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

, an eminent Scotch divine of the seventeenth century, the eldest son of John Durham of Easter-Powrie, esq. and descended from the ancient family of Grange Durham in the county of Angus, was born about 1622, and educated at the university of St. Andrew’s, which he left without taking a degree, as he had then no design of following any of the learned professions. When the civil wars broke out, he served in the army, with the rank of captain, but was so much affected by his narrow escape from being killed in an engagement with the English, that, encouraged by Dr. David Dickson, professor of divinity at Glasgow, he determined to devote himself to the church. With this view he went to Glasgow, studied divinity under Dr. Dickson, and in 1646 was licensed by the presbytery of Irvine to preach. In the following year he was ordained minister of the Black-friars 7 church in Glasgow, where he became one of the most popular preachers of his time. In 1650 he was chosen to succeed Dr. Dickson as professor, and about the same time attended Charles II. when in Scotland, as one of his chaplains. In 1651, when Cromwell and his army were at Glasgow, Durham preached before the usurper, and upbraided him to his face for having invaded the country. Next day Cromwell sent for him, and told him he thought he had been a wiser man than to meddle with public affairs in his sermons. Durham answered that it was not his common practice, but that he could not help laying hold of such an opportunity of expressing his sentiments in his presence. Cromwell dismissed him with a caution, but met with so many other instances of similar rebuffs from the Scotch clergy, that he thought it unadvisable to pursue any more severe course. Durham was a man of such moderation of temper and sentiment, as to be able to conduct himself without giving much offence in those troublesome times, and gained the favour of all parties by the conscientious discharge of his pastoral duties. This character gave him unusual authority in the country where he lived; but his incessant labours both as a preacher and writer brought on a consumptive disorder, of which he died June 25, 1658, in the prime of life. He wrote, 1. “A Commentary on the Revelations.” 2. “Sermons on the liii. of Isaiah.” 3. “Sermons on the Song of Solomon.” 4. “A treatise on Scandal.” 5. “An Exposition of the Commandments:” the two latter posthumous; with some single sermons and pious tracts, which have been often reprinted.

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

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

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

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

, a gentleman of considerable literary and political knowledge, was descended from a protestant family in France, which his father left about the beginning of the last century, in order to reside in England, where he had an opulent brother, but not finding the climate agree with him, returned to France. There he married, and became the father of seven children, one of whom, the subject of this memoir, was born in 1729, and assumed the name of Duchiiion from a small estate so called, which had long been the property of his ancestors. His talents, according to his own account, were extraordinary; in his fifth year he was a proficient at chess; and at ten, he composed comedies for his amusement, enigmas for the Mercure de France, epigrams in the news of the day, and madrigals for the ladies. He read much in romances, belles lettres, poetry, history, and morality, and though somewhat roving and unsettled in his disposition, had evidently laid in a very large stock of general knowledge. After various youthful adventures, which form a very amusing part of his “Memoires d'un Voyageur,” &c. which he published a few years before his death, we find him appointed, in 1758, chaplain (for he was then in orders) and secretary to the hon. Stuart M'Kenzie, envoy extraordinary to the court of Turin.

With this gentleman he left London in October of that year, and when Mr. M‘Kenzie returned to England in 1760, Mr. Dutens filled the honourable situation of charg6 des affaires at Turin till May 1762, when he rejoined Mr. M’Kenzie at London, and assisted him as one of the members of lord Bute’s administration. Before this administration closed he obtained a handsome pension; and shortly after was invited to resume his situation as charge des affaires at Turin, a place to which he manifested an evident partiality. He continued two years at Turin, and at his leisure hours planned an edition of Leibnitz’s works, which was published in six vols. 4to, at Geneva, in 1768, and evinced the serious attention which he had bestowed on the opinions of that philosopher, and his extensive correspondence at this time with many of the most learned men in Europe. At Turin also he displayed a very intimate acquaintance with the philosophy, arts, &c. of ancient and modern times, by his “Recherches sur l'Origine des Deeouvertes,” &c. a work in which he endeavours to prove that our most celebrated philosophers have been indebted to the ancients for the greatest part of their knowledge. This was published at Paris, 1766, 2 vols. 8vo, and afterwards translated into English and published at London. Although it cannot be said that Mr. Dutens has accomplished his full intention in this work, many of his positions being rather the whims and caprices of a lively writer, in support of a pre-conceived theory, yet he has at least proved that much of his own time had been devoted to the inquiry, and that his range of reading had been very extensive.

Before he quitted Turin, Mr. M'Kenzie’s interest with the duke of Northumberland, then lord lieutenant of Ireland, procured him the promise of a deanery in that kingdom, which he declined accepting; but soon after received from the same noble patron a presentation to the rectory of Elsdon in Northumberland, then worth 800l. a year; which induced him, in 1766, to return to England, where he received a present of 1000l. from the king, and was highly delighted with the reception he met with at Northumberland-house. In 1768 he performed an extensive tour through the continent with lord Algernon Percy, the duke of Northumberland’s son. In the course of this tour, some conversation at Genoa with the marchioness of Babbi, gave rise to a work which Mr. Dutens afterwards published at Rome under the title of “The Tocsin,” and afterwards at Paris, under the title of “Appel au bons sens.” After this tour was finished, he resided for some time at Paris, where he published several works, and lived in a perpetual round of splendid amusements. In 1776 he returned to London, and lived much with the Northumberland family, and with his early patron Mr. M'Kenzie, until lord Montstuart was appointed envoy-extraordinary to the court of Turin, whom he accompanied as his friend, but without any official situation, except that when lord Montstuart was called to England upon private business, he again acted for a short time as charge des affaires. After this, according to his memoirs, his time was divided for many years between a residence in London, and occasional tours to the continent, with the political affairs of which he seems always anxious to keep up an intimate acquaintance. At length the death of his first friend and patron placed him in easy if not opulent circumstances, as that gentleman left him executor and residuary legatee with his two nephews, lord Bute and the primate of Ireland. The value of this legacy has been estimated at 15,000l. which enabled Mr. Dutens to pass the remainder of his life in literary retirement and social intercourse, for which he was admirably qualified, not only by an extensive knowledge, but by manners easy and accommodating. In the complimentary strain of a courtier few men exceeded him, although his profuse liberality in this article was sometimes thought to lessen its value. He died at his house in Mount-street, Grosvenor-square, May 23, 1812, in his eighty-third year. Not many days before his death, he called, in a coach, on many persons of eminence with whom he had corresponded, for the sole purpose of returning the letters he had received from them. His publications, not already noticed were, 1 “Explications des quelques Medailles de peuple, de villes, et des rois Grecques et Pheniciennes,” 1773, 4to. 2. The same translated. 3. “Itineraire des Routes les plus frequentées; ou Journal d‘un Voyage aux Villes principales de l’Europe,” often reprinted. 4. “Histoire de ce qui s’est passe” pour establissement d'une Regence en Angleterre. Par M. L. D. Ne D. R. D. L. Ge. Be.“1789, 8vo; in which he adopted the sentiments of Mr. Pitt’s administration on the important question of the regency, which, he says, lost him the favour of a great personage. 5.” Recherches sur le terns le plus recule de l'usage des Voutes chez les Anciens,“1795. He wrote also the French text of the second volume of the Marlborough gems, a task for which he was well qualified, as he was an excellent classical antiquary and medallist. In 1771 he translated” The manner of securing all sorts of brick buildings from fire,“&c. from the French of count d'Espie. His last publication, in 1805, was his own history, in” Memoires d'un Voyageur," &c. of which we have availed ourselves in this sketch but, although this work may often amuse the reader, and add something to the knowledge of human nature, it will not perhaps create an unmixed regard for the character of the writer.

, a celebrated doctor of the Sorbonne, was born at Pontoise in 1564. He defended the opinions of the Ultramontanes, and was among Richer’s greatest adversaries. Duval was superior genera] of the French Carmelites, senior of the Sorbonne, and dean of the faculty of theology at Paris, and died September 9, 1638. He left a system of divinity; a treatise entitled, “De Suprema Romani Pontificis in Ecclesiam potestate,” 1614, 4to a Commentary on the summary of St. Thomas, 2 vols. fol. “Vie de la Sosur Merie de l'Incarnation,” 1622, 8vo, full of reveries; and other works. William Duval, his relation, was professor at the colleges of Calvy and Lisieux, then at the royal college in Paris, and afterwards doctor of physic. He published “Hist, du College Roial,” and an edition of Aristotle, 1619, 2 vols. fol.

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

Tin number of his books had gradually incivased to four hundred volumes, but his wardrobe continued the same. A coarse linen coat for summer, and a woollen one for winter, with his wooden shoes, constituted nearly the whole of it. His frequent visits at Luneville, the opulence and luxury that prevailed there, and the state of ease he began to feel, did not tempt him to quit his first simplicity; and he would have considered himself as guilty of robbery if he had spent a farthing of what was given him, or what he gained, for any other purpose than to satisfy his passion for study and books. Economical to excess as to all physical wants, and prodigal in whatever could contribute to his instruction and extend his knowledge, his privations gave him no pain. In proportion as his mind ripened, and the circle of his ideas enlarged, he began to reflect upon his abject state. He felt that he was not in his proper place; and he wished to change it. From this instant a secret inquietude haunted him in his retreat, accompanied him in the forest, and distracted him in the midst of his studies.

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

He shortly after read public lectures on history and antiquities, which were attended with the greatest success, and frequented by a number of young Englishmen, among whom was the immortal Chatham. Duval, struck with the distinguished air, as well as with the manly and sonorous voice of this young man, predicted more than once a part of his fate. The generosity of DuvaPs pupils, added to his own economy, soon enahled him to shew his gratitude to the hermits of St. Anne. He formed the project of building a:iew this hermitage, the cradle of his fortune, and of consecrating to it all his savings. A handsome square buuding, with a chapel in the middle of it, and surrounded with a considerable quantity of land, consisting of a garden, an orchard, a vineyard, a nursery of the best fruit-trees, and some arable ground, were the result of this generous intention. His principles of beneficence and humanity led him to render this institution useful to the public. The hermits of St. Anne were ordered to furnish gratuitously, and at the distance of three leagues round, the produce of their nursery, and every kind of tree that should be demanded of them, and to every person without exception. They were further obliged to go and plant them themselves, if it were required, without exacting any reward, or even taking refreshment, unless they found themselves at too great a distance from the hermitage to return to dinner.

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

From his good constitution, hardened by fatigue, he lived to the age of seventy-nine years, without feeling the infirmities of old age. In his eightieth year he was all at once attacked with the gravel, which brought him to the brink of the grave. In this painful state his philosophy gave him a superiority over common minds: a prey to the most excruciating pains, his firmness and intrepidity were invincible, and he preserved all his presence of mind. By the cares, however, of the empress, his disorder took a favourable turn, and he was snatched from the arms of death; but in the following year he was seized with a fever, occasioned by indigestion, which weakened him every day, and put an end to his life Nov. 3, 1775. His works were published, with Memoirs of his Life, at Paris in 1784, 2 vols. 8vo. There was also an account of him published in the Mercure de France, 1735.

, a poet of the Elizabethan age, was of the same family with those of his name in Somersetshire, and was born probably about 1540. He was educated at Oxford, either in Baliol college or Broadgate’s hall, when he discovered a propensity to poetry, and polite literature, but left it without a degree, and travelled abroad. On his return, having the character of a well-bred man, ho was taken into the service of the court. He now obtained considerable celebrity as a poet, and was a contributor to the “English Helicon,” and not to the “Collection of Choice Flowers and Descriptions,” as Wood says, in which last his name does not appear. Queen Elizabeth had a great respect for his abilities, and employed him in several embassies, particularly to Denmark in 1589; and on his return from thence, conferred on him the chancellorship of the garter, on the death of sir John WoHey, 1596, and at the same time she knighted him; but like other courtiers, he occasionally suffered by her caprices. He was at one time reconciled to her, by her majesty’s being taught to believe that he was sinking to the grave under the weight of her displeasure. Sir Edward partook of the credulity of the times, studied chemistry, and was thought to be a Rosicrusian. He was at least a dupe to the famous astrologers Dr. Dee and Edward Kelly, of whom he has recorded, that in Bohemia he saw them put base metal in a crucible, and after it was set on the fire, and stirred with a stick of wood, it came forth in great proportion pure gold.

He wrote pastoral odes and madrigals, some of which are in “England’s Helicon,” first published at the close of queen Elizabeth’s reign, and lately republished in the “Bibliographer.” He wrote also a “Description of Friendship,” a poem in the Ashmolean Museum, where also, from Aubrey’s ms. we learn that he almost entirely spent an estate of 4000l. a year. There is a letter of his to sir Christopher Hatton, dated Oct. 9, 1512, in the Harleian Mss. and another to the earl of Leicester, dated May 22, 1586, in the Cottonian collection, and some of his unpublished verses are in a ms collection, formerly belonging to Dr. Uawlinson, now in the Bodleian library. Sir Edward died some years after James came to the throne, and was succeeded in his chancellorship of the garter by sir John Herbert, knt. principal secretary of state.

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

In the first year of queen Elizabeth, on Nov. 18, 1559t, he returned to the common pleas, of which he was appointed, in the following January, chief justice, an office the functions of which he continued to exercise for more than twenty years with eminent integrity, firmness, and ability. In the course of this long period, we find him assisting at the trial of Thomas Howard, duke of Norfolk; on which occasion he opposed that unfortunate nobleman’s petition to have counsel assigned him; and with propriety as the rigorous complexion of the law was at that time, it having been reserved for the milder spirit of a latter age to indulge prisoners in his unhappy situation with that privilege. In 1571- he exhibited a singular proof of probity, courage, and talents, in the spirit with which he opposed the attempts of sir John Conway to oppress a poor widow of Warwickshire (that county being included in the circuit which he usually went) by forcibly keeping possession of her farm; and in his reply to the articles preferred against him to the privy council by certain justices of the peace, whom he had severely reprehended in public at the assizes, for partiality and negligence in permitting so gross a violation of the law, and whom he had caused to be indicted for the same. This singular curiosity, which is among the Inner Temple Mss. is copied in Mr. Vaillant’s Life of sir James Dyer, prefixed to his excellent edition of the “Reports.” What was the event of the dispute, his biographer has not been able to discover; but thinks it reasonable to conclude that the firmness and ability of Dyer prevailed over the malice of his adversaries; especially as he experienced no diminution of the queen’s favour, but continued in the full exercise of his judicial functions, without any other memorable transaction that is now known, down to his death, which happened at his seat of Great Stougbton, (an estate purchased by himself), in the county of Huntingdon, March 24, 1582, at the age of seventy.

Leaving no issue by his wife Margaret, daughter of sir Maurice à Barrow, of Hampshire, and relict of the celebrated philologist sir Thomas Elyot, his estates at Stoughton and elsewhere, with his mansion-house in Charterhouse church-yard, descended to sir Richard Dyer (grandson of his elder brother John), whose grandson Ludowick, in 1653, sold Stoughton to sir Edward Coke of Derbyshire (from whom it is now, by purchase, vested in the family of Walter), and the line which, in 1627, was honoured with the title of Baronet, is now extinct, the last of the family dying in a state of extreme indigence.

