about town, till at last, his genteel appearance, his constant civility, and still more his assiduity, gained him the acquaintance of several persons qualified to lead the fashion both by birth and fortune. He brought a person genteelly dressed to every assembly; he always made one of those who are called good company; and assurance gave him an air of elegance and ease.

When king William was upon the throne Nash was a member of the Middle Temple. It had been long customary for the inns of court to entertain our monarchs, upon their accession to the crown, or any remarkable occasion, with a revel and pageant. In the early periods of our history, poets were the conductors of these entertainments; plays were exhibited, and complimentary verses were then written but, by degrees, the pageant alone was continued^ sir John Davis being the last poet that wrote verses upon such an occasion, in the reign of James I. This ceremony, which has been at length totally discontinued, was last exhibited in honour of king William; and Nash was chosen to conduct the whole with proper decorum. He was then but a very young man; but at an early age he was thought proper to guide the amusements of his country, and be the arbiter elegantiarum of his time. In conducting this entertainment he had an opportunity of exhibiting all his abilities; and king William was so well satisfied with his performance, that he made him an offer of knighthood. This, however, he thought proper torefuse, which, in a person of his disposition, seems strange. “Please your majesty,” replied he, “if you intend to make me a knight, I wish it may be one of your poor knights of Windsor; and then I shall have a fortune, at least able to support my title.” Yet we do not find that the king took the hint of increasing his fortune; perhaps he could not; he had, at that time, numbers to oblige, and he never cared to give money without important services.

But though Nash acquired no riches by his late office, he gained many friends; or, what is more easily obtained, many acquaintances, who often answer the end as well, and, besides his assurance, he had in reality some merit and some virtues. He was, if not a brilliant, at least an agreeable companion. He never forgot good manners, even in the highest warmth of familiarity, and, as we hinted before, never went in a dirty shirt, to disgrace the table of his patron or his friend. “These qualifications,” says his biographer, “might make the furniture of his head; but, for his heart, that seemed an assemblage of the virtues which display an honest benevolent mind; with the vices which spring from too much goocl nature.” He had pity for every creature’s distress, but wanted pru­dence in the application of his benefits. He had generosity for the wretched in the highest degree, at a time when his creditors complained of his justice*. An instance of his humanity is told us in the “Spectator,” though his name is not mentioned. When he was to give in his accounts to the masters of the Temple, among other articles, he charged, "For making one man happy, Jo/. Being questioned about the meaning of so strange an item, he frankly declared, that, happening to over-hear a poor man declare to his wife and a large family of children, that lOl. would make him happy, he could not avoid trying the experiment. He added, that, if they did not -chuse to acquiesce in his charge, he was ready to refund the money. The masters, struck with such an uncommon instance of good nature, publicly thanked him for his benevolence, and desired that the sum might be doubled, as a proof of their satisfaction.

Nash was now fairly for life entered into a new course of gaiety and dissipation, and steady in nothing but in the pursuit of variety. He was thirty years old, without fortune, or useful talents to acquire one. He had hitherto only led a life of expedients; he thanked choice alone for his support; and, having been long precariously supported, he became, at length, totally a stranger to prudence or precaution. Not to disguise any part of his character, he was now, hy profession, a gamester; and went on from day to day, feeling the vicissitudes of rapture and anguish in proportion to the fluctuations of fortune. About 1703 the city of Bath became, in some measure, frequented by people of distinction. The company was numerous enough to form a country-dance upon the bowling-green; they were amused with a fiddle and hautboy, and diverted with the romantic walks round the city. They usually sauntered in fine weather in the grove, between two rows of sycamore trees. Several learned physicians, Dr. Jordan and others, had even then praised the salubrity of the wells; and the amusements were put under the direction of a master of the ceremonies. Captain Webster was the predecessor of Mr. Nash. This gentleman, in 1704, carried the balls to the town-hall, each man paying half-a-guinea each ball. One of the greatest physicians of his age conceived a design of ruining the city, by writing against the efficacy of the waters; and accordingly published a pamphlet, by which, he said, “he would cast a toad into the spring.”