Sir James Dyer was the author of a large book of Reports, which were published after his decease, and have been highly esteemed for their succinctness and solidity. They were printed in 1585, 1592, 1601, 1606, 1621, and 1672. That of 1688 is enriched by the marginal notes and references of lord chief justice Treby, and bears the following title, literally translated from the French: “Reports of several select matters and resolutions of the reverend judges and sages of the law, &c.” That eminent lawyer sir Edward Coke recommends to all students in the. law these Reports, which he calls “The summary and fruitful observations of that famous and most reverend judge and sage of the law, sir James Dyer.” They are indeed a valuable treasure to the profession. The best edition is that by John Vaillant, esq. 1794, 3 vols. 8vo, with a life of the author from an original ms. in the Inner Temple library. He left behind him also “A Reading upon the statute of 32 Hen. VIII. cap. 1. of Wills; and upon the 34th and 35th Hen. VIII. cap. 5. for the explanation of the statute,” printed at London in 1648, 4to.

, an English poet, was born in 1700, the second son of Robert Dyer, of Aberglasney, in Caermarthenshire, a solicitor of great capacity and note. He passed through Westminster-school under the care of Dr. Freind, and was then called home to be instructed in his father’s profession. His genius, however, led him a different way; for, besides his early taste for poetry, having a passion no less strong for the arts of design, he determined to make painting his profession. With this view, having studied awhile under his master, he became, as he tells his friend, an itinerant painter, and wandered about South Wales and the parts adjacent; and about 1727 printed “Grongar Hill,” a poem which Dr. Johnson says, “is not very accurately written but the scenes which it displays are so pleasing, the images which they raise so welcome to the mind, and the reflections of the writer so consonant to the general sense or experience of mankind, that when it is once read, it will be read again.” Being probably unsatisfied with his own proficiency, he made the tour of Italy; where, besides the usual study of the remains of antiquity, and the works of the great masters, he frequently spent whole days in the country about Rome and Florence, sketching those picturesque prospects with facility and spirit. Images from hence naturally transferred themselves into his poetical compositions; the principal beauties of the “Ruins of Rome,” are perhaps of this kind, and the various landscapes in the “Fleece” have been particularly admired. On his return to England, he published the “Ruins of Rome,” 1740; but soon found that he could not relish a town life, nor submit to the assiduity required in his profession; his talent indeed, was rather for sketching than finishing; so he contentedly sat down in the country with his little fortune, painting now and then a portrait or a landscape, as his fancy led him. As his turn of mind was rather serious, and his conduct and behaviour always irreproachable, he was advised by his friends to enter into orders; and it is presumed, though his education had not been regular, that he found no difficulty in obtaining them. He was ordained by the bishop of Lincoln, and had a law degree conferred on him.

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

, a man of great learning, and the friend and associate of the literati of the last age, was born about 1725, and educated at Northampton, under Dr. Doddridge, and for some time had the additional benefit of being instructed by the learned Dr. John Ward, professor of rhetoric in Gresham -college. He afterwards studied under professor Hutcheson at Glasgow, and to complete his education, his father, an eminent jeweller in London, sent him, by the advice of Dr. Chandler, to Leyden, where he remained two years. He became an excellent classical scholar, a great mathematician and natural philosopher, was well versed iti the Hebrew, and a master of the Latin, Italian, and French languages. Added to these endowments, he was of a temper so mild, and in his conversation so modest and unassuming, that he gained the attention and affection of all around him. In all questions of science, Dr. Johnson looked up to him; and in his life of Dr. Watts (where he calls him “the late learned Mr. Dyer”) has cited an observation of his, that Watts had confounded the idea of space with that of empty space, and did not consider, that though space might be without matter, yet matter, being extended, could not be without space.

Mr. Dyer appears to have been intended by his early friends for the ministry among the dissenters, but discovered an averseness to the pastoral office, which sir John Hawkins insinuates to have proceeded from an unfavourable change in his religious sentiments. Various literary schemes appear to have been suggested to him, none of which he undertook, except in 1758, the revisal of the English edition of Plutarch’s Lives. In this he translated anew only the lives of Demetrius and Pericles. In 1759 he became a commissary in the army in Germany, and continued in that station to the end of the seven years war, after which he returned to England, and on the formation of the Literary Club, (composed of Dr. Johnson and his friends) in 1764, he was the first member electee! into that society, with whom he continued to associate, and by whom he was highly esteemed to the time of his death, in Sept. 1772. From an excellent portrait of this gentleman by sir Joshua Reynolds, a mezzotinto print was scraped by his pupil Marchi, of which a copy was imposed on the public as the portrait of Dyer the poet.

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

, master of Catharine-hall, in the university of Cambridge, and author of several ingenious works, was descended from a good family in the county of Suffolk, and born about 1636. Having been carefully instructed in grammar and classical literature, he was sent to Catharine-hall, in the university of Cambridge, where he was admitted on the 10th of May, 1653. He took the degree of B. A. in 1656, was elected fellow of his college 1 in 1658, and in 1660 became M. A. We meet with no farther particulars about him till 1670, when he published, but without his name, “The Grounds and Occasions of the Contempt of the Clergy and Religion enquired into. In a letter to R. L.” This piece had a very rapid sale, and passed through many editions. It was attacked by an anonymous writer the following year, in “An Answer to a Letter of Enquiry into the Grounds,” &c. and by Barnabas Oley, and several others; particularly the famous Dr. John Owen, in a preface to some sermons of W. Bridge. Eachard replied to the first of his answerers in apiece entitled “Some Observations upon the Answer to an Enquiry into the Grounds and Occasions of the Contempt of the Clergy: with some additions. In a second letter to R. L.” In 1671 he published, “Mr. Hobbes’s State of Nature considered: in a dialogue between Philautus and Timothy. To which are added, five letters from the author of The Grounds and Occasions of the” Contempt of the Clergy.“In these letters he animadverted, with his usual facetiousness, on several of the answerers of his first performance. He soon after published some farther remarks on the writings of Hobbes, in” A second Dialogue between Philautus and Timothy." On the death of Dr. John Lightfoot, in 1675, Mr. Eachard was chosen in his room master. of Catharine-hall; and in the year following he was created D. D. by royal mandamus. It does not appear that he produced any literary works after being raised to this station; but it is said that he executed the trust reposed in him, of master of his college, with the utmost care and fidelity, and to the general satisfaction of the whole university. He was extremely desirous to have rebuilt the greatest part, if not the whole, of Catharine-hall, which had fallen ipto decay: but he died before he could accomplish any part of that design, except the master’s lodge. He contributed, however, largely towards rebuilding the whole; and was very assiduous in procuring donations for it from his learned or wealthy friends. He died on the 7th of July, 1697, and was interred in the chapel of Catharine-hall, with an elegant Latin inscription, said to have been more recently added by the late Dr. Farmer.

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

In the catalogue of the printed books in the British museum, a piece is attributed to Dr. Eachard, which was published in 1673, in 12mo, under the following title: “A free and impartial enquiry into the causes of that very great esteem and honour that the Nonconforming Preachers are generally in with their followers. In a letter to his honoured friend, H. M. By a lover of the church of England and unfeigned piety.” But if written by Dr. Eachard, it certainly has not his wit, or his manner.

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

, a dissenting minister of considerable note, was born about 1676, and educated among the dissenters. Of his personal history we have little information. He officiated in the meetings in London between sixty and seventy years, and died in 1768. During this long life, he had never experienced a moment’s ill health. He would scarcely have known what pain was, had he not once broke his arm. He preached to the last Sunday of his life, and died suddenly in his chair, without a ^roan or sigh. All his faculties continued in great perfection, excepting his eye-sight, which failed him some time before his death. He was remarkable for a vivacity and cheerfulness of temper, which never forsook him to his latest breath; and he abounded in pleasant stories. He had published in his earlier days several occasional sermons, some of them preached at Sailers’-hall meeting, a “Treatise on the Sacrament,” 1707, 8vo, and a small collection of poems, in Latin and English. His chief excellence, as a scholar, was in classical learning. When he was above ninety years old, he would repeat, with the greatest readiness and fluency, a hundred verses or more from Homer, Virgil, . Horace, Juvenal, or others of the ancient poets, upon their being at any time occasionally mentioned.

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

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

, a very munificent benefactor, was born at Shaftesbury, July 7, 1740. He was possessed of literary endowments of the highest order well versed in the whole circle of the belles lettres and had an exquisite taste for music yet while his time and talents seemed devoted to these engaging pursuits, amidst them he forgot not the humble and lowly, but was ever relieving their necessities, and lessening their wants. The following bequests afford striking proofs of his extensive liberality. To the matrons of Bishop Seth Ward’s college in the Close, he bequeathed the sum of two thousand guineas. To St. George’s hospital, Hyde-park-corner, to Hetheringham’s charity for the relief of the blind, to the Philanthropic society, and to the fund for the relief of decayed Musicians, a contingent legacy of one thousand guineas each. To the three hospitals established in Winchester, Salisbury, and Bristol, one hundred guineas each. To the respective parishes of the Close, St. Edmund, St. Thomas, and St. Martin in Salisbury, fifty guineas each. For different charitable purposes in the parish of Grately, Hants, the sum of four hundred guineas and to the poor cottagers in Grately, his tenants, the fee simple of their cottages and to the parish of North Stoke, in Somersetshire, thirty guineas. As a man of literature, and a friend to the arts, he also bequeathed to the royal society, two hundred guineas; to the society of antiquaries, two hundred guineas; and to the president of the society for the encouragement of arts, manufactures, &c. two hundred guineas, all for the purchase of hooks for the public libraries of those three respectable societies. To the Bath agricultural society he gave one hundred guineas. Wishing to add a beauty to the many which now adorn one of the finest Gothic structures in the world, he also bequeathed the sum of four hundred guineas for erecting a window of painted glass in the great west nave of Salisbury cathedral. To encourage the art he loved, and give a grateful testimony of his partiality to the Salisbury concert, he left an annual subscription of five guineas for ten years, towards its support; and a further sum of one hundred and fifty guineas for the three next triennial musical festivals at Salisbury, after his decease. Besides the above public legacies, he amply remembered his friends, and bequeathed many others, with a view to the encouragement of merit, and the reward of industry and goodness. He died the 21st of March, 1796, at his house in the Close, Salisbury; and on the 30th his remains were privately interred in the parish-church of Newton Toney, near those of his ancestors, his own positive injunctions having prevented those public marks of respect to his memory, which would otherwise have been paid on the melancholy occasion by his numerous friends.

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

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

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

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

The Ebionites maintained, that Jesus Christ was only a mere man, descended from Joseph and Mary. They received no other gospel than that of St. Matthew, which they had in Hebrew, but very maimed and interpolated; and this they called the Gospel according to the Hebrews. They rejected the rest of the New Testament, and especially the epistles of Paul, looking upon this apostle as an apostate from the law: for they held, that every body was obliged to observe the Mosaic law. They made Saturday and Sunday equal holidays: they bathed themselves every day like the Jews, and worshipped Jerusalem as the house of God. They called their meetings synagogues, and not churches; and celebrated their mysteries every year with unleavened bread. They received the Pentateuch for canonical scripture, but not all of it. They had a veneration for the old patriarchs, but despised the prophets. They made use of forged Acts of the Apostles, as St. Peter’s travels, and many other apocryphal books. They held also the superstitions of their ancestors, and the ceremonies and traditions which the Pharisees presumptuously added to the law. The learned Mr. Jones looked upon the Ebionites and Nazarenes as differing very little from one another. He attributes to them both much the same doctrines, and alleges, that the Ebionites had only made some small additions to the old Nazarene system.

, a German historian and antiquary, was born at Duingen in the duchy of Brunswick, Sept. 7, 1674. Alter studying for some time at Brunswick and Helmstadt, where he made very distinguished progress in the belles lettres and history, he became secretary to the count de Flemming in Poland; and there became acquainted with the celebrated Leibnitz, by whose interest he was appointed professor of history at Helmstadt. After Leibnitz’s death, he was appointed professor at Hanover, where he published some of his works. Although this place was lucrative, he here contracted debts, and his creditors having laid hold of a part of his salary to liquidate some of these, he privately quitted Hanover in 1723, where he left his family, and the following year embraced the religion of popery at Cologne. He then passed some time in the monastery of Corvey in Westphalia; and the Jesuits being very proud of their convert, sent him advantageous offers to settle at Vienna, Passau, or Wurtzbourg. He chose the latter, and was appointed the bishop’s counsel, historiographer, and keeper of the archives and library, and the emperor afterwards granted him letters of nobility. Pope Innocent XIII. seems also to have been delighted with his conversion, although his embarrassed circumstances appear to have been the chief cause of it. He died in the month of February 1730; and whatever may be thought of his religious principles, no doubt can be entertained of his extensive learning and knowledge of history. He wrote, 1. “Historia studii etymologici linguae Germanicas,” Hanover, 1711, 8vo. 2. “De usu et pr&stantia studii etymologici linguae Gerjnanicse.” 3. “Corpus historicum medii aevi,” Leipsic, 1723, 2 vols. fol. a work on which the abbé Lenglet bestows high praise, as very curious and well -digested. 4. “Origines Habsburgo-Austriacae,” Leipsic, 1721, folio. 5. “Leges Francorum et Hipuariorum,” &c. ibid. 1730, fol. 6. “Historia genealogica principumSaxonite superioris, necnon origines Aulialtiiue et Sabaudicae,” ibid. 1722, fol. 7. “Caihechesis theotisca monachi Weissenburgensis, interpretatione illustrate.” 8. “Leibnitzii collectanea etymologica.” 9. “Brevis ad historian! Germanise introductio.” 10. “Programma de antiquissimo Helmstadiistatu,” Helmstadt, 1709. 11. “De diplomate Caroh magui pro scholis Osnaburgensibus Grsecis et Latinis.” 12. “Animadversiones historical et criticae in Joannis Frederic! Schannati dicecesim et hierarchiam Fuldeusem.” 13. “Annales Franciae orientalis et episcopatus Wurceburgensis,” 2 vols. 1731. 14. “De origine Germanorum,” Gottingen, 1750, 4to. He wrote also some numUtnatical tracts, &c.

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

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

was the son of the preceding, and from the instructions of his father became an eminent and popular composer for the theatre, furnishing it with act tunes, dance tunes, and incidental songs, in most of the new comedies, after the death of Purcell. The air which he set to “A Soldier and a Sailor,” sung by Ben, in Congreve’s comedy of “Love for Love,” is so truly original and characteristic, that it can never be superseded for any other air. He set an ode> written by Congreve for St. Cecilia’s day in 1701. He likewise set Congreve’s “Judgment of Paris,” when there was a contention for prizes, and gained the second, of 50 guineas. Several of his single songs were the best of the time, and have still the merit of originality. In his slightest compositions, whether catch, ballad, or rope-dancing tune, there is some mark of genius. Upon the death of Dr. Staggins, about 1698, Eccles, at a very early period of his professional life, was appointed master of queen Amir’s band; and after the decease of Dr. Crofts, in 1727, he seems only to have set the odes, and to have retired from all other professional employments to Kingston, for the convenience of angling, in which amusement he appears to have been as much delighted as Walton. He died in 1735, and was succeeded as master of the king’s band, and composer to his majesty, by Dr. Green.