In this situation things were when Nash first came into the city; and, hearing the threat of this physician, he humourously assured the people, that if they would give him leave, he would charm away the poison of the doctor’s toad, as they usually charmed the venom of the tarantula, by music. He therefore was immediately empowered to set up a band of music against the doctor’s reptile; the company very sensibly increased, Nash triumphed, and the sovereignty of the city was decreed to him by every rank of people. None could possibly conceive a person more fit to fill this employment than Nash: he had some wit, but it was of that sort which is rather happy than permanent. He was charitable himself, and generally shamed his betters into a similitude of sentiment, if they were not naturally so before. His first care, when made master of the ceremonies, or king of Bath, as it is called, was to promote a music subscription, of one guinea each, for a band, which was to consist of six performers, who were to receive a guinea a week each for their trouble. He allowed also two guineas a week for lighting and sweeping the rooms, for which he accounted to the subscribers by receipt. By his direction, one Thomas Harrison erected a handsome assembly-house for these purposes. A better band of music was also procured, and the former subscription of one guinea was raised to two. Harrison had three guineas a week for the room and candles, and the music two guineas a man. The money Nash received and accounted for with the utmost exactness and punctuality. The balls, by his direction, were to begin at six, and to end at eleven. Nor would he suffer them to continue a moment longer, lest invalids might commit irregularities, to counteract the benefit of the waters. The city of Bath, by such assiduity, soon became the theatre of summer amusements for all people of fashion; and the manner of spending the day there must amuse any but such as disease or spleen had made uneasy to themselves. In this manner every amusement soon improved under Nash’s administration. The magistrates of the city found that it was necessary and useful, and took every opportunity of paying the same respect to his fictitious royalty, that is generally extorted by real power. His equipage was sumptuous, and he used to travel to Tunbridge in a postchariot and six greys, with out-riders, footmen, French horns, and every other appendage of expensive parade. He always wore a white hat; and, to apologize for this singularity, said he did it purely to secure it from being stolen; his dress was tawdry, and not perfectly genteel; he might be considered as a beau of several generations; and, in his appearance, he, in some measure, mixed the fashions of a former age with those of his own. He perfectly understood elegant expence, and generally passed his time in the very best company, if persons of the first distinction deserve that title.

But perhaps the reader may demand, what finances were to support all this finery, or where the treasures that gave him such frequent opportunities of displaying his benevolence, or his vanity? To answer this, we must now enter upon another part of his character, his talents as a gamester; for, by gaming alone, at the period of which we speak, he kept up so very genteel an appearance. Wherever' people of fashion came, needy adventurers were generally found in waiting. With such Bath swarmed, and, among this class, Nash was certainly to be numbered in the beginning; only with this difference, that he wanted the corrupt heart, too commonly attending a life of expedients; for he was generous, humane, and honourable, even though by profession a gamester. But, whatever skill Nash might have acquired by long practice in play, he was never formed by nature for a successful gamester. He was constitutionally passionate and generous. While others made considerable fortunes at the gaming-table, he was ever in the power of chance; nor did even the intimacy with which he was received by the great, place him in a state of independence. The considerable inconveniences that were found to result from a permission of gaming, at length attracted the attention of the legislature; and, in the twelfth year of his late majesty, the most prevalent games at that time were declared fraudulent and unlawful. The Eo was at first set up at Tunbridge, and was reckoned extremely profitable to the bank, as it gained two and a half per cent, on all that was lost or won. As all gaming was suppressed but this, Nash was now utterly destitute of any resource from superior skill and long experience in the art. The money to be gained in private gaming is at best but trifling, and the opportunity precarious. The minds of the generality of mankind shrink with their circumstances and Nash, upon the immediate prospect of poverty, was now mean enough to enter into a base confederacy to evade the law, and to share the plunder. Nash had hitherto enjoyed a fluctuating fortune; and, had he taken the advantage of the present opportunity, he might have been for the future not only above want, but even in circumstances of opulence. In the mean time, as the Eo table thus succeeded at Tunbridge, he was resolved to introduce it at Bath; and previously asked the opinion of several lawyers, who declared it no way illegal. The legislature thought proper to suppress these seminaries of vice. It was enacted, that, after the 24th of June 1745, none should be permitted to keep a house, room, or place for playing, upon pain of such forfeitures as were declared in former acts instituted for that purpose.