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

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

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

In 1707, when he was become prebendary of Lincoln, and chaplain to the bishop of that diocese, he published, in one volume folio, “The History of England: from the first entrance of Julius Csesar and the Romans to the end of the reign of king James the First,” dedicated to the duke of Ormond; by whom, he informs us in the dedication, he was excited to engage in the undertaking. In his preface, he gives some account of the materials and authors from which his work was collected. He particularly enumerates the Roman, Saxon, English, and monkish historians together with Hall, Grafton, Polydore Vergil, Holinshed, Stow, Speed, Baker, Brady, and Tyrrell and, among the writers of particular lives and reigns, he mentions Barnes, Howard, Goodwin, Camden, Bacon, Herbert, and Habington. “From all these several writers,” says be, “and many others, I have collected and formed this present history; always taking the liberty either to copy or to imitate any parts of them, if I found them really conducing to the usefulness or the ornament of my work. And, from all these, I have compiled an history as full, comprehensive, and complete, as I could bring into the compass of the proposed size and bigness. And, that nothing might be wanting, I have all the way enriched it with the best and wisest sayings of great men, that I could find in larger volumes, and likewise with such short moral reflections, and such proper characters of men, as might give life as well as add instruction tothe history.”

In 1712, Mr. Echard was installed archdeacon of Stowe; and, in 1718, he published the second and third volumes of his History of England, which brings it down to the revolution. To these volumes he prefixed a dedication to king George the First. The same year, Dr. Edmund Calamy' published, in 8vo, “A Letter to Mr. archdeacon Echard, upon occasion of his History of England: wherein the true principles of the Revolution are defended, the Whigs and Dissenters vindicated, several persons of distinction cleared from aspersions, and a number of historical mistakes rectified.” In this piece the author has made a variety of what he reckons remarks on the misrepresentations in Echard’s History; though he acknowledges it to be, in several respects, a work of considerable merit. “When I became your reader,” says he, “I was ready to make all the candid allowances you can desire. According to your own motion, I perused your work in order as it was written; and not by leaps, and starts, and distant parcels. And, now I have gone through the whole, am so little inclined to detract from you, that I can freely say a great deal in your commendation. The clearness of your method, and the perspicuity of your language, are two very great excellencies, which 1 admire. I am singularly pleased with the refreshing divisions of your matter, and the chronological distinction of the several parts of your history. I neither make any objections against the form of it as irregular or disproportionate, nor the general method as intricate and confused, nor the colouring as weak and unaffecting, nor the style as mean, flat, and insipid; which are the things about which you appear peculiarly concerned. And yet I thought a public animadversion both proper and necessary, and can meet with none of your readers, how different soever in their sentiments, views, and principles, but what herein agree.” Dr. Calamy also speaks of the “smooth and poliie way” in which Mr. Echard’s History is written; and says, that it has several beauties above many that had gone before him. But he adds, that he reckons his first volume to be by much the best of the three. It was also attacked, but with less candour, by Oldmixon in his “Critical History of England,” and his “History of the Stuarts.”

This History of England was at first, in general, well received, and passed through several editions; but it appears to have greatly sunk in reputation after the publication of Rapin. Echard related facts with perspicuity, whatever objection may be made to his political bias; and his work is rendered the more entertaining by short characters of the most eminent literary men in the different periods of his history.

In 1719 he published, in a thin volume, 8vo, “Maxims and Discourses, moral and divine: taken from the works of archbishop Tillotson, and methodized and connected.” He was presented by king George I. to the livings of Rendlesham, Sudborn, and Alford, in Suffolk; at which places be lived about eight years; but in a Continual ill state of health. Finding himself grow worse, and being advised to go to Scarborough for the benefit of the waters, he set out, but, declining very fast, he was unable to proceed farther than Lincoln, where soon after his arrival, going out to take the air, he died in his chariot, on the 16th of August, 1730, and was interred in the chancel of St. Mary Magdalen’s church, but without any monument or memorial of him. He was a member of the Society of Antiquaries. He married two wives; first, Jane, daughter to the rev. Mr. Potter, of Yorkshire; and, "Secondly, a daughter of Mr. Robert Wooley, a gentleman of Lincolnshire: but he had no children by either of them.

Besides the works already mentioned, Mr. Echard was also the author of “A History of the Revolution in 1688,” one volume, 8vo; of “The Gazetteer’s or Newsman’s Interpreter, being a Geographical Index of all the considerable cities, &c. in Europe,” &c. of which the eleventh edition, in i-'iiu), was published in 1716; and of “A Description of Ireland,” Lond. 1691, 12mo. He likewise published a translation of three comedies of Piauius, being the Amphitryon, Epidicns, and Rudens. Of this the second edition was published in 1716. He had also some share in a translation of Terence, but the language of this and of his Plautus is vulgar and degrading. The ninth edition of the translation of Terence, which is said to be “by Mr. Lawrence Echard, and others,” was published in 12mo, in 174-1.

, an eminent antiquary and medallist, was born at Entzesfield in Austria, Jan. 13, 1737, and in 1751 entered the order of the Jesuits at Vienna, with whom he studied philosophy, mathematics, divinity, and the learned languages. His skill in medals, which appeared very early, induced his superiors to give him the place of keeper of their cabinet of medals and coins. In 1772, he was sent to Rome, where Leopold II. grand duke of Florence, employed him to arrange his collection, and on his return in 1774, he was appointed director of the imperial cabinet of medals at Vienna, and professor of antiquities. In 1775 he published his first valuable work, under the title of “Nummi veteres anecdoti ex museis Csesareo Vindobonensi, Florentine magni Ducis Etruriw, Granelliaho nunc Ceesareo, aliisque,” Vienna, 4to, in which he arranges the various articles according to the new system which he had formed, and which promises to be advantageous from its simplicity, although it has some trifling inconveniencies. This was followed by his “Catalogus Musei Caesarei Vindobonensis Nummorum veterum,” Vienna, 1779, 2 vols. fol. This has only eight plates, containing such articles as had never been published, or were not noticed in his preceding work. In 1786 he published “Sylloge nnmmorum veterum anecdotorum thesauri Cbb­sarei,” Vienna, 4to, and “Descriptip nuinmorum Antiochae Syriae, sive specimen artis criticse numerariff,” ibid. In 1787 he published, in German, a small elementary work on coins for the use of schools, but which has been thought better adapted to give young persons a taste for the science than to initiate them in it. This was followed, in 1788, by his “Explanation of the Gems” in the Imperial collection, a very magnificent book. In 1792 he published the first volume of his great work on numismati­<:al history, entitled “Doctrina munmorum veterum,” and the eighth and last volume in 1798; the excellent method and style of this work, and the vast erudition displayed, place aim at the head of modern writers on this subject, and have occasioned the remark that he is the Linnæus of his science. This very eminent antiquary died May 16, 1798.

, a learned divine, and professor in the university of Ingoldstadt, was born in Suabia, in 1483. He is memorable for promoting the reformation by the weakness of the opposition he gave to Luther, Melancthon, Carolostadius, and other leading protestants in> Germany; and for his disputes and writings against them in defence of his own communion, all which terminated in, his defeat, and in exciting a spirit of inquiry and discussion which eminently advanced the reformation. In 1518 he disputed with Luther at Leipsic, about the supremacy of the pope, penance, purgatory, and indulgences, before George duke of Saxony; at which time even the Lutherans were ready to grant that he acquitted himself as well as a man could do in the support of such a cause, and were not a little pleased that they were able to answer itg greatest supporter. He disputed the year after, against Carolostadius, on the subject of free will. He appeared at the diet of Augsburg in 1538, where he argued against the protestant confession; and in 1541 he disputed for three days with Melancthon and other divines at Worms, concerning the continuance of original sin after baptism. This conference, by the emperor’s command, was adjourned to Ratisbon; where he dissented again from Pfiug and Cropper, with reference to the articles of union. He was the most conspicuous orator in all the public disputes which the Roman catholics had with the Lutherans and Zwinglians. He wrote a great many polemical tracts; and, among the rest, a Manual of Controversies, in which he discourses upon most of the heads contested between the papists and protestants. This book was printed at Ingoldstadt, in 1535. He wrote another tract against the articles proposed at the conference at Ratisbon, printed at Paris in 1543. He composed likewise two discourses upon the sacrifice of the mass; some other controversial pieces an exposition upon the prophet Haggai; and several homilies. Upon the whole, he was a person of uncommon parts, uncommon learning, and uncommon zeal; and to his perseverance in the cause of popery, the reformers were greatly indebted. He died at Ingoldstadr, in 1543, aged sixty years.

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

Although not like his great contemporary, Conrad Gesner, a systematic genius, Ecluse was one of the best practical botanists. He discriminated plants very happily, and his histories of them are rendered interesting by innumerable remarks and anecdotes. He introduced the cherry-/ laurel and horse-cbesnut, now so common and so ornamental, which he received, among many other plants, from the Imperial ambassador at the Porte, in 1576. As all the rest of the cargo perished, it is but just that his memory should be perpetuated along with those two beautiful trees, with which all botanists of taste ought for ever to associate his name.

, an eminent engraver, was born at Antwerp in 1641, and there learnt the first elements of drawing and engraving; but it was in France that he made the full display of his talents, being invited thither by the munificence of Louis XIV. about 1665. He was made choice of to engrave two pieces of the highest reputation; the picture of the Holy Family, by Raphael, and that of Alexander in the Tent of Darius, by Le Brim. Edelinck surpassed expectation in the execution of these masterpieces; and the copies were as much applauded as the originals. It is impossible not to a.-lmire in them, as in all his other productions, a neatness of touch, a plumpness, and a shade that are inimitable. The ease and assiduity with which he worked procured the public a great number of estimable pieces. He succeeded equally well in the portraits of the most famous personages of his time, among whom he might reckon himself. This excellent artist died in 1707, at the age of sixty-six, in the hotel royal of the Gobelins, where he had apartments, with the title of engraver in ordinary to the king, and counsellor in the royal academy of painting. In the list of his plates may be noticed that of Mary Magdalen renouncing the vanities of the world, from a painting by Le Brun, remarkable for the beauty of the work, and the delicacy of the expression. He had a son and a brother, both engravers, briefly noticed by Mr. Strutt, but inferior in reputation.

, a Dutch painter, thought to be a native of Friesland, painted landscapes justly held in great esteem. He went over to Surinam, for the purpose of drawing insects and plants; this department, however, appearing to him too confined, he quitted it for the taking of views, drawing trees, &c. He then went to the English colonies in America, where he applied to all manner of subjects; and painted several pictures which he brought with him to London about 1670. Whatever he put out of his hand, was well coloured, and finished with spirit. His pictures found a quick reception here in England, as representing prospects of a continent in which the public was so highly interested. Edema took his advantage of this taste for his works, and became famous for painting landscapes, in which he exhibited a variety of scenes of horror, such as rocks, mountains, precipices, cataracts, and other marks of savage nature. He would have died more wealthy, and perhaps would have lived longer, had he not been too fond of wine. He died about 1700.

, residentiary and chancellor of Wells, was born at Holt-castle, on the borders of Wales. He went to Oxford about 1503, took a degree in arts in 1507, and the year after was elected fellow of Oriel-college, on the foundation of bishop Smyth, being the first elected to that fellowship, and was himself a benefactor to this college at the time of his death. Afterwards he took orders, and was reputed a noted preacher in the university and elsewhere. In 1519 he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, and was promoted afterwards to be canofi of Salisbury, Wells, and Bristol, and residentiary, and in 1554 chancellor of Wells. He was also vicar of St. Cuthbert’s church, in Wells, to which he was admitted Oct. 3, 1543. During the commencement of the reformation in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. he behaved with singular moderation; but when queen Mary succeeded, he threw off the mask, and appeared what he really was, a violent Roman catholic. He died in the beginning of 1560, and was buried in the cathedral of Wells. He published a volume of “Sermons fruitful, godly, and learned,” Loud. 1557, 4to, or according to Herbert, 8vo. He wrote also, which may be seen among the records to Burnet’s History of the Reformation, “Resolutions concerning the Sacraments,” and “Resolutions of some questions relating to bishops and priests, and of other matters tending to the reformation of the church made by king Henry VIII.”

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

, son to sir Thomas Edmondes, mentioned as the patron of the preceding sir Thomas, was born in Shropshire in 1566 and in 1585 became either clerk or chorister of All Souls’ college took one degree in arts, and then was chosen fellow of the house in 1590. Four years after, he proceeded in that faculty; and then leaving the college, was, mostly by his father’s endeavours, made successively secretary, as it is said, for the French tongue to queen Elizabeth about 1601, remembrancer of the city of London, master of the requests, muster-master at Briel, in Zealand, one of the clerks of the council, and in 1617, a knight. He was a learned person, was generally skilled in all arts and sciences, and famous as well for military as for politic affairs; and therefore esteemed by all an ornament to his degree and profession. He published “Observations on the five first books of Caesar’s Commentaries of the civil wars,” London, 1600, folio; “Observations on the sixth and seventh books of Caesar’s Commentaries,” &c. London, 1600, folio; “Observations on Caesar’s Commentaries of the civil wars, in three books,” London, 1609, folio. On which, or the former observations, Ben Jonson has two epigrams. All, or most, of these observations, are reprinted with an addition of an eighth commentary by Hirtius Pansa, with our author’s (Edmondes) short observations upon them, London, 1677, fol. Before which edition is the Life of Caesar, &c.

Our learned author died in St. Martin’s in the fields, London, Oct. 12, 1622, and was buried in the little chapel belonging to his manor of Preston, near Northampton. Over his grave is a fair monument erected, with an English and Latin epitaph. That in English is as follows: “Here lieth sir Clement Edmondes, knt. one of the clerks of his majesty’s most honourable privy council. His dextrous pen made him most worthily esteemed in his own vocation; and in the art military, by Caesar’s confession, an understanding soldier. He lived faithfully industrious in his place, and died religiously constant in the belief of the resurrection,” &c.

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

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

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

Many authors have preserved accounts of this prince’s writings. Cardan talks much of his parts and learning. Holland affirms that he not only wrote notes from the lectures or sermons he heard, but composed a comedy, entitled “The Whore of Babylon,” in Latin. It is more certain, howevar, that he wrote “The Sum of a conference with the Lord Admiral,” which, in his own hand, is extant among the Ashmolean Mss.; “A method for the proceedings in the council,” in the Cottonian library; and “King Edward VIth’s own arguments against the pope’s supremacy, &c.” translated out of the original, written with the king’s own hand in French, and still preserved. To which are added some remarks upon his life and reign, in vindication of his memory from Dr. Heylin’s severe and unjust censure, Lond. 1682. He drew himself the rough draught of a sumptuary law, which is preserved by Strype; and an account of a progress he made, which he sent to one of his particular favourites, called Barnahy Fiupatrick, then in France. The same author has given some specimens of his Latin epistles and orations, and an account of two books written by him; the first before he was twelve years of age, called “L'Encontre les Abus du Monde,” a tract of thirty-seven leaves in French, against the abuses of popery; it is dedicated to the protector, his uncle; is corrected by his French tutor, and attested by him to be of the king’s own composition. An original copy of this tract is noiv in the British Museum. The other, preserved in the library of Trinity college, Cambridge, is, “A Translation into French of several passages of Scripture, which forbid idolatry, or worshipping of false gods.” Tanner giresa list of Edward’s letters that are extant; and there is a large folio ms. in the British Museum, containing his exercises in Greek, Latin, and English, with his signature to each of them, as king of England. Cardan says that at die age of fifteen, our prince had learned seven languages, and was perfect in English, French, and Latin. Cardan adds, " he spoke Latin with as much readiness and elegance as myself. He was a pretty good logician; he understood natural philosophy and music, and played upon the lute. The good and the learned had formed the highest expectations of him, from the sweetness of his disposition, and the excellence of his talents. He had begun to favour learning before he was a great scholar himself, and to be acquainted with it before he could make use of it. Alas! how prophetically did he once repeat to me,

Bishop Burnet adds to this high character the following pleasing anecdote. King Edward VI. gave very early indications of a good disposition to learning, and of a most wonderful probity of mind, and above all, of great respect to religion, and every thing relating to it; so that when he was once in one of his childish diversions, somewhat beingto be reached at, that he and his companions were too low for, one of them laid on the floor a great Bible that was in the room, to step on, which he beholding with great indignation, took up the Bible himself, and gave over his play for that time. The same historian has printed a new service, which was translated by the young monarch from English into Latin, with a view to abolish certain superstitious ceremonies used at the installation of the knights of the garter. Burnet has also published, what does Edward most credit of all, his “Diary or Journal.” In this we have a clear proof of his sense, knowledge, and goodness, far beyond what could have been expected at his years. It gives, says lord Orford, hopes of his proving a good king, as in so green an age he seemed resolved to be acquainted with his subjects and his kingdom. The original of this is in the Cottonian library, with the paper already mentioned, in the king’s hand-writing, which contains hints and directions delivered to the privy council, Jan. 19, 1551. Mr. Park has reprinted this curious paper in his edition of the “Royal and Noble Authors,” to which this article is considerably indebted.

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

In 1759, a younger, and the only brother of his good uncle, came to England, and settling in London, took him to reside with him, in a high and elegant style of life. He was a representative in parliament for Abingdon, and afterward for his native town. This gentleman, in the latter end of the same year, sent him to Jamaica; which proved the happiest and most fortunate change in his life, as his uncle, to the most enlarged and enlightened mind, added the sweetest temper, and the most generous disposition. His tenderness toward Mr. Edwards was excessive, and he in return regarded him with more than filial affection and veneration. Observing his passion for books, and thinking favourably of his capacity, his uncle engaged a clergyman, a Mr. Teale, to reside in his family, chiefly to supply by his instructions Mr. Edwards’s deficiency in the learned languages. Mr. Teale had been master of a free grammar school, and beside being a most accomplished scholar, possessed an exquisite taste for poetry, of which the reader will be convinced by referring to the Gentleman’s Magazine for August 1771, the beautiful copy of verses, there first published, called “The Compliment of the Day,” being of his composition. Mr. Edwards, however, according to his own account, did not make any great progress in the languages under his tuition. He acquired “small Latin, and less Greek;” and never found it easy to read the Roman poets in their own language. Not having been grounded in the Latin grammar at an early period of life, he found the study of it insupportably disgusting, after he had acquired a taste for the beauties of fine writing. Poetry, however, was their chief amusement; for Mr. Teale, as well as himself, preferred the charms of Dryden and Pope, to the dull drudgery of poring over syntax and prosody. They preferred belles lettres; and laughed away many an hour over the plays of Moliere, and wrote verses on local and temporary subjects, which thev sometimes published in the Colonial newspapers. Yet the Latin classics were not altogether neglected; Mr. Teale delighted to point out to his pupil the beauties of Horace, and would frequently impose on him the task of translating an ode into English verse, which, with his assistance in construing the words, he sometimes accomplished.

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

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

In all this time, although his character advanced, his profits were but moderate, and he was obliged to undertake employment of various kinds to maintain himself and family, which he contrived to do by constant industry and frugality. In 1771 he exhibited at the royal academy, which in 1773, in consideration of his abilities, elected him an associate. Having about the same time been employed by Mr. Udny, this gentleman enabled him to pay a visit to Italy in 1775, which he had long wished to accomplish; and during a tour of thirteen months, Mr. Edwards profited by the careful inspection of whatever was most remarkable both in nature and art in that celebrated country.

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

Of Mr. Edwards’s commissions after this, we shall only notice his picture of a hunting party for Mr. Estcourt, in 1786 a collection of etchings, fifty-two in number, published by Leigh and Sotheby in 1799 his “Commemoration of Handel in Westminster-abbey” and his picture from the “Two Gentlemen of Verona,” for the Shakspeare gallery. To enumerate further would be only an account of various small commissions which always gave satisfaction, but were not attended by the fame or profit of his more successful brethren. In 1788, he was appointed teacher of perspective in the royal academy, and was continued in that situation during the remainder of his life. For this he had qualified himself by long study, the fruits of which were given to the public in a “Treatise on Perspective,” 1803, 4to, with forty plates, a work, not certainly without defects, but upon the whole, judicious, comprehensive, and useful.

In 1800 he lost his mother, whom he had hitherto maintained with true filial piety, at the age of ninety-three. His sister continued to reside with him; and his prudence, aided by her economy and good management, enabled him to subsist with credit with a very small income, which was gradually becoming less. Still his spirits were uniformly cheerful, and in society he was to the last lively and agreeable. His conduct had been virtuous and irreproachable, and his religious sentiments supported him amidst every adversity. He had failed in nothing but in his endeavour to acquire greater power in the art to which he had devoted hi ins- It'; and in this, all that depended upon himself had been done. The employment of his latter years was superintending at the press his “Anecdotes of Painters,” intended as a supplement to lord Orford’s work. For this he had long been collecting materials, and although his criticisms may not on every occasion accord with the general opinion, he is accurate in his facts, which he took much pains to ascertain from an acquaintance with all the members of his profession for nearly half a century.

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

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

In July 1718, he embarked for England, and soon after his arrival, retired to his native place, where he spent the winter. But being desirous of visiting France, he went thither in 1719, and after viewing the curiosities of Paris, took a lodging in a village situated in the great park of Versailles. His view was to enlarge his knowledge of natural history, but, to his great mortification, there was not at that time a living creature in the menagerie. As the court, during the king’s minority, did not reside at Versailles, the famous collection of animals had been so totally neglected, that they were all either dead or dispersed. To relieve his disappointment, Mr. Edwards amused himself in surveying the several churches and religious houses, and especially the statues and pictures in the public buildings. While he resided in France, he made two journeys of a hundred miles each. The first was to Chalons in Champagne, in May 1720; the second was on foot, to Orleans and Blois. This was performed in a disguised habit that he might avoid being robbed, but the scheme happened to be peculiarly hazardous; for an edict had recently been issued to secure vagrants, in order to transport them to America, the banks of the Missisippi standing in need of population; and our philosopher narrowly escaped a western voyage.

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

In 1743, he exhibited to the world an admirable specimen of his labours, in the first volume of his “History of Birds.” It was published in 4to, on royal paper, and contains sixty-one birds, and two quadrupeds, most of which had been neither delineated nor described before. They are engraved on fifty-two plates, from original drawings, exactly coloured, with full and accurate descriptions in French -and English. This volume is dedicated to the president and fellows of the royal college of physicians. His subscribers having exceeded his most sanguine expectations, a second volume appeared in 1747, dedicated to sir Hans Sloane, and a third in 1750, dedicated to the royal society. His fourth volume came from the press in 1751, and was the last which at that time he intended to publish. It was accompanied by the extraordinary circumstance of being dedicated to the Supreme Being, in the following words;

This dedication, we doubt not, was piously designed, but it cannot be commended. Such an assumption, it has been observed, is too great for any human creature, and the few instances of the kind that have occurred in the history of literature have always been justly disapproved. It is not, however, the only instance we have to record of the peculiar turn of his religious affections.

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

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

Seventeen years after Mr. Edwards had been appointed librarian to the college of physicians, he was honoured by the president and council of the royal society with the donation of sir Godfrey Copley’s medal. This was on St. Andrew’s day, 1750, and the honour was conferred upon him in consideration of his having just then completed his “History of Birds,” though the last volume had not yet been published. His sensibility of this distinction was shown by him in causing a copy of the medal to be engraved, and placed under the general title in the first volume of his history. On the 10th of November, 1757, he was chosen a fellow of the royal society; and he was afterward elected into the society of antiquaries. He had likewise the honour of being made a member of many of the academies of science and learning in different parts of Europe. In return for such marks of estimation, he presented elegant coloured copies of his works to the royal college of physicians, to the royal and antiquarian societies, and the British museum. Having made the same present to the royal academy of sciences at Paris, he received a most polite letter of thanks written by their then, secretary, Defouchy.

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

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

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

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

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

Of Dr. Edwards’s piety, a high, and we doubt not, a just character is given by his biographer: the only thing which his brethren objected to him, was his great zeal for the Calvinistic doctrines, and his maintaining a close connection between Arminianism and Popery. That he was a man of extensive learning cannot be denied; and by his admirers he was said to have been the Paul, the Augustine, the Brad ward ine, the Calvin, and one of the most valuable writers of his age.

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

, an English divine and able writer against Socinianism, was born at Wrexham in Denbighshire in 1629; and in 1655 became a servitor of Christ church, Oxford, where he was admitted B. A. in Oct. 1659; elected fellow of Jesus college in 1662, and took his bachelor’s degree in divinity in March 1669. He was afterwards rector of Kiddington in Oxfordshire, which he exchanged, in 1681, for Hinton in Hampshire. On Nov. 2, 1636, he was unanimously elected principal of Jesus college, and became treasurer of Llandaff in 1687. He took his degree of D. D. immediately after his election as principal, and served the office of vice-chancellor in the years 1689, 1690, and 1691. He held two other livings, one in Anglesea and the other in Caernarvonshire. He was also proctor in the convocation, 1702, for the chapter of Llandaff. He died July 20, 1712, and was buried in the chapel of his college, where is an inscription celebrating his learning, usefulness as principal, and his munificence as a benefactor. Besides many books given in his life-time, he bequeathed his own collection of upwards of 1000 volumes to the college library, and gave near 1000l. to the repairs of the chapel, &c. What he wrote against the Socinians is entitled “A Preservative against Socinianism” in four parts, 4to, published from 1693 to 1703.

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

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

, a critic and poetical writer, was born in 1691), in or near the city of London, and was a younger son of Edwards, esq. a gentleman in the profession of the law. His grandfather had been of the same profession. The principal part of his grammatical education he is said to have received at a private school, and never was a member of either of the universities. At a proper age he was entered of Lincoln’s Inn and, in due time, was called to the bar but, having a considerable hesitation in his speech, he was discouraged from engaging much in the practice of the law. Although he never appears to have fallen into that dissipation which is sometimes chargeable upon young gentlemen of the inns of court, it may be conjectured, from his subsequent publications, that he applied himself more assiduously to the cultivation of the belles lettres than to the severer studies belonging to his profession. Shakspeare, in particular, was the object of his warmest admiration and most sedulous attention; and to this circumstance Mr. Edwards is principally indebted for his literary reputation. His first appearance from the press was in a pamphlet published, in 1744, and entitled “A Letter to the author of a late Epistolary Dedication, addressed to Mr. Warburton.” This was the beginning of our author’s attack upon that famous writer; which was followed, in 1747, by “A Supplement to Mr. Warburton’s edition of Shakspeare,” a performance so well received, that two impressions of it were printed in the same year. A third edition of it appeared in 1748, under the title of “The Canons of Criticism, and a Glossary, being a Supplement to Mr. Warburton’s edition of Shaky speare. Collected from the notes in that celebrated work, and proper to be bound up with it. By the other gentleman of Lincoln’s Inn;” which title the book has ever since retained. The expression of “the other gentleman of Lincoln’s Inn,” refers to a previous controversy of Warburton’s, upon a different topic, with another member of that society. Mr. Warburton, in the preface to his edition of Shakspeare, declares that it had been once his design to give the reader a body of canons for literary criticism, drawn out in form, together with a glossary; but that he had laid aside his purpose, as these uses might be well supplied by what he had occasionally said upon the subject in the course of his remarks. This idea Mr. Edwards humourously took up, and from the notes and corrections of Warburton’s Shakspeare, has framed a set of canons ridiculously absurd, each of which is confirmed and illustrated by examples taken from the edition in question; and it cannot be denied that Mr. Edwards has perfectly succeeded in his attempt, and that through the whole of his work he has displayed his wit, his learning, and his intimate acquaintance with Shakspeare; but such an attack upon Warburton, though conducted with pleasantry rather than ill-nature, was too formidable to avoid exciting resentment. Accordingly, Warburton introduced Mr. Edwards into the next edition of Pope’s “Dunciad” in a note under the following lines in the fourth book of that work:

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

To the seventh edition of the “Canons of Criticism,” which was published in 1765, is annexed a small piece, entitled “An Account of the Trial of the Letter T, alias Y,” the design of which was to put gentlemen of learning and leisure in mind of settling the orthography of our language. It is a sensible performance, and displays, in a pleasing manner, Mr. Edwards’s skill in English criticism; a study, of which he was particularly fond, and in which few have shewn a more exact taste. The two chief things hinted at in the piece are uniformity in spelling, where the reasons from derivation are the same; and, preserving, as much as may be, the marks of etymology. In the same publication are given fifty of our author’s sonnets, in the style and manner of Spenser, twenty-seven of which had never before been printed. The rest, two excepted, had previously appeared in Dodsley’s and Pearch’s collections of poems. Two more original sonnets, together with an ode, occasioned by a lady’s being burnt with curling-irons, may be seen in the sixth volume of Nichols’s Select Collection; but as a poet, he has not been so highly esteemed as in his critical capacity, although it has been said that his sonnets are formed upon the model of the Italians of the good age, and of their imitators among us, Spenser and Milton. They discover, however, the traces of an elegant mind.

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

Mr. Edwards’s most intimate friend seems to have been Richard Roderick, esq. of Queen’s college in the university of Cambridge, M. A. and a fellow of the royal society, and of the society of antiquaries. This gentleman assisted Mr. Edwards in his “Canons of Criticism;” and they afterwards corresponded together concerning their favourite bard; the result of which was, the “Remarks on Shakspeare,” annexed to the last edition of the “Canons.” In Mr. Edwards’s ninety-ninth sonnet, Mr. Roderick is celebrated as possessed of very considerable poetical talents, and some of his poetical pieces are in the second volume of Dodsley’s collection.

Mr. Edwards departed this life on the third of January, 1757, whilst he was upon a visit at his friend Mr. Richardson’s, at Parson’s Green, and was buried in the churchyard of Ellesborough, where a monument is erected to his memory, containing a delineation of his character, composed by Daniel Wray, esq.

In 1761 was published a small tract, which had been written by our author, entitled “Free and candid thoughts on the doctrine of Predestination,” which contained nothing new.

, a learned divine of the church of England, was born at Coventry, August 10, O.S. 1729, and was the son of the Rev. Thomas Edwards, M. A. vicar of St. Michael’s in that city, and of Katharine his wife. His grammatical education he received partly under the tuition of Edward Jackson, D. D. master of the free grammar-school in Coventry, but principally under the care of his own father; and such was his eagerness for the acquisition of knowledge, that he seldom engaged in the diversions common to boys. In 1747, at the age of eighteen, he was matriculated at the university of Cambridge, and entered of Clare hall, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1750, and of M. A. in 1754. He was likewise a fellow of his college. In the younger part of his life he was a self-taught musician, and became no mean performer on the spinnet and the bass-viol: but, finding that this amusement encroached too much upon his studies, he entirely relinquished it. On the 22d of September, 1751, he was ordained deacon, and on the 23d of September, 1753, he was ordained priest, both which orders he received from the hands of Dr. Frederick Cornwallis, at that time bishop of Litchfield and Coventry. In the spring of 1755, when Mr. Edwards was not yet twenty-six years of age, he gave a striking proof of the diligence with which he applied himself to the study of the learned languages, and the acquisition of sacred literature. This was his publication of “A new English Translation of the Psalms from the original Hebrew, reduced to metre by the late bishop Hare with notes, critical and explanatory, illustrations of many passages, drawn from the classics, and a preliminary dissertation, in which the truth and certainty of that learned prelate’s happy discovery is stated, and proved at large,” 8vo. It was Mr. Edwards’s design to make Dr. Hare’s system of Hebrew metre better known, and to prove, that, by a judicious application of it, great light might be thrown upon the poetical parts of the Hebrew scriptures. He was of opinion that Dr. Hare’s hypothesis was rejected by many persons, partly from an over-hasty determination, and partly from too scrupulous a veneration for the Hebrew text. The notes, which comprehend more than one third of this book, chiefly contain emendations of the Hebrew text, pointed out by the metre, and illustrations of some passages, drawn from the classics, together with an explanation of the most difficult places. Considerable use is made by our author of Hare and Mudge, but with no servile adherence to their authority. Mr. Edwards’s next publication was only a single sermon, which he had preached at St. Michael’s in Coventry, on the 6th of February, 1756. On the 2d of May, 1758, he was nominated, by the corporation of Coventry, master of the free grammar-school, and presented to the rectory of St. John, the Baptist in that city. This promotion was- followed by his marriage, November 27th, in the same year, to Anne Parrott, daughter of Stony er Parrott, esq. of Hawkesbury, in the parish of Foleshill, in the county of Warwick, by whom he had one son, Dr. Edwards of Cambridge. Early in 1759, Mr. Edwards published one of his principal works, “The doctrine of irresistible Grace proved to have no foundation in the writings of the New Testament.” This was levelled at the opinions of the Calvinists on that subject. Our author’s next publication, which appeared in 1762, was entitled “Prolegomena in Libros Veteris Testamenti Poeticos; sive dissertatio, in qua viri eruditissimi Francisci Harii nuper Episcopi Cicestriensis de antiqua Hebraeorum poesi hypothesin ratione et veritate niti, fuse ostenditur, atque ad objecta quaedam respond etur. Subjicitur Metricae Lowthianae Confutatio, cum indicibus necessariis,” 8vo. This attack upon Dr. Lowth’s “Metricae Harianaj brevis Confutatio,” which had been annexed to the first edition of his admirable “Praelectiones de sacra Poesi Hebraeorum,” did not pass unnoticed by that gentleman. In the second edition of his “Praelectiones” he added a note, in which he strenuously maintained his own opinion, in opposition to that of Mr, Edwards. In reply to this note our author published, in 1765 t “Epistola ad doctissimimi Robertum Lowthium, S. T. P., In qua nonnulla, quae ad nuperae siur de sacra Hebraeorum Poesi Prielectionum editionis calcem habet, expenduntur.” In this he indulged himself in some severity of language, which the subject did not merit, and which ought not to have been used towards such an antagonist as Dr. Loath. The doctor thought the “Epistola” of consequence enough to deserve a reply; and therefore he printed, in 1766, “A larger Confutation of bishop Hare’s System of Hebrew Metre in a letter to the reverend Dr. Edwards in answer to his Latin cpisile,” 8vo. Here the controversy ended and the general opinion of the learned world gave the preference to Dr. Lowth’s arguments.

In 1766, Mr. Edwards was admitted to the degree of doctor in divinity not long after which (early in 1767) he published “Two Dissertations the first, on the absurdity and injustice of religious bigotry and persecution their utter contrariety to the temper and conduct of Christ and his Apostles; and their mischievous and fatal consequences: the second, on the principal qualifications and canons, necessary for the right and accurate interpretation of the New Testament,” 8vo. These dissertations reflect just credit on our author’s reputation. The first of them shows him to have been possessed of an enlarged and liberal mind; and the second contains a variety of judicious and useful directions to theological students, and to such persons in general as are desirous of attaining an exact und critical knowledge of the evangelical and apostolical writings. Dr. Edwards’s next publication was in Latin, being “Duae Dissertationes: in quarum priore probatur, variantes lectiones et menda, quae in Sac ram Scripturam irrepserunt, non labefactare ejus auctoritatem in rebus quae ad fidem et mores pertinent: in posteriore vero, praedestinationem Paulinam ad Gentilium vocationern totam spectare,” 1768, 8vo; both, particularly the first, written with great ability. The latter is on a subject which will ever be contested.

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

In his temper, Dr. Edwards- was sometimes subject to starts of anger; but otherwise he was remarkably mild, benevolent, and humane. His generosity was great and extensive; and his dealings with others were conducted on the principles of the most rigid honesty and integrity. Such were his assiduity and ability in the instruction of youth, and so conscientious his discharge of his parochial duties, that no praise can exceed his merits. He was fond of retirement, and went Bfjklom from his place of abode; on which account, though he occasionally corresponded with many of the literati, he was not in the habits of much intimacy with any. The person with whom he had most conversed was the late excellent and learned bishop of Carlisle, Dr. Edmund Law. Their sentiments were congenial, and their pursuits similar; being principally deToted to the prosecution and promotion of sacred literature.

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

Hitherto the Ilialto was esteemed the largest arch in Europe, if not in the world. Its span or chord was ninetyeight feet. But New Bridge is forty-two feet wider; and is said to be the largest arch in the world, of which we have any authentic account. The fame of this bridge introduced Edwards to public notice; and he was employed to build many other bridges in South Wales. One of the next bridges that he constructed was Usk Bridge, over the river Usk, at the town of Usk in Monmouthshire. It was a large and handsome work. He afterwards built the following bridges, in the order of succession which is here assigned them. A bridge of three arches over the river Tawy Pont ar Tawy, over the same river, about ten miles above the town of Swansea. This was of one arch its chord eighty feet, with one cylinder over the haunches. Bettws Bridge in Caermarthenshire, consisting of one arch, forty-five feet in the span. Llandovery Bridge in the same county, consisting of one arch, eighty-four feet in the span, with one cylinder over the haunches. Wychbree Bridge, over the river Tawy, about two miles above Morriston: this has one arch, ninety-five feet in span, twenty feet in altitude, with two cylinders over each of the haunches to relieve them. He built Aberavon Bridge in Glamorganshire, consisting of one arch, seventy feet in span, fifteen feet in altitude, but without cylinders. He likewise built Glasbury Bridge, near Hay, in Brecknockshire, over the river Wye: it consists of five arches, and is a light, elegant bridge. The arches are small segments of large circles on high piers, as best adapted to facilitate the passage of floods under the bridge, and travellers over it.

Edwards devised very important improvements in the art of bridge-building. His first bridges of one arch he found to be too high, so as to be difficult for carriages, and even horses, to pass over. The steeps at each end of New Bridge in particular are very inconvenient, from the largeness and altitude of the arch. This peculiarity, it is true, adds much to its perspective effect as a part of the landscape; but the sober market-traveller is not recompensed for the toil of ascending and descending an artificial mountain, by the comparison of a rainbow and the raptures of a draughtsman. He avoided this defect in his subsequent works; but it was by a cautious gradation that he attempted to correct his early and erroneous principles, and to consult the ease of the public, at the same time that he surmounted the greatest difficulties of his occupation. At length he discovered, that where the abutments are secure from the danger of giving way, arches of much less segments, and of far less altitude, than general opinion had hitherto required, are perfectly secure, and render the bridges much easier for carriages to pass over, and in every respect adapt them better to the purposes of a ready and free communication. Impressed with the importance of those rules by which he had assiduously perfected his own practice, he was in the habit of considering his own branch of architecture as reducible to three great requisites; durability, the freedom of the water flowing under, and the ease of the traffic passing over. These are certainly maxims of peculiar importance in bridges of one arch, which are not only the best adapted ta situations where tremendous floods occur, but in many cases are the only bridges securely practicable in mountain valleys.

The literary knowledge of William Edwards was at first confined to the Welsh language, which he could read and write from early youth. He was supposed to be rather obstinate when a boy; an imputation which generally rests on genius, that sees beyond the scope of those by whom it is controlled. His own account of this alleged temper was, that he always considered whether any thing that was proposed to him, or any principle that he was required to act upon, coincided with his own ideas of rectitude. If he found that it did, he firmly persisted in it. His general character was that of uncommon resolution and inflexibility. He was very wild, as it is commonly reported of him, till about eighteen years of age. After that period, he became very steady and sedate. A neighbour instructed him a little in arithmetic. About the age of twenty or twenty-one, he undertook the building of a large iron forge at Cardiff, and lodged with a person namedWalter Rosser, a baker, and blind. This man taught English reading. William Edwards was alive to every opportunity of improvement, and rapidly acquired what he eagerly pursued.

After he had performed his engagement at Cardiff, he built many good houses, with several forges and smeltinghouses, and was for many years employed at works of tlnfl nature by John Morris of Clasement, esq. now sir John Morris, bart. He studied much the remains of Caerphilly Castle, which is in his native parish, and his principles were formed on those of its masonry. His manner of hewing and dressing his stones was exactly that of the old castle-masons, and he put them together with a closeness, neatness, and firmness, that is never seen but in those ancient edifices.

To the ample employment which his skill in architecture furnished; he added that of a farmer during the whole of his life, and on Sunday exercised the functions of a spiritual pastor among the independent dissenters; He was ordained in their communion in 1750, and officiated for forty years as minister of a congregation in his native parish. In his principles he was what is termed a moderate Calvinist. From his flock he regularly received his stipulated salary, but as regularly distributed the whole among the poori with a considerable addition, where necessary, from his private fortune. Thus highly respected by all sects and parties, for his extraordinary talents, piety, and probity, he died, much lamented, in 1789, and was buried in the church-yard of Kglwysilan. He left a numerous family, of which David, his second son, inherits his father’s skill in bridge-building, and the others are men of talents and worth.

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

, another artist, emU nent for the success with which he imitated Rembrandt, was born at Amsterdam, in 1621, and was a disciple of Rembrandt, whose manner of designing, colouring, and penciling, he imitated wonderfully. But although it is difficult to distinguish between several of his paintings, and those of his master, he is thought to have excelled him in the extremities of his figures. His principal employment was for portraits, and he surpassed all iris contemporaries in the power he had of painting the mind in the countenance, His portrait of his own father had so much force, resemblance, and life, as to astonish even Rembrandt himself when he saw it. But, although Eeckhout painted portraits with great success, he was much more pleased to paint historical subjects, and not less happy in his execution, his composition being rich, and full of judgment; the distribution of his masses of light and shadow truly excellent; and in the opinion of some connoisseurs, he had more transparence in his colouring, and better expression than Rembrandt. His back-grounds are generally clearer than his, yet, if in this and other respects he attained to the perfections of Rembrandt, he also shared his defects; he was often incorrect in design, elegance, and grace, and was totally negligent of the costume. In the collection of the elector Palatine, a picture of this master if mentioned, as. having a strong and admirable expression; the subject is “Christ among the Doctors;” another picture of this master, representing “Simeon with Christ in fcis arms,” is a most excellent performance, and sir Robert Strange had a third, the “Guard Room,” which he praised very highly. This artist died July 22, 1674.

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

, lord Ellesmere, an eminent English statesman and lawyer, the son of Richard Egerton, of Ridley, in Cheshire, was born in Cheshire, about the year 1540. In 1556 he was admitted a commoner of Brasencse college, in Oxford, where he continued about three years; and having laid a good foundation of classical and logical learning, he removed thence to Lincoln’s-inn, and applied himself with such success to the study of the law, that he soon became a noted counsellor. The superior abilities he displayed in the line of his profession, and his distinguished eminence at the bar, attracted the notice of queen Elizabeth, and on June 28, 1581, she appointed him her solicitor-general: the year after he was chosen Lent reader of the society of Lincoln’s-inn, and was made also one of the governors of that society, in which office he continued for twelve years successively. His conduct and proficiency in the law, promoted him on June 2, 1594, to the office of attorney-general, and he was knighted soon after. On the 10th of April, 1593, he was appointed master of the rolls, when he shewed his great friendship to Mr. Francis Bacon, afterwards lord Verulam, by assisting him with his own observations in regard to the office of solicitor-general, then likely to become vacant by the advancement of Mr. Edward Coke to that of attorneygeneral, which was acknowledged by sir Robert Cecil as a favour done personally to himself. Upon the death of sir John Puckering, he had the great eal of England delivered to him at Greenwich on the 6th of May, 1596, with the title of lord keeper, by the special choice and favour of the queen, without any mediator or competitor, and even against the interest of the prime minister and his son; and at the same time he was sworn of her majesty’s privycouncil. He was permitted to hold the mastership of the rolls till May 15, 1603, when James I. conferred it on Edward Bruce, afterwards baron of Kmloss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His lordship’s illness increasing, the king, as a farther testimony of his affection and good- will, sent the earl of Buckingham and sir Francis Bacon on the 15th of March to signify his intention of honouring him with an earldom, accompanied with an annual pension. These honours he did not live to receive, but the king conferred the former upon his son, John Egerton, afterwards created earl of Bridgewater. The age in which he lived was a particular aera of the British annals, distinguished by many great and extraordinary public characters: but, whilst the misconduct or misfortune of a Devereux, a Raleigh, a Bacon, and a Coke, exposed them to public disgrace, or to an ignominious death; the prudence, discretion, and integrity of lord Ellesmere, secured him a safe and honourable retreat from this life; for, he died at York-house, in the Strand, on the 15th of March, 1617, in his seventy-seventh year, “in a good old age, and full of virtuous fame,” and in the words of Camden, “Forte quanto propius reipublicse mala viderat, ut integer honestum finem voluit.” To sum up his character, says bishop Hacket, the biographer of archbishop Williams, he was one “Qui nihil in vita nisi laudandum aut fecit, aut dixit, aut sensit.” He was buried at Doddleston, in Cheshire, on the 6th of April.

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

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

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

Some years before his death, his health not permitting him to go into the more distant parts of his diocese, he gave a commission to Dr. Law, then bishop of Cioufert and KilmaccUiagh, assisted by the archdeacon, to visit and confirm in Northumberland, confining his personal attendance to the county of Durham. The preferments in his disposal he gave with a truly pastoral care: with many of them he rewarded the provincial clergy, on account of their learning and other merits. In a remarkable instance, in which he wished to prefer a particular friend, he declined indulging his inclination, from a conviction, that the person he was desirous to promote, was not entirely orthodox in his tenets; making a covenant with himself that his affection should not press upon his duty. Such was the wise ceconomy preserved by his lordship, that the expence attending his hospitality and munificence was no obstruction to his well-directed benefactions. Besides many gifts and charities bestowed on indigent clergymen and their families, and other deserving characters in distress, with a delicacy that gave them a double value, and which, during his life, were industriously concealed, he continued to his death all the bounties he had annually given in his two former dioceses of Bangor, and of Lichfield and Coventry, as well as all the numerous benefactions of his predecessors at Durham, increasing those to the sons of the clergy, whom he was particularly solicitous to support, and those to the infirmary at Newcastle. To St. Anne’s chapel in. Auckland, to the schools of Wolsingham, Norton, and many other places, he gave particular benefactions; and, whenever it was practicable, he made it a condition of his consent, upon the inclosure of waste lands, that twenty or thirty acres should be given to the living, where it was small, over and above the allotment to which it was entitled. To the county in general, he was a great benefactor, as well as to the copyholders in particular. He promoted the inclosure of Walling Fen in Howdenshire, which could never have been accomplished without his interposition, on account of the many opposite interests concerned in it, by which six thousand acres were drained and cultivated, and now present the agreeable and useful prospect of numerous farms and cottages, a new town, and a navigation from Market Weighton to the Humber.

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

He discharged all the duties of his high and arduous station with a steadiness that was very remarkable: he not only knew what was right, but acted conformably to that knowledge: though he set a proper value upon the opinions of mankind, no man was less under the influence of vain popularity; and when upon reflection he had thoroughly satisfied his own mind, regardless of the world and the world’s law, he would never suffer the prejudices of others to supersede and cancel the higher obligations of what he conceived to be his duty. This firmness of disposition, advantageous in so many points of view, fitted him peculiarly for the administration of the great and various powers with which he was entrusted.

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

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

, third duke of Bridgewater, was born in 1736, and was the fifth son of Scroop, the first duke of Bridgewater, by lady Rachel Russel: by the death of his brothers, he succeeded, on the demise of his brother John, second duke, in 1748, to the Lille and estates. Of those illustrious characters that have done honour to the British peerage, the duke of Bridgewater deserves to be placed in the first rank. That time and fortune which too many others have devoted to purposes, if not injurious to society, at least useless, his grace spent in pursuits that entitle him to be called the benefactor of his country.

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

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

This first work having been completed in 1760, was opened in the presence of the duke, many of his friends, and a vast concourse of people, with great ceremony, rejoicings, and exultation and his grace had the felicity to see the extraordinary man whom he had patronized succeed even beyond his expectations. But the duke’s designs were not confined to this canal: accordingly, after another application to parliament, in 1762 he obtained powers (though not without great opposition) to extend the works from Longford bridge to the river Mersey; and the success of ibis undertaking furnishes an additional proof of his grace’s judgment. The entire length from Wbrsley to Manchester is twenty-nine miles: there is not any fall on the whole line, except at Runcorn, into the river Mersey, where there are locks which convey the boats down ninetyfour feet into the river in a very short space of time. The whole was accomplished in about five years. The duke was also a liberal promoter of that great work the Grand Trunk Navigation, which extends from his own works at Preston Brook to the river Trent, near Derby; and he was ever ready to assist, with his parliamentary influence, the furthering of any well-digested plan.

As a senator, the late duke of Bridgewater did not take an active part; and was not constant in his attendance on his parliamentary function-. In 1762, however, his name is to be found in the division, on a motion to withdraw the British troops from Germany and on the loss of that motion, he joined in a protest. When the repeal of the American stamp act was in agitation, his grace was a strong opposer of that measure; and in 1784, when powerful interest was made use of to prevent Mr. Fox’s India-bill from passing into a law, the duke was active therein. In general his politics were guided by that of his noble brother-inlaw the marquis of Stafford.

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

, a very eminent antiquary, and particularly conversant in Greek, Roman, and German antiquities, was born at Bremen May 23, 1639, of a distinguished family. He studied at various seminaries, principally those of Helmstadt and Leipsic, and travelled into Swisserland, Italy, Spain, and France. On his return to his native country in 1679, he was received into the college called the college of ancients, and was deputed by the members of it to go to the imperial court, in order to explain some differences which had arisen between the magistrates and burgesses of Bremen. In this he acquitted himself so much to their satisfaction, that when he returned, in 1679, he was appointed secretary to the republic, an office which he held with great reputation until his death, Feb. 15, 1713. His antiquarian pursuits produced, I. “De nuinismatibus quibusdam abstrusis Neronis, cum Car. Patino per epistolas disquisitio,” Bremen, 1681, 4 to. 2. “Mysteria Cereris et Bacchi, in vasculo ex uno onyche,” ibid. 1682, 4to, reprinted by Gronovius in vol. VII. of his Greek Thesaurus. 3. “Discussio calumniarum Fellerianarum,” 1687, 4to, which Feller had provoked by his “Epicrisis,” and by his “Vindicise adversus Eggelingium,” published at Leipsic, 1685. 4. “De orbe stagneo Antinoi, epistola,” 1691, 4to. 5. “De Miscellaneis Germanise antiquitatibus exercitationes quinque,” 1694 1700.

, the founder of Queen’s college, Oxford, rector of Burgh or Brough in Westmoreland, and confessor to Philippa, Edward lll.'s queen, deserves a more ample notice than at this distance of time can be procured; nor have we arty particulars to add to the account given in another place. His descent appears to have been honourable, and more than once the county of Cumberland was represented in parliament by a member of the house. They had considerable estates in different parts of that county; and we find that either the founder of the college, or one of the family of the same name, received of Edward III. in exchange for the manor of La I e ham in Middlesex, the manor of Uavenwick or Renwick, in Cumberland, which had been forfeited to the king’s father Ldward II. on the attainder of Andrew de Harcla, earl of Carlisle, in 1323. This manor is now the property of the college.

It is probable that Robert de Egglestield was born at Egglesfeld, a hamlet in the parish of Brigham, in the county of Cumberland, where the family was certainly possessed of property in the time of Henry III. In the reign of Edward III. they came into the possession of Alueburgh hall, or Netherhall, in the parish of Cross Canonby in the same county, which from that time was their principal residence. Here they lived in high estimation, until, in the reign of Philip and Mary, Elizabeth, eldest sister and coheiress of Richard Egglesfield, esq. was married to John Senhouse, of Sealscale hall, esq. This marriage brought the property into the family of Senhouse, in which it has ever since continued.

Robert Egglesfield appears to have been highly esteemed by his rojal master and mistress, Edward III. and queen Philippa, and to have shared in their intimacy and confidence. In 1332, the king bestowed on him the rectory of Burgh, in the person of Adam de Egglesfield, his proxy, and probably relation and he was ordained priest at Carlisle in the Lent following. This church was appropriated to the college by pope Clement VI, in 1344. Egglesfield employed his whole interest at court in promoting religion and learning, giving all he had to the public, and that in his life-time, when he could best secure those advantages which he was anxious to bestow on posterity.

He died in the month of June 1349, and was most probably buried in the old chapel belonging to Queen’s college. His principal motive for founding this college (the history of which may be seen in our authority), was to supply education to the northern district, in which the frequent and barbarous contests of the borderers had created, to use his words, “literature 'insolitam raritatem.” After his death, queen Philippa became the patroness of the college, her royal consort gave several advowsons for its support, and was followed by a long series of benefactors, by whose munificence this noble establishment, with its splendid buildings, was advanced to the- prosperous state in which we now find it, and has produced some of the brightest ornaments of the university, the state, and the church.

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

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

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

, a learned Italian, was born at Venice of poor parents 1 abont 1473, and was a disciple of Politian, and educated along with Leo X. He then opened a private school, and taught the belles lettres when he was only eighteen years of age. This excited the jealousy of Sabellico, a public professor of tha same city; but they became reconciled at last, when Sabclltco, finding himself near his end, sent for Egnazio, besought his forgiveness, and entrusted to his care a work in manuscript, which Egnazio published, and pronounced the funeral oration over the ashes of Sabellico. Egnazio had now conferred upon him the right of citizenship, and was afterwards presented with ecclesiastical preferment. In 1515 he was sent with others to Milan, to compliment king Francis I. to whose honour Egnazio composed a panegyric, for which he was rewarded with a gold medal. In 1520 he was elected public professor of eloquence at Venice, in opposition to many competitors; and so high was his reputation in this department of literature, that he had frequently five hundred auditors to hear him daily, and even when towards the decline of life he was desirous of resigning his employment, and to be declared Emeritus, they refused a demand which might be so prejudicial to his school, and persuaded him to continue. He at length, however, was permitted to retire, and out of respect to him, all his emoluments were continued, and his property declared free of all taxation. He died July 4, 1553, and bequeathed his property and library to three illustrious families of Venice. His principal works are a treatise “De Romania principibus vel Csesaribus,” containing the lives of the Roman emperors from Julius Caesar to Palaeologus, and from Charlemagne to Maximilian, Cologn, 1519, and reprinted in various editions of Suetonius, with notes on that author by Egnazio; some orations and epistles, a panegyric on Francis I. king of France, in heroic verse, printed at Venice in 1540, and “De exemplis virorum illustrium,” a work compiled in the manner of Valerius Maximus, which he did not quite finish, but which was published after his death, at Venice in 1554, 4to.

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

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

, of the Palatinate, an able writer against the Jews, was born at Manheim, in 1654, was educated at Heidelberg, and afterwards, at the expence of the elector palatine, travelled in Holland and England. At Amsterdam he applied himself to the study of the Arabic, and copied the Alcoran with his own hand from three manuscripts. In 1693 when the palatinate was invaded, he retired to Francfort, with the electoral regency, and was made keeper of the archives. He was next advanced to the office of registrar of the electoral chancery at Heidelberg, and afterwards appointed professor of the oriental languages. He had also an invitation to succeed Leusden at Utrecht, but declined it, and died at Heidelberg, Dec. 20, 1704. Having very much studied the Talmudical writings, he was desirous to convince the Jews of their folly in preferring the oral to the written law, the traditions of men to the precepts of God, and the Talmud to the Holy Scriptures. With this view he took great pains to collect all the fables, allegories, and contradictions in the Talmud and other rabbinical works, and published this collection in 2 vols. 4to, at Francfort, under the title of “Judaism discovered,” but the Jews had interest enough at the court of Vienna to interdict the sale of it. At length the king of Prussia ordered it to be reprinted at Konigsberg in 1711, at his sole expence, and with great liberality gave a part of the impression to the heirs of Eisenmenger, to recompense them for their loss. In 1743, an abridgement of this work was published in English by the rev. John Peter Stehelin, London, 2 vols. 8vo, under the title “The Traditions of the Jews, or the Doctrines and Expositions contained in the Talmud, and other Rabbinnical writings,” &c. This is a work of great curiosity, and the first in which the English public was made acquainted with the traditions of the Jews.

, M. D. was born at Strasbourg Sept. 25, 1656. In a journey he made to Paris he formed an intimacy with several of the learned, and particularly with Du Verney and Tournefort. He was admitted of the academy of sciences on the re- establishment of that society, and died in 1712, at the age of fifty-six, at Strasbourg, where he settled on returning from his travels. He published, 1. “A treatise-on the figure of the earth, entitled; Elliptico-Sphéroide,” 1691, 4to. 2. “A treatise on the weights and measures of various nations, and on the value of the coins of the ancients,” 1708, 8vo.

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

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

, a rabbi of the sixteenth century, by birth a German, passed the greater part of his life at Rome and at Venice, where he taught the Hebrew tongue to many of the learned of these two cities, and even to some cardinals. Of all the critics that have arisen among the modern Jews, he has the reputation of being the most enlightened, and had the candour to reject as ridiculous fables, the greater part of their traditions. To him the learned are obliged for, 1. “Lexicon Chaldaicum,” Isnae, 1541, fol. 2. “Traditio DoctrinsB,” in Hebrew, Venice, 1538, 4to, with the version of Munster; Bale, 1539, 8vo. 3. “Collectio locorum in quibus Chaldseus paraphrastes interjecit nomen Messiae Christi; Lat. versa a Genebrardo,' Paris, 1572, 8vo. 4. Several Hebrew Grammars, 8 vo, necessary for such as would penetrate into the difficulties of that language. 5.” Nomenclatura Hebra'ica,“Isnae, 1542, 4to. The same in Hebrew and Latin, by Drusius; Franeker, 1681, 8vo. He rejected, among other ancient prejudices, the very high origin of the Hebrew points, which have been carried as far back as the time of Ezra, and referred them with more probability to the sixth century. Father Simon says of him,” Solus Elias Levita inter Judaeos desiit nugari;" and adds, that he was so much hated by the other Jews for teaching the Christians the Hebrew tongue, as to be obliged to prove formally that a Jew might do this with a good conscience.

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

Elias, on his first coming to Paris, was very defective in colouring. A picture of his is still to be seen of his early time in the church of Notre-dame de Paris, on the left hand, on entering by the grand portico, in one of the low ailes. He afterwards acquired a good colouring: his draperies are likewise more ample, and approach nearer to nature: his drawing is sufficiently correct he composed well, but with a labour truly astonishing he was long in producing a sketch, and it was in order to conceal this labour, that he could not endure to have any body near hhn when at work. Some of his portraits are well executed, and great likenesses; excepting his women, whom he dressed without selection and without taste. His performances done ten years before his death, are formal: the women, in his historical pieces, are ill dressed about the head, and ill draperied. This blemish is seen in the two pictures in the church of the Carmelites at Dunkirk; one, St. Lewis setting out fur the Holy Land, the other is the sacrifice of Elijah. The best of his other pictures are at Dunkirk in the church of the capuchins, the guardian angel conducting a ciniu in the path of virtue; and, on the two sides of the altar, one a benediction of the bread, and the other the distribution. The altar-picture of the poor Clares, representing the angel appearing to Joseph in a dream. At Menin, St. Felix resuscitating a dead child; a picture at the monastery of the capuchins. At Ypres, in the church of the Carmelites, four Urge pictures representing, one the manna another Moses striking the rock the distribution of bread and the resurrection of Lazarus. In the refectory of the abbey of Bergues, St. Winox, Christ fastened to the cross, Magdalen at the feet on one side the brazen serpent worshipped by the Israelites on the other side the manna St. Benedict and Totila St. Winox distributing bread to the hungry the sacrifice of Abraham. In the quarter of the abbey, several portraits, and two whole lengths of a foot square one of the abbot Vander Haege, and the other of Ryckewaert.

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

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

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

, the gallant defender of Gibraltar, was the son of sir Gilbert Eliott of Stobbs in Roxburghshire. The ancient and honourable family of Eliott of Stobbs, as well as the collateral branch of Eliott of Min to in the same county, and of Eliott of port Eliott, in Cornwall, are originally from Normandy. Their ancestor M. Aliott came over with William the conqueror, and held a distinguished rank in his army. There is a traditionary anecdote in the family relating to an honourable distinction in their coat, which, as it corresponds with history, bears the probability of truth. When William set foot on the English land, he slipped and fell on the earth. On springing up again, he exclaimed, that it was a happy omen; he had taken seisin of the country whereof he was to become lord. Upon this, Aliott drevr his sword, and swore by the honour of a soldier, that he would maintain, at the hazard of his blood, the right of his lord to the sovereignty of the land of which he had thus taken possession. On the event of conquest, king William added to the arms of Aliott, which were a baton Or, on a field Azure, an arm and sword as a crest, with the motto, “Per saxa, per ignes, fortiter & recte.”

Sir Gilbert Eliott, of Stobbs, had nine sons, of whotn our general was the youngest; and two daughters. His eldest brother, sir John Eliott, left the title and estate to his son sir Francis Eliott, nephew to the general. The general was born about the year 1718, and received thefirst rudiments of his education under a private tutor retained at the family seat. At an early age he was sent to the university of Leydcn, where he made a rapid progress in classical learning, and spoke with elegance and fluency the German and French languages. Being designed for a military life, he was sent from thence to the celebrated military school at La Fere in Picardy. This school was rendered the most famous in Europe by the great Vauban, under whom it was conducted. It was afterwards committed to the management and care of the comte d'Houroville. Here it was that the foundation was laid of that knowledge of tactics in all its branches, and particularly in the arts of engineering and fortification, which afterwards so greatly distinguished this officer. He completed his military course on the continent by a tour for the purpose of seeing in practice what he had been studying in thetsry, Prussia was the model for discipline, and he continued for some time as a volunteer in this service. Such were the steps taken by the young men of fashion in that day to accomplish themselves for the service of their country. Many of his contemporaries were then similarly engaged, nobly abandoning the enjoyments of ease and luxury at home, for the opportunity of seeing actual service.

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

On the peace, his gallant regiment was reviewed by his majesty in Hyde-park—when they presented to the king the standards which they had taken from the enemy. The king, gratified with their high character, asked general Eliott what mark of his favour he could bestow on his regiment equal to their merits. He answered, that his regiment would be proud if his majesty should think that by their services they were entitled to the distinction of royals. It was accordingly made a royal regiment, with this flattering title, The 15th, or king’s royal regiment of light dragoons. At the same time the king expressed a desire to confer a mark of his favour on the brave general; but he declared, that the honour and satisfaction of his majesty’s approbation of his services were his best reward.

During the peace he was not idle. His great talents in the various branches of the military art gave him ample employment; and in the year 1775 he was appointed to succeed general A'Court as commander in chief of the forces in Ireland. But he did not continue long on this station; finding that interferences were made by petty authority derogatory of his own, he resisted the practice with becoming spirit; and not choosing to disturb the government of the sister kingdom, on a matter personal to himself, he solicited to be recalled, and accordingly was so, when he was appointed to the command of Gibraltar, in a fortunate hour for the safety of that important fortress. The system of his life, as well as his education, peculiarly qualified him for this trust. He was perhaps the most abstemious man of the age. His food was vegetables, and his drink water. He neither indulged himself in animal food nor wine. He never slept more than four hours at a time; so that he was up later and earlier than most other men. He had so inured himself to habits of hardness, that the things which are difficult and painful to other men, were to him his daily practice, and rendered pleasant by use. It could not be easy to starve such a man into a surrender, nor to surprise him. Mis wants were easily supplied, and his watchfulness was beyond precedent. The example of the commander in chief in a besieged garrison has a most persuasive efficacy in forming the manners of the soldiery. Like him his brave followers came to regulate their lives by the most strict rules of discipline before there arose a necessity for so doing; and severe exercise, with short diet, became habitual to them by their own choice. The military system of discipline which he introduced, and the preparations which he made for his defence, were contrived with so much judgment, and executed with so much address, that he was able, with a handful of men, to preserve his post against an attack, the constancy of which, even without the vigour, was sufficient to exhaust any common set of men. Collected within himself, he in no instance destroyed, by premature attacks, the labours which would cost the enemy time, patience, and expence to complete; he deliberately observed their approaches, and seized on the proper moment, with the keenest perspection, in which to make his attack with success. He never spent his ammunition in useless parade, or in unimportant attacks. He never relaxed from his discipline by the appearance of security, nor hazarded the lives of his garrison by wild experiments. By a cool and temperate demeanour, he maintained his station for three years of constant investment, in which all the powers of Spain were employed. All the eyes of Europe were on his garrison, and his conduct justly raised him to a most elevated place in the military annals of the present day.

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

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

He was undoubtedly one of the most useful persons of his age in the infant state of America; -and such was his charity that he distributed all he received from his own congregation among the Indians. He wrote several pamphlets, giving accounts of the “Progress of the Gospel among the Indians in New England,” 4to, which were regularly sent over to the corporation in London, and printed by them. He published also an “Indian Grammar,” Camb. 1666, 4to; and “The Logiek Primer for the use of the Indians,” 1672, 16mo. We are also told that he was the author of a tract or volume called “The Christian Republic,” which is said to have been published in England about 1660, but that the governor and council of Massachusetts, conceiving that it militated against the established governments, and especially against the monarchy of the mother country, insisted upon its being suppressed, and that the author should retract his sentiments. This he is said to have done, by allowing that a government by king, lords, and commons, has nothing in it hostile to Christianity. Other works ace ascribed to him, which, we do not find mentioned by any of his biographers.

, queen of England, one of the most celebrated sovereigns of this or of any country, was the daughter of Henry VIII. by his queen Anne Boleyn, and born in the year 1533. JShe was educated in the principles of the protestant religion, and was distinguished for her attainments in classical literature. By the last will of her father, she was nominated third in order of succession, but by the influence of the duke of Northumberland, she was by an act of Edward VI. excluded from the crown, to which nevertheless she attained on the death of her sister Mary. During, however, the reign of that sister, she was treated with the utmost indignity and severity, committed to the Tower, and threatened with still greater calamities. Her confinement in this fortress was short, for even the judges of Mary could find no plea against her, and she was sent from thence to Woodstock, where, though kept in safe custody, she was treated with much respect. Her sufferings and her principles endeared her to the nation, and she became so extremely popular that it was, in a short time, deemed impolitic to put any restraint upon her. When set at liberty she chose study and retirement, and was very submissive to the will of her sister. Attempts were made to draw her into some declarations respecting her religion, which might be laid hold of; but in every instance she acted with so much prudence and caution as to give her enemies no advantage of that kind, and seemed to comply with the external forms of the established religion, though it was well known, she was attached to that of the reformation.

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

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

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

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

It was time, indeed, for Elizabeth now to turn her attention towards Spain. Hearing that Philip was secretly preparing a great navy to attack her, she sent sir Francis Drake with a fleet to intercept his supplies, to pillage his coast, and destroy his shipping. Drake sailed with four capital ships of the queen’s, and twenty-six great and small, with which the London merchants, in hopes of sharing the plunder, had supplied him. Having learned that a Spanish fleet, richly laden, was lying at Cadiz, he boldly made an attack, forced six gallies to take shelter under the forts, burned about an hundred vessels laden with ammunition and naval stores; and destroyed a great ship belonging to the marquis of Santa Croce. Thence he set sail for Cape Vincent, and took by assault the castle situated on that promontory, with three other fortresses. After insulting Lisbon, he took a rich carrack. and by this short expedition, the English seamen learned to despise the unwieldy ships of the enemy; the intended hostilities against England were retarded for a twelvemonth, and the queen had leisure to take more secure measures against that formidable invasion.

Philip, however, proceeded with unremitting diligence, and every part of his dominions resounded with the noise of armaments. The marquis of Santa Croce, a sea-officer of great reputation and experience, was destined to command the fleet. In all the ports of Sicily, Naples, Spain, and Portugal, artizans were employed in building vessels of uncommon size and force naval stores were bought at a great expence armies were levied, and quartered along the maritime parts of Spain and every thing threatened the most formidable naval enterprize that Europe ever beheld. The duke of Parma was to conduct the landforces, twenty-thousand of whom were on board the fleet, and thirty-four thousand more were assembled in the Netherlands, ready to be transported into England. The most renowned nobility, and princes of Italy and Spain were ambitious of sharing in the honour of this great enterprize, and the Spaniards, ostentatious of their power, already denominated their navy the Invincible Armada.

When the news reached England that this mighty fleet was preparing to sail, terror and consternation universally seized the inhabitants. A fleet of not above thirty ships of war, and those very small in comparison, was all that they had to oppose it by sea. All the commercial towns of England, however, were required to furnish ships for reinfiprciqg this small navy. The citizens of London, instead of fifteen vessels, which they were commanded to equip, voluntarily fitted out double the number. The gentry and nobility equipped forty three ships at their own charge. Lord Howard of Effingham was admiral, and under him served Drake, Hawkins, and Frobisher, all celebrated for courage and capacity. The principal fleet was stationed at Plymouth. A smaller squadron, consisting of forty vessels, English and Flemish, was commanded by lord Seymour, second son of the protector Somerset, and lay off Dunkirk, in order to intercept the duke of Parma. The land forces of England, though more numerous than the enemy, were greatly inferior in discipline and experience. An army of 20,000 men was disposed in different bodies along the south coast; and a body of 22,000 foot and 1000 horse was stationed at Tilbury, in order to defend the capital. The principal army consisted of 34,000 foot and 2000 horse, and was commanded by lord Hunsdon. These forces were reserved for guarding the queen’s person; and were appointed to march whithersoever the enemy should appear. The fate of England, if all the Spanish armies should be aule to land, seemed to depend on the issue of a single battle; from which no favourable expectation could be formed, considering the force of 60,000 veteran Spaniards, commanded by experienced officers, under the duke of Parma, the greatest general of the age.

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

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

Effingham gave orders not to come to close fight with the Spaniards, where the size of the ships, he suspected, and the number of the soldiers, would be a disadvantage to the English but to cannonade them at a distance, and to wait the opportunity which winds, currents, or various accidents must afford him, of intercepting some scattered vessels of the enemy. Nor was it long before the event answered expectation. A great ship of Biscay, on board of which was a considerable part of the Spanish money, took fire by accident; and while all hands were employed in extinguishing the flames, she fell behind the rest of the armada; the great galleon of Andalusia was detained by the springing of her mast; and both these vessels were taken, after some resistance, by sir Francis Drake. As the armada advanced up the channel, the English hung upon its rear, and still infested it with skirmishes. Each trial abated the confidence of the Spaniards, and added courage to the English; and the latter soon found, that even in close fight the size of the Spanish ships was no advantage to them. Their bulk exposed them the more to the fire of the enemy; while their cannon, placed too high, shot over the heads of the English. The alarm having now reached the coast of England, the nobility and gentry hastened out with their vessels from every harbour, and reinforced the admiral. The earls of Oxford, Northumberland, and Cumberland, sir Thomas Cecil, sir Robert Cecil, sir Walter Raleigh, sir Thomas Vavasor, sir Thomas Gerrard, sir Thomas Blount, with many others, distinguished themselves by this generous and disinterested service of their country. The English fleet, after the conjunction of those ships, amounted to an hundred and forty four sail.

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

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

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

Under the wise conduct of Elizabeth the Protestant religion was firmly established, factions restrained, government strengthened, the power of Spain nobly opposed, and withstood, oppressed neighbours supported, a navy created, commerce rendered flourishing, and the national glory aggrandized. No sovereign was ever more jealous of power and prerogative; yet she was truly ambitious of obtaining the general affections of her subjects. She made, during her long reign, frequent progresses, and paid many domestic visits, which were partly the result of policy, partly of economy. She wished to be thought a friend to literature, but never displayed the liberality of a patroness. Her manners and language were but little suited to the delicacy of the female character.

Bolingbroke’s character of queen Elizabeth coincides in part with the preceding. In his “Idea of a Patriot King,” he says, “our Elizabeth was queen in a limited monarchy, and reigned over a people at all times more easily led than driven; and at that time capable of being attached to their prince and their country by a more generous principle than any of those which prevail in our days, by affection, There was a strong prerogative then in being, and the crown was in possession of greater legal power. Popularity was, however, then, as it is now, and as it must be always in mixed government, the sole true foundation of that sufficient authority and influence which other constitutions give the prince gratis, and independently of the people, but which a king of this nation must acquire. The wise queea saw it and she saw too, how much popularity depends on those appearances that depend on the decorum, the decency, the grace, and the propriety of behaviour, of which we are speaking. A warm concern for the interest and honour of the nation, a tenderness for the people, and a confidence in their affections, were appearances that ran through her whole public conduct, and gave life and colour to it. She did great things: and she knew hovr to set them off according to their full value, by her manner of doing them. In her private behaviour she shewed great affability, she descended even to familiarity; but her familiarity was such, as could not be imputed to her weakness, and was therefore most justly ascribed to her goodnew. Though a woman, she hid all that was womunislt about her: and, if a few equivocal marks of coquetry appeared on some occasions, they passed like flashes of lightning, vanished as soon as they were discerned, and imprinted no blot on her character. She had private friendships, she had favourites; but she never suffered her friends to forget she was their queen; and when her favourites did, she made them feel that she was so.”

Although modern wits have amused themselves with the flatteries too frequently offered to this great queen, on account of her literary productions, and although some of these productions enumerated by lord Orford, and hid able continuator Mr. Park, are rather valuable as curiosities, than as acquisitions to the literary history of her age, yet it cannot be refused that she was truly and substantially learned, having studied the best ancient as well as modern authors. The confinement and persecutions of her youth afforded scope for the acquisition of eminent intellectual attainments. That she was well skilled in the Greek, was manifest from her writing a comment on Plato, and translating into Latin a Dialogue of Xenophon, two orations of Isocrates, and a play of Euripides. Into English she translated Plutarch “de Curiositate.” Her versions from Latin authors were, Boethius’s- Consolation of Philosophy, Sallust’s Jugurthine War, and part of Horace’s Art of Poetry. With her general learning, Elizabeth united an uncommon readiness in speaking the Latin language, which she displayed in three orations; one delivered in the university of Cambridge, and two in Oxford. An extraqrdinary instance of her ability in this way, was exhibited in a rapid piece of eloquence with which she interrupted an insolent ambassador from Poland. “Having ended her oration, she, lion-like, rising,” says the historian, “daunted the malapert orator no less with her stately port and majestic departure, than with the tartness of her princely chekes (reproofs); and, turning to the train of her attendants, said, ‘God’s death! my Lords! I have been forced this day secure up my old Latin, that hath, long laid rusting’.” By her contemporaries, Elizabeth has been highly extolled for her poetry, butto this modern taste will demnrr, yet she had a capacity for Latin versification.

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

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

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

, a physician of Prussia, was born at Pletzaw, in the principality of Anhalt-Bernburgh, in 1689. He received the first rudiments of education at home under a private tutor, and was then sent to the university of Quedlinburgh, and thence to Jena, in 1709. His father intended him for the law; but a passion which he expressed for mathematical and physical researches, soon altered that design, and determined young Eller to follow the profession of physic. As Jena afforded no opportunity for the study of anatomy, he was removed to Halle, and soon after to Ley den, to finish his education under the celebrated Albinus, and the learned Sengerd and Boerhaave. Thence he passed to Amsterdam for the advantage of hearing the lectures of Rau, and examining the preparations of iluysch, and he followed Rau to Leyden, on the latter being appointed to succeed professor Bidloe. Having quitted Leyden, he spent some time in the mines of Saxony and Hartz, where he completed his chemical studies, and made astonishing progress in metallurgy and other parts of natural knowledge. On his visiting Paris, he attended several new courses in chemistry, under Lemery and Homberg, while he was pursuing his anatomical studies under the direction of Pecquet, du Verney, Winslow, and acquiring physiological and practical knowledge by the assistance of Astruc, Helvetius, Jussieu, &c. Though every branch of medical knowledge, and particularly surgery, was successfully practised in Paris, the reputation of Cheselden’s operation for the stone, and the ambition of being known to the immortal Newton, drew Mr. Eller to England, where he arrived in company with the earl of Peterborough, and remained five months. Leaving London in 1721, he returned to his own country, and was immediately honoured with the place of first physician to his sovereign the prince of Anhalt-Bernburgh; but he afterwards removed to Magdeburgh, where he soon attracted the notice of the king of Prussia, Frederick I. by whom he was made physician in ordinary, counsellor of the court, professor of the royal college of physic and surgery at Berlin, physician to the army, and perpetual dean of the superior college of medicine; employments equally honourable and lucrative. On the accession of Frederick II. he was farther promoted, and in 1755 was created a privy counsellor, the greatest honour to which he could possibly arrive, in his career as a scholar; and the same year he was appointed director of the academy called “Curieux de la nature,” where, according to the custom of the society, he was introduced by the name of Euphorbio. These employments and dignities he retained to his death in 1759. After his death was published a work by him, entitled “Observationes de cognoscendis et curandis morbis, praescrtim acutis, 1762, 8vo, which was translated into French by Le Roy, 1774, 12mo. This work is chiefly founded on the results of his long practice. He wrote also various papers in the Transactions of the Academy of Berlin, for the years 1748, 1749, and 1752, which with other pieces by him were collected and published, in German, under the title of” Physical, chemical, and medical treatises," Berlin, 1764, 2 vols. 8vo.

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

, the son of the preceding, was born at Hamburgh, Feb. 16, 1666. He learned of his father the first elements of painting; from whom he went to Amsterdam, and studied under Michael Van Musscher. Struck with the beauty of the works of Lairessc, he was fortunate enough to gain admission to his school in 1686, None conld be more assiduous than this disciple in follow^ ing the lessons of his master, whether in copying his works and those of others, or in painting from nature. The genius of the young painter was encouraged by Lairesse: one year of his instructions qualified him for composing freely, without following any other model than nature, and without having in view the manner of any one; his own is grand and noble, and his back grounds are of a fine architecture: among them are to be found the most valuable remains of the Ægyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans. If the scene of his composition was to be laid in one of these countries, he likewise introduced bas-reliefs relative to the time: he was a man of genius, and had a mind well stored with literature, and his pictures are therefore interesting both to painters and scholars. At Amsterdam he painted several cielings and large subjects for ornaments to the public halls and grand apartments. The elector of Mcntz took so much pleasure in contemplating his works, that he ordered of him two very large pictures, owe representing the Death of Alexander, the other the nuptials of Thetis and Peleus; which are both highly celebrated. The elector was so satisfied with them, that be amply paid the artist, and made him a rich present besides: he also appointed him his principal painter, but which title Elliger refused, as well as the pension that was attached to it, preferring his liberty, as he said, to an honourable bondage; and soon after retired to his own country. Typography was embellished with the ingenious compositions of his hand but this took up so much of his time, that he had but little for applying to grand works he made pictures in small sixes, not unworthy of being placed in the first cabinets. This good artist may justly boast also of the “Banquet of the Gods,” a large picture, sufficient, of itself to immortalize his name. But this man, to amiable, and so much esteemed, soon fell into intemperance and contempt, and his works no longer resembled those of his former years, scarcely any of them rising above mediocrity. He died Nov. 24, 1732, in the sixtysixth year of his age. In the cabinet of M. Half-Wassenaer, at the Hague, was lately his very fine picture representing Alexander dying.

, an English divine, whose writings, in the opinion of a recent biographer, deserve to be more extensively known than, it is apprehended, they now are, or ever have been, was the son of Mr. Ellis, steward to Dr. Barnaby Potter, bishop of Carlisle, and wasjborn in 1630, near Penrith in Cumberland. He became a servitor of Queen’s college, Oxford, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Tully, in 1649, and was afterwards a tabarder; and when master of arts, became a fellow of the college.

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

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

In botany Ellis distinguished himself by an account of two new genera, the Halesia and Gardenia, both American shrubs, the former named after his learned friend the Rev. Dr. Hales, the latter named after Dr. Garden, long resident in Carolina. He published also a pamphlet on the Venus’s Fly-trap; and was the author of a fourth new genus, Gordonia, named after Mr. Gordon of Mile-end, which was described in the 60th vol. of the Philosophical Transactions, along with a new species of Illicium, or Starry Anise, from West Florida. In the 57th vol. of the Trans. Mr. Ellis describes some Confervae, hitherto unknown. One of his most favourite botanical objects was to ascertain the true Varnish-tree of Japan, which he contends, in opposition to Miller (See Philos. Trans, vols. XLIX. and L.), to be distinct from the American Toxicodendron, and the point seems not yet well determined. Our author published separately an historical account of Coffee, with remarks oa its culture and use, and a plate of the shrub; also a description of theMangostan and Bread-fruit, with four plates. These are quarto pamphlets, and the latter contains many useful “directions to voyagers, for bringing over these and other vegetable productions.” This last subject frequently engaged Mr. Ellis’s attention, and makes a separate quarto pamphlet, published in 1770. In the 51st and 58th volumes of the Phil. Trans, are papers of his on the preservation of seeds. Nor were these all the scientific pursuits of his indefatigable mind. He wrote also in the Trans, various other papers on Corals, Sea Pens, and other animals of the same tribe, as well as on the Cochineal insect; on the Coluber cerastes, or horned viper of Egypt; on that singular animal, found by his friend Garden in Carolina, the Siren lacertina of Linnæus, now esteemed a Muracna; on the structure of the windpipes in several birds and in the land tortoise; and even on the method of making sal ammoniac in Egypt. It appears, moreover, by many specimens of his collecting, that he was an assiduous observer of the internal structure or anatomy of vegetables. In Nov. 1768, sir Godfrey Copley’s medal was delivered to him by sir John Pringle, then president; and it being usual to single out some one or two papers in particular for such a compliment, one “on the animal nature of the genus of Zoophytes called Corallina,” in a letter to Linnæus, and another “on the Actinia Sociata,” in a letter to the earl of Hillsborough, both printed in the 57ih vol. of the Transactions, were selected for this purpose.

Mr. Ellis appears to have been at one time, as we have already noticed, in trade, and not very successful. In 1764, however, the lord chancellor Northington procured him the office of agent for West Florida, and afterwards that of St. Dominica, places which he says made him “happy and easy,” and did not require him to leave London. In 1754 he was elected a fellow of the royal society. After a series of declining health, he died Oct. 15, 1776, leaving a daughter, Martha, who was afterwards married to Alexander Watt, esq. of Northaw in Herts, and died in child-bed in 1795. In 1786, a posthumous work of Mr. Ellis was published by this daughter at the request of sir Joseph Banks, entitled “Natural History of many curious and uncommon Zoophites,” forming the best systematic account of the zoophites which has yet appeared. Mr. Ellis appears from his correspondence, in the possession of Dr. Smith, to have been a man of great modesty, pious affections, and grateful sensibility.

, a miscellaneous writer of some reputation in the last age, and well known to the scholars of that period, was the son of Mr. James Ellis, and was born in the parish of St. Clement Danes, March 22, 1698. His father was a man of an eccentric character, roving, and unsettled. At one time he was clerk to his uncle and guardian, serjeant Denn, recorder of Canterbury, and kept his chambers in Gray’s-inn, on a starving allowance, as Mr. Ellis used to declare, for board-wages. Leaving his penurious relation, who spent what his father left him in a litigious process, he obtained a place in the post-office at Deal in Kent, from whence he was advanced, to be searcher of the customs in the Downs, with a boat; but being imposed upon, as he thought, in some way by his patron, he quitted his employment and came to London. He was represented by his son as particularly skilful in the use of the sword, to which qualification he was indebted, through the means of a nobleman, for one of his places. He was also much famed for his agility, and could at one time jump the wall of Greenwich park, with the assistance of a staff. At the trial of Dr. Sacheverel he was employed to take down the evidence for the doctor’s use. His wife, Susannah Philpot, our author’s mother, was so strict a dissenter, that when Dr. Sacheverel presented her husband with his print, framed and glazed, she dashed it on the ground, and broke it to pieces, calling him at the same time a priest of Baal; and at a late period of our author’s life, it was remembered by him, that she caused him to undergo the discipline of the school, for only presuming to look at a top on a Sunday which had been given to him the day preceding. The qualifications which Mr. Ellis’s father possessed, it will be perceived, were not those which lead to riches; and indeed so narrow were his circumstances, that he was unable to give his son the advantages of a liberal education. He was first sent to a wretched day-school in Dogwell-court, White Fryars, with a brother and two sisters; and afterwards was removed to another, not much superior, in Wine-office-court, Fleet-street, where he learned the rudiments of grammar, more by his own application than by any assistance of his master. He used, however, to acknowledge the courtesy of the usher, who behaved well to him. While at this school he translated “Mars ton Moore; sive, de obsidione praelioque Eboracensi carmen. Lib. 6. 1650, 4to. Written by Payne Fisher;” which, as it has not been found among his papers, we suppose was afterwards destroyed. At what period, or in what capacity he was originally placed with Mr. John Taverner, an eminent scrivener in Threadneedlestreet, we have not learned; but in whatever manner the connexion began, he in due time became clerk or apprentice to him; and during his residence had an opportunity of improving himself in the Latin tongue, which he availed himself of with the utmost diligence. The son of his master, then at Merchant Taylors’ school, was assisted by his father in his daily school-exercises; which being conducted in the presence of the clerk, it was soon found that the advantage derived from the instructions, though missed by the person for whom it was intended, was not wholly lost. Mr. Ellis eagerly attended, and young Taverner being of an indolent disposition, frequently asked his assistance privately; which at length being discovered by the elder Taverner, was probably the means of his first introduction to the world, though it cannot be said much to his advantage, as old Taverner had the address to retain him in the capacity of his clerk during his life-time, and at his death incumbered him with his son as a partner, by whose imprudence Mr. Ellis was a considerable sufferer both in his peace of mind and his purse, and became involved in difficulties which hung over him a considerable number of years. His literary acquisitions soon, as it might be expected, introduced him to the acquaintance of those who had similar pursuits. In 1721, the rev. Mr. Fayting, afterwards of Merchant Taylors’ school, rector of St. Martin Outwich, and prebendary of Lincoln, being then about to go to Cambridge, solicited and obtained his correspondence, part of which was carried on in verse. With this gentleman, who died 22d Feb. 1789, in his eighty-sixth year, Mr. Ellis lived on terms of the most unreserved friendship, and on his death received a legacy of 100l. bequeathed to him by his will. At a period rather later, he became also known to the late Dr. King of Oxford. Young Taverner, who probably was not at first intended for a scrivener, was elected from Merchant Taylors’ school to St. John’s college, Oxford, and by his means Mr. Ellis was made acquainted with the tory orator. By Dr. King he was introduced to his pupil lord Orrery; and Mr. Ellis atone time spent fourteen days in their company at college, so much to the satisfaction of all parties, that neither the nobleman nor his tutor ever afterwards came to London without visiting, and inviting Mr. Ellis to visit them. In, the years 1742 and 1713, Dr. King published “Templum Libertatis,” in two books, which Mr. Ellis translated into verse with the entire approbation of the original author. This translation still remains in ms. Of his poetical friends, however, the late Moses Mendez, esq. appears to have been the most intimate with him. Several marks of that gentleman’s friendship are to be found scattered through his printed works; and about 1749 he addressed a beautiful epistle to him from Ham, never yet published. In 1744 Mr. Mendez went to Ireland, and on July 5 sent a poetical account of his journey to Mr. Ellis. This epistle was afterwards printed in 1767, in -a collection of poems, and in the same miscellany Mr. Ellis’s answer appeared. Soon after Mr. Mendez addressed a poetical epistle to his friend, Mr. S. Tucker, at Dulwich, printed in the sam collection.

Mr. Ellis, though there 'is good reason to believe that he never discontinued writing verses for more than seventy years, was not one of those poets who are led by their attention to the muses to neglect their private affairs. As a scrivener he was employed by a number of families, to whom he afforded great satisfaction in conducting his business; and his friends and acquaintance were such as did credit to him as a citizen, and honour as a man. Dr. Johnson once said to Mr. Boswell, “It is wonderful, sir, what is to be found in London. The most literary conversation that I ever enjoyed was at the table of Jack Ellis, a moneyscrivener behind the Royal Exchange, with whom I at one period used to dine generally once a week.” But though Mr. Ellis for so long a course of years never discontinued writing, he was by no means eager after the fame derived from publishing. The greater part of his performances still remain in manuscript. He was, however, not insensible to the praises of his friends, and, being blessed with a very retentive memory, would with little solicitation repeat poems of considerable length with great accuracy. He has been heard to recite with much energy and vivacity, poems of not less than a hundred lines, after the age of eighty-eight years. The work which he appears to have taken the most pains with, is a translation of Ovid’s Epistles, which he left ready for the press. Dr. Johnson frequently recommended the publication of this performance; and Dr. King, who read it with some attention, commended it in very warm terms, and declared, as the translator used to mention with a laudable degree of exultation, “that he differed from other translators so much as to warrant him to say, what he read was not Ellis, but Ovid himself.”

In 1720 Mr. Ellis wrote a poem entitled “The Soutlj Sea Dream,” in Hudibrastic verse. In 1739 he translated a whimsical performance from the Latin, which he received from Cambridge, entitled “The Surprise, or the gentleman turned apothecary.” This was a tale written originally in French prose, and afterwards translated into Latin. Mr. Ellis’s versification of it was printed in 12mo, and is to be found in some of the libraries of the curious. Of the translation of Dr. King’s “Templum Libertatis,” in 1742, we have already spoken. In 1758 he was prevailed upon to permit the publication of his travesty of Maphacus.

In 1750, Mr. Ellis was elected into the common-council for the ward of Broad-street, and continued from thit time to be regularly re-chosen on St. Thomas’s day, to that immediately preceding his death. For many years he had been appointed deputy of the ward, and it was at his own request that he was not re-chosen just before his death. He had also the honour of being chosen four times master of the scriveners’ company; which body had so great a respect for him, that they caused his picture to be painted, from which a print was made at their expence by Mr. Pether in the year 1781.

Mr. Ellis always enjoyed a good state of health, to which his temperance, exercise, and cheerfulness, without doubt contributed. He had, however, a defect in his eye-sight, which was attended with so remarkable a circumstance, that we deem it not improper to relate it below in his own words, from a letter sent to his friend Dr. Johnson, whose sight being also defective, he was very curious to have a particular account of it.

After the age of eighty, he frequently walked thirty or more miles in a day but at the age of eighty- five he met with an accident which threatened at first very serious consequences. A friend going to see him home in an evening, took hold of his arm to lead him, in doing which he was unfortunately pushed so as to strike his leg against the corner of the Bank-buildings. By this unlucky accident the skin from the knee to the ankle was entirely stripped off, and the surgeons apprehended the wound would prove mortal. Contrary, however, to all expectation, it granulated, and healed as in a young man, and no further consequence ensued than that his walks of thirty miles a day were reduced to about twenty.

The last year of his life was that which his friends look back to with concern. Having entrusted a sum of money to an artful person who was declared a bankrupt, he became alarmed, and apprehensive that he should be left to want in his old age. With a degree of delicacy which belongs only to those who think above the vulgar, it is feared that he suffered these doubts to prey upon his mind, without disclosing the state of it to any of those whose assistance he had every reason to rely on. At length an accident brought his situation to the notice of one of his friends, and measures were taken to make him easy in his circumstances for the remainder of his life, by means which would certainly have been effectual. From this time he resigned the conduct of himself to his friends, and resumed his accustomed cheerfulness. He received visits, and conversed with the same gaiety he had been used to in his best days; and from the vigour of his constitution, afforded hopes that he would pass a few years with comfort. These expectations were not realized: nature at length gave way. On the 17th of December, 1791, he had a fit, from which he recovered, and was well enough on the 20th to remove to lodgings which had been taken for him. For a few days he seemed to be well, and at ease both in mind and body, but shortly after appeared to have caught a cold, and gradually grew worse. On the SjOth he was cold, his lips black, and his countenance much altered. To a friend who called on him be said he had lost his feeling; and being told it was probable it would return, he replied “That I don't know.” His friend then said, “As it has always been your maxim, sir, to look on the brightest side, we may draw this conclusion, that if you have no feeling, you feel no pain;” to which he answered with great earnestness, “'Tis very true.” The next day, about 12 o'clock, sitting in his chair, he without any struggle leaned his head back, and expired. On the 5th day of January he was buried in the parish church of St. Bartholomew, Exchange, accordingto the directions of his will, and was attended by the majority of the common-council, who voluntarily acted as pall-bearers, to pay respect to his memory. A mural tablet, with an inscription to his memory, has since been erected.